A false axiom, e.g. Big Brother's 2+2=5 or Einstein's 1905 constant-speed-of-light postulate, entails absurdities which require rejecting the axiom (reductio ad absurdum). In certain political and social conjunctures, however, one accepts and even worships the absurdities:

Thibault Damour: "The paradigm of the special relativistic upheaval of the usual concept of time is the twin paradox. Let us emphasize that this striking example of time dilation proves that time travel (towards the future) is possible. As a gedanken experiment (if we neglect practicalities such as the technology needed for reaching velocities comparable to the velocity of light, the cost of the fuel and the capacity of the traveller to sustain high accelerations), it shows that a sentient being can jump, "within a minute" (of his experienced time) arbitrarily far in the future, say sixty million years ahead, and see, and be part of, what (will) happen then on Earth. This is a clear way of realizing that the future "already exists" (as we can experience it "in a minute")." http://www.bourbaphy.fr/damourtemps.pdf

See more here: https://twitter.com/pentcho_valev

Pentcho Valev

Kip Thorne: "If you move toward the [light] source, you see the wavelength shortened but you don't see the speed changed" https://youtu.be/mvdlN4H4T54?t=296

No the moving observer does not see the wavelength shortened:

"Thus, the moving observer sees a wave possessing the same wavelength [...] but a different frequency [...] to that seen by the stationary observer." http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/315/Waveshtml/node41.html

"Vo is the velocity of an observer moving towards the source. This velocity is independent of the motion of the source. Hence, the velocity of waves relative to the observer is c + Vo. [...] The motion of an observer does not alter the wavelength. The increase in frequency is a result of the observer encountering more wavelengths in a given time." http://a-levelphysicstutor.com/wav-doppler.php

And since the moving observer does not see the wavelength shortened, he sees the speed of light changed (c'=c+Vo).

Einstein's 1905 falsehood turned out to be highly malignant:

"He opened by explaining how Einstein's theory of relativity is the foundation of every other theory in modern physics and that the assumption that the speed of light is constant is the foundation of that theory. Thus a constant speed of light is embedded in all of modern physics and to propose a varying speed of light (VSL) is worse than swearing! It is like proposing a language without vowels." http://www.thegreatdebate.org.uk/VSLRevPrnt.html

"If there's one thing every schoolboy knows about Einstein and his theory of relativity, it is that the speed of light in vacuum is constant. No matter what the circumstances, light in vacuum travels at the same speed... The speed of light is the very keystone of physics, the seemingly sure foundation upon which every modern cosmological theory is built, the yardstick by which everything in the universe is measured. [...] The only aspect of the universe that didn't change was the speed of light. And ever since, the constancy of the speed of light has been woven into the very fabric of physics, into the way physics equations are written, even into the notation used. Nowadays, to "vary" the speed of light is not even a swear word: It is simply not present in the vocabulary of physics." https://www.amazon.com/Faster-Than-Speed-Light-Speculation/dp/0738205257

"The whole of physics is predicated on the constancy of the speed of light," Joao Magueijo, a cosmologist at Imperial College London and pioneer of the theory of variable light speed, told Motherboard. "So we had to find ways to change the speed of light without wrecking the whole thing too much." https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/8q87gk/light-speed-slowed

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

Pentcho Valev

On 2022-07-17 11:57:23 +0000, Pentcho Valev said:

> [ the usual quote mining, including: ]

> "The whole of physics is predicated on the constancy of the speed of
> light," Joao Magueijo, a cosmologist at Imperial College London and
> pioneer of the theory of variable light speed, told Motherboard. "So we
> had to find ways to change the speed of light without wrecking the
> whole thing too much."
> https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/8q87gk/light-speed-slowed

There is no reference to the article itself, I see, perhaps because you
hoped that no one would bother to check. It was probably this:
"Critical geometry of a thermal big bang", Afshordi, N ; Magueijo, J
(2016) PHYSICAL REVIEW D 94 101301, DOI10.1103/PhysRevD.94.101301].

I guess you didn't bother to read it, but just skimmed through a
journalist's impression, without making any attempt to understand what
the authors were saying. I don't find anything in it to support the
idea that they were attacking Einstein. Maybe you could quote the
actual sentence in which you think they did?

If not, it's just another example of your usual lying.

--
Athel -- French and British, living mainly in England until 1987.