13 views

Skip to first unread message

Sep 4, 2022, 4:51:36 AMSep 4

to

Since 1887, physicists have been preoccupied with changing lengths, in order to preserve the sacrosanct constancy of the speed of light. So bodies shrink in the direction of motion and the wavelength of light becomes shorter in front of the moving source https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3mJTRXCMU6o&t=77s. In Einstein's physics, the length changes can be derived from the constant-speed-of-light postulate, which gives them the appearance of legitimacy.

In nonrelativistic physics, the said length changes don't exist. This will even take the form of an axiom:

Fundamental axiom of nonrelativistic physics: 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. 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.

Corollary 6: The dark sky in the Olbers' paradox can be explained by the fact that very slow light coming from very distant sources (CMB) is invisible.

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

Pentcho Valev

In nonrelativistic physics, the said length changes don't exist. This will even take the form of an axiom:

Fundamental axiom of nonrelativistic physics: 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. 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.

Corollary 6: The dark sky in the Olbers' paradox can be explained by the fact that very slow light coming from very distant sources (CMB) is invisible.

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

Pentcho Valev

Sep 4, 2022, 10:57:33 AMSep 4

to

In relativistic physics, the motion of the observer changes the wavelength of the incoming light so that the speed of light relative to the observer can gloriously remain constant (idiotic, isn't it):

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

In nonrelativistic physics, the motion of the observer cannot change the wavelength of the incoming light. This is so obvious https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bg7O4rtlwEE that many physicists teach it, explicitly or implicitly, ignoring the fact that invariable wavelength implies variable speed of light and invalidity of Einstein's relativity:

"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

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

In nonrelativistic physics, the motion of the observer cannot change the wavelength of the incoming light. This is so obvious https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bg7O4rtlwEE that many physicists teach it, explicitly or implicitly, ignoring the fact that invariable wavelength implies variable speed of light and invalidity of Einstein's relativity:

"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

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

Pentcho Valev

Sep 5, 2022, 8:48:09 AMSep 5

to

All clever theoreticians 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 (c'=c±v) and incompatible with the constant speed of light (c'=c) posited by the ether theory and "borrowed" by Einstein in 1905:

"Emission theory, also called emitter theory or ballistic theory of light, was a competing theory for the special theory of relativity, explaining the results of the Michelson–Morley experiment of 1887. [...] The name most often associated with emission theory is Isaac Newton. In his corpuscular theory Newton visualized light "corpuscles" being thrown off from hot bodies at a nominal speed of c with respect to the emitting object, and obeying the usual laws of Newtonian mechanics, and we then expect light to be moving towards us with a speed that is offset by the speed of the distant emitter (c ± v)." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emission_theory

Albert Einstein: "I introduced the principle of the constancy of the velocity of light, which I borrowed from H. A. Lorentz's theory of the stationary luminiferous ether." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz_ether_theory

Banesh Hoffmann, Einstein's co-author, admits that, originally ("without recourse to contracting lengths, local time, or Lorentz transformations"), the Michelson-Morley experiment was compatible with Newton's variable speed of light, c'=c±v, and incompatible with the constant speed of light, c'=c:

"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

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

Pentcho Valev

"Emission theory, also called emitter theory or ballistic theory of light, was a competing theory for the special theory of relativity, explaining the results of the Michelson–Morley experiment of 1887. [...] The name most often associated with emission theory is Isaac Newton. In his corpuscular theory Newton visualized light "corpuscles" being thrown off from hot bodies at a nominal speed of c with respect to the emitting object, and obeying the usual laws of Newtonian mechanics, and we then expect light to be moving towards us with a speed that is offset by the speed of the distant emitter (c ± v)." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emission_theory

Albert Einstein: "I introduced the principle of the constancy of the velocity of light, which I borrowed from H. A. Lorentz's theory of the stationary luminiferous ether." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz_ether_theory

Banesh Hoffmann, Einstein's co-author, admits that, originally ("without recourse to contracting lengths, local time, or Lorentz transformations"), the Michelson-Morley experiment was compatible with Newton's variable speed of light, c'=c±v, and incompatible with the constant speed of light, c'=c:

"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

See more: 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