gratifiant > sci.* > sci.physique

Pentcho Valev (17/02/2019, 20h16)
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."

So, according to Einsteinians, a moving light source, just like a moving sound source, will measure the wavelength to be different (shorter in this case). This is obviously wrong - a varying wavelength of light is incompatible with the principle of relativity. If the wavelength of light varied with the speed of the source, by measuring it the source would know its own speed "without looking out the window".

If the proposition

"The wavelength of light is invariable"

is taken as a fundamental axiom, the conclusions that can be deduced are staggering - actually a quite different physics emerges. Here are my first steps in this direction:

Pentcho Valev
Pentcho Valev (18/02/2019, 09h37)
The speed of light, as measured by the observer (receiver), either varies with the speed of the emitter (Newton's theory) or is invariable (ether theory and Einstein's relativity). Where is the truth? The answer was given, implicitly, in 1887. Variability proved directly. Invariability, "without recourse to contracting lengths, local time, or Lorentz transformations", disproved:

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

Note that, "without recourse to contracting lengths...", the invariable (independent of the speed of the emitter) speed of light is disproved by the Michelson-Morley experiment while Newton's variable speed of light is proved.. The introduction of idiotic "contracting lengths" reverses the situation:now Newton's variable speed of light is disproved while the invariable speed of light, posited by the ether theory and later adopted by Einstein as his 1905 second postulate, is gloriously proved. This blatant fraud marked the beginning of the post-truth era in science, long time ago.

The speed of light is OBVIOUSLY VARIABLE:

Stationary light source; moving receiver:

Frequency measured by the source: f; frequency measured by the moving receiver: f' > f.

Speed of pulses relative to the source: c = df (d is distance between pulses).

Speed of pulses relative to the moving receiver:

c' = df' > c

in violation of Einstein's relativity.

Pentcho Valev
Discussions similaires