Speed of light proven to NOT be constant in 1964?

[Anonymous No.11790147]

I've dug myself into a crazy anti-relativism rabbit hole the past few days and came across this paper by a Dr. Bryan G. Wallace that proved that the speed of light is not constant and is instead relative by analysing radar data. It seems like it has been effectively suppressed by the Western physics establishment, as most of the (scant) citations of the paper are papers published in Russia. Anyone come across this before? The paper seems to check out from my cursory glance. Why isn't this a bigger sensation?

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00387016908050941?journalCode=lstl20

Check out the citations in Google Scholar, other reputable scientists have provided corroborating evidence and have confirmed this effect.

[Anonymous No.11790154]

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00387017108064620

Another paper by the same guy, this is absolutely insane.

[Anonymous No.11790169]

Relativity is pseudoscience

[Anonymous No.11790182]

>>11790147
The fact that we have been able to photograph a black hole proves general relativity.

[Anonymous No.11790188]

https://vixra.org/pdf/1510.0062v1.pdf

[Anonymous No.11790191]

http://www.journalpsij.com/index.php/PSIJ/article/view/23380

Another paper that also proves the non-constancy of the speed of light and cites the paper in OP. I'll see if I can dig up some more evidence that anons may find interesting, because this is an absolutely bombshell implication.

>>11790169

I agree with this, it does not make any sense when you think about it and it seems like the historical development of it is inconsistent with the ideas that were put forward prior to Einstein publishing his paper. I think he even claimed later in his life that he was wrong, but this was obviously suppressed as it means all the billions of dollars spent on "basic physics research" has been a total waste of money.

[Anonymous No.11790236]

>>11790182

This isn't an actual image of a blackhole and it's not raw radio data. If you read the paper, you'll see that the image has actually been assembled by "processing" and "calibration" the raw image data and I'd say they've tried very hard to get the data to fit their theory. It's more of a simulation than an actual image.

[Anonymous No.11790305]

Good summary (published in Physics Letters) of the various experiments that have proven the non-constancy of the speed of light.

Standard model, LHC, and establishment politician scientists BTFO for all eternity.

https://digilander.libero.it/VNereo/r-a-monti-theory-of-relativity-a-critical-analysis.pdf

[Anonymous No.11790312]

>>11790147
You're a retard, einstein himself said that variable speed of light was possible.
>“The principle of the constancy of the speed of light can be kept only when one restricts oneself to space-time regions of constant gravitational potential.” - 1912, Einstein
Educate yourself nigger, no one is hiding it.

[Anonymous No.11790342]

>>11790154

This reads like it is saying the motion of light is being affected by stellar media. The idea that light is affected by the medium it is travelling through is known, see the index of refraction.

Constancy of C is the speed light travels in a true vacuum (only approximately testable).

[Anonymous No.11790351]

>>11790312

Except the consensus in research and all the theories that have been developed so far is resting on the second postulate. If the speed of light is variable and relative then the entire Big Bang theory and the expanding universe is completely untenable as it would be relying on extremely shaky foundations.

[Anonymous No.11790363]

>>11790312

I was unaware of this quote.

This has been an interesting thread.

[Anonymous No.11790366]

>>11790147
We already know light can be variable, C isn’t the speed of light it’s the speed of massless particles in a pure vacuum you shizoposter

[Anonymous No.11790369]

>>11790342

The paper is not supporting the idea that the speed of light is affected by stellar media, it's showing that the speed of light is relative (hence c+v).

[Anonymous No.11790380]

>>11790366

>"Light and all other forms of electromagnetic radiation are propagated in empty space with a constant velocity c which is independent of the motion of the observer or the emitting body."

[Anonymous No.11790425]

>>11790380
>in empty space
did you finish high school ?

[Anonymous No.11790513]

>>11790147
>one study debunks all of relativity
Did you fail high school physics?

[Anonymous No.11790520]

>>11790147
Its well known to not be constant dumbass.
Just the shifts are so irrelevant that its not even taken in consideration for 99% of the stuff.

