gratifiant > sci.* > sci.physique

Pentcho Valev (03/05/2019, 08h21)
It is wrongly taught in physics that the wavelength of light, just like thewavelength of sound, VARIES with the speed of the emitter:

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."

This variation of the wavelength of light contradicts the principle of relativity. If the wavelength varied, by measuring it, Zoe (the emitter) would know how fast she is moving, without any reference to outside objects:

The wavelength does not vary with Zoe's speed - accordingly, Jasper (the receiver) measures the speed of light to be c'=c+v, not c. The truth is Newtonian, not Einsteinian.

In the quotation below Banesh Hoffmann clearly explains that, "without recourse to contracting lengths, local time, or Lorentz transformations" (as was the case in 1887), the Michelson-Morley experiment proves Newton's variable speed of light (c'=c±v) and disproves the constant (independent of the speed of the emitter) speed of light (c'=c) posited by the ether theory and adopted by Einstein:

Banesh Hoffmann, Relativity and Its Roots, p.92: "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. If it was so obvious, though, why did he need to state it as a principle? Because, having taken from the idea of light waves in the ether theone aspect that he needed, he declared early in his paper, to quote his own words, that "the introduction of a 'luminiferous ether' will prove to be superfluous."

Wikipedia: Newton's variable speed of light, c'=c ± v, explains the result of the Michelson-Morley experiment:

"Emission theory, also called emitter theory or ballistic theory of light, was a competing theory for the special theory of relativity, explaining theresults of the Michelson–Morley experiment of 1887. [...] The namemost 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)."

John Norton: "The Michelson-Morley experiment is fully compatible with an emission theory of light that CONTRADICTS THE LIGHT POSTULATE."

Pentcho Valev
Pentcho Valev (03/05/2019, 09h26)
Light falls in gravity with the same acceleration as ordinary falling bodies, in accordance with Newton's theory:

"To see why a deflection of light would be expected, consider Figure 2-17, which shows a beam of light entering an accelerating compartment. Successive positions of the compartment are shown at equal time intervals. Because the compartment is accelerating, the distance it moves in each time intervalincreases with time. The path of the beam of light, as observed from inside the compartment, is therefore a parabola. But according to the equivalence principle, there is no way to distinguish between an accelerating compartment and one with uniform velocity in a uniform gravitational field. 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."

The frequency of falling light increases proportionally to the increase in speed:

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."

Albert Einstein Institute: "One of the three classical tests for general relativity is the gravitational redshift of light or other forms of electromagnetic radiation. However, in contrast to the other two tests - the gravitational deflection of light and the relativistic perihelion shift -, 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 inertialmass) suffices. [...] The gravitational redshift was first measured on earth in 1960-65 by Pound, Rebka, and Snider at Harvard University..."

The following argument is obviously valid:

Premise 1: As light falls in a gravitational field, its speed and frequencyincrease proportionally.

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

Conclusion: The wavelength of the light is INVARIABLE.

The conclusion, generalized over all possible scenarios (with or without gravitational field), will become the fundamental axiom of future physics:

"The wavelength of light is invariable"

See more here:

Pentcho Valev
Discussions similaires