Experimental Refutation of Einstein's Constant Speed of Light

Experiments and observations have unequivocally shown that both subluminal motion of light in a vacuum and superluminal motion are possible but the scientific community cannot react properly because Einsteinians paralyze it by bombarding it with contradictory and confusing explanations, often involving "group velocity" and "phase velocity". (The experimentalists themselves have to include such explanations in their articles - otherwise there would be no publication.) Yet even "group velocity" and "phase velocity" turn out to be insufficiently confusing and Einsteinians resort to the ultimate weapon - the speed of some mysterious entity called "information" (as if Einstein had based his 1905 second postulate on the speed of information, not on the speed of light). This speed always gloriously conforms to Divine Albert's Divine Theory:

http://science.sciencemag.org/conten...5956/1074.full
Robert W. Boyd, Daniel J. Gauthier, Controlling the Velocity of Light Pulses: "So why do laboratory results of fast light not necessitate the superluminal transfer of information? It is believed that the explanation lies in the distinction between Vg [group velocity] and the information velocity. The group velocity can take on any value. However, the information velocity can never exceed c and, according to many models, is always equal to c."

If it were not for the schizophrenic and confusing atmosphere created by Einsteinians, the inconstancy of the speed of light would be an obvious fact:

http://science.sciencemag.org/content/347/6224/857
"Spatially structured photons that travel in free space slower than the speed of light" Science 20 Feb 2015: Vol. 347, Issue 6224, pp. 857-860

http://rt.com/news/225879-light-speed-slow-photons/
"Physicists manage to slow down light inside vacuum [...] ...even now the light is no longer in the mask, it's just the propagating in free space - the speed is still slow. [...] "This finding shows unambiguously that the propagation of light can be slowed below the commonly accepted figure of 299,792,458 metres per second, even when travelling in air or vacuum," co-author Romero explains in the University of Glasgow press release."

http://www.upi.com/Science_News/2015.../1191422035480
"The speed of light is a limit, not a constant - that's what researchers in Glasgow, Scotland, say. A group of them just proved that light can be slowed down, permanently."

http://www.gmanetwork.com/news/story...ut-touching-it
"Although the maximum speed of light is a cosmological constant - made famous by Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity and E=mc^2 - it can, in fact, be slowed down: that's what optics do."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NxJ7_tbbIsg
"Glasgow researchers slow the speed of light"

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/faster-t...peed-of-light/
"For generations, physicists believed there is nothing faster than light moving through a vacuum -- a speed of 186,000 miles per second. But in an experiment in Princeton, N.J., physicists sent a pulse of laser light through cesium vapor so quickly that it left the chamber before it had even finished entering. The pulse traveled 310 times the distance it would have covered if the chamber had contained a vacuum. Researchers say it is the most convincing demonstration yet that the speed of light -- supposedly an ironclad rule of nature -- can be pushed beyond known boundaries, at least under certain laboratory circumstances. [...] The results of the work by Wang, Alexander Kuzmich and Arthur Dogariu were published in Thursday's issue of the journal Nature."

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal.../406277a0.html
Nature 406, 277-279 (20 July 2000): "...a light pulse propagating through the atomic vapour cell appears at the exit side so much earlier than if it had propagated the same distance in a vacuum that the peak of the pulse appears to leave the cell before entering it."

https://www.newscientist.com/article...peed-of-light/
"Weird energy beam seems to travel five times the speed of light"

http://phys.org/news/2016-03-optical-slower.html
"Researchers at the University of Ottawa observed that twisted light in a vacuum travels slower than the universal physical constant established as the speed of light by Einstein's theory of relativity. [...] In The Optical Society's journal for high impact research, Optica, the researchers report that twisted light pulses in a vacuum travel up to 0.1 percent slower than the speed of light, which is 299,792,458 meters per second. [...] If it's possible to slow the speed of light by altering its structure, it may also be possible to speed up light. The researchers are now planning to use FROG to measure other types of structured light that their calculations have predicted may travel around 1 femtosecond faster than the speed of light in a vacuum."

