• Einstein's Constant Speed of Light and Big Brother's 2+2=5

    From Pentcho Valev@21:1/5 to All on Fri Jan 21 05:26:29 2022
    Einstein's constant speed of light is just as obviously nonsensical as Big Brother's 2+2=5. Consider an observer who starts moving towards the light source:

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

    The frequency at the observer shifts, which implies that either the speed of light relative to the observer shifts proportionally, or the distance between light pulses shifts inversely proportionally. Unless one is insane or imbecile, the following
    conclusion is obvious:

    Frequency and speed of light shift proportionally for the moving observer; distance between light pulses remains constant.

    Why do physicists keep worshiping a lie which is just as obviously nonsensical as 2+2=5? Because modern physics is predicated on the lie and would collapse without it. In this regard, telling the truth is suicidal:

    "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/dp/0738205257

    "The whole of physics is predicated on the constancy of the speed of light," Joao Magueijo, a cosmologist at Imperial College London and pioneer of the theory of variable light speed, told Motherboard. "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

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

    Pentcho Valev

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Pentcho Valev@21:1/5 to All on Fri Jan 21 12:07:08 2022
    The speed of light is VARIABLE AS PER NEWTON, as originally ("without recourse to contracting lengths, local time, or Lorentz transformations") proved by the Michelson-Morley experiment:

    "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

    This implies that Einstein's spacetime does not exist and neither do LIGO's gravitational waves (ripples in spacetime). Theoreticians admit that spacetime does not exist but worship the underlying premise, Einstein's constant-speed-of-light nonsense, and
    the ripples in spacetime (post-sanity science):

    Nima Arkani-Hamed: "Almost all of us believe that space-time doesn't really exist, space-time is doomed and has to be replaced..." https://youtu.be/U47kyV4TMnE?t=369

    Nobel Laureate David Gross observed, "Everyone in string theory is convinced...that spacetime is doomed. But we don't know what it's replaced by." https://www.edge.org/response-detail/26563

    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

    "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 in order to come up with a unified theory that reconciles the
    disparate worlds of quantum mechanics and gravity - one the most pressing challenges to modern physics." https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20727721-200-rethinking-einstein-the-end-of-space-time/

    "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." http://discovermagazine.com/2014/jan-feb/10-shaping-the-future-of-physics

    More here: https://twitter.com/pentcho_valev

    Pentcho Valev

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)