Revolution in Physics: Just around the Corner

[Pentcho Valev]

"Was Einstein wrong? The idea of a variable speed of light, championed by an angry young scientist, could one day topple Einstein's theory of relativity. Einstein's famous equation E=mc^2 is the only scientific formula known to just about everyone. The "c" here stands for the speed of light. It is one of the most fundamental of the basic constants of physics. Or is it? In recent years a few maverick scientists have claimed that the speed of light might not be constant at all. Shock, horror! Does this mean the next Great Revolution in Science is just around the corner?" http://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/magazine/waseinsteinwrong/

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

If the speed of light is assumed constant (Einstein's physics), the formula

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

has absurd corollaries. In contrast, the formula has revolutionary corollaries if THE WAVELENGTH OF LIGHT IS ASSUMED CONSTANT (future, Einstein-free physics):

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

Pentcho Valev

[Pentcho Valev]

Richard Feynman: "I want to emphasize that light comes in this form - particles. It is very important to know that light behaves like particles, especially for those of you who have gone to school, where you probably learned something about light behaving like waves. I'm telling you the way it does behave - like particles. You might say that it's just the photomultiplier that detects light as particles, but no, every instrument that has been designed to be sensitive enough to detect weak light has always ended up discovering the same thing: light is made of particles." https://www.amazon.com/QED-Strange-Theory-Light-Matter/dp/0691024170

In this text Richard Feynman unwittingly suggests:

1. The speed of light varies as per Newton.

2. Variable wavelength of light (https://youtube.com/watch?v=xsVxC_NR64M) is an unrealistic wave-based concept. (In future, Einstein-free physics, the wavelength of light will be CONSTANT for a given emitter.)

Albert 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

Borrowed it from the nonexistent ether! And "resisted the temptation" to stick to truth:

Banesh Hoffmann, Relativity and Its Roots, p.92: "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. If it was so obvious, though, why did he need to state it as a principle? Because, having taken from the idea of light waves in the ether the one aspect that he needed, he declared early in his paper, to quote his own words, that "the introduction of a 'luminiferous ether' will prove to be superfluous." https://www.amazon.com/Relativity-Its-Roots-Banesh-Hoffmann/dp/0486406768

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

Pentcho Valev

[Andy Everett]

Still right after 116 years.

On Tuesday, August 3, 2021 at 9:28:52 PM UTC-4, Pentcho Valev wrote:
> "Was Einstein wrong?

No Einstein's special and general theory of relatity still the only game in town.

Pentcho Valev taken seriously by himself only.

[Solving Tornadoes]

On Wednesday, August 4, 2021 at 10:31:37 AM UTC-7, andyev...@gmail.com wrote:
> Still right after 116 years.
>
> On Tuesday, August 3, 2021 at 9:28:52 PM UTC-4, Pentcho Valev wrote:
> > "Was Einstein wrong?
>
> No Einstein's special and general theory of relatity still the only game in town.
>
> Pentcho Valev taken seriously by himself only.

Moroney, you are a moron. You don't understand it. Einstein himself admitted that he was not sure if he genuinely understood it.

The truth is nobody really knows.

Your opinion is irrelevant.

Go away. Go watch TV and leave science to people who understand it, you fucking worthless moron.

James McGinn / Genius

[Sergio]

On 8/4/2021 1:00 PM, Solving Tornadoes wrote:
> On Wednesday, August 4, 2021 at 10:31:37 AM UTC-7, andyev...@gmail.com wrote:
>> Still right after 116 years.
>>
>> On Tuesday, August 3, 2021 at 9:28:52 PM UTC-4, Pentcho Valev wrote:
>>> "Was Einstein wrong?
>>
>> No Einstein's special and general theory of relatity still the only game in town.
>>
>> Pentcho Valev taken seriously by himself only.
>

<snip crap>


nothing

[Michael Moroney]

On 8/4/2021 2:00 PM, Solving Tornadoes wrote:
> On Wednesday, August 4, 2021 at 10:31:37 AM UTC-7, andyev...@gmail.com wrote:
>> Still right after 116 years.
>>
>> On Tuesday, August 3, 2021 at 9:28:52 PM UTC-4, Pentcho Valev wrote:
>>> "Was Einstein wrong?
>>
>> No Einstein's special and general theory of relatity still the only game in town.
>>
>> Pentcho Valev taken seriously by himself only.
>
> Moroney, you

Andy Everett wrote that, not me.

> you are a moron. You don't understand it.

