VARIABLE SPEED OF LIGHT AND DIVINE EINSTEIN

[Pentcho Valev]

http://rt.com/news/225879-light-speed-slow-photons/
"Physicists manage to slow down light inside vacuum (...) ...even now the light is no longer in the mask, it's just the propagating in free space - the speed is still slow. (...) "This finding shows unambiguously that the propagation of light can be slowed below the commonly accepted figure of 299,792,458 metres per second, even when travelling in air or vacuum," co-author Romero explains in the University of Glasgow press release."

http://www.upi.com/Science_News/2015/01/23/Scientists-slow-down-light-particles/1191422035480
"The speed of light is a limit, not a constant - that's what researchers in Glasgow, Scotland, say. A group of them just proved that light can be slowed down, permanently."

http://www.digitaljournal.com/science/nasa-may-have-discovered-secret-to-faster-than-light-travel/article/432158
"The unpublished experiment that led to this exciting possibility was performed in the vacuum of space. After shooting laser beams into the EM Drive's resonance chamber, where the light is resonated to increase its intensity, researchers found that some of the beams of light were moving faster than the speed of light constant: approximately 300,000,000 meters per second. But just why the experiment led to light beams accelerating at superluminal speeds is still unanswered. The reason why the discovery was such a surprise to the team, is it has been accepted by the overwhelming majority of the science community that nothing could move faster than the speed of light. The speed of light is considered a constant which can't be passed. But, if the NASA findings prove to be true, it will put in question one of the corner stones of modern physics - Einstein's theory of relativity - which states that nothing can go faster than a beam of light."

Loading Image...

Divine Einstein

Yes we all believe in relativity, relativity, relativity

Michio Kaku, Brian Cox, Neil deGrasse Tyson, Brian Greene, Lisa Randall: "Light travels at the same speed no matter how you look at it. No matter how I move relative to you light travels at the same speed. No matter who is doing the measurement and no matter what direction you are moving the speed of light is the same. The speed of light is the same no matter what direction or how fast... As you travel faster time slows down. Everything slows down. Everything slows down. Time slows down when you move. Time passes at a different rate. Clocks run slow. It's a monumental shift in how we see the world. It's a beautiful piece of science. It's a beautifully elegant theory. It's a beautiful piece of science. It's a beautiful piece..."

Pentcho Valev

[Pentcho Valev]

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:

Loading Image... (stationary receiver)

Loading Image... (moving receiver)

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."

That is, the speed of the pulses relative to the stationary receiver is c=3d/t, but relative to the moving receiver is c'=4d/t=(4/3)c, where d is the distance between subsequent pulses and t is "the time it takes the source to emit three pulses".

This interpretation of the Doppler frequency shift clearly shows that Einstein's relativity is wrong - the speed of light relative to the observer (receiver) varies with the speed of the observer. Yet Divine Einstein remains:

Loading Image...
"The Riverside Church in New York, west portal - upper line, second of right. In 1930, during a stay in New York, Albert Einstein and his wife visited the Riverside Church, too. During the detailed guided tour through the church Einstein was also shown the sculptures at the west portal. He was told that only one of the sculptures there represented a living person, and that was he himself. What Einstein is supposed to have thought in that moment when he heard that information and saw himself immortalized in stone? Contemporaries reported that he looked at the sculpture calmly and thoughtfully."

Pentcho Valev

[Pentcho Valev]

Once upon a time the variable speed of light had an advantage over the constant speed of light: the Michelson-Morley experiment had confirmed it directly, without recourse to absurd additional assumptions (as Banesh Hoffmann puts it in the text below, "without recourse to contracting lengths, local time, or Lorentz transformations"):

http://ritz-btr.narod.ru/martinez2004pip6.pdf
Alberto Martinez: "In sum, Einstein rejected the emission hypothesis prior to 1905 not because of any direct empirical evidence against it, but because it seemed to involve too many theoretical and mathematical complications. By contrast, Ritz was impressed by the lack of empirical evidence against the emission hypothesis, and he was not deterred by the mathematical difficulties it involved. It seemed to Ritz far more reasonable to assume, in the interest of the "economy" of scientific concepts, that the speed of light depends on the speed of its source, like any other projectile, rather than to assume or believe, with Einstein, that its speed is independent of the motion of its source even though it is not a wave in a medium; that nothing can go faster than light; that the length and mass of any body varies with its velocity; that there exist no rigid bodies; that duration and simultaneity are relative concepts; that the basic parallelogram law for the addition of velocities is not exactly valid; and so forth. Ritz commented that "it is a curious thing, worthy of remark, that only a few years ago one would have thought it sufficient to refute a theory to show that it entails even one or another of these consequences...."

http://books.google.com/books?id=JokgnS1JtmMC
"Relativity and Its Roots" by Banesh Hoffmann, p.92: "There are various remarks to be made about this second principle. For instance, if it is so obvious, how could it turn out to be part of a revolution - especially when the first principle is also a natural one? 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."

Divine Albert's Divine Law:

Loading Image...

Pentcho Valev

[Pentcho Valev]

http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/emdrive-warp-drive-are-two-different-things-nasas-still-working-emdrive-1501268
"On 29 April, Nasa scientists wrote an article on Nasa Spaceflight that they had tested British scientist Roger Shawyer's controversial electromagnetic space propulsion technology called EmDrive and were unable to disprove their results, indicating that the technology worked. However forum users looking at the experiment results also found that when lasers were fired into the EmDrive's resonance chamber, some of the laser beams had travelled faster than the speed of light..."

http://royal.pingdom.com/2015/05/12/violating-the-laws-of-physics/
"Thrust measurements of the EmDrive defy classical physics' expectations", said the researchers, who have been testing the highly controversial electromagnetic space propulsion technology. They posted on the Nasa Spaceflight forum that when lasers were fired into the EmDrive's resonance chamber, some of the laser beams had travelled faster than the speed of light..."

"Nasa Spaceflight forum" above is a link in the paper but it leads to no information about laser beams travelling faster than the speed of light. Could the dangerous posts have been removed from the forum?

Pentcho Valev