THE END OF BOTH RELATIVITY AND COSMOLOGY ?

[Pentcho Valev]

http://phys.org/news/2014-06-physicist-slower-thought.html
"But what if that wasn't what it was, Franson wonders, what if light slows down as it travels... (...) If Franson's ideas turn out to be correct, virtually every measurement taken and used as a basis for cosmological theory, will be wrong. Light from the sun for example, would take longer to reach us than thought, and light coming from much more distant objects, such as from the Messier 81 galaxy, a distance of 12 million light years, would arrive noticeably later than has been calculated - about two weeks later. The implications are staggering - distances for celestial bodies would have to be recalculated and theories that were created to describe what has been observed would be thrown out. In some cases, astrophysicists would have to start all over from scratch."

http://www.sci-news.com/astronomy/science-universe-not-expanding-01940.html
"New evidence, based on detailed measurements of the size and brightness of hundreds of galaxies, indicates that the Universe is not expanding after all, says a team of astrophysicists led by Eric Lerner from Lawrenceville Plasma Physics. (...) Therefore if the Universe is not expanding, the redshift of light with increasing distance must be caused by some other phenomena - something that happens to the light itself as it travels through space."

Pentcho Valev

[Pentcho Valev]

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0262407911603059
New Scientist: "Vacuum has friction after all. A ball spinning in a vacuum should never slow down, right? Wrong. It turns out quantum effects can create a type of friction in the void."

HYPOTHESIS: As the photon travels through space (in a STATIC universe), it bumps into vacuum particles and as a result loses speed in much the same way that a golf ball loses speed due to the resistance of the air.

On this hypothesis the resistive force (Fr) is proportional to the the velocity of the photon (V):

Fr = - KV

That is, the speed of light decreases with time in accordance with the equation:

dV/dt = - K'V

Clearly, at the end of a very long journey of photons (coming from a very distant object), the contribution to the redshift is much smaller than the contribution at the beginning of the journey. Light coming from nearer objects is less subject to this difference, that is, the increase of the redshift with distance is closer to LINEAR for short distances. For distant light sources we have:

f' = f(exp(-kt))

where f is the original and f' the measured (redshifted) frequency. (The analogy with the golf ball requires that it be assumed that the speed of light and the frequency vary while the wavelength remains unchanged.) For short distances the following approximations can be made:

f' = f(exp(-kt)) ~ f(1-kt) ~ f - kd/L

where d is the distance between the light source and the observer and L is the wavelength. The equation f'=f-kd/L is only valid for short distances and corresponds to the Hubble law whereas the equation f'=f(exp(-kt)), by showing that later contributions to the redshift are smaller than earlier ones, provides an alternative explanation, within the framework of a STATIC universe, of the observations that brought the 2011 Nobel Prize for Physics to Saul Perlmutter, Adam Riess and Brian Schmidt. The analogy with the golf ball suggests that, at the end of a very long journey (in a STATIC universe), photons redshift much less vigorously than at the beginning of the journey.

Pentcho Valev

[Pentcho Valev]

Einstein's relativity should have never existed. Consider an observer who starts moving with (small) speed v towards the light source:

"Doppler effect - when an observer moves towards a stationary source. ...the velocity of the wave relative to the observer is faster than that when it is still."

The speed of the light relative to the observer OBVIOUSLY shifts from c to c'=c+v (in violation of Einstein's relativity), which causes the frequency measured by the observer to shift from f=c/L to f'=(c+v)/L, where L is either the wavelength or the distance between subsequent light pulses.

The latter shift cannot be doubted, and neither can the former. The only salvation for Einstein's relativity consists in assuming that, as the observer changes his speed from zero to v, this miraculously prompts the wavelength of the incoming light (or the distance between subsequent light pulses) to shift from L to cL/(c+v). No sane person would take this assumption seriously.

Pentcho Valev

[Pentcho Valev]

http://www.aip.org/history/einstein/essay-einstein-relativity.htm
John Stachel: "But here he ran into the most blatant-seeming contradiction, which I mentioned earlier when first discussing the two principles. As noted then, the Maxwell-Lorentz equations imply that there exists (at least) one inertial frame in which the speed of light is a constant regardless of the motion of the light source. Einstein's version of the relativity principle (minus the ether) requires that, if this is true for one inertial frame, it must be true for all inertial frames. 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."

Einstein did not wrestle at all. Only an insane person can seriously consider a scenario in which, as the observer starts moving towards the light source, the wavecrests start hitting him more frequently but their speed relative to him remains unchanged. Einstein was extremely dishonest but not insane.

Pentcho Valev

[Pentcho Valev]

http://www.aip.org/history/einstein/essay-einstein-relativity.htm
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?"

It cannot happen. It takes insanity to believe that, as the observer starts moving (towards or away from the light source), the frequency he measures shifts but the speed of the wavecrests (or light pulses) relative to him remains unchanged. Highly insane Einsteinians are able to openly declare that the speed of light does not change while demonstrating how it does change:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=EVzUyE2oD1w
Dr Ricardo Eusebi: "f'=f(1+v/c). Light frequency is relative to the observer. The velocity is not though. The velocity is the same in all the reference frames."

