Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.

Dismiss

7 views

Skip to first unread message

Jan 22, 2023, 7:38:11 AM1/22/23

to

"Was Einstein wrong? The idea of a variable speed of light, championed by an angry young scientist, could one day topple Einstein's theory of relativity...The speed of light might not be constant at all. Shock, horror! Does this mean the next Great Revolution in Science is just around the corner?" http://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/magazine/waseinsteinwrong/

The formula

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

can be combined with two axioms:

Axiom 1: The speed of light is constant (Einsteinian physics).

Axiom 2: The wavelength of light is constant (future, Einstein-free physics).

Axiom 1 killed physics.

Axiom 2 will resurrect it (if it's not too late). Important corollaries:

Corollary 1: Any frequency shift entails (is caused by) a proportional speed-of-light shift.

Corollary 2: If the emitter and the observer travel towards each other with relative speed v, the speed of light relative to the observer is c' = c+v, as posited by 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, high-redshifted light (known as CMB), coming from very distant sources, is invisible.

The formula

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

can be combined with two axioms:

Axiom 1: The speed of light is constant (Einsteinian physics).

Axiom 2: The wavelength of light is constant (future, Einstein-free physics).

Axiom 1 killed physics.

Axiom 2 will resurrect it (if it's not too late). Important corollaries:

Corollary 1: Any frequency shift entails (is caused by) a proportional speed-of-light shift.

Corollary 2: If the emitter and the observer travel towards each other with relative speed v, the speed of light relative to the observer is c' = c+v, as posited by 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, high-redshifted light (known as CMB), coming from very distant sources, is invisible.

Jan 22, 2023, 5:23:23 PM1/22/23

to

The "next Great Revolution in Science" IS around the corner, but for unknown reasons theoretical physicists repudiate the consequence, space-time, and not the underlying premise, Einstein's 1905 constant-speed-of-light falsehood:

"Was Einstein wrong? Do we have to kill off the theory of space and time to make sense of the universe?" https://space.com/end-of-einstein-space-time

Nima Arkani-Hamed: "Almost all of us believe that spacetime doesn't really exist, spacetime is doomed and has to be replaced..." https://youtu.be/U47kyV4TMnE?t=369

Philip Ball: "And by making the clock's tick relative - what happens simultaneously for one observer might seem sequential to another - Einstein's theory of special relativity not only destroyed any notion of absolute time but made time equivalent to a dimension in space: the future is already out there waiting for us; we just can't see it until we get there. This view is a logical and metaphysical dead end, says [Lee] Smolin." http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2013/jun/10/time-reborn-farewell-reality-review

"Bye bye space-time: is it time to free physics from Einstein's legacy?" https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg24332472-900-bye-bye-space-time-is-it-time-to-free-physics-from-einsteins-legacy/

"Rethinking Einstein: The end of space-time...Horava, who is at the University of California, Berkeley, wants to rip this fabric apart and set time and space free from one another..." https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20727721-200-rethinking-einstein-the-end-of-space-time/

What scientific idea is ready for retirement? Steve Giddings: "Spacetime. Physics has always been regarded as playing out on an underlying stage of space and time. Special relativity joined these into spacetime...The apparent need to retire classical spacetime as a fundamental concept is profound..." https://www.edge.org/response-detail/25477

Space-time is a logical consequence of Einstein's 1905 constant-speed-of-light postulate, theoretical physicists:

"Special relativity is based on the observation that the speed of light is always the same, independently of who measures it, or how fast the source of the light is moving with respect to the observer. Einstein demonstrated that as an immediate consequence, space and time can no longer be independent, but should rather be considered a new joint entity called "spacetime." https://www.bowdoin.edu/news/2015/04/physics-professor-baumgarte-describes-100-years-of-gravity.html

So you cannot "retire" the consequence but continue to worship the underlying postulate. Logic forbids you to do so.

