A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

Go Back   Home » SpaceBanter.com forum » Astronomy and Astrophysics » Astronomy Misc
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

New Physics Based on the Axiom "Wavelength of Light Is Invariable"



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old February 17th 19, 07:07 PM posted to sci.astro
Pentcho Valev
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,078
Default New Physics Based on the Axiom "Wavelength of Light Is Invariable"

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

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:

https://twitter.com/pentcho_valev

Pentcho Valev
  #2  
Old February 18th 19, 08:33 AM posted to sci.astro
Pentcho Valev
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,078
Default New Physics Based on the Axiom "Wavelength of Light Is Invariable"

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 the one 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." https://www.amazon.com/Relativity-It.../dp/0486406768

Wikipedia: "Emission theory, also called emitter theory or ballistic theory of 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)." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emission_theory

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: http://www.einstein-online.info/imag...ector_blue.gif

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
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
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
Chapt15.57 ultimate meaning of the fine-structure constant 1/137, the"pi of physics" #1333 New Physics #1536 ATOM TOTALITY 5th ed Archimedes Plutonium[_2_] Astronomy Misc 12 May 5th 13 08:01 PM
"Constant failure"; "The greatest equations ever"; "The ComingRevolutions in Particle Physics" Autymn D. C. Astronomy Misc 0 February 20th 08 07:44 AM
"Constant failure"; "The greatest equations ever"; "The Coming Revolutions in Particle Physics" fishfry Astronomy Misc 0 February 13th 08 03:38 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:26 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.