If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. 


Thread Tools  Display Modes 
#1




The Next Big Breakthrough in Fundamental Theoretical Physics
Jim AlKhalili: "Sunday physics poll: In the search for a theory of everything and the nature of physical reality, will the next big breakthrough in fundamental theoretical physics come from combining: QM and General Relativity; GR and thermodynamics; QM and thermodynamics; Some other option/combo" https://twitter.com/jimalkhalili/sta...41280500350976
At least two fundamental axioms in theoretical physics  Einstein's 1905 constantspeedoflight postulate and the second law of thermodynamics  are false. So "the next big breakthrough in fundamental theoretical physics" will come from NEW AXIOMATICS. See more he https://twitter.com/pentcho_valev Pentcho Valev 
Ads 
#2




The Next Big Breakthrough in Fundamental Theoretical Physics
Banesh Hoffmann, Einstein's collaborator, admits that, originally ("without recourse to contracting lengths, local time, or Lorentz transformations"), the MichelsonMorley experiment directly proved Newton's variable speed of light and disproved the constant speed of light:
"Moreover, if light consists of particles, as Einstein had suggested in his paper submitted just thirteen weeks before this one, the second principle seems absurd: A stone thrown from a speeding train can do far more damage than one thrown from a train at rest; the speed of the particle is not independent of the motion of the object emitting it. And if we take light to consist of particles and assume that these particles obey Newton's laws, they will conform to Newtonian relativity and thus automatically account for the null result of the MichelsonMorley experiment without recourse to contracting lengths, local time, or Lorentz transformations. Yet, as we have seen, Einstein resisted the temptation to account for the null result in terms of particles of light and simple, familiar Newtonian ideas, and introduced as his second postulate something that was more or less obvious when thought of in terms of waves in an ether." Banesh Hoffmann, Relativity and Its Roots, p.92 https://www.amazon.com/RelativityIt.../dp/0486406768 "The speed of light is variable as per Newton" (both in the presence and in the absence of gravity) is equivalent to "The wavelength of light is constant for a given emitter" (both in the presence and in the absence of gravity) The latter proposition will become the fundamental axiom of future, Einsteinfree physics (if the death of physics is not irreversible). Is the new constantwavelengthoflight axiom correct? Judging from the three scenarios below, (A), (B) and (C), it is: (A) The observer starts moving relative to the emitter https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bg7O4rtlwEE. The wavelength (distance between light pulses) obviously remains constant while the frequency and the speed of the pulses vary proportionally for the moving observer, in violation of Einstein's relativity. (B) The emitter starts moving relative to the observer https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xsVxC_NR64M. It is universally taught that the wavelength of light varies with the speed of the emitter, as shown in the video, but this contradicts the principle of relativity. If the wavelength varied, the emitter would measure it regularly, inside his spaceship, and so he would be able to calculate his speed without looking outside. The wavelength of light is constant, independent of the speed of the emitter. (C) Light falls in a gravitational field. The frequency and the speed of falling light vary proportionally, and accordingly the wavelength remains constant. This is clearly shown in the following two texts: University of Illinois at UrbanaChampaign: "Consider a falling object. ITS SPEED INCREASES AS IT IS FALLING. Hence, if we were to associate a frequency with that object the frequency should increase accordingly as it falls to earth. Because of the equivalence between gravitational and inertial mass, WE SHOULD OBSERVE THE SAME EFFECT FOR LIGHT. SO lets shine a light beam from the top of a very tall building. If we can measure the frequency shift as the light beam descends the building, we should be able to discern how gravity affects a falling light beam. This was done by Pound and Rebka in 1960. They shone a light from the top of the Jefferson tower at Harvard and measured the frequency shift. The frequency shift was tiny but in agreement with the theoretical prediction. Consider a light beam that is travelling away from a gravitational field. Its frequency should shift to lower values. This is known as the gravitational red shift of light." https://courses.physics.illinois.edu...re13/L13r.html "To see why a deflection of light would be expected, consider Figure 217, which shows a beam of light entering an accelerating compartment. Successive positions of the compartment are shown at equal time intervals. Because the compartment is accelerating, the distance it moves in each time interval increases with time. The path of the beam of light, as observed from inside the compartment, is therefore a parabola. But according to the equivalence principle, there is no way to distinguish between an accelerating compartment and one with uniform velocity in a uniform gravitational field. We conclude, therefore, that A BEAM OF LIGHT WILL ACCELERATE IN A GRAVITATIONAL FIELD AS DO OBJECTS WITH REST MASS. For example, near the surface of Earth light will fall with acceleration 9.8 m/s^2." http://web.pdx.edu/~pmoeck/books/Tipler_Llewellyn.pdf Five important corollaries of the constantwavelengthoflight axiom: Corollary 1: Any frequency shift entails (is caused by) a proportional speedoflight shift. Corollary 2: If the emitter and the observer (receiver) travel towards each other with relative speed v, the speed of light as measured by the observer is c' = c+v, as per Newton's theory. Corollary 3: Spacetime and gravitational waves (ripples in spacetime) don't exist. LIGO's "discoveries" are fakes. Corollary 4: Light falls in a gravitational field with the same acceleration as ordinary falling bodies  near Earth's surface the accelerations of falling photons is g = 9.8 m/s^2. Accordingly, there is no gravitational time dilation  Einstein's general relativity is nonsense. Corollary 5: The Hubble redshift is due to light slowing down as it travels through vacuum. The universe is static, not expanding. More he https://twitter.com/pentcho_valev Pentcho Valev 
Thread Tools  
Display Modes  


Similar Threads  
Thread  Thread Starter  Forum  Replies  Last Post 
The Fundamental Nonsense of Theoretical Physics  Pentcho Valev  Astronomy Misc  2  October 30th 17 05:34 PM 
The Fundamental Idiocy of Theoretical Physics  Pentcho Valev  Astronomy Misc  3  July 31st 17 05:44 PM 
THE FUNDAMENTAL PROBLEM OF THEORETICAL SCIENCE  Pentcho Valev  Astronomy Misc  8  September 21st 09 10:06 AM 
Breakthrough In Propulsion Physics.  Abhi  Astronomy Misc  146  December 30th 03 02:56 AM 