Search FQXi


If you are aware of an interesting new academic paper (that has been published in a peer-reviewed journal or has appeared on the arXiv), a conference talk (at an official professional scientific meeting), an external blog post (by a professional scientist) or a news item (in the mainstream news media), which you think might make an interesting topic for an FQXi blog post, then please contact us at forums@fqxi.org with a link to the original source and a sentence about why you think that the work is worthy of discussion. Please note that we receive many such suggestions and while we endeavour to respond to them, we may not be able to reply to all suggestions.

Please also note that we do not accept unsolicited posts and we cannot review, or open new threads for, unsolicited articles or papers. Requests to review or post such materials will not be answered. If you have your own novel physics theory or model, which you would like to post for further discussion among then FQXi community, then please add them directly to the "Alternative Models of Reality" thread, or to the "Alternative Models of Cosmology" thread. Thank you.

Forum Home
Introduction
Terms of Use

Order posts by:
 chronological order
 most recent first

Posts by the author are highlighted in orange; posts by FQXi Members are highlighted in blue.

By using the FQXi Forum, you acknowledge reading and agree to abide by the Terms of Use

 RSS feed | RSS help
RECENT POSTS IN THIS TOPIC

Pentcho Valev: on 3/5/22 at 15:48pm UTC, wrote Joao Magueijo, Niayesh Afshordi, Stephon Alexander: "So we have broken...

Georgina Woodward: on 3/5/22 at 1:01am UTC, wrote There are two separate ideas to think about. First is the periodic motion...

Pentcho Valev: on 3/3/22 at 11:07am UTC, wrote Joao Magueijo's words below imply that, if the speed of light is variable...

Pentcho Valev: on 3/2/22 at 20:41pm UTC, wrote VARIABLE wavelength of light https://youtu.be/3mJTRXCMU6o?t=77 is another...

Anonymous: on 3/2/22 at 17:26pm UTC, wrote "The Doppler effect is common to all wave phenomena, including light, sound...

Pentcho Valev: on 3/2/22 at 11:33am UTC, wrote Einstein's Original Nonsense Waves: Frequency and speed vary...

Pentcho Valev: on 2/28/22 at 0:15am UTC, wrote The root of evil in physics is Einstein's constant-speed-of-light...



FQXi FORUM
May 22, 2022

ARTICLE: Over Gravity's Rainbow [back to article]
Bookmark and Share
Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Pentcho Valev wrote on Feb. 28, 2022 @ 00:15 GMT
The root of evil in physics is Einstein's constant-speed-of-light falsehood. Physicists know that. Some start telling the truth sometimes but then stop halfway. Modern physics is based on the falsehood and would collapse without it. In this regard, telling the truth is suicidal:

Joao Magueijo, Niayesh Afshordi: "The whole of physics is predicated on the constancy of the speed of light...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-spee
d-slowed

Doppler effect in light (moving observer):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bg7O4rtlwEE

The speed of the light pulses as measured by 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 as measured by the moving observer is

c'= df' > c

where f' > f is the frequency measured by the moving observer. Believing that c'=c is equivalent to believing that 2+2=5.

See more here: https://twitter.com/pentcho_valev

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Pentcho Valev wrote on Mar. 2, 2022 @ 11:33 GMT
Einstein's Original Nonsense

Waves: Frequency and speed vary proportionally for a moving observer.

Particles: Frequency and speed vary proportionally for a moving observer.

Light in Einstein's relativity: Frequency varies but speed gloriously remains constant for a moving observer.

Einstein wrestled with his conscience "over a lengthy period of time, to the point of despair" before introducing the nonsense:

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

See more here: https://twitter.com/pentcho_valev

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Anonymous wrote on Mar. 2, 2022 @ 17:26 GMT
"The Doppler effect is common to all wave phenomena, including light, sound and water waves. When a wave source is moving towards an observer, the source appears to be catching up with the waves as it emits them. They therefore tend to bunch up in front of the source and arrive at the observer with a higher frequency." https://people.physics.anu.edu.au/~cms130/TEE/site/tee/learn
ing/doppler/doppler.html

Catching up means that the waves slow down relative to the moving wave source. Relative to a sufficiently fast moving source, the waves would be extremely slow. This is true for sound and water waves, but is it true for light? If not, why does the observer measure higher frequency when the light source is moving?

