A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

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

Axiomatic Einstein-Free Physics



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old July 25th 19, 03:00 PM posted to sci.astro
Pentcho Valev
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,078
Default Axiomatic Einstein-Free Physics

Observer (receiver) starts moving towards the light source:

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

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

The frequency and the speed of the light pulses, as measured by the moving observer, VARY PROPORTIONALLY; the wavelength (or distance between the pulses) is INVARIABLE.

This observation, generalized over all possible scenarios, will become The Fundamental Law of future (Einstein-free) physics. Here is a deduction from The Fundamental Axioms:

Axiom 1: The wavelength of light is invariable.

Axiom 2: (frequency) = (speed of light)/(wavelength)

Conclusion (The Fundamental Law): Any frequency shift entails (is caused by) a proportional speed-of-light shift.

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

Pentcho Valev
  #2  
Old July 25th 19, 05:28 PM posted to sci.astro
Pentcho Valev
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,078
Default Axiomatic Einstein-Free Physics

Five important conclusions validly deducible from The Fundamental Axioms of new (Einstein-free) physics:

Axiom 1 (new): The wavelength of light is invariable.

Axiom 2 (borrowed from old physics): (frequency) = (speed of light)/(wavelength)

Conclusion 1 (The Fundamental Law): Any frequency shift entails (is caused by) a proportional 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 and gravitational waves (ripples in spacetime) don't exist. LIGO's "discoveries" are fakes.

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 not expanding.

Pentcho Valev
  #3  
Old July 25th 19, 06:54 PM posted to sci.astro
Pentcho Valev
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,078
Default Axiomatic Einstein-Free Physics

Einstein's constant-speed-of-light postulate is OBVIOUSLY false. Physicists see that and even try to tell the truth sometimes but there is a problem. Fundamental physics is entirely based on the false constancy and will collapse without it. In that regard telling the truth is suicidal:

Joao Magueijo, Faster Than the Speed of Light, p. 250: "Lee [Smolin] and I discussed these paradoxes at great length for many months, starting in January 2001. We would meet in cafés in South Kensington or Holland Park to mull over the problem. THE ROOT OF ALL THE EVIL was clearly SPECIAL RELATIVITY. All these paradoxes resulted from well known effects such as length contraction, time dilation, or E=mc^2, all basic predictions of special relativity. And all denied the possibility of establishing a well-defined border, common to all observers, capable of containing new quantum gravitational effects." http://www.amazon.com/Faster-Than-Sp.../dp/0738205257

"...Dr. Magueijo said. "We need to drop a postulate, perhaps the constancy of the speed of light." http://www.nytimes.com/2002/12/31/sc...-relative.html

"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

"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 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

What scientific idea is ready for retirement? Steve Giddings: "Spacetime. Physics has always been regarded as playing out on an underlying stage of space and time. Special relativity joined these into spacetime... [...] The apparent need to retire classical spacetime as a fundamental concept is profound..." https://www.edge.org/response-detail/25477

Joao Magueijo, Niayesh Afshordi, Stephon Alexander: "So we have broken fundamentally this Lorentz invariance which equates space and time [...] It's the other postulate of relativity, that of constancy of c, that has to give way..." https://youtu.be/kbHBBtsrU1g?t=1431

"We've known for decades that space-time is doomed," says Arkani-Hamed. "We know it is not there in the next version of physics." http://discovermagazine.com/2014/jan...ure-of-physics

Pentcho Valev
  #4  
Old July 26th 19, 01:05 PM posted to sci.astro
Pentcho Valev
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,078
Default Axiomatic Einstein-Free Physics

Einstein "borrowed" his constant-speed-of-light falsehood from the theory of the NONEXISTENT ether:

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

The constant-speed-of-light falsehood goes hand in hand with the variable-wavelength-of-light falsehood:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xsVxC_NR64M

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

This variation of the wavelength of light contradicts the principle of relativity. If the wavelength varied with the speed of the emitter, by measuring it inside his spaceship, the emitter would know how fast he is moving without looking outside.

The wavelength of light, unlike the wavelength of sound, does not vary with the speed of the emitter. Accordingly, the observer (receiver) measures the speed of light to be c'=c±v. The truth is Newtonian, not Einsteinian:

"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 Michelson–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 ± v)." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emission_theory

The proposition

"The wavelength of light is invariable",

generalized over all possible scenarios, will become the fundamental axiom of future, Einstein-free physics. I have developed the idea in a series of tweets he https://twitter.com/pentcho_valev

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
The Fundamental Law of Future (Einstein-Free) Physics Pentcho Valev Astronomy Misc 2 July 22nd 19 05:55 PM
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
Axiomatic Approach in Fundamental Physics Pentcho Valev Astronomy Misc 3 March 31st 19 09:21 PM
Fundamental Physics: Axiomatic or ... Not Even Wrong Pentcho Valev Astronomy Misc 2 January 3rd 18 10:56 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:56 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.