The Speed of Light Is Variable, Not Constant

[Pentcho Valev]

"The meaning of reductio ad absurdum is disproof of a proposition by showing an absurdity to which it leads when carried to its logical conclusion."

Einstein's 1905 proposition that the speed of light is constant clearly leads to absurdities. Example:

View: https://youtu.be/Xrqj88zQZJg?t=499


Sarah sees the train fall without disintegration while Adam sees the train disintegrate and fall section by section. This is absurd, even by the relativistic standards. Special relativity does not allow events occurring in one inertial frame to be qualitatively different in the other.

Conclusion: Einstein's 1905 proposition is false. The speed of light is variable, not constant.

 

[Classical Motion]

An emission is a volume acceleration resulting in a linear incident constant velocity, relative to itself. The emissions are discreet and intermittent and have a duty cycle, not an alternating waveform. They have a duty cycle. The emitter velocity can only change the phase, or arrival time, of the discreet propagation. The detector velocity changes the duration(period) AND the arrival time equally.

Using a known frequency, the change of phase(arrival time) of detected signal(CW signal) only, with no period change, will be a proportional of the incident change in displacement of emitter. The incident proportion of change in emitter position.

A change in period of the known frequency at the detector, will be proportional in the incident change of detector position. If both are moving, then both changes can occur.

Emissions are chunks of durations, not streaming durations. Duty cycle. The "frequency" only comes from "ringing" the detector. A mass reaction. Inertia. An inertia artifact.

The evidence of relative radio velocity is within every phase or frequency change of a detected radio signal.

Relative velocity modulates an un-modulated signal. Always has. Because time and length are absolute.

From the Classic point of view.

 

[Classical Motion]

If I might jump in for just a minute, the clock problem can be solved with a rotating shaft. The real problem is determining when, the emission starts. With our present wave theory, the emission is like a speaker and takes time to emit. Maybe I should ask when does the emission end?

Does the emission take time to emit? Can we emit one photon from a dipole antenna?

Is emission discreet, or is it continuous? The input is analog and in theory, takes 360 degrees of input for a one wavelength emission. Does this really happen? Can we input one sine and get one wavelength out?

This should be easy to check with our precise digital electronics we have now.

 

[Pentcho Valev]

Sabine Hossenfelder: "I do not doubt that the gravitational wave detections are real. But. I spend a lot of time on science communication, and I know that many of you doubt that these detections are real. And, to be honest, I cannot blame you for this doubt. " http://backreaction.blogspot.com/2019/11/have-we-really-measured-gravitational.html

The speed of light is variable as per Newton's theory



so spacetime and gravitational waves (ripples in spacetime) don't exist. Theoretical physicists know that:

Nima Arkani-Hamed: "Almost all of us believe that spacetime doesn't really exist, spacetime is doomed and has to be replaced..."

View: https://youtu.be/U47kyV4TMnE?t=369


Philip Ball: "And by making the clock's tick relative - what happens simultaneously for one observer might seem sequential to another - Einstein's theory of special relativity not only destroyed any notion of absolute time but made time equivalent to a dimension in space: the future is already out there waiting for us; we just can't see it until we get there. This view is a logical and metaphysical dead end, says [Lee] Smolin." http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2013/jun/10/time-reborn-farewell-reality-review

"Bye bye space-time: is it time to free physics from Einstein's legacy?" https://www.newscientist.com/articl...t-time-to-free-physics-from-einsteins-legacy/

"Rethinking Einstein: The end of space-time...Horava, who is at the University of California, Berkeley, wants to rip this fabric apart and set time and space free from one another..." https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20727721-200-rethinking-einstein-the-end-of-space-time/

What scientific idea is ready for retirement? Steve Giddings: "Spacetime. Physics has always been regarded as playing out on an underlying stage of space and time. Special relativity joined these into spacetime...The apparent need to retire classical spacetime as a fundamental concept is profound..." https://www.edge.org/response-detail/25477

"We've known for decades that space-time is doomed," says Arkani-Hamed. "We know it is not there in the next version of physics." https://www.discovermagazine.com/the-sciences/amplituhedron-may-shape-the-future-of-physics

 

[Pentcho Valev]

"On 8:41 am EDT August 17, 2017, LIGO detected a new gravitational wave source, dubbed GW170817 to mark its discovery date. Just two seconds later NASA's Fermi satellite detected a weak pulse of gamma rays from the same location of the sky." https://www.si.edu/newsdesk/releases/astronomers-see-light-show-associated-gravitational-waves

"Just two seconds later" and "the same location of the sky" implies that gravitational waves and gamma rays travelled hand in hand: same gravitationally deflected path, same speed, same Shapiro delay; if some cosmic matter blocked gamma rays, it equally blocked the accompanying gravitational waves. This is unrealistic, isn't it?

