﻿ Variable Speed of Light: Face the Fact, Einsteinians!
Discussion:
Variable Speed of Light: Face the Fact, Einsteinians!
(trop ancien pour répondre)
Pentcho Valev
2017-12-02 12:58:32 UTC
Einstein's 1905 assumption that the speed of light is independent of the motion of the source was false but sounded reasonable - an analogous statement is true for waves other than light. However, combined with the principle of relativity, the assumption entails an obvious idiocy - the speed of light is independent of the motion of the observer as well:

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." https://history.aip.org/history/exhibits/einstein/essay-einstein-relativity.htm

The fact that the speed of light VARIES with the speed of the observer is as obvious as 2+2=4 (Einstein's nonsensical conclusion that it doesn't is equivalent to Big Brother's 2+2=5):

http://www.einstein-online.info/spotlights/doppler
Albert Einstein Institute: "The frequency of a wave-like signal - such as sound or light - depends on the movement of the sender and of the receiver. This is known as the Doppler effect. [...] Here is an animation of the receiver moving towards the source:

By observing the two indicator lights, you can see for yourself that, once more, there is a blue-shift - the pulse frequency measured at the receiver is somewhat higher than the frequency with which the pulses are sent out. This time, the distances between subsequent pulses are not affected, but still there is a frequency shift: As the receiver moves towards each pulse, the time until pulse and receiver meet up is shortened. In this particular animation, which has the receiver moving towards the source at one third the speed of the pulses themselves, four pulses are received in the time it takes the source to emit three pulses." [END OF QUOTATION]

"Four pulses are received in the time it takes the source to emit three pulses" means that the speed of the pulses relative to the moving receiver (observer) is greater than their speed relative to the source, in violation of Einstein's relativity.

Einstein's relativity can only be saved if the motion of the receiver (observer) changes the distance between subsequent pulses, but this is so idiotic that Einsteinians explicitly reject it in the above quotation:

"...the distances between subsequent pulses are not affected, but still there is a frequency shift..."

Pentcho Valev
Pentcho Valev
2017-12-02 18:13:15 UTC
Einstein's 1905 false constant-speed-of-light postulate:

Albert Einstein, ON THE ELECTRODYNAMICS OF MOVING BODIES, 1905: "...light is always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c which is independent of the state of motion of the emitting body." http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/

If interpreted correctly, the Doppler effect directly refutes the postulated independence from "the state of motion of the emitting body". Here is an incorrect interpretation - Einstein's relativity is saved by the false ad hoc assumption "The distance between successive pulses is now smaller than when both sender and receiver were at rest":

Albert Einstein Institute: "We will start with a very simple set-up, which you can see in the following animation. On the right-hand side, drawn in green, there is a sender that emits pulses in regular succession. On the left-hand side there is a receiver, drawn in blue. The pulses themselves are drawn in red, and they all travel at the same speed from right to left. Everytime the sender emits a new pulse, a yellow indicator light flashes once. Likewise, a flashing light indicates when a pulse has reached the receiver:

http://www.einstein-online.info/images/spotlights/doppler/doppler_static.gif

Next, let us look at a slightly different situation, where the source is moving towards the detector. We assume that the motion of the sender does not influence the speed at which the pulses travel, and that the pulses are sent with the same frequency as before. Still, as we can see in the following animation, the motion influences the pulse pattern:

The distance between successive pulses is now smaller than when both sender and receiver were at rest. Consequently, the pulses arrive at the receiver in quicker succession. If we compare the rates at which the indicator lights at the receiver and at the sender are flashing, we find that the indicator light at the receiver is flashing faster." [END OF QUOTATION] http://www.einstein-online.info/spotlights/doppler

Einsteinians make the following assumption above, which is essentially identical to Einstein's 1905 constant-speed-of-light postulate:

Assumption 1: "The motion of the sender does not influence the speed at which the pulses travel."

Assumption 1 goes hand in hand with another assumption:

Assumption 2: "The distance between successive pulses is now smaller than when both sender and receiver were at rest."

