![]() |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Joao Magueijo: "In sharp contrast, the constancy of the speed of light has remain sacred, and the term "heresy" is occasionally used in relation to "varying speed of light theories". The reason is clear: the constancy of c, unlike the constancy of G or e, is the pillar of special relativity and thus of modern physics. Varying c theories are expected to cause much more structural damage to physics formalism than other varying constant theories." http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/astro-ph/p.../0305457v3.pdf
"But the researchers said they spent a lot of time working on a theory that wouldn't destabilise our understanding of physics. "The whole of physics is predicated on the constancy of the speed of light," Joao Magueijo told Motherboard. "So we had to find ways to change the speed of light without wrecking the whole thing too much." http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technolog...ht-discovered/ This means that the following conditional is valid: If Einstein's constant-speed-of-light postulate is false, modern physics is pseudoscience (true science was killed in 1905). Is Einstein's constant-speed-of-light postulate false? Of course, this is obvious. Consider the following setup: A light source emits a series of pulses equally distanced from one another. A stationary observer (receiver) measures the frequency: http://www.einstein-online.info/imag...ler_static.gif The observer starts moving with constant speed towards the light source and measures the frequency again: http://www.einstein-online.info/imag...ector_blue.gif Premise 1 (Doppler effect; experimentally confirmed): The moving observer measures the frequency to be higher. Premise 2 (obviously true): The formula (measured frequency) = (speed of the pulses relative to the observer)/(distance between the pulses) is correct. Conclusion: The speed of the pulses relative to the moving observer is higher than relative to the stationary observer. In other words, the speed of light varies with the speed of the observer, in violation of Einstein's relativity. Pentcho Valev |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Einstein's 1905 Light Postulate Is Obviously False | Pentcho Valev | Astronomy Misc | 2 | February 13th 17 07:18 AM |
Einstein's False Postulate That Killed Physics | Pentcho Valev | Astronomy Misc | 3 | June 2nd 16 10:36 AM |
THE PROTECTIVE BELT OF EINSTEIN'S FALSE LIGHT POSTULATE | Pentcho Valev | Astronomy Misc | 2 | September 16th 14 08:55 PM |
EINSTEINIANS DO NOT NEED EINSTEIN'S FALSE SECOND POSTULATE | Pentcho Valev | Astronomy Misc | 0 | July 4th 14 09:21 AM |
WHY EINSTEIN'S LIGHT POSTULATE IS FALSE | Pentcho Valev | Astronomy Misc | 1 | December 3rd 12 10:34 AM |