Natalia Kiriushcheva was the only establishment physicist who found courage to hint at the truth (LIGO's gravitational waves are fakes):

"On September 16, 2010, a false signal - a so-called "blind injection" - was fed into both the Ligo and Virgo systems as part of an exercise to "test ... detection capabilities". At the time, the vast majority of the hundreds of scientists working on the equipment had no idea that they were being fed a dummy signal. The truth was not revealed until March the following year, by which time several papers about the supposed sensational discovery of gravitational waves were poised for publication. "While the scientists were disappointed that the discovery was not real, the success of the analysis was a compelling demonstration of the collaboration's readiness to detect gravitational waves," Ligo reported at the time. But take a look at the visualisation of the faked signal, says Dr Kiriushcheva, and compare it to the image apparently showing the collision of the twin black holes, seen on the second page of the recently-published discovery paper. "They look very, very similar," she says. "It means that they knew exactly what they wanted to get and this is suspicious for us: when you know what you want to get from science, usually you can get it." The apparent similarity is more curious because the faked event purported to show not a collision between two black holes, but the gravitational waves created by a neutron star spiralling into a black hole. The signals appear so similar, in fact, that Dr Kiriushcheva questions whether THE "TRUE" SIGNAL MIGHT ACTUALLY HAVE BEEN AN ECHO OF THE FAKE, "STORED IN THE COMPUTER SYSTEM from when they turned off the equipment five years before"." https://www.thenational.ae/arts-cul...to-make-waves-as-black-holes-collide-1.188114

Kiriushcheva immediately disappeared from public debate, converted into an unperson perhaps:

George Orwell: "Withers, however, was already an unperson. He did not exist: he had never existed."

 

[Helio]

I don't see any real problem with the 1.7 sec. delay.

Wiki addresses this even nicely,... here.

Regarding, "We've known for decades that space-time is doomed," says Arkani-Hamed. "We know it is not there in the next version of physics."...

You left out this part of the paragraph...
"Though the collisions described by the amplituhedron still occur in space-time, the object itself is outside it." [my underline].

His object that supposedly resides outside of space, except during collisions, apparently, is certainly interesting.

 

[Classical Motion]

Why are ANY and ALL velocities relative? Because velocity has two components. Velocity is a compound term. It has direction......which means it has angle. And it has speed.

Angle and speed......determine interaction time. This controls the energy transfer time. AND the energy/time of reaction. When mass or matter is stimulated, it reacts to that stimulus with an equal reaction time, IN the opposite direction. Mass and matter.......bounces force and energy(stimulus). Inertia hits back.

If spacetime were true, and the V of light was constant to the detector......there would never be a phase change OR a frequency change with propagation. And of course we see that change all the time.

No new theories and no new physics are needed to disprove spacetime. And explain the true narrative of light.

But you will never understand these things as long as you try to measure a flux. Modern science can not handle or discern a flux. To this very day. This lack of discernment leads to a narrative that light is a continuous stream.....like a wave does. Like a flux of intermittences does. Just like current does. Electric charge flow is intermittent too. But it forms in a flux, and appears to be continuous. BUT it's really a flux of on and offs. The bounce of charge has many directions and can not be measured. But the acceleration of that charge is aligned in the same direction and can be measured as current. There is just as much charge that bounces.....as is the current we measure. But the bounce has many directions, the current has one direction.

One photon from one emitter is the only way to see these things....for a spacetime scientist.

Light is intermittent and has a duty cycle, not an alternating frequency. Light blinks. It's on and off. All light is on for 1/2 period and off 1/2 period. It's there, and then, it's not there. On and off. A true digital natural dynamic.