Assumption 2 is false - the pulses do not bunch up when the source (sender) is moving. If they did, by measuring the (variable) distance between the pulses, an observer in the frame of the source would know whether he is moving or at rest, which contradicts the principle of relativity.

Since Assumption 2 is false, Assumption 1 is false as well. If the speed of the moving source is v, the speed of the light relative to the receiver is c'=c+v, in violation of Einstein's relativity.

Pentcho Valev
Pentcho Valev
2017-12-02 20:57:30 UTC
In 1887 Michelson and Morley had calculations showing that the two beams should arrive at different times, but the experiment demonstrated no time difference at all - the two beams arrived at the same time.

The calculations were based on a false assumption - Michelson and Morley had assumed that the speed of light is independent of the speed of the emitter. So the first thing the Michelson-Morley experiment refuted was this assumption. If Michelson and Morley had assumed that the speed of light varies with the speed of the emitter, as predicted by Newton's emission theory, the experimental result would have matched the calculations:

"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

Since the refuted assumption, "the speed of light is independent of the speed of the emitter", became one of Einstein's postulates in 1905, it is fair to say that Einstein's relativity was experimentally refuted before it was created.

The following revelations are staggering:

John Norton: "To it, we should add that the null result of the Michelson-Morley experiment was unhelpful and possibly counter-productive in Einstein's investigations of an emission theory of light, for the null result is predicted by an emission theory." http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/12289/1/Einstein_Discover.pdf

John Norton: "In addition to his work as editor of the Einstein papers in finding source material, Stachel assembled the many small clues that reveal Einstein's serious consideration of an emission theory of light; and he gave us the crucial insight that Einstein regarded the Michelson-Morley experiment as evidence for the principle of relativity, whereas later writers almost universally use it as support for the light postulate of special relativity. Even today, this point needs emphasis. The Michelson-Morley experiment is fully compatible with an emission theory of light that contradicts the light postulate." http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/1743/2/Norton.pdf

So we have an experiment that has disproved the constancy of the speed of light but the brainwashed world is certain that the experiment has confirmed the constancy of the speed of light. Who is to blame? According to Stachel and Norton, Einstein is innocent in this case - he was honest and taught that the Michelson-Morley experiment had confirmed the principle of relativity, not the constancy of the speed of light. Today's Einsteinians ("later writers") however are liars and teach that the experiment has confirmed the constancy of the speed of light.

Stachel and Norton are right about today's Einsteinians (they are pathological liars) but did Einstein really teach the truth? Of course not. He was the author of the hoax:

The New York Times, April 19, 1921: "The special relativity arose from the question of whether light had an invariable velocity in free space, he [Einstein] said. The velocity of light could only be measured relative to a body or a co-ordinate system. He sketched a co-ordinate system K to which light had a velocity C. Whether the system was in motion or not was the fundamental principle. This has been developed through the researches of Maxwell and Lorentz, the principle of the constancy of the velocity of light having been based on many of their experiments. But did it hold for only one system? he asked. He gave the example of a street and a vehicle moving on that street. If the velocity of light was C for the street was it also C for the vehicle? If a second co-ordinate system K was introduced, moving with the velocity V, did light have the velocity of C here? When the light traveled the system moved with it, so it would appear that light moved slower and the principle apparently did not hold. Many famous experiments had been made on this point. Michelson showed that relative to the moving co-ordinate system K1, the light traveled with the same velocity as relative to K, which is contrary to the above observation. How could this be reconciled? Professor Einstein asked." http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=9806EFDD113FEE3ABC4152DFB266838A639EDE

Pentcho Valev
Pentcho Valev
2017-12-05 16:32:17 UTC
Experiments have unequivocally proven that both subluminal motion of light in a vacuum and superluminal motion (not necessarily in a vacuum) are possible. However the scientific community cannot react properly because Einsteinians bombard it with contradictory and confusing explanations, often involving "group velocity" and "phase velocity". The experimentalists themselves have to include such explanations in their articles - otherwise there would be no publication. Yet even "group velocity" and "phase velocity" turn out to be insufficiently confusing and Einsteinians resort to the ultimate weapon - the speed of some mysterious entity called "information" (as if Einstein had based his 1905 second postulate on the speed of information, not on the speed of light). This speed always gloriously conforms to Divine Albert's Divine Theory:

http://science.sciencemag.org/content/326/5956/1074.full
Robert W. Boyd, Daniel J. Gauthier, Controlling the Velocity of Light Pulses: "So why do laboratory results of fast light not necessitate the superluminal transfer of information? It is believed that the explanation lies in the distinction between Vg [group velocity] and the information velocity. The group velocity can take on any value. However, the information velocity can never exceed c and, according to many models, is always equal to c."

