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 Historical content remains viewable.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

Constant Wavelength of Light and the End of Einstein's Relativity

8 views
Skip to first unread message

Pentcho Valev

unread,
Sep 15, 2022, 4:39:09 AM9/15/22
to
"Doppler effect -- when an observer moves toward a stationary source" 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

"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

Accordingly, if the speed of the observer relative to the light source is v, the speed of the light relative to the observer is c'=c+v, in accordance with the formula

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

The speed of light is variable as per Newton, not constant as per Einstein.

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

Pentcho Valev

Pentcho Valev

unread,
Sep 15, 2022, 4:53:52 PM9/15/22
to
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

If Feynman is correct, the wave-based concept of variation of the wavelength of light (illustration: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3mJTRXCMU6o&t=77s) is unrealistic. It makes sense to advance the following

Axiom: 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.

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 (known as CMB) is invisible.

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

Pentcho Valev

Lou

unread,
Sep 16, 2022, 4:29:21 AM9/16/22
to
On Thursday, 15 September 2022 at 21:53:52 UTC+1, Pentcho Valev wrote:
> 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
>
> If Feynman is correct, the wave-based concept of variation of the wavelength of light (illustration: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3mJTRXCMU6o&t=77s) is unrealistic. It makes sense to advance the following
>
> Axiom: 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.
>
> 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.
>
Sorry, but this is a contradiction that you make Pentch.
You have ignored your own axiom.
If you say that the wavelength of light is invariable then how does it maintain
it’s wavelength either in the source or observer frame if light slows down?
Do the maths or make a computer simulation of light slowing down in
the source frame. You will notice that it is inevitable that the distance
between each waves crest will diminish the farther these adjacent crests
travel from the source. This means that the wavelength is changing in
both the source and observer frame. And of course this is whether or
not you are doing the simulation for a non expanding model of the universe,
or just simulating how wavelengths respond in a lab simulation of light
slowing down as it travels in a source frame.
How can you and others like Eric accept this contradiction between your
own axioms and corollary?
For that matter you have ignored another consequence of your reducing speed
of photon over distance. Because not only will the wavelength become smaller
over distance in a non expanding model....it will be observed as having the
same frequency as it did when first emitted! Because if light of a particular
wavelength and speed slows down it is a natural consequence of geometry
that the observed frequency will increase. That’s because although the light
is travelling slower the wavelength is also getting shorter. And the net result
is that the frequency stays the same for the observer. And thus in your
own axiom/corollary no cosmological redshift will be observed!
I can offer you a way out but it involves scrapping the photon. And sticking
with waves because a wave only model can accommodate redshifting of
light over distance in a non expanding model without having to lose speed.

So Pentcho, to paraphrase Star Wars: “Come away from the dark side Pentch,
give up your evil master of the Photon “

Pentcho Valev

unread,
Sep 16, 2022, 5:09:46 PM9/16/22
to
Physicists would not readily accept the axiom "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.

Lou

unread,
Sep 17, 2022, 4:07:01 AM9/17/22
to
On Friday, 16 September 2022 at 22:09:46 UTC+1, Pentcho Valev wrote:
> Physicists would not readily accept the axiom "The wavelength of light is invariable":
>
Don’t forget that you too Pentch, have forgotten your own axiom that the wavelength
of light is invariable. After all if you think waves of light slow down as they propagate
away from the source then you’ve just broken your own axiom. Because light that slows
down as it propagates away from a source will invariably lead to shorter wavelengths.

> 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
>
Yes, but Stephen Hawking wasnt that smart. Typical for anyone obsessed with a mathematical
solution to physics.
0 new messages