Absolute Truth in Physics : Variable Speed of Light

[Pentcho Valev]

There is absolute truth in science. Of the following two statements one is absolutely true, the other is false:

(A) The speed of light, as measured by the observer (receiver), varies with the speed of the emitter.

(B) The speed of light, as measured by the observer (receiver), does not vary with the speed of the emitter.

Einstein hesitated between (A), a tenet of Newton's theory, and (B), a tenet of the ether theory, and finally chose (B) as his 1905 second postulate:

Einstein: "I introduced the principle of the constancy of the velocity of light, which I borrowed from H. A. Lorentz's theory of the stationary luminiferous ether." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz_ether_theory

The true statement is (A):

The statement (B) proved extremely malignant. Its metastases killed the whole branch of science called "physics", as the following texts imply:

Bryan Wallace: "Einstein's special relativity theory with his second postulate that the speed of light in space is constant is the linchpin that holds the whole range of modern physics theories together. Shatter this postulate, and modern physics becomes an elaborate farce!...The speed of light is c+v." http://www.kritik-relativitaetstheorie.de/2013/02/the-farce-of-physics-2/ Note: Bryan Wallace wrote "The Farce of Physics" on his deathbed so one should not judge him too severely for (numerous) imperfections.

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-speed-slowed

"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 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/dp/0738205257

 

[Ed Stauffer]

Turn a piece of paper on its side draw a horizontal line down 1/4 of the left side of the paper.
that was the initial state of the universe.
now draw another horizontal line of the same length 25% of the way down the middle of the paper.
now draw another horizontal line of the same length at 99% of the way up the paper.
now your light beam crosses line 1 and drops down to the gravity well of line 2
the light crosses line2 enters a void and rises to line 3
rhe original distance light travelled was left to right but now it has to go a lot further.
did the universe expand or did spacetime just deform.
either way the light travels further.
does light travel faster or slower crossing the vertical sections
now along the way there is vacuum energy popping in and out half on each side of the line at assorted distances from the line the odds are it will appear closer to the line.
now when the light crosses the void there is a much higher chance of encountering the vacuum energy
did the light slow down for the speed bumps

 

[Pentcho Valev]

Doppler effect - when an observer moves towards a stationary light source:

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

(A) The motion of the observer does not change the wavelength of the incoming light, so frequency and speed of light vary proportionally for the observer, in violation of Einstein's relativity.

(B) The motion of the observer does change the wavelength of the incoming light so that the speed of light can gloriously remain constant for the moving observer.

The true statement, of course, is (A). This is obvious even in Einstein's schizophrenic world:

"The wavelength is staying the same in this case."

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MHepfIIsKcE


"Thus, the moving observer sees a wave possessing the same wavelength...but a different frequency...to that seen by the stationary observer." http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/315/Waveshtml/node41.html

"Vo is the velocity of an observer moving towards the source. This velocity is 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 not alter the wavelength. The increase in frequency is a result of the observer encountering more wavelengths in a given time." http://a-levelphysicstutor.com/wav-doppler.php

The statement (B) is too preposterous, even by the standards of the Einstein Cult, so Einsteinians do not teach it explicitly. Sometimes high priests in the Einstein Cult do teach it but, in order to confuse the public and paralyse any criticism, they say that that the observer "sees" the wavelength changed (the public should desperately commute between "there is no real change" and "there IS real change"):

Kip Thorne: "If you move toward the [light] source, you see the wavelength shortened but you don't see the speed changed."

View: https://youtu.be/mvdlN4H4T54?t=296


John Norton: "Here's a light wave and an observer. If the observer were to hurry towards the source of the light, the observer would now pass wavecrests more frequently than the resting observer. That would mean that moving observer would find the frequency of the light to have increased (and correspondingly for the wavelength - the distance between crests - to have decreased)." http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/teaching/HPS_0410/chapters/big_bang_observed/index.html

 

[Atlan0001]

I repeat here, as you keep doing:

I don't see the real space-real time object anywhere. I see only the relative space-relative time light-image subject. There are three points to consider, two objectively real points and one subjectively relative point, in the actual, the real, picture, not two! It becomes a matter of 3-point triangulation, not a matter of 1-dimensional line between two points, one objectively real point and one subjectively relative point. You, too, keep on playing a false game. You, too, keep going with a false picture.

The fast picture, the very fast picture, is the unobserved, the unobservable, real picture between the two objectively real points. The slow picture, the very slow picture, is the observed, the observable, relative picture between either of the objectively real points and the subjectively relative point. Only the constancy of the speed of light ('c') forces the picture to a geometry of 3-point (real * | relative * | real *) [expansive / contractive] geometric triangulation rather than 2-point (objectively real * | subjectively relative *) line.

They did 2-point (real * / relative *) 1-dimensional line thinking all the way. You do 2-point (real * / relative *) 1-dimensional line thinking, just as they do, all the way. There ends up no real difference between you. Not only that, it looks, to me, to confuse you constantly dealing in exactly the same line picture, just trying to deal in it differently. That whole picture of a 1-dimensional single-line between just two points, just between two points [only], is the mess.

 

[ahmedfathy]

Absolute relativity is the solution to linking the components of science and the world and is based mainly on one equation, which links the reproduction of dimensions with light
F=E^2/hc