Logical Foundations of Einstein-Free Physics

Two crucial biconditionals:

Biconditional 1: The speed of light is constant as per Einstein IF AND ONLY IF the wavelength of light is variable.

Biconditional 2: The speed of light is variable as per Newton IF AND ONLY IF the wavelength of light is constant for a given emitter.

Both biconditionals are immediate logical consequences of the formula

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

Both the antecedent and the consequent in Biconditional 2 are true (this claim should be justified of course). The consequent,

"the wavelength of light is constant for a given emitter",

will become the fundamental axiom of future, Einstein-free physics (the fundamental axiom of present, Einstein's physics is "the speed of light is constant", the antecedent in Biconditional 1).

Five important corollaries of the fundamental axiom of Einstein-free physics:

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

Corollary 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, as per Newton's theory.

Corollary 3: Spacetime and gravitational waves (ripples in spacetime) don't exist. LIGO's "discoveries" are fakes.

Corollary 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.

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

See more he https://twitter.com/pentcho_valev

Pentcho Valev

Deduction from clearly defined axioms (postulates) is the only reasonable method in fundamental physics:

"By a theory I shall mean the deductive closure of a set of theoretical postulates together with an appropriate set of auxiliary hypotheses; that is, everything that can be deduced from this set." W. H. Newton-Smith, THE RATIONALITY OF SCIENCE, p. 199 http://cdn.preterhuman.net/texts/tho...%20science.pdf

Einstein also seems to suggest that deduction is the only correct method in theoretical physics:

Albert Einstein: "From a systematic theoretical point of view, we may imagine the process of evolution of an empirical science to be a continuous process of induction. Theories are evolved and are expressed in short compass as statements of a large number of individual observations in the form of empirical laws, from which the general laws can be ascertained by comparison. Regarded in this way, the development of a science bears some resemblance to the compilation of a classified catalogue. It is, as it were, a purely empirical enterprise. But this point of view by no means embraces the whole of the actual process ; for it slurs over the important part played by intuition and deductive thought in the development of an exact science. As soon as a science has emerged from its initial stages, theoretical advances are no longer achieved merely by a process of arrangement. Guided by empirical data, the investigator rather develops a system of thought which, in general, is built up logically from a small number of fundamental assumptions, the so-called axioms." https://www.marxists.org/reference/a...ative/ap03.htm

Einstein's special relativity was a deductive model predicated on a false axiom ("the speed of light is constant") and advancing an initial invalid argument (Einstein "deduced" asymmetric time dilation while his 1905 postulates entailed symmetric time dilation).

General relativity was a not-even-wrong inductive concoction essentially equivalent to curve fitting models. It is able to predict anything if suitable fudge factors are introduced.

"Curve fitting is the process of adjusting a mathematical function so that it fits as closely as possible to a given set of data points. The function can then be used as a mathematical model of the underlying data."

More he https://twitter.com/pentcho_valev

Pentcho Valev

The fundamental axiom of future (Einstein-free) physics:

The wavelength of light is constant (for a given emitter).

Is the axiom correct? Let us consider three scenarios:

(A) The observer starts moving relative to the emitter https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bg7O4rtlwEE. The wavelength (distance between light pulses) obviously remains constant while the frequency and the speed of the pulses vary proportionally for the moving observer, in violation of Einstein's relativity.

(B) The emitter starts moving relative to the observer https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xsVxC_NR64M. It is universally taught that the wavelength of light varies with the speed of the emitter, as shown in the video, but this contradicts the principle of relativity. If the wavelength varied, the emitter would measure it regularly, inside his spaceship, and so he would be able to calculate his speed without looking outside. The wavelength of light is constant, independent of the speed of the emitter.

(C) Light falls in a gravitational field. The frequency and the speed of falling light vary proportionally, and accordingly the wavelength remains constant. This is clearly shown he

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. The frequency shift was tiny but in agreement with the theoretical prediction. Consider a light beam that is travelling away from a gravitational field. Its frequency should shift to lower values. This is known as the gravitational red shift of light." https://courses.physics.illinois.edu...re13/L13r.html

See mo https://twitter.com/pentcho_valev

Pentcho Valev

The texts below suggest that, if the speed of light is variable (it is!), physics, entirely predicated on Einstein's constant-speed-of-light falsehood, is long dead (exists as a farce/ideology):

"If there's one thing every schoolboy knows about Einstein and his theory of relativity, it is that the speed of light in vacuum is constant. No matter what the circumstances, light in vacuum travels at the same speed... The speed of light is the very keystone of physics, the seemingly sure foundation upon which every modern cosmological theory is built, the yardstick by which everything in the universe is measured. [...] The only aspect of the universe that didn't change was the speed of light. And ever since, the constancy of the speed of light has been woven into the very fabric of physics, into the way physics equations are written, even into the notation used. Nowadays, to "vary" the speed of light is not even a swear word: It is simply not present in the vocabulary of physics." https://www.amazon.com/Faster-Than-S.../dp/0738205257

"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 formula

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

allows the introduction of two axioms that push physics in opposite directions:

Axiom 1 (Einstein's physics): The speed of light is constant. Immediate corollary (obviously absurd): Any frequency shift entails (is caused by) an inversely proportional wavelength shift.

Axiom 2 (Einstein-free physics): The wavelength of light is constant (for a given emitter). Immediate corollary: Any frequency shift entails (is caused by) a proportional speed-of-light shift.

Axiom 1, false and even nonsensical, killed physics (converted it into an insane ideology).

Axiom 2, correct and easily justifiable, will resurrect physics (if it's not too late). Its immediate corollary will become the main law of the new science:

The main law of Einstein-free physics: Any frequency shift entails (is caused by) a proportional speed-of-light shift.

See https://twitter.com/pentcho_valev

Pentcho Valev