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




Variable Speed of Light: Shock, Horror and... New Physics
Paul Davies: "Was Einstein wrong? The idea of a variable speed of light, championed by an angry young scientist, could one day topple Einstein's theory of relativity. Einstein's famous equation E=mc^2 is the only scientific formula known to just about everyone. The "c" here stands for the speed of light. It is one of the most fundamental of the basic constants of physics.. Or is it? In recent years a few maverick scientists have claimed that the speed of light might not be constant at all. Shock, horror! Does this mean the next Great Revolution in Science is just around the corner?" http://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/ma...einsteinwrong/
"Lee [Smolin] and I discussed these paradoxes at great length for many months, starting in January 2001. We would meet in cafÃ©s in South Kensington or Holland Park to mull over the problem. THE ROOT OF ALL THE EVIL WAS CLEARLY SPECIAL RELATIVITY. All these paradoxes resulted from well known effects such as length contraction, time dilation, or E=mc^2, all basic predictions of special relativity. And all denied the possibility of establishing a welldefined border, common to all observers, capable of containing new quantum gravitational effects." Joao Magueijo, Faster Than the Speed of Light, p. 250 http://www.amazon.com/FasterThanSp.../dp/0738205257 "And by making the clock's tick relative  what happens simultaneously for one observer might seem sequential to another  Einstein's theory of special relativity not only destroyed any notion of absolute time but made time equivalent to a dimension in space: the future is already out there waiting for us; we just can't see it until we get there. This view is a logical and metaphysical dead end, says Smolin." http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2013...realityreview What scientific idea is ready for retirement? Steve Giddings: "Spacetime. Physics has always been regarded as playing out on an underlying stage of space and time. Special relativity joined these into spacetime... [...] The apparent need to retire classical spacetime as a fundamental concept is profound..." https://www.edge.org/responsedetail/25477 Joao Magueijo, Niayesh Afshordi, Stephon Alexander: "So we have broken fundamentally this Lorentz invariance which equates space and time [...] It's the other postulate of relativity, that of constancy of c, that has to give way..." https://youtu.be/kbHBBtsrU1g?t=1431 Einstein's 1905 axiom "The speed of light is invariable" underlies the whole of fundamental physics but is false, even nonsensical. In future physics, it will be replaced with the correct axiom "The wavelength of light is invariable". See more he https://twitter.com/pentcho_valev Pentcho Valev 
Ads 
#2




Variable Speed of Light: Shock, Horror and... New Physics
The observer (receiver) starts moving towards the light source with speed v.. The speed of the pulses as measured by the observer shifts from c to c'=c+v, and the frequency he measures shifts from f=c/d to f'=c'/d, where d is the distance between the pulses:
http://www.einsteinonline.info/imag...ector_blue.gif https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bg7O4rtlwEE Einsteinians accept the formula f' = c'/d but don't accept it in this form: c' = df' f' = c'/d = (c+v)/d : OK, say Einsteinians. c' = df' = c+v : No! Absurd! Help! Divine Einstein! Yes we all believe in relativity, relativity, relativity: "Divine Einstein! Noone's as divine as Albert Einstein not Maxwell, Curie, or Bohr! His fame went globell, he won the Nobel  He should have been given four! Noone's as divine as Albert Einstein, Professor with brains galore! Noone could outshine Professor Einstein! He gave us special relativity, That's always made him a hero to me! Noone's as divine as Albert Einstein, Professor in overdrive!" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9lEI2I4i00 "We all believe in relativity, relativity, relativity. Yes we all believe in relativity, relativity, relativity. Everything is relative, even simultaneity, and soon Einstein's become a de facto physics deity. 'cos we all believe in relativity, relativity, relativity. We all believe in relativity, relativity, relativity. Yes we all believe in relativity, relativity, relativity." https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5PkLLXhONvQ http://www.everythingimportant.org/E...neEinstein.jpg Pentcho Valev 
#3