This dynamic explains all of our measurements of light.......using absolute time and absolute length.

Numbers are self related. When you use numbers.....YOU add that mathematical relationship.....NOT nature. WE have given all objects/entities a mathematical relationship.....NOT nature.

Math is a hubris authority.

 

[Pentcho Valev]

"The Overton window is a political concept that describes how the public's opinion on a subject can be changed. It states that ideas that were previously considered preposterous can become accepted in the long run...In the first stage, cannibalism is in the lowest acceptance level in the Overton window. Society considers it immoral. It's considered disgusting and preposterous. At this point, the window is closed and unmoving. To begin changing public opinion, scientists start studying it. For scientists, there shouldn't be any taboo subjects...After stage 1, the idea has gone from being unthinkable to being discussed. In the second stage, people begin to accept the idea. With scientists' conclusions, society views those who refuse to acquire knowledge about the subject intransigent. People who resist will start to be seen as fanatics who oppose science." https://exploringyourmind.com/overton-window/

Any 1904 intellectual would find the claims in the following text preposterous:

Thibault Damour: "The paradigm of the special relativistic upheaval of the usual concept of time is the twin paradox. Let us emphasize that this striking example of time dilation proves that time travel (towards the future) is possible. As a gedanken experiment (if we neglect practicalities such as the technology needed for reaching velocities comparable to the velocity of light, the cost of the fuel and the capacity of the traveller to sustain high accelerations), it shows that a sentient being can jump, "within a minute" (of his experienced time) arbitrarily far in the future, say sixty million years ahead, and see, and be part of, what (will) happen then on Earth. This is a clear way of realizing that the future "already exists" (as we can experience it "in a minute")." http://www.bourbaphy.fr/damourtemps.pdf

Nowadays the claim that "a sentient being can jump, within a minute (of his experienced time) arbitrarily far in the future, say sixty million years ahead" is universally acceptable.

Similarly, "speed of light independent of the speed of the observer" was preposterous nonsense initially. Einstein wrestled with his conscience "over a lengthy period of time, to the point of despair" before positing 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 of despair." https://history.aip.org/exhibits/einstein/essay-einstein-relativity.htm

Nowadays "speed of light independent of the speed of the observer" is a universally accepted truth. Anyone who opposes it automatically becomes crackpot, crank, troll etc.

 

[Pentcho Valev]

"This paper investigates an alternative possibility: that the critics were right and that the success of Einstein's theory in overcoming them was due to its strengths as an ideology rather than as a science. The clock paradox illustrates how relativity theory does indeed contain inconsistencies that make it scientifically problematic. These same inconsistencies, however, make the theory ideologically powerful. [...] The gatekeepers of professional physics in the universities and research institutes are disinclined to support or employ anyone who raises problems over the elementary inconsistencies of relativity. A winnowing out process has made it very difficult for critics of Einstein to achieve or maintain professional status. Relativists are then able to use the argument of authority to discredit these critics. Were relativists to admit that Einstein may have made a series of elementary logical errors, they would be faced with the embarrassing question of why this had not been noticed earlier. Under these circumstances the marginalisation of antirelativists, unjustified on scientific grounds, is eminently justifiable on grounds of realpolitik. Supporters of relativity theory have protected both the theory and their own reputations by shutting their opponents out of professional discourse. [...] The triumph of relativity theory represents the triumph of ideology not only in the profession of physics bur also in the philosophy of science." Peter Hayes, The Ideology of Relativity: The Case of the Clock Paradox https://tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/02691720902741399

Peter Hayes is lecturer in politics (https://www.sunderland.ac.uk/about/staff/history/peterhayes/) but his criticism is much deeper than any criticism produced by a theoretical physicist (e.g. Lee Smolin or Peter Woit).