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn2796
"Speed of light broken with basic lab kit. Electric signals can be transmitted at least four times faster than the speed of light using only basic equipment that would be found in virtually any college science department. Scientists have sent light signals at faster-than-light speeds over the distances of a few metres for the last two decades - but only with the aid of complicated, expensive equipment. Now physicists at Middle Tennessee State University have broken that speed limit over distances of nearly 120 metres, using off-the-shelf equipment costing just $500. [...] While the peak moves faster than light speed, the total energy of the pulse does not. This means Einstein's relativity is preserved, so do not expect super-fast starships or time machines anytime soon."

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releas...-ltt081905.php
"Light that travels... faster than light! [...] This is exactly what the EPFL team has demonstrated. Using their Stimulated Brillouin Scattering (SBS) method, the group was able to slow a light signal down by a factor of 3.6, creating a sort of temporary "optical memory." They were also able to create extreme conditions in which the light signal travelled faster than 300 million meters a second. And even though this seems to violate all sorts of cherished physical assumptions, Einstein needn't move over - relativity isn't called into question, because only a portion of the signal is affected."

http://news.softpedia.com/news/Light...d-267499.shtml
"Light Pulses That Travel Faster Than Light Created [...] The technique developed at NIST is called four-wave mixing, and it works by altering some parts of each individual light pulse. This makes the light move forward faster than it normally would when traveling through a vacuum. [...] The physicists explain that the new research does not violate Albert Einstein's theory on general relativity - which states that the speed of light in a vacuum is the fastest achievable in the Universe. They say that a sort of loophole exists in this theory. By careful tuning of the light source and advanced calculations, it is possible to nudge portions of the light pulses so that they arrive at their destination ahead or behind the main pulse. [...] With four-wave mixing, the NIST investigators produced laser pulses that arrived at their destination a full 50 nanoseconds faster than photons traveling through a vacuum."

http://www.newscientist.com/article/...ted-glass.html
"Light hits near infinite speed in silver-coated glass. A nano-sized bar of glass encased in silver allows visible light to pass through at near infinite speed. The technique may spur advances in optical computing. [...] In a vacuum the refractive index is 1, and the speed of light cannot break Einstein's universal limit of 300,000 kilometres per second. Normal materials have positive indexes, and they transmit at the speed of light in a vacuum divided by their refractive index. Ordinary glass, for instance, has an index of about 1.5, so light moves through it at about 200,000 kilometres per second. The new material contains a nano-scale structure that guides light waves through the metal-coated glass. It is the first with a refractive index below 0.1, which means that light passes through it at almost infinite speed, says Albert Polman at the FOM Institute AMOLF in Amsterdam, the Netherlands. But the speed of light has not, technically, been broken. The wave is moving quickly, but its "group velocity" the speed at which information is travelling is near zero."

Pentcho Valev

Actually Einstein's constant speed of light was experimentally refuted in 1887. Einsteinians teach that in 1887 the Michelson-Morley experiment disproved the existence of the ether but did not disprove the independence of the speed of light from the speed of the source, a tenet of the ether theory later adopted by Einstein as his 1905 second postulate. This is a blatant lie - the truth is that in 1887 the Michelson-Morley experiment UNEQUIVOCALLY disproved the source-independent speed of light and confirmed the source-dependent speed of light predicted by Newton's emission theory of light.

The prediction of Michelson and Morley was not calculated from the premise "There is an ether". It was calculated from the crucial premise

"The speed of light is independent of the speed of the light source"

and since the experimental result did not match the prediction, one should have concluded, logic dictated it, that the crucial premise is false. Michelson and Morley and other physicists did not come to this conclusion of course because they were all etherists.

In their teaching courses Einsteinians do not state the crucial premise as explicitly as I did above, but they cannot completely hide it either. Here is an example:

"First, let us calculate the time required for the light to go from B to E and back. Let us say that the time for light to go from plate B to mirror E is t_1, and the time for the return is t_2. Now, while the light is on its way from B to the mirror, the apparatus moves a distance ut_1, so the light must traverse a distance L + ut_1, at the speed c." http://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/I_15.html

Feynman's last phrase,

"at the speed c",

is equivalent to the crucial premise stated above. If, instead of "at the speed c", we have a new premise,

"at the speed c + u",

taken from Newton's emission theory of light, the calculation (based on the new premise) will give a new prediction,

t_1 + t_2 = 2t_3 = 2L/c,

which exactly matches the null result of the Michelson-Morley experiment.

