A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

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.

Go Back   Home » SpaceBanter.com forum » Astronomy and Astrophysics » Astronomy Misc
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

The Fundamental Law of Future (Einstein-Free) Physics



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old July 22nd 19, 12:58 PM posted to sci.astro
Pentcho Valev
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,078
Default The Fundamental Law of Future (Einstein-Free) Physics

"The whole of physics is predicated on the constancy of the speed of light [...] 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

The speed of light is OBVIOUSLY variable, e.g. relative to the moving observer in this video

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

so "wrecking the whole thing" is unavoidable.

In the scenario shown in the video, frequency and speed of light, as measured by the observer, VARY PROPORTIONALLY while wavelength (or distance between pulses) is INVARIABLE.

This observation, generalized over any observer and any scenario, will become The Fundamental Law of future (Einstein-free) physics. Here is an equivalent formulation:

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

I have developed the idea in a series of tweets he

https://twitter.com/pentcho_valev

Pentcho Valev
Ads
  #2  
Old July 22nd 19, 04:42 PM posted to sci.astro
Pentcho Valev
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,078
Default The Fundamental Law of Future (Einstein-Free) Physics

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 Michelson-Morley 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/Relativity-It.../dp/0486406768

Two conclusions from the above text:

1. Newton's VARIABLE speed of light is compatible with the Michelson-Morley experiment "without recourse to contracting lengths, local time, or Lorentz transformations".

2. "Without recourse to contracting lengths, local time, or Lorentz transformations", the constant (independent of the motion of the emitter) speed of light posited by the ether theory and later "borrowed" by Einstein is incompatible with the Michelson-Morley experiment.

Albert Einstein: "I introduced the principle of the constancy of the velocity of light, which I borrowed from H. A. Lorentz's theory of the stationary luminiferous ether..." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz_ether_theory

Pentcho Valev
  #3  
Old July 22nd 19, 05:55 PM posted to sci.astro
Pentcho Valev
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,078
Default The Fundamental Law of Future (Einstein-Free) Physics

Crucial fraud in physics:

http://www.einstein-online.info/spotlights/doppler.html Albert Einstein Institute: "For instance, the source (in green) could be someone hovering over a lake and periodically moving a plunger up and down in the water. The expanding red rings would then be the crests of the water waves travelling outwards on the lake surface. Alternatively, the source could be a light source emitting light in all directions. In this case, the red lines could be the maxima of the electromagnetic waves. For a source emitting sound waves, the red rings could be the zones of maximal air pressure. The following animation shows what happens when the source is not at rest, but moving (again, at one third the wave speed) to the left:

http://www.einstein-online.info/imag...cle_moving.gif

Clearly, the center of each new circular crest now lies a bit to the left of it's predecessor. As a result, we can see all facets of the Doppler effect at once: The crests moving straight to the left are bunched up, corresponding to a higher wave frequency. An observer receiving these waves will see the source moving towards herself, and notice the waves' corresponding blue-shift." [end of quotation]

Bunching up does occur for water and sound waves but doesn't for light. The wavelength of light does not vary with the speed of the emitter. If it did, the emitter would know his speed by measuring the varying wavelength inside his spaceship, without looking outside, and the principle of relativity would be violated.

Pentcho Valev
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

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

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Paradigm Shift: Einstein-Free Physics Pentcho Valev Astronomy Misc 0 July 13th 19 11:41 AM
Towards Einstein-Free Physics Pentcho Valev Astronomy Misc 1 July 13th 19 10:06 AM
Fundamental Physics Killed by Einstein's 1905 Axiom Pentcho Valev Astronomy Misc 1 November 30th 18 11:15 AM
FUNDAMENTAL PHANTASMS IN PHYSICS Pentcho Valev Astronomy Misc 3 April 6th 13 07:48 AM
Physics is fundamental wrong Sarah Schwartz Astronomy Misc 134 June 27th 04 02:16 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:16 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2022, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2022 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.