


Albert Einstein Institute: "Here is an animation of the receiver moving towards the source:
Stationary receiver: Moving receiver: By observing the two indicator lights, you can see for yourself that, once more, there is a blueshift  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] Website: Valid argument: Premise 1: (frequency measured by receiver) = (speed of pulses relative to receiver)/(distance between subsequent pulses) Premise 2 (quotation): "the distances between subsequent pulses are not affected, but still there is a frequency shift" Conclusion: There is a shift in the speed of the pulses relative to the receiver. The speed of light is VARIABLE. Since the invariable distance between the pulses is analogous to wavelength, the wavelength of light is INVARIABLE. Pentcho Valev 


Stationary observer and moving observer:
The speed of the pulses relative to the stationary observer is c = df where d is the distance between the pulses and f is the frequency measured by the stationary observer. The speed of the pulses relative to the moving observer is c'= df' > c where f' > f is the frequency measured by the moving observer. The speed of light is VARIABLE, the wavelength of light (represented by the distance d in this case) is INVARIABLE. Pentcho Valev 


Einsteinians teach that the wavelength VARIES with the speed of the light source:
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 is absurd. We have wavelength = (speed of the light relative to the source)/(frequency produced by the source) where (frequency produced by the source) is obviously independent of the speed of the source. So if the wavelength varied with the speed of the source, then (speed of the light relative to the source) would vary with the speed of the source as well, which is impossible of course. The wavelength of light is INVARIABLE. Pentcho Valev 


"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. A paradigm shift is needed replacing Einstein's false constantspeedoflight axiom with a new, correct axiom: The new axiom: For a given emitter, THE WAVELENGTH OF LIGHT IS INVARIABLE. Here are four 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: Any frequency shift entails (is caused by) a speedoflight shift. Conclusion 2: 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 3: 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 4: The Hubble redshift is due to light slowing down as it travels through vacuum. The universe is STATIC, not expanding. Pentcho Valev 


The formula
(frequency) = (speed of light)/(wavelength) says that any frequency shift entails either a speedoflight shift or a wavelength shift. Einstein's 1905 axiom "The speed of light is invariable" implies that any frequency shift entails a wavelength shift, which is idiotic. The new axiom "The wavelength of light is invariable" implies that any frequency shift entails (is caused by) a speedoflight shift. Pentcho Valev 


As light falls in gravity, its speed and frequency increase proportionally:
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." This means that, given the formula (frequency)=(speed of light)/(wavelength), the wavelength of light in a gravitational field is INVARIABLE. The science of physics is facing a paradigm shift: Any light source emits INVARIABLE wavelength. This fact, taken as a fundamental axiom, produces logical consequences thatput an end to Einstein's idiocies and restore rationality in science (if it's not too late for that). Pentcho Valev 