11 views

Skip to first unread message

Aug 26, 2022, 6:24:38 AMAug 26

to

The principles of Einstein-free physics are so obviously correct that even mainstream physicists unwittingly advocate them sometimes:

University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign: "Consider a falling object. Its speed increases as it is falling. Hence, if we were to associate a frequency with that object the frequency should increase accordingly as it falls to earth. Because of the equivalence between gravitational and inertial mass, we should observe the same effect for light. So lets shine a light beam from the top of a very tall building. If we can measure the frequency shift as the light beam descends the building, we should be able to discern how gravity affects a falling light beam. This was done by Pound and Rebka in 1960. They shone a light from the top of the Jefferson tower at Harvard and measured the frequency shift. The frequency shift was tiny but in agreement with the theoretical prediction." https://courses.physics.illinois.edu/phys419/sp2011/lectures/Lecture13/L13r.html

Two principles implied in this particular scenario are actually valid in any scenario:

(1) Frequency and speed of light vary proportionally.

(2) The wavelength of light is invariable.

It is easy to see that (1) and (2) are equivalent, given the formula (frequency)=(speed of light)/(wavelength).

Another scenario where (1) and (2) are obviously true is Doppler (moving observer):

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

"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

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

Pentcho Valev

University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign: "Consider a falling object. Its speed increases as it is falling. Hence, if we were to associate a frequency with that object the frequency should increase accordingly as it falls to earth. Because of the equivalence between gravitational and inertial mass, we should observe the same effect for light. So lets shine a light beam from the top of a very tall building. If we can measure the frequency shift as the light beam descends the building, we should be able to discern how gravity affects a falling light beam. This was done by Pound and Rebka in 1960. They shone a light from the top of the Jefferson tower at Harvard and measured the frequency shift. The frequency shift was tiny but in agreement with the theoretical prediction." https://courses.physics.illinois.edu/phys419/sp2011/lectures/Lecture13/L13r.html

Two principles implied in this particular scenario are actually valid in any scenario:

(1) Frequency and speed of light vary proportionally.

(2) The wavelength of light is invariable.

It is easy to see that (1) and (2) are equivalent, given the formula (frequency)=(speed of light)/(wavelength).

Another scenario where (1) and (2) are obviously true is Doppler (moving observer):

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

"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

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

Pentcho Valev

Aug 26, 2022, 7:57:27 AMAug 26

to

Physicists would not readily accept the principle "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.

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

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.

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

Pentcho Valev

Aug 26, 2022, 5:52:48 PMAug 26

to

The formula (frequency) = (speed of light)/(wavelength) leads to the following two arguments:

(1) Axiom: The speed of light is invariable. Corollary: Any frequency shift entails (is caused by) an inversely proportional wavelength shift.

(2) Axiom: The wavelength of light is invariable. Corollary: Any frequency shift entails (is caused by) a proportional speed-of-light shift.

Argument (1) belongs to Einsteinian physics. The corollary is obviously false:

"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

Argument (2) belongs to future, Einstein-free physics.

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

Pentcho Valev

(1) Axiom: The speed of light is invariable. Corollary: Any frequency shift entails (is caused by) an inversely proportional wavelength shift.

(2) Axiom: The wavelength of light is invariable. Corollary: Any frequency shift entails (is caused by) a proportional speed-of-light shift.

Argument (1) belongs to Einsteinian physics. The corollary is obviously false:

"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

Argument (2) belongs to future, Einstein-free physics.

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

Pentcho Valev

Aug 27, 2022, 4:15:28 PMAug 27

to

The formula

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

can be combined with two axioms:
(frequency) = (speed of light)/(wavelength)

Axiom 1: The speed of light is invariable (Einstein 1905).

Axiom 2: The wavelength of light is invariable.

Axiom 1 killed physics.

Axiom 2 will resurrect it (if it's not too late). Important 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. 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 Hubble redshift is due to light slowing down as it travels through vacuum. The universe is not expanding.

See also: 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