Sane Einsteinians sometimes forget to lie and teach the truth:

http://www.einstein-online.info/spotlights/doppler
Albert Einstein Institute: "The frequency of a wave-like signal - such as sound or light - depends on the movement of the sender and of the receiver. This is known as the Doppler effect. (...) Here is an animation of the receiver moving towards the source: (...) By observing the two indicator lights, 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: As the receiver moves towards each pulse, the time until pulse and receiver meet up is shortened. In this particular animation, which has the receiver moving towards the source at one third the speed of the pulses themselves, four pulses are received in the time it takes the source to emit three pulses."

Since "the distances between subsequent pulses are not affected", and since "four pulses are received in the time it takes the source to emit three pulses", the speed of the light as measured by the receiver is:

c' = 4d/t = (4/3)(3d/t) = (4/3)c

where d is the distance between subsequent pulses, t is "the time it takes the source to emit three pulses", and c=3d/t is the initial speed of the light (as measured by the source).

Pentcho Valev

[Pentcho Valev]

Time to mention the unpersons in Divine Albert's world. The great Bryan Wallace:

http://www.kritik-relativitaetstheorie.de/2013/02/the-farce-of-physics-2/
Bryan Wallace: "There is a popular argument that the world's oldest profession is sexual prostitution. I think that it is far more likely that the oldest profession is scientific prostitution, and that it is still alive and well, and thriving in the 20th century. I suspect that long before sex had any commercial value, the prehistoric shamans used their primitive knowledge to acquire status, wealth, and political power, in much the same way as the dominant scientific and religious politicians of our time do. (...) Because many of the dominant theories of our time do not follow the rules of science, they should more properly be labeled pseudoscience. The people who tend to believe more in theories than in the scientific method of testing theories, and who ignore the evidence against the theories they believe in, should be considered pseudoscientists and not true scientists. To the extent that the professed beliefs are based on the desire for status, wealth, or political reasons, these people are scientific prostitutes. (...) 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. (...) I expect that the scientists of the future will consider the dominant abstract physics theories of our time in much the same light as we now consider the Medieval theories of how many angels can dance on the head of a pin or that the Earth stands still and the Universe moves around it."

Note: Bryan Wallace wrote "The Farce of Physics" on his deathbed so one can find stylistic imperfections, undeveloped ideas etc.

See also:

http://sciliterature.50webs.com/SpecLetters1969-p361-367.pdf
Radar Testing of the Relative Velocity of Light in Space, Bryan G. Wallace, Spectroscopy Letters, 1969, pp. 361-367. ABSTRACT: "Published interplanetary radar data presents evidence that the relative velocity of light in space is c+v and not c." INTRODUCTION: "There are three main theories about the relativity velocity of light in space. The Newtonian corpuscular theory is relativistic in the Galilean sense and postulates that the velocity is c+v relative to the observer. The ether theory postulates that the velocity is c relative to the ether. The Einstein theory postulates that the velocity is c relative to the observer. The Michelson-Morley experiment presents evidence against the ether theory and for the c+v theory. The c theory explains the results of this experiment by postulating ad hoc properties of space and time..."

http://ebooks.adelaide.edu.au/o/orwell/george/o79n/chapter1.4.html
George Orwell: "Withers, however, was already an unperson. He did not exist : he had never existed."

Pentcho Valev

[Pentcho Valev]

One of the silliest arguments in Einsteiniana ("the speed of light is constant by definition"):

http://motls.blogspot.fr/2014/06/fransons-breakthrough-concerning-speed.html
Lubos Motl: "The journalists "conclude" that the speed of light isn't or wasn't 299,792,458 m/s even though one meter is currently defined in such a way that it's guaranteed that the speed of light, if it's defined at all, is equal to this constant. Saying that the speed of light isn't 299,792,458 m/s is as tautologically false as if you define "two" as "one plus one" and then you claim that it isn't equal to "one plus one". It just can't happen. You're shown to be a complete imbecile if you write similar things, and most of those journalists do. If the neutrinos coming from the Supernova 1987a discussed in the paper were "really" arriving faster than the photons, and if it were because they are intrinsically faster (and not because they were created earlier), and be sure that this "if" cannot be realized in the real world, then it would mean that the neutrinos' speed was higher than 299,792,458 m/s but the photons's speed was by definition 299,792,458 m/s."

Lubos Motl is famous for his silly arguments in defence of Divine Albert's Divine Theory - in 2006 he discovered that Einstein's second potulate morally follows from the first:

http://motls.blogspot.com/2006/12/lorentz-violation-and-deformed-special.html
Lubos Motl: "The second postulate of special relativity morally follows from the first one once you promote the value of the speed of light to a law of physics which is what Einstein did."

Pentcho Valev

[Pentcho Valev]

http://www.nature.com/news/gravitational-waves-discovery-now-officially-dead-1.16830
Gravitational waves discovery now officially dead (see also my comment)

Pentcho Valev