The French philosopher Jacques Maritain compares the destruction of human mind caused by Einstein's relativity to material destructions caused by world wars:

Jacques Maritain, Oeuvres complètes, Volume 3, p. 285: "Il ne reste plus alors qu'à avouer que la théorie [d'Einstein], si l'on donnait une signification ontologiquement réelle aux entités qu'elle met en jeu, comporterait des absurdités; entièrement logique et cohérente comme système hypothético-déductif et synthèse mathématique des phénomènes, elle n'est pas, malgré les prétensions de ses partisans, une philosophie de la nature, parce que le principe de la constance de la vitesse de la lumière, sur lequel elle s'appuie, ne peut pas être ontologiquement vrai." p. 300: "La science, même la plus mélangée d'hypothétique et de probable, même la moins élevée en intellectualité, la science est chose bonne en elle-même, et qui détient une étincelle divine. On a vu toutefois ce qu'elle peut produire, lorsqu'elle est employée par l'homme, en fait de ruines matérielles et de destructions sanglantes. Les désastres qu'en usant d'elle les apprentis sorciers peuvent provoquer dans l'ordre de l'esprit, pour être invisibles, ne sont pas moins énormes." http://www.amazon.ca/Oeuvres-complètes-Jacques-Maritain/dp/2850492752

Translation: Jacques Maritain, Complete Works, Volume 3, p. 285: "It only remains then to admit that [Einstein's] theory, if one gave an ontologically real meaning to the entities it brings into play, would include absurdities; entirely logical and coherent as a hypothetico-deductive system and mathematical synthesis of phenomena, it is not, despite the claims of its supporters, a philosophy of nature, because the principle of the constancy of the speed of light, on which it is based, cannot be ontologically true." p. 300: "Science, even the most mixed of hypothetical and probable, even the least elevated in intellectuality, science is a thing good in itself, and which holds a divine spark. We have seen, however, what it can produce, when used by man, in terms of material ruins and bloody destruction. The disasters that by using it the sorcerer's apprentices can cause in the order of mind, even though invisible, are no less enormous."

 

[Classical Motion]

The speed and the direction, the velocity, of emitted light IS constant to itself. This emission can change speed and direction later, with the interaction with mass. A lot of these conversations are actually semantic differences.

Because it depends on what reference one uses. Just because the "speed" of light is constant, does not mean that the interaction of light and mass will always be the same. The velocity of the emitter....and the velocity of the detector can and does affect the light/mass interaction. And the interaction time is what counts.

This interaction duration affects the rate of energy transferred AND the reaction rate to that transfer. The interaction time is varied with relative motion. Both speed and angle. Ampere documented angle relativity and Weber documented the speed or rate relativity, decades before Einstein. Angle and rate is always relative to our observations and measurements.

If you are standing still, and a ladder flies by you at a constant V, you can count a certain number of rungs when that ladder flies by. Rungs/sec. If you are moving towards that ladder, the rate of rungs, increases. If you are moving away, the rate of rungs decreases. When the emitter moves, only the space between the rungs changes. And when the detector moves, BOTH the space and rung durations change the same amount. And ALL this time, the ladder V is constant. But your motion changed the rate of rungs. SO, your motion IS relevant to the stimulus time and the reaction time to that stimulus. And not just your speed.......your angle is relevant too. Angle can vary interaction time too. SO your speed(or rate) and your angle, which IS your velocity, does affect your observation and your measurement. Even though the light ray has a constant V. V = speed and direction.

There is a physical reason that light has a constant V, because that speed is already...and always there. Before emission EM fields are rotating at c. Emission is a directional change in that angular EM field. The EM field, collapses, out. Emission is the change in direction, from angular, to linear........and EM fields have no inertia. That allows the change in direction to occur.....in an instant. In a snap. A very quick strobe of outward electrical disturbance. EM emission blinks a chunk of EM disturbance. It does not "wave". The "wave", comes from detection. The "wave" is the stimulus + the reaction to that stimulus. We detect that intermittence as a wave. From the inertia reaction of our detectors.

Our light measurements prove the concept of absolute time and length. From every part of our universe. And for all the time of the universe.

In the future, when we can develop a reaction-less detector, and much faster switches to sample with, we will be able to observe this narrative. And put spacetime to bed.

I believe we can see this dynamic now, with low frequency radio emissions. I believe that if you can figure out how to emit one photon from a low frequency dipole, it will change this world.

