


The formula
(frequency) = (speed of light)/(wavelength) says that a frequency shift entails either a wavelength shift or a speedoflight shift. "Any frequency shift entails a wavelength shift" is an implication of Einstein's 1905 axiom "The speed of light is invariable". The implication is obviously absurd  e.g. when the observer (receiver) starts moving towards thelight source, the frequency he measures shifts but his motion does not change the wavelength (or the distance between the pulses) of the incoming light: The absurdity of the implication means that the underlying axiom, "The speed of light is invariable", is false. "Any frequency shift entails (is caused by) a speedoflight shift" is an implication of the axiom "The wavelength of light is invariable". This axiomis correct and will be fundamental in future physics. Here is an equivalent formulation: Any light source emits INVARIABLE wavelength. Einsteinians teach that the wavelength VARIES with the speed of the light 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." The idea that the crests bunch up (the wavelength decreases) in front of the moving source is absurd. We have (wavelength) = (speed of light as measured by the source)/(frequency as measured by the source) where (frequency as measured by the source) is obviously independent of thespeed of the source. So if the wavelength varied with the speed of the source, then (speed of light as measured by the source) would vary with the speed of the source as well, which is absurd of course. See Zoe traveling towards Jasper and measuring the speed of light to be always c: By using the same device, Zoe measures the wavelength and finds that it is INVARIABLE (independent of Zoe's speed). This means that Jasper measures the speed of light to be c'=c+v, not c. The speed of light is VARIABLE, the wavelength is INVARIABLE: Pentcho Valev 


As light falls in gravity, its speed and frequency increase proportionally:
University of Illinois at UrbanaChampaign: "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." This means that, given the formula (frequency)=(speed of light)/(wavelength), the wavelength of light in a gravitational field is INVARIABLE. The top of a tower of height h shoots a bullet downwards with initial speedu. As the bullet reaches the ground, its speed (relative to the ground) is u' = u(1 + gh/u^2) According to Newton's theory, light falls with the same acceleration as ordinary falling bodies. Therefore, if the top of the tower emits a light pulse downwards, this pulse will reach the ground with speed c' = c(1 + gh/c^2) The frequency an observer on the ground will measure is f' = c'/λ = f(1 + gh/c^2) where λ is the (invariable) wavelength and f=c/λ is the initialfrequency (as measured at the top of the tower). This frequency shift has been confirmed by the PoundRebka experiment. The above analysis, apart from justifying the axiom "The wavelength of light is invariable", proves that gravitational time dilation does not exist  Einstein's generalrelativity is nonsense. Pentcho Valev 


"The speaker Joao Magueijo, is a Reader in Theoretical Physics at Imperial College, London and author of Faster Than the Speed of Light: The Story of a Scientific Speculation. He opened by explaining how Einstein's theory of relativity is the foundation of every other theory in modern physics and that the assumption that the speed of light is constant is the foundation of that theory. Thus a constant speed of light is embedded in all of modern physics and to propose a varying speed of light (VSL) is worse than swearing!It is like proposing a language without vowels."
Yet the speed of light is VARIABLE, which means that fundamental physics, entirely based on the nonsensical constancy, is long dead: Stationary light source, moving receiver: The speed of the light pulses as measured by the source is c = df where d is the distance between the pulses and f is the frequency measured by the source. The speed of the pulses as measured by the receiver is c'= df' > c where f' > f is the frequency measured by the receiver. Can physics be resurrected? Yes. A paradigm shift is needed replacing Einstein's constantspeedoflight nonsense with a new, correct axiom: The new axiom: The wavelength of light is invariable. Four important conclusions validly deducible from the new 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 speedoflight 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: 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, gravitational time dilationdoes not exist  Einstein's general relativity is nonsense. Conclusion 4: The Hubble redshift is due to light slowing down as it travels through vacuum. The universe is STATIC, not expanding. The last conclusion may not sound too unfamiliar to some theorists. Actually the idea that vacuum slows down light is largely discussed but only in terms of quantum gravity. The implication that the Hubble redshift might be due to decreasing speed of light is persistently ignored (crimestop): Sabine Hossenfelder: "It's an old story: Quantum fluctuations of spacetimemight change the traveltime of light. Light of higher frequencies would be a little faster than that of lower frequencies. Or slower, depending on the sign of an unknown constant. Either way, the spectral colors of light would run apart, or 'disperse' as they say if they don't want you to understand what they say. Such quantum gravitational effects are miniscule, but added up over long distances they can become observable. Gamma ray bursts are therefore ideal to search for evidence of such an energydependent speed oflight." Nature: "As waves travel through a medium, they lose energy over time. Thisdampening effect would also happen to photons traveling through spacetime,the researchers found. Although the effect is small, highenergy photons traveling very long distances should lose a noticeable amount of energy, theresearchers say. [...] If it is true that spacetime is a superfluid and that photons of different energies travel at different speeds or dissipate over time, that means relativity does not hold in all situations." "Some physicists, however, suggest that there might be one other cosmic factor that could influence the speed of light: quantum vacuum fluctuation. This theory holds that socalled empty spaces in the Universe aren't actuallyempty  they're teeming with particles that are just constantly changing from existent to nonexistent states. Quantum fluctuations, therefore, couldslow down the speed of light." Pentcho Valev 