Pentcho Valev

All relevant experiments, if correctly interpreted, refute Einstein's constant speed of light. Consider, for instance, the following setup modelling measurements of the Doppler frequency shift:

A light source emits a series of pulses equally distanced from one another. A stationary observer (receiver) measures the frequency:

http://www.einstein-online.info/imag...ler_static.gif

The observer starts moving with constant speed towards the light source and measures the frequency again:

http://www.einstein-online.info/imag...ector_blue.gif

Premise 1: The moving observer measures the frequency to be higher.

Premise 2: The formula

(measured frequency) = (speed of the pulses relative to the observer)/(distance between the pulses)

is correct.

Conclusion: The speed of the pulses relative to the moving observer is higher than relative to the stationary observer. In other words, the speed of light varies with the speed of the observer, in violation of Einstein's relativity.

Einsteinians reach essentially the same conclusion and so unconsciously repudiate Divine Albert's Divine Theory:

Albert Einstein Institute: "In this particular animation

http://www.einstein-online.info/imag...ector_blue.gif

which has the receiver moving towards the source at one third the speed of the pulses themselves, four pulses are received in the time it takes the source to emit three pulses." http://www.einstein-online.info/spotlights/doppler

Since "four pulses are received in the time it takes the source to emit three pulses", the speed of the pulses relative to the receiver (observer) is greater than their speed relative to the source.

Pentcho Valev

Premise: "If we accept the principle of equivalence, we must also accept that light falls in a gravitational field with the same acceleration as material bodies." http://sethi.lamar.edu/bahrim-cristi...t-lens_PPT.pdf

Conclusion: Gravitational time dilation does not exist - the gravitational redshift is caused by the variation of the speed of light predicted by Newton's emission theory of light:

https://courses.physics.illinois.edu...e13/L13r..html
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign: "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."

http://www.einstein-online.info/spot...t_white_dwarfs
Albert Einstein Institute: "One of the three classical tests for general relativity is the gravitational redshift of light or other forms of electromagnetic radiation. However, in contrast to the other two tests - the gravitational deflection of light and the relativistic perihelion shift -, you do not need general relativity to derive the correct prediction for the gravitational redshift. A combination of Newtonian gravity, a particle theory of light, and the weak equivalence principle (gravitating mass equals inertial mass) suffices. [...] The gravitational redshift was first measured on earth in 1960-65 by Pound, Rebka, and Snider at Harvard University..."

Pound, Rebka and Snider knew that their experiments had confirmed the variation of the speed of light predicted by Newton's emission theory of light, not the gravitational time dilation predicted by Einstein's relativity:

http://journals.aps.org/prl/pdf/10.1...sRevLett.4.337
R. V. Pound and G. A. Rebka, Jr, APPARENT WEIGHT OF PHOTONS

http://virgo.lal.in2p3.fr/NPAC/relat...iers/pound.pdf
R. V. Pound and J. L. Snider, Effect of Gravity on Gamma Radiation: "It is not our purpose here to enter into the many-sided discussion of the relationship between the effect under study and general relativity or energy conservation. It is to be noted that no strictly relativistic concepts are involved and the description of the effect as an "apparent weight" of photons is suggestive. The velocity difference predicted is identical to that which a material object would acquire in free fall for a time equal to the time of flight."

Einsteinians often repeat the Pound-Rebka experiment and measure the gravitational redshift, but then inform the brainwashed world that the experiment has confirmed gravitational time dilation, a miraculous effect fabricated by Einstein in 1911. Actually any such experiment confirms the variation of the speed of light predicted by Newton's emission theory of light:

http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/...ted-precision/
"A new paper co-authored by U.S. Energy Secretary Steven Chu measures the gravitational redshift, illustrated by the gravity-induced slowing of a clock and sometimes referred to as gravitational time dilation (though users of that term often conflate two separate phenomena), a measurement that jibes with Einstein and that is 10,000 times more precise than its predecessor."

http://www.theguardian.com/science/2...-billion-years
"Einstein's relativity theory states a clock must tick faster at the top of a mountain than at its foot, due to the effects of gravity. "Our performance means that we can measure the gravitational shift when you raise the clock just two centimetres (0.78 inches) on the Earth's surface," said study co-author Jun Ye."

Pentcho Valev