Variable Speed of Light: Shock, Horror and... New Physics
The speed of light is obviously variable so extraordinary brainwashing is needed to convince the world that it is constant. Here are Einstein and Feynman fraudulently teaching that, if the moving observer measures the speed of light to be variable, c'=cv, the principle of relativity is violated. They conclude that the moving observer will measure the speed of light to be constant, c'=c:
Albert Einstein: "If a ray of light be sent along the embankment, we see from the above that the tip of the ray will be transmitted with the velocity c relative to the embankment. Now let us suppose that our railway carriage is again travelling along the railway lines with the velocity v, and that its direction is the same as that of the ray of light, but its velocity of course much less. Let us inquire about the velocity of propagation of the ray of light relative to the carriage. It is obvious that we can here apply the consideration of the previous section, since the ray of light plays the part of the man walking along relatively to the carriage. The velocity W of the man relative to the embankment is here replaced by the velocity of light relative to the embankment. w is the required velocity of light with respect to the carriage, and we have w = c  v. The velocity of propagation of a ray of light relative to the carriage thus comes out smaller than c. But this result comes into conflict with the principle of relativity set forth in Section V." http://www.bartleby.com/173/7.html Albert Einstein, On the Principle of Relativity: "After all, when a beam of light travels with a stated velocity relative to one observer, then  so it seems  a second observer who is himself traveling in the direction of the propagation of the light beam should find the light beam propagating at a lesser velocity than the first observer does. If this were really true, then the law of light propagation in vacuum would not be the same for two observers who are in relative, uniform motion to each other  in contradiction to the principle of relativity stated above." https://einsteinpapers.press.princet.../vol6trans/16 Richard Feynman: "Suppose we are riding in a car that is going at a speed u, and light from the rear is going past the car with speed c. Differentiating the first equation in (15.2) gives dx'/dt=dx/dtu, which means that according to the Galilean transformation the apparent speed of the passing light, as we measure it in the car, should not be c but should be cu. For instance, if the car is going 100,000 mi/sec, and the light is going 186,000 mi/sec, then apparently the light going past the car should go 86,000 mi/sec. In any case, by measuring the speed of the light going past the car (if the Galilean transformation is correct for light), one could determine the speed of the car. A number of experiments based on this general idea were performed to determine the velocity of the earth, but they all failed  they gave no velocity at all." http://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/I_15.html Here is the correct argument: A railway carriage is traveling at speed v. An emitter at the back end of the carriage sends a light beam towards the front end. A device at the front end of the carriage measures the speed of the beam. Assumption: The speed of the light beam is measured to be c'=cv. Conclusion: The assumption contradicts the principle of relativity and should be rejected. The speed of the light beam is measured to be unchanged, c'=c. On the surface, Einstein and Feynman use the same argument (draw the same conclusion) but the devil is in the detail. They fraudulently change the location of the emitter  it is no longer on the moving vehicle (carriage or car). In the scenario of Einstein and Feynman the emitter belongs to the stationary system  e.g. it is fixed on the embankment. This makes their argument INVALID. In the scenario of Einstein and Feynman the variable speed of light, c'=cv, does not contradict the principle of relativity. Pentcho Valev 
#4




