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.

 Physics without Einstein's 1905 Falsehood
 Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

## Physics without Einstein's 1905 Falsehood

#1
March 15th 19, 11:06 AM posted to sci.astro
 Pentcho Valev external usenet poster Posts: 7,083
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.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.

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 constant-speed-of-light 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 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
#2
March 15th 19, 05:47 PM posted to sci.astro
 Pentcho Valev external usenet poster Posts: 7,083
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
March 15th 19, 11:04 PM posted to sci.astro
 Pentcho Valev external usenet poster Posts: 7,083
Physics without Einstein's 1905 Falsehood

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

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 Linear Mode

 Posting Rules You may not post new threads You may not post replies You may not post attachments You may not edit your posts vB code is On Smilies are On [IMG] code is On HTML code is Off
 Forum Jump User Control Panel Private Messages Subscriptions Who's Online Search Forums Forums Home Space Science     Space Science Misc     News     Space Shuttle     Space Station     Science     Technology     Policy     History Astronomy and Astrophysics     Astronomy Misc     Amateur Astronomy     CCD Imaging     Research     FITS     Satellites     Hubble     SETI Others     Astro Pictures     Solar     UK Astronomy     Misc About SpaceBanter     About this forum

 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 constant-speed-of-light 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

All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:19 AM.