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

Pentcho Valev

"Was Einstein wrong? Do we have to kill off the theory of space and time to make sense of the universe?" https://space.com/end-of-einstein-space-time

Nima Arkani-Hamed: "Almost all of us believe that spacetime doesn't really exist, spacetime is doomed and has to be replaced..." https://youtu.be/U47kyV4TMnE?t=369

Philip Ball: "And by making the clock's tick relative - what happens simultaneously for one observer might seem sequential to another - Einstein's theory of special relativity not only destroyed any notion of absolute time but made time equivalent to a dimension in space: the future is already out there waiting for us; we just can't see it until we get there. This view is a logical and metaphysical dead end, says [Lee] Smolin." http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2013/jun/10/time-reborn-farewell-reality-review

"Bye bye space-time: is it time to free physics from Einstein's legacy?" https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg24332472-900-bye-bye-space-time-is-it-time-to-free-physics-from-einsteins-legacy/

"Rethinking Einstein: The end of space-time...Horava, who is at the University of California, Berkeley, wants to rip this fabric apart and set time and space free from one another..." https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20727721-200-rethinking-einstein-the-end-of-space-time/

What scientific idea is ready for retirement? Steve Giddings: "Spacetime. Physics has always been regarded as playing out on an underlying stage of space and time. Special relativity joined these into spacetime...The apparent need to retire classical spacetime as a fundamental concept is profound..." https://www.edge.org/response-detail/25477

Space-time is a logical consequence of Einstein's 1905 constant-speed-of-light postulate, theoretical physicists:

"Special relativity is based on the observation that the speed of light is always the same, independently of who measures it, or how fast the source of the light is moving with respect to the observer. Einstein demonstrated that as an immediate consequence, space and time can no longer be independent, but should rather be considered a new joint entity called "spacetime." https://www.bowdoin.edu/news/2015/04/physics-professor-baumgarte-describes-100-years-of-gravity.html

So you cannot "retire" the consequence but continue to worship the underlying postulate. Logic forbids you to do so.

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

Pentcho Valev

Jan 23, 2023, 7:13:04 AM1/23/23

to

Constant wavelength of light (the fundamental axiom of future, Einstein-free physics) emerges any time physicists ignore for a while Einstein's relativity and return to common sense:

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 remains constant.

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

Physicists would not readily agree that the wavelength remains constant when the moving-emitter scenario is considered:

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 variations inside his spaceship - so he would know his spaceship's 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.

The wavelength of light depends only on the nature of the emitting substance and is constant otherwise. In future, Einstein-free physics the wavelength of light will be nothing more than an invariable coefficient in the formula

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

See more: 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 remains constant.

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

Physicists would not readily agree that the wavelength remains constant when the moving-emitter scenario is considered:

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 variations inside his spaceship - so he would know his spaceship's 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.

The wavelength of light depends only on the nature of the emitting substance and is constant otherwise. In future, Einstein-free physics the wavelength of light will be nothing more than an invariable coefficient in the formula

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

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

Pentcho Valev

Jan 25, 2023, 7:21:29 AM1/25/23

to

"The idea of a variable speed of light, championed by an angry young scientist, could one day topple Einstein's theory of relativity....The speed of light might not be constant at all. Shock, horror! Does this mean the next Great Revolution in Science is just around the corner?" http://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/magazine/waseinsteinwrong/

Concerning "the next Great Revolution in Science", here is the long story very short, as I see it:

The formula

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

says that, if the speed of light is constant, we have the absurd corollary

Any frequency shift entails (is caused by) an inversely proportional wavelength shift.

So the constancy of the speed of light is disproved by reductio ad absurdum.

The formula also says that, if the wavelength of light is constant, we have the corollary

Any frequency shift entails (is caused by) a proportional speed-of-light shift.

Everything that can be deduced from the axiom "The wavelength of light is constant" (combined with other reasonable assumptions of course) will constitute the basis of "the next Great Revolution in Science".

See https://twitter.com/pentcho_valev

Pentcho Valev

Concerning "the next Great Revolution in Science", here is the long story very short, as I see it:

The formula

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

Any frequency shift entails (is caused by) an inversely proportional wavelength shift.

So the constancy of the speed of light is disproved by reductio ad absurdum.

The formula also says that, if the wavelength of light is constant, we have the corollary

Any frequency shift entails (is caused by) a proportional speed-of-light shift.

See https://twitter.com/pentcho_valev

Pentcho Valev

0 new messages

Search

Clear search

Close search

Google apps

Main menu