If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. 


Thread Tools  Display Modes 
#1




Paradigm Shift: from Invariable Speed of Light to Invariable Wavelength
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 the light source, the frequency he measures shifts but his motion does not change the wavelength (or the distance between the pulses) of the incoming light: http://www.einsteinonline.info/imag...ector_blue.gif 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 axiom is 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 the source 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." http://www.fisica.net/relatividade/s...ry_of_time.pdf 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 the speed 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: https://newt.phys.unsw.edu.au/einste...eird_logic.htm 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: https://pbs.twimg.com/media/D0U6R1RXgAEbxnQ.png Pentcho Valev 
Ads 
#2




Paradigm Shift: from Invariable Speed of Light to Invariable Wavelength
As light falls in gravity, its speed and frequency increase proportionally:
University of Illinois at UrbanaChampaign: "Consider a falling object. ITS SPEED 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." https://courses.physics.illinois.edu...re13/L13r.html 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 speed u. 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'/Î» = f(1 + gh/c^2) where Î» is the (invariable) wavelength and f=c/Î» is the initial frequency (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 general relativity is nonsense. Pentcho Valev 
Thread Tools  
Display Modes  


Similar Threads  
Thread  Thread Starter  Forum  Replies  Last Post 
Paradigm Shift: Variable Speed of Light, Invariable Wavelength  Pentcho Valev  Astronomy Misc  5  March 9th 19 08:39 AM 
Invariable Wavelength of Light: the Axiom That Could Resurrect Physics  Pentcho Valev  Astronomy Misc  3  March 7th 19 01:04 AM 
New Axiom in Fundamental Physics: Invariable Wavelength of Light  Pentcho Valev  Astronomy Misc  1  February 14th 19 04:58 PM 
Speed of Light Is Not Invariable ; Wavelength of Light Is  Pentcho Valev  Astronomy Misc  1  November 30th 18 03:10 PM 
Why Einstein Proposed That Speed Of Light Is Invariable....  Pentcho Valev  Astronomy Misc  0  May 14th 08 07:45 AM 