FUNDAMENTAL LAW OF COSMOLOGY

f'/f = c'/c

where f' is the shifted frequency of light (at the moment of
reception), f is the original frequency (at the moment of emission),
c' is the speed of light relative to the observer (at the moment of
reception), c is the speed of light relative to the emitter (at the
moment of emission).

Pentcho Valev

On Sep 11, 7:48*pm, doug wrote:
Pentcho Valev wrote:
f'/f = c'/c

where f' is the shifted frequency of light (at the moment of
reception), f is the original frequency (at the moment of emission),
c' is the speed of light relative to the observer (at the moment of
reception), c is the speed of light relative to the emitter (at the
moment of emission).

Pentcho Valev


Since this is often measured with a diffraction grating which is
sensitive to the wavelength, your statement above is clearly wrong
as is shown by experiments. *I suspect that this will not deter
you from making more claims but this is for the benefit of anyone
who does not already know your prejudices.

The equation Pound and Rebka confirmed experimentally:

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

Einstein's 1911 equation:

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

Which one is wrong? If Einstein's 1911 equation is wrong, just give
the correct equation (showing how the speed of light varies with the
gravitational potential V). By the way, Einstein later offered
c'=c(1+2V/c^2). Is that the correct equation?

Pentcho Valev

Pentcho Valev wrote:

f'/f = c'/c

where f' is the shifted frequency of light (at the moment of
reception), f is the original frequency (at the moment of emission),
c' is the speed of light relative to the observer (at the moment of
reception), c is the speed of light relative to the emitter (at the
moment of emission).

Pentcho Valev


Since this is often measured with a diffraction grating which is
sensitive to the wavelength, your statement above is clearly wrong
as is shown by experiments. I suspect that this will not deter
you from making more claims but this is for the benefit of anyone
who does not already know your prejudices.

Pentcho Valev wrote:

On Sep 11, 7:48 pm, doug wrote:

Pentcho Valev wrote:

f'/f = c'/c

where f' is the shifted frequency of light (at the moment of
reception), f is the original frequency (at the moment of emission),
c' is the speed of light relative to the observer (at the moment of
reception), c is the speed of light relative to the emitter (at the
moment of emission).

Pentcho Valev


Since this is often measured with a diffraction grating which is
sensitive to the wavelength, your statement above is clearly wrong
as is shown by experiments. I suspect that this will not deter
you from making more claims but this is for the benefit of anyone
who does not already know your prejudices.


The equation Pound and Rebka confirmed experimentally:

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

Einstein's 1911 equation:

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

Which one is wrong? If Einstein's 1911 equation is wrong, just give
the correct equation (showing how the speed of light varies with the
gravitational potential V). By the way, Einstein later offered
c'=c(1+2V/c^2). Is that the correct equation?

Pentcho Valev


So you cannot comment on the fact that a grating measures wavelength
and thus you are wrong. Changing the subject to some random
references does not change that.

Pentcho Valev wrote:

f'/f = c'/c

where f' is the shifted frequency of light (at the moment of
reception), f is the original frequency (at the moment of emission),
c' is the speed of light relative to the observer
[snip crap.

Hey ****ing stooopid - the speed of light relative to an observer is
lightspeed. If you have a very small observer, use the Scharnhorst
effect.

--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/lajos.htm#a2

On Sep 11, 8:50*pm, doug wrote:
Pentcho Valev wrote:
On Sep 11, 7:48 pm, doug wrote:

Pentcho Valev wrote:

f'/f = c'/c

where f' is the shifted frequency of light (at the moment of
reception), f is the original frequency (at the moment of emission),
c' is the speed of light relative to the observer (at the moment of
reception), c is the speed of light relative to the emitter (at the
moment of emission).

Pentcho Valev


Since this is often measured with a diffraction grating which is
sensitive to the wavelength, your statement above is clearly wrong
as is shown by experiments. *I suspect that this will not deter
you from making more claims but this is for the benefit of anyone
who does not already know your prejudices.

The equation Pound and Rebka confirmed experimentally:

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

Einstein's 1911 equation:

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

Which one is wrong? If Einstein's 1911 equation is wrong, just give
the correct equation (showing how the speed of light varies with the
gravitational potential V). By the way, Einstein later offered
c'=c(1+2V/c^2). Is that the correct equation?

Pentcho Valev


So you cannot comment on the fact that a grating measures wavelength
and thus you are wrong. *Changing the subject to some random
references does not change that.

