Discussion:
How Einstein Killed Physics
(trop ancien pour répondre)
Pentcho Valev
2018-11-23 20:54:59 UTC
Permalink
The nonsense that killed physics: The speed of light is constant, independent of the motion of the receiver:

Brian Greene:


Einstein knew that the constancy (independence) was nonsense but in the end found it profitable to introduce it. Space and time were vandalized accordingly (to fit the nonsensical constancy) and the post-truth (post-sanity) era in science began:

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/einstein/essay-einstein-relativity.htm

Peter Galison: "Only by criticizing the foundational notions of time and space could one bring the pieces of the theory - that the laws of physics were the same in all constantly moving frames; that light traveled at the same speed regardless of its source - into harmony." https://www.aip.org/history/exhibits/einstein/essay-einsteins-time.htm

Loading Image...

Pentcho Valev
Pentcho Valev
2018-11-23 21:56:57 UTC
Permalink
It is obvious that the speed of light is NOT independent of the speed of the receiver:

Stationary light source; moving receiver: Loading Image...

(Website: http://www.einstein-online.info/spotlights/doppler.html)

The speed of the light pulses relative to the source is

c = df

where d is the distance between the pulses and f is the frequency measured by the source. The speed of the pulses relative to the receiver is

c'= df' > c

where f' > f is the frequency measured by the receiver.

Pentcho Valev
Pentcho Valev
2018-11-24 08:59:29 UTC
Permalink
Einstein's constancy of the speed of light is false. Many physicists know 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 this sense 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-Speed-Light-Speculation/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/science/e-and-mc2-equality-it-seems-is-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/article/8q87gk/light-speed-slowed

Pentcho Valev

Loading...