Einstein used to teach that variable speed of light, w = c - v in the text below, "comes into conflict with the principle of relativity". This misleads the public into believing that the speed of light must be constant (otherwise the principle of relativity would be violated):

Albert Einstein: "If a ray of light be sent along the embankment, we see from the above that the tip of the ray will be transmitted with the velocity c relative to the embankment. Now let us suppose that our railway carriage is again travelling along the railway lines with the velocity v, and that its direction is the same as that of the ray of light, but its velocity of course much less. Let us inquire about the velocity of propagation of the ray of light relative to the carriage. It is obvious that we can here apply the consideration of the previous section, since the ray of light plays the part of the man walking along relatively to the carriage. The velocity W of the man relative to the embankment is here replaced by the velocity of light relative to the embankment. w is the required velocity of light with respect to the carriage, and we have w = c - v. The velocity of propagation of a ray of light relative to the carriage thus comes out smaller than c. But this result comes into conflict with the principle of relativity set forth in Section 5." http://www.bartleby.com/173/7.html

Feynman's "car" thought experiment is an obvious plagiarism of Einstein's "carriage" thought experiment, with the same fraudulent argument:

Richard Feynman: "Suppose we are riding in a car that is going at a speed u, and light from the rear is going past the car with speed c. Differentiating the first equation in (15.2) gives dx'/dt=dx/dt-u, which means that according to the Galilean transformation the apparent speed of the passing light, as we measure it in the car, should not be c but should be c-u. For instance, if the car is going 100,000 mi/sec, and the light is going 186,000 mi/sec, then apparently the light going past the car should go 86,000 mi/sec. In any case, by measuring the speed of the light going past the car (if the Galilean transformation is correct for light), one could determine the speed of the car. A number of experiments based on this general idea were performed to determine the velocity of the earth, but they all failed - they gave no velocity at all." http://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/I_15.html

Perhaps Feynman was honest in his own field, quantum electrodynamics? No he wasn't:

"Quantum Electrodynamics is rotten at the core" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xaC_aKqjCXU&t=11s

"Forget about Quantum Electrodynamics" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wvz4MRpq6xs

Pentcho Valev https://twitter.com/pentcho_valev

On 2023-05-07 11:15:37 +0000, Notorious liar Pentcho Valev said:

>
> [ … ]
>
> Perhaps Feynman was honest in his own field, quantum electrodynamics?
> No he wasn't:

So says perhaps the most dishonest contributor to this group.

--
athel -- biochemist, not a physicist, but detector of crackpots

Richard Feynman: "A very interesting example of the slowing of time with motion is furnished by muons, which are particles that disintegrate spontaneously after an average lifetime of 2×10^(−6) sec. They come to the earth in cosmic rays, and can also be produced artificially in the laboratory. Some of them disintegrate in midair, but the remainder disintegrate only after they encounter a piece of material and stop. It is clear that in its short lifetime a muon cannot travel, even at the speed of light, much more than 600 meters. But although the muons are created at the top of the atmosphere, some 10 kilometers up, yet they are actually found in a laboratory down here, in cosmic rays. How can that be? The answer is that different muons move at various speeds, some of which are very close to the speed of light. While from their own point of view they live only about 2 μsec, from our point of view they live considerably longer - enough longer that they may reach the earth." http://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/I_15.html

The fraud is subtle here. "Muons, which are particles that disintegrate spontaneously after an average lifetime of 2×10^(−6) sec" sounds like "The average lifespan for domestic cats is 12-14 years". The public is brainwashed into believing that 2×10^(−6) sec is the norm for muons, just as 12-14 years is the norm for cats. 2×10^(−6) sec is even called "lifetime of muons at rest", implying that, normally, muons are "at rest".

Actually, what is called "lifetime of muons at rest" is the postcatastrophic lifetime of muons that have crashed into the detector at a speed close to the speed of light and naturally disintegrate faster than muons in flight (similarly, the postcatastrophic lifetime of car drivers "at rest" is shorter than the lifetime of drivers in motion):

"The lifetime of muons at rest...Some of these muons are stopped within the plastic of the detector and the electronics are designed to measure the time between their arrival and their subsequent decay. The amount of time that a muon existed before it reached the detector had no effect on how long it continued to live once it entered the detector. Therefore, the decay times measured by the detector gave an accurate value of the muon's lifetime. After two kinds of noise were subtracted from the data, the results from three data sets yielded an average lifetime of 2.07x 10^(-6)s, in good agreement with the accepted value of 2.20x 10^(-6)s." http://cosmic.lbl.gov/more/SeanFottrell.pdf

"In order to measure the decay constant for a muon at rest (or the corresponding mean-life) one must stop and detect a muon, wait for and detect its decay products, and measure the time interval between capture and decay. Since muons decaying at rest are selected, it is the proper lifetime that is measured. Lifetimes of muons in flight are time-dilated (velocity dependent), and can be much longer." https://studylib.net/doc/7955628/the-proper-lifetime-of-the-muon

Pentcho Valev https://twitter.com/pentcho_valev

Feynman was a cheat but still he unwittingly contributed to the downfall of Einstein's physics by declaring this:

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." QED: The Strange Theory of Light and Matter p. 15 https://www.amazon.com/QED-Strange-Theory-Light-Matter/dp/0691024170

Feynman's words, if taken at face value, imply that the concept of VARIABLE wavelength of light (and, accordingly, of CONSTANT speed of light), as illustrated here

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xsVxC_NR64M

is unrealistic. Actually, a lot of evidence suggests that the wavelength of light, in ANY scenario, depends only on the nature of the emitting substance and is constant otherwise.

"The wavelength of light is constant" will become the fundamental axiom of future, Einstein-free physics (if theoretical physicists have not irreversibly destroyed the potential for rational thinking). Here are some corollaries of the new axiom:

Corollary 1: Any frequency shift entails (is caused by) a proportional speed-of-light shift.

Corollary 2: If the emitter and the observer travel towards each other with relative speed v, the speed of light relative to the observer is c' = c+v, as posited by Newton's theory.

Corollary 3: Spacetime and gravitational waves (ripples in spacetime) don't exist. LIGO's "discoveries" are fakes.

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.

Corollary 5: The so-called cosmological (Hubble) redshift is due to the speed of light gradually slowing down as light travels through vacuum, in a non-expanding universe.

Corollary 6: The dark sky in the Olbers' paradox can be explained by two facts. 1. Low-speed, high-redshifted light (known as CMB), coming from very distant sources, is invisible. 2. Beyond a certain distance, the star light does not reach us at all (its speed is reduced to zero).

Pentcho Valev https://twitter.com/pentcho_valev