Can you prove that diffraction grating is insensitive to variations of
the speed of light (knowing that even the much simpler double slit
experiment is enigmatic in many respects)? Or you just parrot what
your masters say? See this discussion first and then try to elaborate
if you can:

http://groups.google.com/group/sci.p...449251297886b0

Pentcho Valev

Pentcho Valev wrote:

On Sep 11, 8:50 pm, doug wrote:

Pentcho Valev wrote:

On Sep 11, 7:48 pm, doug wrote:

Pentcho Valev wrote:

f'/f = c'/c

where f' is the shifted frequency of light (at the moment of
reception), f is the original frequency (at the moment of emission),
c' is the speed of light relative to the observer (at the moment of
reception), c is the speed of light relative to the emitter (at the
moment of emission).

Pentcho Valev


Since this is often measured with a diffraction grating which is
sensitive to the wavelength, your statement above is clearly wrong
as is shown by experiments. I suspect that this will not deter
you from making more claims but this is for the benefit of anyone
who does not already know your prejudices.

The equation Pound and Rebka confirmed experimentally:

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

Einstein's 1911 equation:

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

Which one is wrong? If Einstein's 1911 equation is wrong, just give
the correct equation (showing how the speed of light varies with the
gravitational potential V). By the way, Einstein later offered
c'=c(1+2V/c^2). Is that the correct equation?

Pentcho Valev


So you cannot comment on the fact that a grating measures wavelength
and thus you are wrong. Changing the subject to some random
references does not change that.


Can you prove that diffraction grating is insensitive to variations of
the speed of light (knowing that even the much simpler double slit
experiment is enigmatic in many respects)? Or you just parrot what
your masters say? See this discussion first and then try to elaborate
if you can:

http://groups.google.com/group/sci.p...449251297886b0

In your reference above, Anderson and Roberts explained your mistake to
you. YOu then went off on an unrelated tangent. If you want more
information about gratings and how they work, you can read a textbook.


Pentcho Valev

On Sep 11, 10:58*am, Uncle Al wrote:
Pentcho Valev wrote:

f'/f = c'/c

where f' is the shifted frequency of light (at the moment of
reception), f is the original frequency (at the moment of emission),
c' is the speed of light relative to the observer

[snip crap.

Hey ****ing stooopid - the speed of light relative to an observer is
lightspeed. *If you have a very small observer, use the Scharnhorst
effect.

--
Uncle Alhttp://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
*(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/lajos.htm#a2

Has the Scharnhorst effect been measured?

On Sep 11, 5:36 pm, Pentcho Valev wrote:
f'/f = c'/c

where f' is the shifted frequency of light (at the moment of
reception), f is the original frequency (at the moment of emission),
c' is the speed of light relative to the observer (at the moment of
reception), c is the speed of light relative to the emitter (at the
moment of emission).

http://www.peninsuladailynews.com/ar...NEWS/809110302
The "Crisis in Cosmology" conference: "Deductive, not inductive,
reasoning should be used."

Then cosmologists should immediately start building a new cosmology
based on the antithesis of Einstein's 1905 false light postulate:

The speed of light varies with the gravitational potential V, in
accordance with Einstein's 1911 equation c'=c(1+V/c^2), and,
equivalently, with the speed of the light source v, in accordance with
the equation c'=c+v given by Newton's emission theory of light.

Pentcho Valev

On Sep 12, 11:25*am, Pentcho Valev wrote:
On Sep 11, 5:36 pm, Pentcho Valev wrote:

f'/f = c'/c

where f' is the shifted frequency of light (at the moment of
reception), f is the original frequency (at the moment of emission),
c' is the speed of light relative to the observer (at the moment of
reception), c is the speed of light relative to the emitter (at the
moment of emission).

http://www.peninsuladailynews.com/ar...NEWS/809110302
The "Crisis in Cosmology" conference: "Deductive, not inductive,
reasoning should be used."

Then cosmologists should immediately start building a new cosmology
based on the antithesis of Einstein's 1905 false light postulate:

The speed of light varies with the gravitational potential V, in
accordance with Einstein's 1911 equation c'=c(1+V/c^2), and,
equivalently, with the speed of the light source v, in accordance with
the equation c'=c+v given by Newton's emission theory of light.

Someone suggested that the relation:

f'/f = c'/c

should be called "The Redshift Law" and I find this suitable. Note
that it involves variation of the speed of light with both the
gravitational potential and the speed of the light source (relative to
the observer). Still the law is only exact when one of the effects can
be neglected. If the contribution of both effects to the value of the
redshift is considerable, then some modified version of the law should
be used.

If we assume that c, the initial speed of light relative to the
source, is constant (this assumption should always be accompanied by a
question mark), then the law allows us to calculate the speed of
light, c', as a function of the measured frequency, f'. It makes sense
to revise ALL cosmological calculations and replace the constant
c=299792458m/s with the variable c' calculated in accordance with the
redshift law.

Pentcho Valev