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




Ongoing Revolution in Fundamental Physics: Variable Speed of Light
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/
The revolution is no longer around the corner  it is he "So we have broken fundamentally this Lorentz invariance which equates space and time..." https://youtu.be/kbHBBtsrU1g?t=1431 "You want to go back to a notion of spacetime that preceded the 20th century, and it wants to ignore the essential lessons about spacetime that the 20th century has taught us." Joao Magueijo: "Yes, that's right. So it's nouveauNewtonian." At 53:29 he http://pirsa.org/displayFlash.php?id=16060116 The problem is that the truth  variable speed of light, as per Newton  will completely destroy fundamental physics. Things will have to restart from scratch: "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 [Niayesh Afshordi and Joao Magueijo] had to find ways to change the speed of light without wrecking the whole thing too much." https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/a...tspeedslowed Awful dilemma, isn't it? Afshordi and Magueijo beat about the bush a bit, so in this tweet https://twitter.com/pentcho_valev/st...89439147859970 I tried to define the dilemma as clearly as possible. The tweet received a like from... Niayesh Afshordi! Afshordi and Magueijo are honest and courageous enough (in my view) but perhaps they are still paralyzed by Einstein's old lie that Magueijo so naively presents as truth he Joao Magueijo, Faster Than the Speed of Light: "A missile fired from a plane moves faster than one fired from the ground because the plane's speed adds to the missile's speed. If I throw something forward on a moving train, its speed with respect to the platform is the speed of that object plus that of the train. You might think that the same should happen to light: Light flashed from a train should travel faster. However, what the MichelsonMorley experiments showed was that this was not the case: Light always moves stubbornly at the same speed. This means that if I take a light ray and ask several observers moving with respect to each other to measure the speed of this light ray, they will all agree on the same apparent speed!" https://www.amazon.com/FasterThanS.../dp/0738205257 The MichelsonMorley experiment showed that THIS was the case. 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'=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 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 The fact that the MichelsonMorley experiment proved Newton's c'=c+v is so obvious that even Wikipedia admits it: "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 Pentcho Valev 
Ads 
#2




Ongoing Revolution in Fundamental Physics: Variable Speed of Light
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
SEEMS to be nonsense? Not exactly. The idea that the observer starts moving towards light pulses and their speed relative to him remains unchanged IS nonsense. Brian Greene presents the nonsense quite well: Brian Greene: What does it mean for the speed of light to be constant? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Irlq3TFr8Q The speed of light, as measured by Gracy (the receiver or observer), OBVIOUSLY VARIES with Gracy's speed. Here is Gracy running towards George (the emitter): http://www.einsteinonline.info/imag...ector_blue.gif (Website: http://www.einsteinonline.info/spotlights/doppler.html) The speed of the light pulses as measured by George (the emitter) is c = df where d is the distance between the pulses and f is the frequency measured by George. The speed of the pulses as measured by Gracy (the receiver) is c'= df' c where f' f is the frequency measured by Gracy. "Einstein wrestled with this problem over a lengthy period of time, to the point of despair" means "Einstein wrestled with his conscience over a lengthy period of time, to the point of despair". And the conscience was defeated in the end. Pentcho Valev 
#3




Ongoing Revolution in Fundamental Physics: Variable Speed of Light
Einstein's 1905 constantspeedoflight axiom, originally a tenet of the ether theory, can be formulated in this way:
The speed of light, as measured by the observer (receiver), does not vary with the speed of the light source. Since this axiom is false, it is tempting to try to build future physics on the correct alternative: The speed of light, as measured by the observer (receiver), VARIES with the speed of the light source, as posited by Newton's theory. However there is a more fundamental axiom of which the Newtonian variation of the speed of light is a consequence  future physics will be based on this axiom: The wavelength emitted by any light source is INVARIABLE. I have discussed the justification of the new axiom elsewhere. Here are five important conclusions validly deducible from it: 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 
Thread Tools  
Display Modes  


Similar Threads  
Thread  Thread Starter  Forum  Replies  Last Post 
Revolution in Fundamental Physics: Variable Speed of Light  Pentcho Valev  Astronomy Misc  0  March 17th 19 11:06 AM 
Revolution in Fundamental Physics: Variable Speed of Light  Pentcho Valev  Astronomy Misc  3  March 11th 19 08:00 PM 
Variable Speed of Light: the Next Great Revolution in Science  Pentcho Valev  Astronomy Misc  2  March 4th 19 07:23 AM 
Variable Speed of Light: Fatal to Physics  Pentcho Valev  Astronomy Misc  3  January 30th 18 12:14 PM 
VARIABLE SPEED OF LIGHT: FUNDAMENTAL THEOREMS  Pentcho Valev  Astronomy Misc  7  April 29th 10 02:51 PM 