gratifiant New Axiom in Fundamental Physics: Invariable Wavelength of Light

 Pentcho Valev (14/02/2019, 13h00)
An imminent change in fundamental physics:

Some justification for the new, invariable-wavelength-of-light axiom:

Einsteinians teach that light pulses bunch up (the wavelength decreases) infront of an emitter moving towards a receiver:

Stationary emitter:

Moving emitter: (distance between pulses is shown to be shorter)

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."

Light pulses don't bunch up (the wavelength does not decrease) - bunching up obviously violates the principle of relativity. If the distance between the pulses (the wavelength) depends on the speed of the emitter, it would bepossible for the emitter to know its own (absolute) speed simply by measuring the distance or the wavelength, e.g. with the device that Zoe uses here:

The quotations below clearly show that, for light falling in a gravitational field, the frequency and the speed vary proportionally, as predicted by Newton's theory. This means that, in accordance with the formula

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

the wavelength is INVARIABLE.

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..."

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 frequency shift was tiny but in agreement with the theoretical prediction. Consider a light beam that is travelling away from a gravitational field. Its frequency should shift to lower values.This is known as the gravitational red shift of light."

"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."

Pentcho Valev
 Pentcho Valev (14/02/2019, 18h05)
Three valid (truthfulness of the premises guarantees truthfulness of the conclusion) arguments:

Premise 1: The wavelength of light is invariable.

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

Conclusion 1: 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 2: 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. Gravitational time dilation does not exist - Einstein's general relativity is absurd.

Conclusion 3: The Hubble redshift is due to light slowing down as it travels through vacuum. The universe is STATIC, not expanding.

Pentcho Valev