gratifiant > sci.* > sci.physique

Pentcho Valev (21/03/2019, 22h33)
According to modern physics, the wavelength of light, just like the wavelength of any other waves, VARIES with the speed of the source:

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 thesource 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."

Modern physics is wrong here. The concept that the crests bunch up (the wavelength decreases) in front of the moving source, correct for other waves, is absurd when applied to light. We have

(wavelength) = (speed of light as measured by the source)/(frequency as measured by the source)

All the three quantities in the above equation are invariable - do not varywith the speed of the source. If any of them varied, by measuring the variation, Zoe (the source) would know how fast she is moving, which contradicts the principle of relativity:



Since the wavelength does not vary with Zoe's speed, Jasper measures the speed of light to be c'=c+v, not c:



The above analysis gives some (incomplete) justification to a proposition which I believe will become the basic axiom of future physics:

Axiom: The wavelength emitted by any light source is INVARIABLE.

Here are five important conclusions validly deducible from the axiom:

Premise 1: The wavelength of light is invariable.

Premise 2: The formula (frequency) = (speed of light)/(wavelength) is correct.

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

Conclusion 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.

Conclusion 3: Spacetime is an absurdity. Gravitational waves (ripples in spacetime) don't exist - LIGO conspirators fake them.

Conclusion 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 nonsense.

Conclusion 5: The Hubble redshift is due to light slowing down as it travels through vacuum. The universe is STATIC, not expanding.

Pentcho Valev
Pentcho Valev (22/03/2019, 13h06)
The top of a tower of height h emits a light pulse downwards. According to Newton's theory, the pulse will reach the ground with speed

c' = c(1 + gh/c^2)

The frequency measured by an observer on the ground is, as shown by the Pound-Rebka experiment,

f' = f(1 + gh/c^2)

where f is the initial frequency (measured at the top of the tower).

We have

λ = c/f = c'/f'

That is, the wavelength of light is INVARIABLE in a gravitational field.

Pentcho Valev
Pentcho Valev (22/03/2019, 19h14)
The formula

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

says that a frequency shift entails either a wavelength shift or a speed-of-light shift.

If the speed of light is invariable, as Einstein postulated in 1905, the implication is

"Any frequency shift entails a wavelength shift".

This implication is almost obviously false (easy to imagine a counterexample), so the underlying axiom "The speed of light is invariable" is false as well.

If the wavelength of light is invariable, as future physics will have to postulate, the implication is

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

Pentcho Valev
Pentcho Valev (23/03/2019, 10h38)
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign: "Consider a falling object. ITSSPEED 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 increase in speed is the cause for the increase in frequency. In other words, speed and frequency increase proportionally. This means that, given the formula (frequency)=(speed of light)/(wavelength), the wavelength of light in a gravitational field is INVARIABLE.

I hope the axiom

"The wavelength of light is invariable"

will be officially accepted soon and physics will start the long journey tosanity (it it's not too late). Until then, Einsteinians will indefatigablyjump, within a minute of their experienced time, sixty million years aheadin the future, and trap unlimitedly long objects, in a compressed state, inside unlimitedly short containers:

Thibault Damour: "The paradigm of the special relativistic upheaval of the usual concept of time is the twin paradox. Let us emphasize that this striking example of time dilation proves that time travel (towards the future) is possible. As a gedanken experiment (if we neglect practicalities such as the technology needed for reaching velocities comparable to the velocity oflight, the cost of the fuel and the capacity of the traveller to sustain high accelerations), it shows that a sentient being can jump, "within a minute" (of his experienced time) arbitrarily far in the future, say sixty million years ahead, and see, and be part of, what (will) happen then on Earth.This is a clear way of realizing that the future "already exists" (as we can experience it "in a minute")."



"These are the props. You own a barn, 40m long, with automatic doors at either end, that can be opened and closed simultaneously by a switch. You alsohave a pole, 80m long, which of course won't fit in the barn. [...] So, asthe pole passes through the barn, there is an instant when it is completely within the barn. At that instant, you close both doors simultaneously, with your switch. [...] If it does not explode under the strain and it is sufficiently elastic it will come to rest and start to spring back to its natural shape but since it is too big for the barn the other end is now going to crash into the back door and the rod will be TRAPPED IN A COMPRESSED STATE inside the barn."



Pentcho Valev
Discussions similaires