gratifiant > sci.* > sci.physique

Pentcho Valev (18/08/2019, 13h45)
Invariable speed of light, variable wavelength: Einstein's false paradigm that killed physics.

Variable (as per Newton) speed of light, invariable wavelength: The new paradigm that will resurrect physics (if it's not too late).

"Moreover, if light consists of particles, as Einstein had suggested in hispaper 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 thenull 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 thoughtof in terms of waves in an ether." Banesh Hoffmann, Relativity and Its Roots, p.92

"I want to emphasize that light comes in this form - particles. It is very important to know that light behaves like particles, especially for those of you who have gone to school, where you probably learned something about light behaving like waves. I'm telling you the way it does behave - like particles. You might say that it's just the photomultiplier that detects lightas particles, but no, every instrument that has been designed to be sensitive enough to detect weak light has always ended up discovering the same thing: light is made of particles." Richard Feynman, QED: The Strange Theory of Light and Matter p. 15

"Emission theory, also called emitter theory or ballistic theory of light, was a competing theory for the special theory of relativity, explaining theresults of the Michelson–Morley experiment of 1887. [...] The namemost 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)."

"The Michelson-Morley experiment is fully compatible with an emission theory of light that CONTRADICTS THE LIGHT POSTULATE."

"To see why a deflection of light would be expected, consider Figure 2-17, which shows a beam of light entering an accelerating compartment. Successive positions of the compartment are shown at equal time intervals. Because the compartment is accelerating, the distance it moves in each time intervalincreases with time. The path of the beam of light, as observed from inside the compartment, is therefore a parabola. But according to the equivalence principle, there is no way to distinguish between an accelerating compartment and one with uniform velocity in a uniform gravitational field. We conclude, therefore, that A BEAM OF LIGHT WILL ACCELERATE IN A GRAVITATIONAL FIELD AS DO OBJECTS WITH REST MASS. For example, near the surface of Earth light will fall with acceleration 9.8 m/s^2."

University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign: "Consider a falling object. ITSSPEED INCREASES AS IT IS FALLING. Hence, if we were to associate a frequency with that object the frequency should increase accordingly as it falls to earth. Because of the equivalence between gravitational and inertial mass, WE SHOULD OBSERVE THE SAME EFFECT FOR LIGHT. So lets shine a light beam from the top of a very tall building. If we can measure the frequency shift as the light beam descends the building, we should be able to discern how gravity affects a falling light beam. This was done by Pound and Rebka in 1960. They shone a light from the top of the Jefferson tower at Harvard and measured the frequency shift. The frequency shift was tiny but in agreement with the theoretical prediction. Consider a light beam that is travelling away from a gravitational field. Its frequency should shift to lower values.This is known as the gravitational red shift of light."

Albert Einstein Institute: "One of the three classical tests for general relativity is the gravitational redshift of light or other forms of electromagnetic radiation. However, in contrast to the other two tests - the gravitational deflection of light and the relativistic perihelion shift -, you do not need general relativity to derive the correct prediction for the gravitational redshift. A combination of Newtonian gravity, a particle theory of light, and the weak equivalence principle (gravitating mass equals inertialmass) suffices. [...] The gravitational redshift was first measured on earth in 1960-65 by Pound, Rebka, and Snider at Harvard University..."

R. V. Pound and J. L. Snider, Effect of Gravity on Gamma Radiation: "It is not our purpose here to enter into the many-sided discussion of the relationship between the effect under study and general relativity or energy conservation. It is to be noted that no strictly relativistic concepts are involved and the description of the effect as an "apparent weight" of photons issuggestive. The velocity difference predicted is identical to that which amaterial object would acquire in free fall for a time equal to the time offlight."

See more here:

Pentcho Valev
Pentcho Valev (19/08/2019, 15h20)
Insofar as their speed is concerned, photons are Newtonian particles - the speed of light VARIES, both in a gravitational field and in gravitation-free space, just as the speed of ordinary projectiles does.

Einstein's false constant-speed-of-light postulate is equivalent to Big Brother's 2+2=5. Mathematics automatically becomes insane after 2+2=5 is introduced - scientists unavoidably get trapped in idiotic "paradoxes". Exactly the same happened to fundamental physics in 1905:

"Lee [Smolin] and I discussed these paradoxes at great length for many months, starting in January 2001. We would meet in cafs 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." Joao Magueijo, Faster Than the Speed of Light, p. 250

Yes, the root of all the evil in physics is special relativity, or more precisely, Einstein's false constant-speed-of-light postulate. Physicists knowthat and even try to tell the truth sometimes but there is a problem. Today's physics is entirely predicated on the false constancy and will collapsewithout it. In this regard telling the truth is suicidal:

"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 waysto change the speed of light without wrecking the whole thing too much."

Pentcho Valev
Discussions similaires