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




Physics without Einstein's 1905 Falsehood
"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
Yet the speed of light is 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. The conclusion is that fundamental physics, entirely based on the false constancy, is long dead (leads a zombie life). Can it be resurrected? Yes. A paradigm shift is needed replacing Einstein's false constantspeedoflight axiom with a new, correct axiom: The new axiom: The wavelength of light is invariable. 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 speedoflight 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 
Ads 
#2




Physics without Einstein's 1905 Falsehood
Einsteinians teach that the wavelength VARIES with the speed of the light source:
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 The idea that the crests bunch up (the wavelength decreases) in front of the moving source is absurd. We have (wavelength) = (speed of light as measured by the source)/(frequency as measured by the source) All the three quantities in the above equation are invariable (do not vary with the speed of the source). If any of them varied with the speed of the source, by measuring the variation, Zoe (the source) would know how fast she is moving, which contradicts the principle of relativity of course: https://newt.phys.unsw.edu.au/einste...eird_logic.htm Since Zoe measures the wavelength to be invariable, Jasper measures the speed of light to be c'=c+v, not c: https://pbs.twimg.com/media/D0U6R1RXgAEbxnQ.png Pentcho Valev 
#3




Physics without Einstein's 1905 Falsehood
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." https://courses.physics.illinois.edu...re13/L13r.html
The increase in speed is the cause for the increase in frequency. In other words, speed and frequency increase proportionally. This means that, given the formula (frequency)=(speed of light)/(wavelength), the wavelength of light in a gravitational field is INVARIABLE. I hope the axiom "The wavelength of light is INVARIABLE" will be officially accepted soon. Meanwhile Einsteinians will continue to gloriously jump, within a minute of their experienced time, sixty million years ahead in the future, and to trap unlimitedly long objects, in a compressed state, inside unlimitedly short containers: Thibault Damour: "The paradigm of the special relativistic upheaval of the usual concept of time is the twin paradox. Let us emphasize that this striking example of time dilation proves that time travel (towards the future) is possible. As a gedanken experiment (if we neglect practicalities such as the technology needed for reaching velocities comparable to the velocity of light, the cost of the fuel and the capacity of the traveller to sustain high accelerations), it shows that a sentient being can jump, "within a minute" (of his experienced time) arbitrarily far in the future, say sixty million years ahead, and see, and be part of, what (will) happen then on Earth. This is a clear way of realizing that the future "already exists" (as we can experience it "in a minute")." http://www.bourbaphy.fr/damourtemps.pdf https://pbs.twimg.com/media/De9fBJwWkAEMaXZ.jpg "These are the props. You own a barn, 40m long, with automatic doors at either end, that can be opened and closed simultaneously by a switch. You also have a pole, 80m long, which of course won't fit in the barn. [...] So, as the pole passes through the barn, there is an instant when it is completely within the barn. At that instant, you close both doors simultaneously, with your switch. [...] If it does not explode under the strain and it is sufficiently elastic it will come to rest and start to spring back to its natural shape but since it is too big for the barn the other end is now going to crash into the back door and the rod will be TRAPPED IN A COMPRESSED STATE inside the barn." http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physic...barn_pole.html https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DcMHjnHWkAEXB8f.jpg Pentcho Valev 
Thread Tools  
Display Modes  


Similar Threads  
Thread  Thread Starter  Forum  Replies  Last Post 
Einstein's 1905 Nonsense That Killed Physics  Pentcho Valev  Astronomy Misc  3  March 13th 19 11:48 AM 
Einstein's 1905 Nonsense Was Fatal to Physics  Pentcho Valev  Astronomy Misc  1  December 4th 18 03:20 PM 
Fundamental Physics Killed by Einstein's 1905 Axiom  Pentcho Valev  Astronomy Misc  1  November 30th 18 11:15 AM 
The constantspeedoflight falsehood that killed physics  Pentcho Valev  Astronomy Misc  1  January 7th 17 03:56 PM 
THE FUNDAMENTAL FALSEHOOD OF MODERN PHYSICS  Pentcho Valev  Astronomy Misc  3  August 5th 13 06:49 AM 