info
Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Can the Light Source Catch Up with the Emitted Light?
5 views
Skip to first unread message
Pentcho Valev
Mar 2, 2022, 10:49:23 AM3/2/22
to
"The Doppler effect is common to all wave phenomena, including light, sound and water waves. When a wave source is moving towards an observer, the source appears to be catching up with the waves as it emits them. They therefore tend to bunch up in front of the source and arrive at the observer with a higher frequency." https://people.physics.anu.edu.au/~cms130/TEE/site/tee/learning/doppler/doppler.html
Catching up means that the waves slow down relative to the moving wave source. Relative to a sufficiently fast moving source, the waves would be extremely slow. This is true for sound and water waves, but is it true for light? If not, why does the observer measure higher frequency when the light source is moving?
See more here: https://twitter.com/pentcho_valev
Pentcho Valev
Catching up means that the waves slow down relative to the moving wave source. Relative to a sufficiently fast moving source, the waves would be extremely slow. This is true for sound and water waves, but is it true for light? If not, why does the observer measure higher frequency when the light source is moving?
See more here: https://twitter.com/pentcho_valev
Pentcho Valev
Pentcho Valev
Mar 2, 2022, 3:53:25 PM3/2/22
to
VARIABLE wavelength of light https://youtu.be/3mJTRXCMU6o?t=77 is another root of evil in modern physics. It violates the principle of relativity. If the wavelength varied with the speed of the emitter, as in the above video, the emitter would measure the variations inside his spaceship and so would know his speed without looking outside.
The formula
(frequency) = (speed of light)/(wavelength)
tolerates two axioms:
Axiom 1: The speed of light is constant.
Axiom 2: The wavelength of light is constant (for a given emitter).
Axiom 1 killed physics.
Axiom 2 will resurrect it (if it's not too late). Corollaries:
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.
More here: https://twitter.com/pentcho_valev
Pentcho Valev
The formula
(frequency) = (speed of light)/(wavelength)
tolerates two axioms:
Axiom 1: The speed of light is constant.
Axiom 2: The wavelength of light is constant (for a given emitter).
Axiom 1 killed physics.
Axiom 2 will resurrect it (if it's not too late). Corollaries:
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.
More here: https://twitter.com/pentcho_valev
Pentcho Valev
0 new messages