Answer: Because the speed of light varies with the speed of the source, as per Newton:

"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

See more here: https://twitter.com/pentcho_valev

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Pentcho Valev wrote on Mar. 2, 2022 @ 20:41 GMT
VARIABLE wavelength of light https://youtu.be/3mJTRXCMU6o?t=77 is another root of evil in modern physics. It violates the principle of relativity. If the wavelength varied with the speed of the emitter, as in the above video, the emitter would measure the variations inside his spaceship and so would know his speed without looking outside.

The formula

(frequency) = (speed of light)/(wavelength)

tolerates two axioms:

Axiom 1: The speed of light is constant.

Axiom 2: The wavelength of light is constant (for a given emitter).

Axiom 1 killed physics.

Axiom 2 will resurrect it (if it's not too late). Corollaries:

Corollary 1: Any frequency shift entails (is caused by) a proportional speed-of-light shift.

Corollary 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, as per Newton's theory.

Corollary 3: Spacetime and gravitational waves (ripples in spacetime) don't exist. LIGO's "discoveries" are fake.

Corollary 4: 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, there is no gravitational time dilation: Einstein's general relativity is absurd.

Corollary 5: The Hubble redshift is due to light slowing down as it travels through vacuum. The universe is not expanding.

See more here: https://twitter.com/pentcho_valev

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate
Georgina Woodward replied on Mar. 5, 2022 @ 01:01 GMT
There are two separate ideas to think about. First is the periodic motion of the electromagnetic radiation reflected or emitted into the environment. That depends on characteristics of the source such as material and temperature. The speed at which the EMr travels depends upon the medium. Secondly there is how the EMr is distributed in the environment, which can affect how/when it is intercepted. Point one concerns the EMr. the 'light itself' Point 2 concerns relation to the environment and observers, affecting the appearance of the light. 'Bunched up' waves intercepted will have the appearance of higher frequency. But the speed of the periodic EMr,'light ' is only effected by the nature of the environment. Not how it was distributed by the source nor what the observer does and sees.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Pentcho Valev wrote on Mar. 3, 2022 @ 11:07 GMT
Joao Magueijo's words below imply that, if the speed of light is variable (it is!), fundamental physics has been long dead - nowadays exists in a zombie state.

Dead physics means dying civilization. Are you killing the civilization, theoretical physicists?

"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

"If there's one thing every schoolboy knows about Einstein and his theory of relativity, it is that the speed of light in vacuum is constant. No matter what the circumstances, light in vacuum travels at the same speed... The speed of light is the very keystone of physics, the seemingly sure foundation upon which every modern cosmological theory is built, the yardstick by which everything in the universe is measured. [...] The only aspect of the universe that didn't change was the speed of light. And ever since, the constancy of the speed of light has been woven into the very fabric of physics, into the way physics equations are written, even into the notation used. Nowadays, to "vary" the speed of light is not even a swear word: It is simply not present in the vocabulary of physics." https://www.amazon.com/Faster-Than-Speed-Light-Speculation/d
p/0738205257

See more here: https://twitter.com/pentcho_valev

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Pentcho Valev wrote on Mar. 5, 2022 @ 15:48 GMT
Joao Magueijo, Niayesh Afshordi, Stephon Alexander: "So we have broken fundamentally this Lorentz invariance which equates space and time [...] It's the other postulate of relativity, that of constancy of c, that has to give way..." https://youtu.be/kbHBBtsrU1g?t=1431

"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=mc², 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 http://www.amazon.com/Faster-Than-Speed-Light-Speculation/dp
/0738205257

"You want to go back to a notion of space-time that preceded the 20th century, and it wants to ignore the essential lessons about space-time that the 20th century has taught us." Joao Magueijo: "Yes, that's right. So it's nouveau-Newtonian." At 53:31 here: http://pirsa.org/displayFlash.php?id=16060116

So Joao Magueijo discovered that special relativity is "the root of all the evil", broke the Lorentz invariance, adopted the Newtonian space-time, and teaches...general relativity:

https://www.imperial.ac.uk/people/j.magueijo/teac
hing.html

See more here: https://twitter.com/pentcho_valev

Pentcho Valev

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Please enter your e-mail address:
Note: Joining the FQXi mailing list does not give you a login account or constitute membership in the organization.