Variable Speed of Light: Shock, Horror and... New Physics
The speed of light is OBVIOUSLY VARIABLE:
Stationary light source, moving receiver: http://www.einsteinonline.info/imag...ector_blue.gif The speed of the light pulses as measured by the source is c = df where d is the distance between the pulses and f is the frequency measured by the source. The speed of the pulses as measured by the receiver is c'= df' c where f' f is the frequency measured by the receiver. In the quotation below Banesh Hoffmann clearly explains that, "without recourse to contracting lengths, local time, or Lorentz transformations" (as was the case in 1887), the MichelsonMorley experiment proves Newton's variable speed of light (c'=cÂ±v) and disproves the constant (independent of the speed of the emitter) speed of light (c'=c) posited by the ether theory and adopted by Einstein: Banesh Hoffmann, Relativity and Its Roots, p.92: "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. If it was so obvious, though, why did he need to state it as a principle? Because, having taken from the idea of light waves in the ether the one aspect that he needed, he declared early in his paper, to quote his own words, that "the introduction of a 'luminiferous ether' will prove to be superfluous." https://www.amazon.com/RelativityIt.../dp/0486406768 Wikipedia: Newton's variable speed of light, c'=c Â± v, explains the result of the MichelsonMorley experiment: "Emission theory, also called emitter theory or ballistic theory of light, was a competing theory for the special theory of relativity, explaining the results of the Michelsonâ€“Morley experiment of 1887. [...] The name most often associated with emission theory is Isaac Newton. In his corpuscular theory Newton visualized light "corpuscles" being thrown off from hot bodies at a nominal speed of c with respect to the emitting object, and obeying the usual laws of Newtonian mechanics, and we then expect light to be moving towards us with a speed that is offset by the speed of the distant emitter (c Â± v)." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emission_theory That the speed of light is OBVIOUSLY VARIABLE is a nightmare in Einstein cult so when Einsteinians teach the crucial falsehood "The speed of light is constant" they know no limits: Michelle Thaller: "The speed of light is so constant that the universe actually changes everything so that you never see it going any other speed" https://youtu.be/IuKtXTOlADU?t=3487 Joe Wolfe: "At this stage, many of my students say things like "The invariance of the speed of light among observers is impossible" or "I can't understand it". Well, it's not impossible. It's even more than possible, it is true. This is something that has been extensively measured, and many refinements to the Michelson and Morley experiment, and complementary experiments have confirmed this invariance to very great precision. As to understanding it, there isn't really much to understand. However surprising and weird it may be, it is the case. It's the law in our universe. The fact of the invariance of c doesn't take much understanding." https://newt.phys.unsw.edu.au/einste...eird_logic.htm Neil deGrasse Tyson, Death by Black Hole: And Other Cosmic Quandaries, pp. 123124: "If everyone, everywhere and at all times, is to measure the same speed for the beam from your imaginary spacecraft, a number of things have to happen. First of all, as the speed of your spacecraft increases, the length of everything  you, your measuring devices, your spacecraft  shortens in the direction of motion, as seen by everyone else. Furthermore, your own time slows down exactly enough so that when you haul out your newly shortened yardstick, you are guaranteed to be duped into measuring the same old constant value for the speed of light. What we have here is a COSMIC CONSPIRACY OF THE HIGHEST ORDER." https://www.amazon.com/DeathBlackH.../dp/039335038X Brian Greene: "Einstein proposed a truly stunning idea  that space and time could work together, constantly adjusting by exactly the right amount so that no matter how fast you might be moving, when you measure the speed of light it always comes out to be 671000000 miles per hour." https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dc329dguFs Robert Scherrer: "In fact, the laws for adding and subtracting speeds have to conspire to keep the speed of the light the same no matter how fast or in what direction an observer is moving. The only way to make this happen is for space and time to expand or contact as objects move." http://www.cosmicyarns.com/2015/04/s...eedlimit.html Brian Greene: "If space and time did not behave this way, the speed of light would not be constant and would depend on the observer's state of motion. But it is constant; space and time do behave this way. Space and time adjust themselves in an exactly compensating manner so that observations of light's speed yield the same result, regardless of the observer's velocity." http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/physics...nutshell.html Lisa Randall, Michio Kaku, Brian Cox, Neil deGrasse Tyson, Brian Greene: "Light travels at the same speed no matter how you look at it. No matter how I move relative to you light travels at the same speed. No matter who is doing the measurement and no matter what direction you are moving the speed of light is the same. The speed of light is the same no matter what direction or how fast... As you travel faster time slows down. Everything slows down. Everything slows down. Time slows down when you move. Time passes at a different rate. Clocks run slow. It's a monumental shift in how we see the world. It's a beautiful piece of science. It's a beautifully elegant theory. It's a beautiful piece of science. It's a beautiful piece..." https://www..youtube.com/watch?v=BuxFXHircaI Constancy of the speed of light  the nonsense on which the whole of fundamental physics is based  is imposed on physics students in the same way as the name Bingo is imposed on the dude in this video: Bingo the Clowno https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4kACHU5eSwQ&t=78s Eventually each student gets the name Bingo the Einsteiniano. "In the end the Party would announce that two and two made five, and you would have to believe it. It was inevitable that they should make that claim sooner or later: the logic of their position demanded it. Not merely the validity of experience, but the very existence of external reality, was tacitly denied by their philosophy. The heresy of heresies was common sense. And what was terrifying was not that they would kill you for thinking otherwise, but that they might be right. For, after all, how do we know that two and two make four? Or that the force of gravity works? Or that the past is unchangeable? If both the past and the external world exist only in the mind, and if the mind itself is controllable what then?" https://ebooks.adelaide.edu.au/o/orw...hapter1.7.html Pentcho Valev 
Thread Tools  
Display Modes  


Similar Threads  
Thread  Thread Starter  Forum  Replies  Last Post 
Variable Speed of Light: Shock, Horror!  Pentcho Valev  Astronomy Misc  3  April 5th 19 07:04 AM 
Variable Speed of Light: the End of Physics As We Know It  Pentcho Valev  Astronomy Misc  3  April 3rd 19 02:12 PM 
Revolution in Fundamental Physics: Variable Speed of Light  Pentcho Valev  Astronomy Misc  3  March 11th 19 07:00 PM 
Variable Speed of Light: the Most Dangerous Truth in Physics  Pentcho Valev  Astronomy Misc  1  February 8th 19 05:54 PM 
Variable Speed of Light: Fatal to Physics  Pentcho Valev  Astronomy Misc  3  January 30th 18 11:14 AM 