info
Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
The Fundamental Axiom of Einstein-Free Physics
3 views
Skip to first unread message
pentch...@gmail.com
Dec 28, 2021, 8:48:33 AM12/28/21
to
Doppler Effect: Moving Observer https://youtube.com/watch?v=UHpPsnJNKrk
In the case of light, two facts are important:
1. The wavelength of light remains constant.
2. The speed of light relative to the observer is VARIABLE (V'w=Vw+Vo becomes c'=c+Vo), in violation of Einstein's relativity.
Concerning the constancy of the wavelength, there is no surprise because that is the case for sound or any other waves. However, when the source starts moving towards the observer, the wavelength becomes variable for all waves but doesn't for light! Big surprise, isn't it?
VARIABLE wavelength of light
https://youtube.com/watch?v=xsVxC_NR64M
violates the principle of relativity. If the wavelength varied, the emitter would measure variations inside his spaceship and then would calculate his speed without looking outside. For a given emitter, the wavelength of light never changes!
The formula
(frequency) = (speed of light)/(wavelength)
tolerates two axioms:
Axiom 1: The speed of light is constant.
Axiom 2: For a given emitter, the wavelength of light is constant.
Axiom 1 killed physics.
Axiom 2 will resurrect it (if it's not too late). Corollaries (established truths in future, Einstein-free physics):
Corollary 1: Any frequency shift entails (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 fake.
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: Einstein's general relativity is absurd.
Corollary 5: The Hubble redshift is due to light slowing down as it travels through vacuum. The universe is not expanding.
See more here: https://twitter.com/pentcho_valev
Pentcho Valev
In the case of light, two facts are important:
1. The wavelength of light remains constant.
2. The speed of light relative to the observer is VARIABLE (V'w=Vw+Vo becomes c'=c+Vo), in violation of Einstein's relativity.
Concerning the constancy of the wavelength, there is no surprise because that is the case for sound or any other waves. However, when the source starts moving towards the observer, the wavelength becomes variable for all waves but doesn't for light! Big surprise, isn't it?
VARIABLE wavelength of light
https://youtube.com/watch?v=xsVxC_NR64M
violates the principle of relativity. If the wavelength varied, the emitter would measure variations inside his spaceship and then would calculate his speed without looking outside. For a given emitter, the wavelength of light never changes!
The formula
(frequency) = (speed of light)/(wavelength)
tolerates two axioms:
Axiom 1: The speed of light is constant.
Axiom 2: For a given emitter, the wavelength of light is constant.
Axiom 1 killed physics.
Axiom 2 will resurrect it (if it's not too late). Corollaries (established truths in future, Einstein-free physics):
Corollary 1: Any frequency shift entails (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 fake.
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: Einstein's general relativity is absurd.
Corollary 5: The Hubble redshift is due to light slowing down as it travels through vacuum. The universe is not expanding.
See more here: https://twitter.com/pentcho_valev
Pentcho Valev
pentch...@gmail.com
Dec 28, 2021, 9:38:38 AM12/28/21
to
Banesh Hoffmann, Einstein's collaborator, admits that, originally ("without recourse to contracting lengths, local time, or Lorentz transformations"), the Michelson-Morley experiment directly proved Newton's variable speed of light and disproved the constant speed of light:
"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
Wikipedia tells the truth about the Michelson-Morley experiment here (elsewhere it says the opposite):
"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
John Norton, high priest in the Einstein cult, also tells the truth about the Michelson-Morley experiment:
John Norton: "The Michelson-Morley experiment is fully compatible with an emission theory of light that CONTRADICTS THE LIGHT POSTULATE." http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/1743/2/Norton.pdf
Now let us consider this:
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
In this text Feynman unwittingly suggests:
1. The speed of light varies as per Newton.
2. Variable wavelength of light (https://youtube.com/watch?v=xsVxC_NR64M) is an unrealistic wave-based concept.
In future, Einstein-free physics, the wavelength of light will be CONSTANT for a given emitter.
More here: https://twitter.com/pentcho_valev
Pentcho Valev
"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
Wikipedia tells the truth about the Michelson-Morley experiment here (elsewhere it says the opposite):
"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
John Norton, high priest in the Einstein cult, also tells the truth about the Michelson-Morley experiment:
John Norton: "The Michelson-Morley experiment is fully compatible with an emission theory of light that CONTRADICTS THE LIGHT POSTULATE." http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/1743/2/Norton.pdf
Now let us consider this:
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
In this text Feynman unwittingly suggests:
1. The speed of light varies as per Newton.
2. Variable wavelength of light (https://youtube.com/watch?v=xsVxC_NR64M) is an unrealistic wave-based concept.
In future, Einstein-free physics, the wavelength of light will be CONSTANT for a given emitter.
More here: https://twitter.com/pentcho_valev
Pentcho Valev
pentch...@gmail.com
Dec 29, 2021, 9:04:33 AM12/29/21
to
The texts below implicitly contain basic principles of future, Einstein-free physics:
1. The wavelength of light always remains constant (the fundamental axiom).
2. The speed and the frequency of light always vary proportionally, in accordance with the formula (frequency)=(speed of light)/(wavelength).
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. Consider a light beam that is travelling away from a gravitational field. Its frequency should shift to lower values. This is known as the gravitational red shift of light." https://courses.physics.illinois.edu/phys419/sp2011/lectures/Lecture13/L13r.html
Albert Einstein Institute: "You do not need general relativity to derive the correct prediction for the gravitational redshift. A combination of Newtonian gravity, a particle theory of light, and the weak equivalence principle (gravitating mass equals inertial mass) suffices. [...] The gravitational redshift was first measured on earth in 1960-65 by Pound, Rebka, and Snider at Harvard University..." http://www.einstein-online.info/spotlights/redshift_white_dwarfs.html
"We conclude, therefore, that A BEAM OF LIGHT WILL ACCELERATE IN A GRAVITATIONAL FIELD AS DO OBJECTS WITH REST MASS. For example, near the surface of Earth light will fall with acceleration 9.8 m/s^2." http://web.pdx.edu/~pmoeck/books/Tipler_Llewellyn.pdf
See more: https://twitter.com/pentcho_valev
Pentcho Valev
1. The wavelength of light always remains constant (the fundamental axiom).
2. The speed and the frequency of light always vary proportionally, in accordance with the formula (frequency)=(speed of light)/(wavelength).
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. Consider a light beam that is travelling away from a gravitational field. Its frequency should shift to lower values. This is known as the gravitational red shift of light." https://courses.physics.illinois.edu/phys419/sp2011/lectures/Lecture13/L13r.html
Albert Einstein Institute: "You do not need general relativity to derive the correct prediction for the gravitational redshift. A combination of Newtonian gravity, a particle theory of light, and the weak equivalence principle (gravitating mass equals inertial mass) suffices. [...] The gravitational redshift was first measured on earth in 1960-65 by Pound, Rebka, and Snider at Harvard University..." http://www.einstein-online.info/spotlights/redshift_white_dwarfs.html
"We conclude, therefore, that A BEAM OF LIGHT WILL ACCELERATE IN A GRAVITATIONAL FIELD AS DO OBJECTS WITH REST MASS. For example, near the surface of Earth light will fall with acceleration 9.8 m/s^2." http://web.pdx.edu/~pmoeck/books/Tipler_Llewellyn.pdf
See more: https://twitter.com/pentcho_valev
Pentcho Valev
0 new messages