[Anonymous No.11791469]

>>11790182
That's a plasmoid.

[Anonymous No.11791478]

>>11790366
Speed is irrelevant, in the absence of time.

[Anonymous No.11791514]

>>11791478
The speed of light is assigned relative to the time experienced by all other observers. Hypothetically, if something which experienced time could move the speed of light, which they can't, it would be about 3 x 10^8.

[Anonymous No.11791526]

This putting up of light on a pedestal doesn't really accomplish anything. Time moves along whether light is present or not and doesn't care at what speed light moves at. Space doesn't care about the speed of light either. It's just space. It's the light itself that cares about space and time, not the other way around. But what light really cares about is how resistive the environment it's moving through is. Electricity conducts based on the conductivity which is basically a lack of resistance of the material it is travelling in. Light is similar. Light conducts better the lower the resistance of the environment. The problem is that we don't fully understand general resistance of various areas because we don't account for all the electromagnetic components of systems such as heat and electromagnetic noise and assume it's nothing. Light moves pretty fast even in high resistance environments, so we have no real idea how fast light can travel when it moves into a lower resistance environment like for say outside the solar system or outside the galaxy. If it were logarithmic the speed could potentially be magnitudes faster with even the tiniest reduction of resistance at that scale.

[Anonymous No.11791530]

>>11790147
Yes I have been telling you idiots this since 2015 why you'd dumb fucks would post /x/ and schizo. Let this be a lesson to you how stupid not only the people here are but how stupid the people everywhere are and the liars in academia and media propping up those lies

[El Arcón No.11791531]

Seems like the one who looks like Einstein is not my buddy.

[Anonymous No.11791535]

>>11790147
Well first of all, light doesn't travel/move, it reproduces. So the term "speed of light" is misleading.

[Anonymous No.11791554]

>>11790147

> What is Light? | Space News
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SZ5ZWbVWMBU

[Anonymous No.11791557]

>>11790147
Knowing how anti-relativist retards like you operate, there are four options.
1) The study outright doesn't exist.
2) It exists, but doesn't say what you think it does.
3) It exists, and does say that, but it was wrong, and thus ignored nowadays. Scientists are people too. They fuck up too.
4) They go the "vaccine cause autism" route and outright fabricate the study's results.

And no, there is option where you are right. Knock it off, you look dumb.

[Anonymous No.11791563]

>>11791478
What a stupid thing to say.

[Anonymous No.11791611]

>>11790236
This is true and a fair point. However, the EHT team is working to add as many more radio telescopes to the array as they can, and with more telescopes the number of required judgment calls to produce the final image will go down by a lot. This black hole image was not an end goal as the media hyped it to be, but rather a proof-of-concept for a technology that will drastically improve in the coming decades.

[Anonymous No.11791635]

>>11791514
Answer me this

I'm a ship, that can displace gravity around me, to achieve the speed of light. I use this ship to travel at light speed to a star system 10 light years away. How will I or the ship know when to stop? The trip would seem almost instantaneous. Even if I gradually speed up and gradually down, when does the gradual decline start? How would I or my ship ever know when to stop? Could it be simple enough that mass creates time displacement, and the reason it would be an instant trip at light speed is because light is basically free of mass? Help me understand this.

[Giorno Giovanna No.11791641]

speed of deez nuts

[Anonymous No.11791674]

>>11791635
Answer me this: How do you displace gravity? AND how does that help you achieve the speed of light? Explain using real physics.

[Anonymous No.11791678]

>>11791557
Return to reddit.

[Anonymous No.11791707]

[Anonymous No.11791710]

>>11791674

That would require current physics to not have unexplainable gaps, but I will at least attempt to humor you, even though you completely avoided answering my question.

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/30499/the-truth-is-the-military-has-been-researching-anti-gravity-for-nearly-70-years

Read this, it's absolutely fascinating.

[Anonymous No.11791956]

>>11791710
Mind blown. That article took me down a one hour rabbit hole, and probably will consume the rest of my night. Incredible read.

[Anonymous No.11792521]

>>11791710
Wtf