Are you so much of a tard you can't tell the difference between Andy and
myself?

>
> Your opinion is irrelevant.

Your (dumb) opinions are even more irrelevant since you are totally
ignorant of science.

>
> Go away. Go watch TV and leave science to people who understand it, you fucking worthless moron.

That certainly excludes you! You can't even produce observational and
experimental evidence for your claims!
>
> James McGinn / Tard
>

[Andy Everett]

On Wednesday, August 4, 2021 at 5:03:45 PM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote:
> On 8/4/2021 2:00 PM, Solving Tornadoes wrote:
> > On Wednesday, August 4, 2021 at 10:31:37 AM UTC-7, andyev...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> Still right after 116 years.
> >>
> >> On Tuesday, August 3, 2021 at 9:28:52 PM UTC-4, Pentcho Valev wrote:
> >>> "Was Einstein wrong?
> >>
> >> No Einstein's special and general theory of relatity still the only game in town.
> >>
> >> Pentcho Valev taken seriously by himself only.
> >
> > Moroney, you
> Andy Everett wrote that, not me.
> > you are a moron. You don't understand it.
> Are you so much of a tard you can't tell the difference between Andy and
> myself?
>
> >
> > Your opinion is irrelevant.
>
> Your (dumb) opinions are even more irrelevant since you are totally
> ignorant of science.
> >
> > Go away. Go watch TV and leave science to people who understand it, you fucking worthless moron.

He did propose an experiment using balloons, don't think it would have worked. But he did not even do the damn experiment. He has none, zero, nada experimental evidence and until he does he only makes a fool of himself here droning on.

He needs evidence which is had by preforming experiments. How much experimentation have you done Jim?

Don't get all pissed off if people don't buy your spiel. If you post your ideas here expect criticism.

[Solving Tornadoes]

On Wednesday, August 4, 2021 at 2:03:45 PM UTC-7, Michael Moroney wrote:
> On 8/4/2021 2:00 PM, Solving Tornadoes wrote:
> > On Wednesday, August 4, 2021 at 10:31:37 AM UTC-7, andyev...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> Still right after 116 years.
> >>
> >> On Tuesday, August 3, 2021 at 9:28:52 PM UTC-4, Pentcho Valev wrote:
> >>> "Was Einstein wrong?
> >>
> >> No Einstein's special and general theory of relatity still the only game in town.
> >>
> >> Pentcho Valev taken seriously by himself only.
> >
> > Moroney, you
> Andy Everett wrote that, not me.

How did you know Andy's full name since he (you) never revealed it before?

Checkmate.

[Jonathan]

On 8/3/2021 9:28 PM, Pentcho Valev wrote:



> "Was Einstein wrong?

You are so over-analyzing these ideas.

Answer this question. is a simple cloud water or vapor?

A cloud is a system that stands at the transition point
...between...water and vapor. Chaotically transitioning
back and forth between it's two possible physical states.

If you take a snapshot of a simple cloud what will you see?
You'll see...either water or vapor...depending on the
moment the observation was made.

It's the same for light, it's a system that stands at
the phase transition between it's possible states
which is a particle and a wave.

When you take a snapshot, just like a cloud, you'll
see one or the other, half the time.

Like the Mona Lisa smile, a system that can be
either opposite, sad or happy etc, depending upon
...the observer.


They are all abstractly defined as critically interacting
systems and define the fundamental starting point of
all visible order in the universe, from light
to an idea, and everything in between...


Natural Order - Self-Organizing Systems FAQ
Frequently Asked Questions

Definition of Complexity Theory

The main current scientific theory related to self-organization
is Complexity Theory, which states:


Critically interacting components self-organize to form
potentially evolving structures exhibiting a hierarchy
of emergent system properties.


The elements of this definition relate to the following:

Critically Interacting - System is information rich, neither
static nor chaotic

Components - Modularity and autonomy of part behaviour implied

Self-Organize - Attractor structure is generated by local
contextual interactions

Potentially Evolving - Environmental variation selects and
mutates attractors

Hierarchy - Multiple levels of structure and responses
appear (hyperstructure)

Emergent System Properties - New features are evident which
require a new vocabulary

https://naturalorder.info/self-organizingsystems.html#1.3





--
https://twitter.com/Non_Linear1

[Michael Moroney]

From: Andy Everett <andyev...@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20e0e46b-28cb-498b...@googlegroups.com>

You can't even read headers yet you claim to be a genius?

>
> Checkmate.
>
So sorry that you lost yet again, Tardboy.