The constant V of light is extremely valuable. For because of it, if we could sample light like we sample radio, we could pinpoint the relative velocity of all emitters. And at the same time, pinpoint OUR relative V to that emitter. If we plot our relative V to a selection of multi-directional sources........we could plot our relative V......to a stationary point in space. We might be able to calculate our absolute V.....to space point. A stationary point.

But for now, the mass reaction(inertia) of our detectors will not allow us to see this. And that inertia error, increases with rate. It CURVES our measurements. So much so, that some believe this curve is part of physicality. But that curve is just an inertial measurement error.

And great time and money is spent on this un-reconized CURVE error. A whole science of error.

And I know what it's like to be called a crackpot. I have been ridiculed for years with my classic explanations....like the idea that quantum steps....also means physical size, not just energy. And I hear they have finally seen this dynamic with their fusion experiments. Classical science predicted the change in size of particles with energy level over one hundred years ago. Classical science is the only science that has presented a physical model for mass and matter.........and it has never failed to physically explain what we see and measure.

 

[Pentcho Valev]

Einstein's 1905 first postulate, the principle of relativity, is true, but his second postulate, the constancy of the speed of light, is obviously false. In order to camouflage this obvious falsehood, Einstein deduced the second postulate from the first one, relying on the following logical principle:

If the premise (principle of relativity) is true, and if the consequence (constancy of the speed of light) is validly deduced from the premise, then the consequence is true as well.

The crucial word is "validly". Einstein's deduction was invalid but in physics logical invalidity is difficult to detect. Here is the deduction:

The speed of light is constant, c, because, if it is variable ("comes out smaller than c"), then "this result comes into conflict with the principle of relativity".

Albert Einstein: "If a ray of light be sent along the embankment, we see from the above that the tip of the ray will be transmitted with the velocity c relative to the embankment. Now let us suppose that our railway carriage is again travelling along the railway lines with the velocity v, and that its direction is the same as that of the ray of light, but its velocity of course much less. Let us inquire about the velocity of propagation of the ray of light relative to the carriage. It is obvious that we can here apply the consideration of the previous section, since the ray of light plays the part of the man walking along relatively to the carriage. The velocity W of the man relative to the embankment is here replaced by the velocity of light relative to the embankment. w is the required velocity of light with respect to the carriage, and we have w = c - v. The velocity of propagation of a ray of light relative to the carriage thus comes out smaller than c. But this result comes into conflict with the principle of relativity set forth in Section 5." http://www.bartleby.com/173/7.html

Richard Feynman parroted Einstein's invalid deduction (exactly the same fraudulent assertion: the principle of relativity prevents the speed of light from being variable, c'=c-u):

Richard Feynman: "The principle of relativity was first stated by Newton, in one of his corollaries to the laws of motion: “The motions of bodies included in a given space are the same among themselves, whether that space is at rest or moves uniformly forward in a straight line.” This means, for example, that if a space ship is drifting along at a uniform speed, all experiments performed in the space ship and all the phenomena in the space ship will appear the same as if the ship were not moving, provided, of course, that one does not look outside...Suppose we are riding in a car that is going at a speed u, and light from the rear is going past the car with speed c...according to the Galilean transformation the apparent speed of the passing light, as we measure it in the car, should not be c but should be c-u. For instance, if the car is going 100,000 mi/sec, and the light is going 186,000 mi/sec, then apparently the light going past the car should go 86,000 mi/sec. In any case, by measuring the speed of the light going past the car (if the Galilean transformation is correct for light), one could determine the speed of the car. A number of experiments based on this general idea were performed to determine the velocity of the earth, but they all failed - they gave no velocity at all." https://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/I_15.html

Today's Einsteinians diligently teach Einstein's invalid deduction. The constancy of the speed of light follows from the principle of relativity, they proclaim, and that's it:

Dave Slaven: "Einstein's first postulate seems perfectly reasonable. And his second postulate follows very reasonably from his first. How strange that the consequences will seem so unreasonable." http://webs.morningside.edu/slaven/Physics/relativity/relativity3.html

Professor Raymond Flood: "A consequence of Einstein's principle of relativity is that the speed of light in vacuum has the same value in two uniformly moving frames of reference."

