info
Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Constant Wavelength of Light and the End of Einstein's Relativity
19 views
Skip to first unread message
Pentcho Valev
Sep 15, 2022, 4:45:21 AM9/15/22
to
"Doppler effect -- when an observer moves toward a stationary source" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bg7O4rtlwEE
"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
"The wavelength is staying the same in this case." https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MHepfIIsKcE
"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
Accordingly, if the speed of the observer relative to the light source is v, the speed of the light relative to the observer is c'=c+v, in accordance with the formula
(frequency) = (speed of light)/(wavelength)
The speed of light is variable as per Newton, not constant as per Einstein.
See more here: https://twitter.com/pentcho_valev
Pentcho Valev
"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
"The wavelength is staying the same in this case." https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MHepfIIsKcE
"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
Accordingly, if the speed of the observer relative to the light source is v, the speed of the light relative to the observer is c'=c+v, in accordance with the formula
(frequency) = (speed of light)/(wavelength)
The speed of light is variable as per Newton, not constant as per Einstein.
See more here: https://twitter.com/pentcho_valev
Pentcho Valev
Pentcho Valev
Sep 15, 2022, 4:58:43 PM9/15/22
to
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, the wave-based concept of variation of the wavelength of light (illustration: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3mJTRXCMU6o&t=77s) is unrealistic. It makes sense to advance the following
Axiom: The wavelength of light is invariable.
This axiom, combined with the formula (frequency)=(speed of light)/(wavelength), produces the following corollaries:
Corollary 1: Any frequency shift is caused by a proportional speed-of-light shift.
Corollary 2: If the emitter and the observer (receiver) travel towards each other with relative speed v, the speed of light as measured by the observer is c' = c+v, as per Newton's theory.
Corollary 3: Spacetime and gravitational waves (ripples in spacetime) don't exist.
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 Hubble redshift is due to light slowing down as it travels through vacuum. The universe is not expanding.
Corollary 6: The dark sky in the Olbers' paradox can be explained by the fact that very slow light coming from very distant sources (known as CMB) is invisible.
More here: https://twitter.com/pentcho_valev
Pentcho Valev
If Feynman is correct, the wave-based concept of variation of the wavelength of light (illustration: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3mJTRXCMU6o&t=77s) is unrealistic. It makes sense to advance the following
Axiom: The wavelength of light is invariable.
This axiom, combined with the formula (frequency)=(speed of light)/(wavelength), produces the following corollaries:
Corollary 1: Any frequency shift is caused by a proportional speed-of-light shift.
Corollary 2: If the emitter and the observer (receiver) travel towards each other with relative speed v, the speed of light as measured by the observer is c' = c+v, as per Newton's theory.
Corollary 3: Spacetime and gravitational waves (ripples in spacetime) don't exist.
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 Hubble redshift is due to light slowing down as it travels through vacuum. The universe is not expanding.
Corollary 6: The dark sky in the Olbers' paradox can be explained by the fact that very slow light coming from very distant sources (known as CMB) is invisible.
More here: https://twitter.com/pentcho_valev
Pentcho Valev
Pentcho Valev
Sep 16, 2022, 5:15:54 PM9/16/22
to
Physicists would not readily accept the axiom "The wavelength of light is invariable":
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
Hawking is not alone - all physicists believe that the wavelength of light varies with the speed of the emitter. Here is an animation: https://youtu.be/3mJTRXCMU6o?t=77
Variable wavelength of light 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.
See more: 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
Hawking is not alone - all physicists believe that the wavelength of light varies with the speed of the emitter. Here is an animation: https://youtu.be/3mJTRXCMU6o?t=77
Variable wavelength of light 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.
See more: https://twitter.com/pentcho_valev
Pentcho Valev
0 new messages