Why in Physics Telling the Truth Is Suicidal

Brian Greene: What does it mean for the speed of light to be constant? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Irlq3TFr8Q

Is the speed of light, as measured by the receiver, independent of the motion of the receiver? Of course not:

Stationary light source; moving receiver: http://www.einstein-online.info/imag...ector_blue.gif

(Website: http://www.einstein-online.info/spotlights/doppler.html)

The speed of the light pulses relative to 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 relative to the receiver is

c'= df' c

where f' f is the frequency measured by the receiver.

Einstein's constant-speed-of-light postulate is obviously false. Many physicists know that and even try to tell the truth sometimes but there is a problem. Fundamental physics is entirely based on the false constancy and will collapse without it. In this sense telling the truth is suicidal:

Joao Magueijo, Faster Than the Speed of Light, p. 250: "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." http://www.amazon.com/Faster-Than-Sp.../dp/0738205257

"...Dr. Magueijo said. "We need to drop a postulate, perhaps the constancy of the speed of light." http://www.nytimes.com/2002/12/31/sc...-relative.html

"The speaker Joao Magueijo, is a Reader in Theoretical Physics at Imperial College, London and author of Faster Than the Speed of Light: The Story of a Scientific Speculation. He opened by explaining how Einstein's theory of relativity is the foundation of every other theory in modern physics and that the assumption that the speed of light is constant is the foundation of that theory. Thus a constant speed of light is embedded in all of modern physics and to propose a varying speed of light (VSL) is worse than swearing! It is like proposing a language without vowels." http://www.thegreatdebate.org.uk/VSLRevPrnt.html

"The whole of physics is predicated on the constancy of the speed of light," Joao Magueijo, a cosmologist at Imperial College London and pioneer of the theory of variable light speed, told Motherboard. "So we had to find ways to change the speed of light without wrecking the whole thing too much." https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/a...t-speed-slowed

Pentcho Valev

"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

Special relativity was deduced from Einstein's constant-speed-of-light postulate (and the principle of relativity), so the theory can only be "the root of all the evil" if the postulate is false (logic forbids the combination "true postulate, evil theory"). Lee Smolin and Joao Magueijo could have said

"Einstein's false constant-speed-of-light postulate is the root of all the evil"

but then the Einstein cult would immediately have turned them into unpersons:

"Withers, however, was already an unperson. He did not exist: he had never existed." https://ebooks.adelaide.edu.au/o/orw...hapter1.4.html

Physicists obey Loyola's principle. They clearly see that both the frequency and the speed of the light pulses VARY for the moving observer in Doppler effect

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bg7O4rtlwEE

but believe that only the frequency varies - the speed of the pulses gloriously remains invariable for the moving observer.

Ignatius of Loyola: We should always be prepared so as never to err to believe that what I see as white is black, if the hierarchical Church defines it thus.

Pentcho Valev

In the 1960s and 1970s Herbert Dingle tried to expose Einstein's idiocies - Einstein cult immediately turned him from a science superstar into an unperson:

Herbert Dingle: "According to the special relativity theory, as expounded by Einstein in his original paper, two similar, regularly-running clocks, A and B, in uniform relative motion, must work at different rates.....How is the slower-working clock distinguished? The supposition that the theory merely requires each clock to APPEAR to work more slowly from the point of view of the other is ruled out not only by its many applications and by the fact that the theory would then be useless in practice, but also by Einstein's own examples, of which it is sufficient to cite the one best known and most often claimed to have been indirectly established by experiment, viz. 'Thence' [i.e. from the theory he had just expounded, which takes no account of possible effects of acceleration, gravitation, or any difference at all between the clocks except their state of uniform motion] 'we conclude that a balance-clock at the equator must go more slowly, by a very small amount, than a precisely similar clock situated at one of the poles under otherwise identical conditions.' Applied to this example, the question is: what entitled Einstein to conclude FROM HIS THEORY that the equatorial, and not the polar, clock worked more slowly?" SCIENCE AT THE CROSSROADS, p.27 http://blog.hasslberger.com/Dingle_S...Crossroads.pdf

"Withers, however, was already an unperson. He did not exist: he had never existed."x https://ebooks.adelaide.edu.au/o/orw...hapter1.4.html

Still Dingle didn't dare to commit the ultimate crime - openly attack Einstein's false constant-speed-of-light postulate. He knew the truth, even wrote about it, but his paper appeared posthumously:

Herbert Dingle: "Either there is an absolute standard of rest - call it the ether as with Maxwell, or the universe as with Mach, or absolute space as with Newton, or what you will or else all motion, including that with the speed of light, is relative, as with Ritz." http://worldnpa.org/abstracts/abstracts_215.pdf

Constancy of the speed of light - the fundamental falsehood in physics - 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=gX5ajyPr96M

In the end each student gets the name Bingo the Einsteiniano:

http://www.staqs.com/images/Waterloo...in_09-2005.jpg

Pentcho Valev