View: https://youtu.be/IjRSYv7u3T4?t=304


Chad Orzel: "The core idea of Einstein's theory of relativity can fit on a bumper sticker: The Laws Of Physics Do Not Depend On How You're Moving. Absolutely everything else follows from the simple realization that physics must appear exactly the same to person in motion as to a person at rest - the constant speed of light, the slowing of time for moving observers, E=mc2, black holes, even the expanding universe (I've written a whole book about this, explained through imaginary conversations with my dog)." http://www.forbes.com/sites/chadorzel/2015/05/29/four-reasons-to-not-fear-physics/

Michael Fowler: "Therefore, demanding that the laws of physics are the same in all inertial frames implies that the speed of any light wave, measured in any inertial frame, must be 186,300 miles per second. This then is the entire content of the Theory of Special Relativity: the Laws of Physics are the same in any inertial frame, and, in particular, any measurement of the speed of light in any inertial frame will always give 186,300 miles per second." http://galileo.phys.virginia.edu/classes/109/lectures/spec_rel.html

Leonard Susskind: "The principle of relativity is that the laws of physics are the same in every reference frame. That principle existed before Einstein. Einstein added one law of physics - the law of physics is that the speed of light is the speed of light, c. If you combine the two things together - that the laws of physics are the same in every reference frame, and that it's a law of physics that light moves with certain velocity, you come to the conclusion that light must move with the same velocity in every reference frame. Why? Because the principle of relativity says that the laws of physics are the same in every reference frame, and Einstein announced that it is a law of physics that light moves with a certain velocity."

View: https://youtu.be/toGH5BdgRZ4?t=626

 

[Pentcho Valev]

The formula

(frequency at observer) = (speed of light pulses relative to observer)/(distance between subsequent pulses)

contradicts Einstein's relativity in a very obvious way. It says that frequency and speed of light vary proportionally for a moving observer/receiver (which is fatal for relativity) unless the motion of the observer/receiver miraculously shrinks or stretches the distances between subsequent pulses. Such shrinking or stretching is so absurd that even Einsteinians explain it away, explicitly or implicitly, and so unwittingly disprove Einstein's relativity. Here is an example:

Max Planck Institute for Gravitational Physics: "You can see for yourself that, once more, there is a blue-shift - 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." https://www.einstein-online.info/en/spotlight/doppler/

 

[Pentcho Valev]

The most preposterous syllogism in the history of science:

Premise 1: The laws of physics are the same in every inertial frame (principle of relativity).

Premise 2: Einstein said that the speed of light is a law of physics.

Conclusion: The speed of light is the same in every inertial frame.

Leonard Susskind: "The principle of relativity is that the laws of physics are the same in every reference frame. That principle existed before Einstein. Einstein added one law of physics - the law of physics is that the speed of light is the speed of light, c. If you combine the two things together - that the laws of physics are the same in every reference frame, and that it's a law of physics that light moves with certain velocity, you come to the conclusion that light must move with the same velocity in every reference frame. Why? Because the principle of relativity says that the laws of physics are the same in every reference frame, and Einstein announced that it is a law of physics that light moves with certain velocity."

View: https://youtu.be/toGH5BdgRZ4?t=626

 

[Classical Motion]

Please replace the waves in that 2D animation with pulses........and you get a totally different outcome. Try it.

 

[Pentcho Valev]

Please replace the waves in that 2D animation with pulses........and you get a totally different outcome. Try it.

But they ARE pulses:

So says the original text. I don't understand your suggestion.

 

[Classical Motion]

A wave is a continuous analog alternating function. Frequency. A pulse is a digital function. Duty cycle. Do you see the difference that motion interaction would have with these different functions?

For instance, in the 2D diagram of your article, it shows the concentric waves of a moving emitter, following the emitter. The waves distort around the emitter. But pulses would never do that. Each wave of a pulse has one constant convergence point. But with waves....that origin point moves with the emitter. Waves stretch and pile up.

Radio pulses never stretch or pile up. Only the timing of the pulses changes. This is why the shift of light is asymmetric and not Doppler, like sound is. Light is nature's digital dynamic.

We just need faster switches. To measure this timing. Or perhaps a new heterodyning method. We need to measure the pulse durations.......not the frequency of the detector. The detector will output a frequency. If we could some how null the detector reaction/inertia, we could make these measurements today, with low frequency radio.

