1 view

Skip to first unread message

Aug 28, 2022, 7:18:26 AMAug 28

to

The following two texts are mutually exclusive, so either the variation of the wavelength is unrealistic or "light is made of particles" is refuted by the Doppler effect:

Stephen Hawking, "A Brief History of Time", Chapter 3: "Now imagine a source of light at a constant distance from us, such as a star, emitting waves of light at a constant wavelength. Obviously the wavelength of the waves we receive will be the same as the wavelength at which they are emitted (the gravitational field of the galaxy will not be large enough to have a significant effect). Suppose now that the source starts moving toward us. When the source emits the next wave crest it will be nearer to us, so the distance between wave crests will be smaller than when the star was stationary." http://www.fisica.net/relatividade/stephen_hawking_a_brief_history_of_time.pdf

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." https://www.amazon.com/QED-Strange-Theory-Light-Matter/dp/0691024170

If Feynman is correct, then the variation of wavelength is unrealistic and the speed of light varies with the speed of the emitter, in violation of Einstein's relativity.

Variable wavelength of light https://youtu.be/3mJTRXCMU6o?t=77 contradicts the principle of relativity. If the wavelength varied, the emitter could regularly measure the (varying) wavelength inside his spaceship - so he would know his speed without looking outside. If, for instance, measurements inside the spaceship show that the wavelength has decreased, the emitter will conclude that his spaceship is now moving faster than before.

In future, Einstein-free physics the wavelength of light will be nothing more than an invariable coefficient in the formula

(frequency) = (speed of light)/(wavelength)

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

Pentcho Valev

Stephen Hawking, "A Brief History of Time", Chapter 3: "Now imagine a source of light at a constant distance from us, such as a star, emitting waves of light at a constant wavelength. Obviously the wavelength of the waves we receive will be the same as the wavelength at which they are emitted (the gravitational field of the galaxy will not be large enough to have a significant effect). Suppose now that the source starts moving toward us. When the source emits the next wave crest it will be nearer to us, so the distance between wave crests will be smaller than when the star was stationary." http://www.fisica.net/relatividade/stephen_hawking_a_brief_history_of_time.pdf

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." https://www.amazon.com/QED-Strange-Theory-Light-Matter/dp/0691024170

If Feynman is correct, then the variation of wavelength is unrealistic and the speed of light varies with the speed of the emitter, in violation of Einstein's relativity.

Variable wavelength of light https://youtu.be/3mJTRXCMU6o?t=77 contradicts the principle of relativity. If the wavelength varied, the emitter could regularly measure the (varying) wavelength inside his spaceship - so he would know his speed without looking outside. If, for instance, measurements inside the spaceship show that the wavelength has decreased, the emitter will conclude that his spaceship is now moving faster than before.

In future, Einstein-free physics the wavelength of light will be nothing more than an invariable coefficient in the formula

(frequency) = (speed of light)/(wavelength)

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

Pentcho Valev

Aug 29, 2022, 1:47:10 PMAug 29

to

"Using Newtonian theory, we have presented the calculations of the Michelson–Morley (MM) experiment and have shown that the result of the experiment should be null as observed...Our analysis shows that MM experiment validates the nonconstancy of light velocity." https://www.researchgate.net/publication/262925968_Michelson-Morley_experiment_proves_light_speed_is_not_constant

All clever Einsteinians know that originally, prior to the introduction of the length-contraction fudge factor, the Michelson-Morley experiment was compatible with Newton's variable speed of light and incompatible with the constant speed of light posited by the ether theory and "borrowed" by Einstein in 1905:

"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." Banesh Hoffmann, Relativity and Its Roots, p.92 https://www.amazon.com/Relativity-Its-Roots-Banesh-Hoffmann/dp/0486406768

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

Pentcho Valev

All clever Einsteinians know that originally, prior to the introduction of the length-contraction fudge factor, the Michelson-Morley experiment was compatible with Newton's variable speed of light and incompatible with the constant speed of light posited by the ether theory and "borrowed" by Einstein in 1905:

"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." Banesh Hoffmann, Relativity and Its Roots, p.92 https://www.amazon.com/Relativity-Its-Roots-Banesh-Hoffmann/dp/0486406768

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

Pentcho Valev

Reply all

Reply to author

Forward

0 new messages

Search

Clear search

Close search

Google apps

Main menu