Variable Speed of Light: Shock, Horror!

Paul Davies 2003: "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 cafés 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 well-defined 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/Faster-Than-Sp.../dp/0738205257

Joao Magueijo, Niayesh Afshordi, Stephon Alexander 2018: "So we have broken fundamentally this Lorentz invariance which equates space and time..." https://youtu.be/kbHBBtsrU1g?t=1431

Constancy of the speed of light is nonsense - even Einstein knew that:

John Stachel: "But this seems to be nonsense. How can it happen that the speed of light relative to an observer cannot be increased or decreased if that observer moves towards or away from a light beam? Einstein states that he wrestled with this problem over a lengthy period of time, to the point of despair." http://www.aip.org/history/exhibits/...relativity.htm

The speed of light is OBVIOUSLY VARIABLE:

Stationary light source, moving receiver: http://www.einstein-online.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 Michelson-Morley experiment proves Newton's variable speed of light (c'=c±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 Michelson-Morley 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/Relativity-It.../dp/0486406768

Wikipedia: Newton's variable speed of light, c'=c ± v, explains the result of the Michelson-Morley 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 Michelson–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 ± v)." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emission_theory

Pentcho Valev

The formula

(frequency) = (speed of light)/(wavelength)

suggests, in a subtle way, that the fundamental axiom of today's physics, "The speed of light is invariable", should be replaced with the axiom "The wavelength of light is invariable".

If the speed of light is invariable, as Einstein postulated in 1905, the implication is

"Any frequency shift entails a wavelength shift"

If the wavelength of light is invariable, as future physics will have to postulate, the implication is

"Any frequency shift entails (is caused by) a speed-of-light shift"

The former implication

"Any frequency shift entails a wavelength shift"

is obviously false:

"Let's say you, the observer, now move toward the source with velocity Vo. You encounter more waves per unit time than you did before. Relative to you, the waves travel at a higher speed: V' = V+Vo. The frequency of the waves you detect is higher, and is given by: f' = V'/λ = (V+Vo)/λ." http://physics.bu.edu/~redner/211-sp...9_doppler.html

"Vo is the velocity of an observer moving towards the source. This velocity is independent of the motion of the source. Hence, the velocity of waves relative to the observer is c + Vo. [...] The motion of an observer does not alter the wavelength. The increase in frequency is a result of the observer encountering more wavelengths in a given time." http://a-levelphysicstutor.com/wav-doppler.php

Since the implication is false, the underlying premise, "The speed of light is invariable", is false as well.

Five important conclusions validly deducible from the axiom "The wavelength of light is invariable":

Premise 1: The wavelength of light is invariable.

Premise 2: The formula (frequency) = (speed of light)/(wavelength) is correct.

Conclusion 1: Any frequency shift entails (is caused by) a speed-of-light shift.

Conclusion 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.

Conclusion 3: Spacetime is an absurdity. Gravitational waves (ripples in spacetime) don't exist - LIGO conspirators fake them.

Conclusion 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.

Conclusion 5: The Hubble redshift is due to light slowing down as it travels through vacuum. The universe is STATIC, not expanding.

Pentcho Valev

Zoe travels towards Jasper and measures the speed of light to be c:

https://newt.phys.unsw.edu.au/einste...eird_logic.htm

Let us imagine that, by using the same device, Zoe measures the wavelength of the light. Does the wavelength vary with Zoe's speed, or is it invariable? If Zoe were emitting sound waves, she would find that the wavelength does vary with her speed. Then how about the wavelength of light?

Physics wrongly teaches that the wavelength of light, just like the wavelength of sound, VARIES with the speed of the emitter:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xsVxC_NR64M

Stephen Hawking, "A Brief History of Time", Chapter 3: "Now imagine a source of light at a constant distance from us, such as a star, emitting waves of light at a constant wavelength. Obviously the wavelength of the waves we receive will be the same as the wavelength at which they are emitted (the gravitational field of the galaxy will not be large enough to have a significant effect). Suppose now that the source starts moving toward us. When the source emits the next wave crest it will be nearer to us, so the distance between wave crests will be smaller than when the star was stationary." http://www.fisica.net/relatividade/s...ry_of_time.pdf

This variation of the wavelength of light contradicts the principle of relativity. If the wavelength varied, by measuring it, Zoe would know how fast she is moving. The wavelength of light is INVARIABLE.

Since the wavelength does not vary with Zoe's speed, Jasper measures the speed of light to be c'=c+v, not c:

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/D0U6R1RXgAEbxnQ.png

Pentcho Valev

As light falls in gravity, its speed and frequency increase proportionally:

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." https://courses.physics.illinois.edu...re13/L13r.html

This means that, given the formula (frequency)=(speed of light)/(wavelength), the wavelength of light in a gravitational field is INVARIABLE.

Here is more rigorous analysis:

The top of a tower of height h shoots a bullet downwards with initial speed u. As the bullet reaches the ground, its speed (relative to the ground) is

u' = u(1 + gh/u^2)

According to Newton's theory, light falls with the same acceleration as ordinary falling bodies. Therefore, if the top of the tower emits a light pulse downwards, this pulse will reach the ground with speed

c' = c(1 + gh/c^2)

The frequency an observer on the ground will measure is

f' = c'/λ = f(1 + gh/c^2)

where λ is the (invariable) wavelength and f=c/λ is the initial frequency (as measured at the top of the tower). This frequency shift has been confirmed by the Pound-Rebka experiment.

The above analysis, apart from justifying the axiom

"The wavelength of light is invariable",

proves that gravitational time dilation does not exist - Einstein's general relativity is nonsense.

Pentcho Valev