If it were not for the schizophrenic and confusing atmosphere created by Einsteinians, the inconstancy of the speed of light would be an obvious experimental fact:

http://science.sciencemag.org/content/347/6224/857
"Spatially structured photons that travel in free space slower than the speed of light" Science 20 Feb 2015: Vol. 347, Issue 6224, pp. 857-860

http://rt.com/news/225879-light-speed-slow-photons/
"Physicists manage to slow down light inside vacuum [...] ...even now the light is no longer in the mask, it's just the propagating in free space - the speed is still slow. [...] "This finding shows unambiguously that the propagation of light can be slowed below the commonly accepted figure of 299,792,458 metres per second, even when travelling in air or vacuum," co-author Romero explains in the University of Glasgow press release."

http://www.upi.com/Science_News/2015/01/23/Scientists-slow-down-light-particles/1191422035480
"The speed of light is a limit, not a constant - that's what researchers in Glasgow, Scotland, say. A group of them just proved that light can be slowed down, permanently."

http://www.gmanetwork.com/news/story/417655/scitech/science/exclusive-this-pinay-physicist-can-slow-down-light-without-touching-it
"Although the maximum speed of light is a cosmological constant - made famous by Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity and E=mc^2 - it can, in fact, be slowed down: that's what optics do."

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/faster-than-the-speed-of-light/
"For generations, physicists believed there is nothing faster than light moving through a vacuum -- a speed of 186,000 miles per second. But in an experiment in Princeton, N.J., physicists sent a pulse of laser light through cesium vapor so quickly that it left the chamber before it had even finished entering. The pulse traveled 310 times the distance it would have covered if the chamber had contained a vacuum. Researchers say it is the most convincing demonstration yet that the speed of light -- supposedly an ironclad rule of nature -- can be pushed beyond known boundaries, at least under certain laboratory circumstances. [...] The results of the work by Wang, Alexander Kuzmich and Arthur Dogariu were published in Thursday's issue of the journal Nature."

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v406/n6793/full/406277a0.html
Nature 406, 277-279 (20 July 2000): "...a light pulse propagating through the atomic vapour cell appears at the exit side so much earlier than if it had propagated the same distance in a vacuum that the peak of the pulse appears to leave the cell before entering it."

http://phys.org/news/2016-03-optical-slower.html
"Researchers at the University of Ottawa observed that twisted light in a vacuum travels slower than the universal physical constant established as the speed of light by Einstein's theory of relativity. [...] In The Optical Society's journal for high impact research, Optica, the researchers report that twisted light pulses in a vacuum travel up to 0.1 percent slower than the speed of light, which is 299,792,458 meters per second. [...] If it's possible to slow the speed of light by altering its structure, it may also be possible to speed up light. The researchers are now planning to use FROG to measure other types of structured light that their calculations have predicted may travel around 1 femtosecond faster than the speed of light in a vacuum."

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn2796
"Speed of light broken with basic lab kit. Electric signals can be transmitted at least four times faster than the speed of light using only basic equipment that would be found in virtually any college science department. Scientists have sent light signals at faster-than-light speeds over the distances of a few metres for the last two decades - but only with the aid of complicated, expensive equipment. Now physicists at Middle Tennessee State University have broken that speed limit over distances of nearly 120 metres, using off-the-shelf equipment costing just \$500. [...] While the peak moves faster than light speed, the total energy of the pulse does not. This means Einstein's relativity is preserved, so do not expect super-fast starships or time machines anytime soon."