Maybe one of these new quantum sensors might be non reactionary, or perhaps hold the stimulation. And freeze it for study. Could we paint a EM pattern into a condensate? Record and recall it?

So much to do if we had a one photon source.

 

[Classical Motion]

The word pulse for radio, is a short string of "waves". This pulse takes a duration.

The radio pulses do NOT behave like emission pulses/strobes do. But are similar. Because of intermittence. But there is another important difference. The act of emission is instant and has no duration. The propagation is a chunk of duration. The radio pulse emission does have duration. The chunk of a radio pulse has the same duration of emission as the duration of the propagation.

So a radio pulse demonstrates the intermittent property of light only, but not the instant emission property of light. This is important to properly understand shift.

And probably will not be recognized until we study single photons.

 

[Pentcho Valev]

Brainwashing plus humour:

Neil deGrasse Tyson, Death by Black Hole: And Other Cosmic Quandaries, pp. 123-124: "If everyone, everywhere and at all times, is to measure the same speed for the beam from your imaginary spacecraft, a number of things have to happen. First of all, as the speed of your spacecraft increases, the length of everything - you, your measuring devices, your spacecraft - shortens in the direction of motion, as seen by everyone else. Furthermore, your own time slows down exactly enough so that when you haul out your newly shortened yardstick, you are guaranteed to be duped into measuring the same old constant value for the speed of light. What we have here is a COSMIC CONSPIRACY OF THE HIGHEST ORDER." https://www.amazon.com/Death-Black-Hole-Cosmic-Quandaries/dp/039335038X

Just brainwashing (no humour):

"In special relativity, the speed of light remains constant by allowing both space and time to change in such a way as to keep the speed of light constant." https://coursehero.com/tutors-probl...tivity-the-speed-of-light-is-the-same-for-al/

"Einstein pulled all of these ideas together in his 1905 theory of special relativity, which postulated that the speed of light was a constant. For this to be true, space and time had to be combined into a single framework that conspired to keep light's speed the same for all observers." https://www.livescience.com/space-time.html

Brian Greene: "If space and time did not behave this way, the speed of light would not be constant and would depend on the observer's state of motion. But it is constant; space and time do behave this way. Space and time adjust themselves in an exactly compensating manner so that observations of light's speed yield the same result, regardless of the observer's velocity." http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/physics/special-relativity-nutshell.html

Michelle Thaller: "All of the universe shifts around this constant, the speed of light."

View: https://youtube.com/watch?v=DO7J2YIz8tY

 

[Pentcho Valev]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1613538798750646273

View: https://twitter.com/fermatslibrary/status/1613538798750646273


The derivation says nothing about whether or not the speed of light relative to an observer varies with the speed of that observer. Maxwell believed that it did vary:

John Norton: "[Maxwell's] theory allows light to slow and be frozen in the frame of reference of a sufficiently rapidly moving observer." http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/papers/Chasing.pdf

The speed of light relative to an observer OBVIOUSLY varies with the speed of the observer. Consider Doppler effect (moving observer):

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


The speed of the light pulses relative to the stationary observer is

c = df

where d is the distance between subsequent pulses and f is the frequency at the stationary observer. The speed of the pulses relative to the moving observer is

c' = df' = c+v

where f' = (c+v)/d is the frequency at the moving observer.

 

[Helio]

I think it was the Michelson-Morley experiment that demonstrated that light speed is independent of other motions.

 

[Pentcho Valev]

I think it was the Michelson-Morley experiment that demonstrated that light speed is independent of other motions.

In 1887 (prior to the introduction of the length-contraction fudge factor), the Michelson-Morley experiment unequivocally proved that the speed of light varies with the speed of the emitter, as posited by Newton's theory:

"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

Banesh Hoffmann, Einstein's co-author, admits that, originally ("without recourse to contracting lengths, local time, or Lorentz transformations"), the Michelson-Morley experiment was compatible with Newton's variable speed of light, c'=c±v, and incompatible with the constant speed of light, c'=c:

"Moreover, if light consists of particles, as Einstein had suggested in his paper 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 the null 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 thought of in terms of waves in an ether." Banesh Hoffmann, Relativity and Its Roots, p.92 https://www.amazon.com/Relativity-Its-Roots-Banesh-Hoffmann/dp/0486406768

 

[Pentcho Valev]

In Einstein's physics, since the speed of light is postulated to be constant, any frequency shift entails (is caused by) an inversely proportional wavelength shift, in accordance with the formula

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

This inverse proportionality between frequency shift and wavelength shift is obvious nonsense. For instance, when the observer starts moving relative to the light source, there is a frequency shift at the observer but there is no wavelength shift:

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


"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 wavelength is staying the same in this case."

