


"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."
So, if the speed of light is variable (it is!), physics is long dead. Can it be resurrected? Yes if Einstein's false constantspeedoflight axiom is replaced with a new, correct axiom: The new axiom: For a given light source, the wavelength is invariable. Here are three important conclusions validly deducible from the new axiom: Premise 1: The wavelength of light is invariable. Premise 2: The formula (frequency) = (speed of light)/(wavelength) is correct. Conclusion 1: 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 2: 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, gravitational time dilationdoes not exist  Einstein's general relativity is absurd. Conclusion 3: The Hubble redshift is due to light slowing down as it travels through vacuum. The universe is STATIC, not expanding. Pentcho Valev 


The observer starts moving towards the emitter with speed v:
The speed of light relative to the observer shifts from c to c'=c+v, in violation of Einstein's relativity. Frequency the observer measures shifts from f=c/λ to f'=c'/λ. The wavelength is INVARIABLE: "Let's say you, the observer, now move toward the source with velocity Vo. You encounter more waves per unit time than you did before. Relative to you, the waves travel at a higher speed: V'=V+Vo. The frequency of the wavesyou detect is higher, and is given by: f'=V'/λ=(V+Vo)/λ." "Vo is the velocity of an observer moving towards the source. This velocityis independent of the motion of the source. Hence, the velocity of waves relative to the observer is c + Vo. [...] The motion of an observer does notalter the wavelength. The increase in frequency is a result of the observer encountering more wavelengths in a given time." Einsteinians teach that the wavelength of light VARIES with the speed of the emitter: 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 thesource 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." This variation of the wavelength of light with the speed of the emitter contradicts the principle of relativity. If the wavelength varied, by simply measuring it, the emitter would know how fast it is moving. The wavelength is INVARIABLE. The new axiom "The wavelength of light is invariable", designed to replace Einstein's false axiom "The speed of light is invariable", is more than justified as one considers light falling in a gravitational field. The quotations below clearly show that the frequency and the speed of falling light vary proportionally, as predicted by Newton's theory. This means that, given the formula (frequency)=(speed of light)/(wavelength), the wavelength is INVARIABLE: 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 196065 by Pound, Rebka, and Snider at Harvard University..." University of Illinois at UrbanaChampaign: "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." "To see why a deflection of light would be expected, consider Figure 217, 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." Pentcho Valev 


The nonsense that killed physics:
Brian Greene: Einstein knew that constancy of the speed of light was nonsense but found it profitable to introduced it: 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 ofdespair." Space and time were vandalized accordingly  to fit the nonsensical constancy  and physics died (became insane): "Special relativity is based on the observation that the speed of light is always the same, independently of who measures it, or how fast the source of the light is moving with respect to the observer. Einstein demonstrated that as an immediate consequence, space and time can no longer be independent, but should rather be considered a new joint entity called "spacetime." Resurrection is still possible, but first Einstein's malignancies should beremoved and then the new physics should start from truth, not from nonsense. See more here: Pentcho Valev 


Einsteinians teach that light pulses bunch up in front of an emitter moving towards a receiver:
(Website: ) Bunching up is idiotic. We have (frequency measured by emitter) = (speed of pulses relative to emitter)/(distance between pulses) and if (distance between pulses) varies with the speed of the emitter, then either (frequency measured by emitter) or (speed of pulses relative to emitter) varies with the speed of the emitter as well. Either consequent is idiotic. (Distance between pulses) DOES NOT vary with the speed of the emitter. This justifies the new axiom on which future physics will be based: For a given emitter, the wavelength of light is invariable. Pentcho Valev 