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


Actually, the wavelength of light is constant not only in the moving-observer scenario - it is constant in ANY scenario. So the fundamental axiom in future, Einstein-free physics will be:

The wavelength of light is constant.

The fundamental axiom, combined with the formula (frequency)=(speed of light)/(wavelength), entails the following 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 posited by Newton's theory.

Corollary 3: Spacetime and gravitational waves (ripples in spacetime) don't exist.

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.

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

Corollary 6: The dark sky in the Olbers' paradox can be explained by the fact that very slow light coming from very distant sources (known as CMB) is invisible.

 

[Pentcho Valev]

"Is the space inside, say, a galaxy growing but overcome by the gravitational attraction between the stars? The answer is no. Space within any gravitationally bound system is unaffected by the surrounding expansion."

View: https://youtu.be/bUHZ2k9DYHY?t=356


Sabine Hossenfelder: "The solution of general relativity that describes the expanding universe is a solution on average; it is good only on very large distances. But the solutions that describe galaxies are different - and just don't expand. It's not that galaxies expand unnoticeably, they just don't. The full solution, then, is both stitched together: Expanding space between non-expanding galaxies...It is only somewhere beyond the scales of galaxy clusters that expansion takes over." http://backreaction.blogspot.bg/2017/08/you-dont-expand-just-because-universe.html

So cosmologists apply the expansion solutions only to voids deprived of galaxies; to galaxies and galactic clusters they apply nonexpansion solutions. Why do cosmologists resort to this trick? Because, if they applied expansion solutions to galaxies and galactic clusters, observations would immediately disprove the expansion theory. Here is why:

If expansion is actual inside galaxies and galactic clusters, the competition between expansion and gravitational attraction would distort those cosmic structures - e.g. fringes only weakly bound by gravity would succumb to expansion and fly away. And the theory, if it takes into account the intragalactic expansion, will have to predict the distortions.

But no distortions are observed - there is really no expansion inside galaxies and galactic clusters. And cosmologists, without much publicity, have simply made the theory consistent with this fact.

Since there is no expansion inside galaxies and galactic clusters, there is no expansion anywhere else.

 

[Ed Stauffer]

The dark cycle of dark matter/energy circulation is similar to the water cycle on earth. I think it is present in solar systems and galaxies as it regulates the dark matter content of both.
Dark matter transitions to dark energy at zero g or equivalent.
Dark energy transitions to dark matter if sufficient heat and gravity are present.
Dark matter is also condensed in stars and Inactive black holes.
Think of spacetime as a soap bubble that is stretched by dark matter converting to dark energy once it gets far enough from a gravity well. The soap is composed of the quarks, leptons and gluons from which spacetime originated.

 

[Pentcho Valev]

The concept of variable wavelength of light is so obviously wrong:

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 the source 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." http://www.fisica.net/relatividade/stephen_hawking_a_brief_history_of_time.pdf

So, according to Einsteinian physics, the wavelength at the emitter is a function of the speed of the emitter, or, vice versa, the speed of the emitter is a function of the wavelength at the emitter:

View: https://youtu.be/3mJTRXCMU6o?t=77


But this directly contradicts the principle of relativity. If the wavelength at the emitter varied, the emitter could regularly measure the variations inside his spaceship - so he would know his spaceship's speed without looking outside. If, for instance, measurements inside the spaceship show that the wavelength has decreased, the emitter will conclude that his spaceship is now moving faster than before.

The wavelength of light depends only on the nature of the emitting substance and is constant otherwise. In future, Einstein-free physics the wavelength of light will be nothing more than an invariable proportionality factor in the formula

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