The observer starts moving towards the light source:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bg7O4rtlwEE

Two obvious facts in this particular scenario:

(A) The speed and the frequency of the light pulses vary proportionally for the observer.

(B) The wavelength (distance between light pulses) remains constant.

The fact (B) remains a fact in ANY scenario (moving emitter, moving observer, presence or absence of gravity) and will become the fundamental axiom of future, Einstein-free physics:

For a given emitter, the wavelength of light is constant.

Some corollaries:

Corollary 1: Any frequency shift entails (is caused by) a proportional speed-of-light shift.

Corollary 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, as per Newton's theory.

Corollary 3: Spacetime and gravitational waves (ripples in spacetime) don't exist. LIGO's "discoveries" are fake.

Corollary 4: 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, there is no gravitational time dilation: Einstein's general
relativity is an absurdity.

Corollary 5: The Hubble redshift is due to light slowing down as it travels through vacuum. The universe is not expanding.

See more here: https://twitter.com/pentcho_valev

Pentcho Valev

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Saturday, 22 January 2022 at 12:23:37 UTC, Pentcho Valev wrote:

The observer starts moving towards the light source:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bg7O4rtlwEE

Two obvious facts in this particular scenario:

(A) The speed and the frequency of the light pulses vary proportionally for the observer.

(B) The wavelength (distance between light pulses) remains constant.

The fact (B) remains a fact in ANY scenario (moving emitter, moving observer, presence or absence of gravity) and will become the fundamental axiom of future, Einstein-free physics:

For a given emitter, the wavelength of light is constant.

Some corollaries:

Corollary 1: Any frequency shift entails (is caused by) a proportional speed-of-light shift.

Corollary 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, as per Newton's theory.

Corollary 3: Spacetime and gravitational waves (ripples in spacetime) don't exist. LIGO's "discoveries" are fake.

Corollary 4: 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, there is no gravitational time dilation: Einstein's

general relativity is an absurdity.

Corollary 5: The Hubble redshift is due to light slowing down as it travels through vacuum. The universe is not expanding.

See more here: https://twitter.com/pentcho_valev

Pentcho Valev

I agree the Big Bang is a pre copernican fantasy. And light does and can
and is observed to lose energy over distance. But not through expansion. Especially seeing as Reiss in his landmark 98 paper admitted that his
pretence of an anomalous acceleration was in fact...an excuse to cover
up the fact his SN1a data showed...NO expansion.
Anyways..There’s another possibility. For starters if light “slowed down”..
wouldn’t that be observed locally as a fringe shift in the more updated versions of the MMX like Kennedy?
A better alternative is that light speed is *still c relative to source* only. But the *frequency* decays. Notice that frequency decay of a sample
range of emitted frequencies at c can STILL preserve wavelength.
Yes, it’s mathematically possible. I can prove it if you want.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

The texts below unwittingly suggest that, as light falls in a gravitational field, its speed and frequency vary proportionally while its WAVELENGTH REMAINS CONSTANT, in accordance with the formula (frequency)=(speed of light)/(wavelength).

University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign: "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. The frequency shift was tiny but in agreement with the
theoretical prediction. Consider a light beam that is travelling away from a gravitational field. Its frequency should shift to lower values. This is known as the gravitational red shift of light." https://courses.physics.illinois.edu/phys419/sp2011/
lectures/Lecture13/L13r.html

Albert Einstein Institute: "You do not need general relativity to derive the correct prediction for the gravitational redshift. A combination of Newtonian gravity, a particle theory of light, and the weak equivalence principle (gravitating mass equals
inertial mass) suffices. [...] The gravitational redshift was first measured on earth in 1960-65 by Pound, Rebka, and Snider at Harvard University..." http://www.einstein-online.info/spotlights/redshift_white_dwarfs.html

"We conclude, therefore, that A BEAM OF LIGHT WILL ACCELERATE IN A GRAVITATIONAL FIELD AS DO OBJECTS WITH REST MASS. For example, near the surface of Earth light will fall with acceleration 9.8 m/s^2." http://web.pdx.edu/~pmoeck/books/Tipler_Llewellyn.pdf

More here: https://twitter.com/pentcho_valev

Pentcho Valev

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Saturday, 22 January 2022 at 19:00:02 UTC, Pentcho Valev wrote:

The texts below unwittingly suggest that, as light falls in a gravitational field, its speed and frequency vary proportionally while its WAVELENGTH REMAINS CONSTANT, in accordance with the formula (frequency)=(speed of light)/(wavelength).

University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign: "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. The frequency shift was tiny but in agreement with the
theoretical prediction. Consider a light beam that is travelling away from a gravitational field. Its frequency should shift to lower values. This is known as the gravitational red shift of light." https://courses.physics.illinois.edu/phys419/sp2011/
lectures/Lecture13/L13r.html

Albert Einstein Institute: "You do not need general relativity to derive the correct prediction for the gravitational redshift. A combination of Newtonian gravity, a particle theory of light, and the weak equivalence principle (gravitating mass equals

inertial mass) suffices. [...] The gravitational redshift was first measured on earth in 1960-65 by Pound, Rebka, and Snider at Harvard University..." http://www.einstein-online.info/spotlights/redshift_white_dwarfs.html

"We conclude, therefore, that A BEAM OF LIGHT WILL ACCELERATE IN A GRAVITATIONAL FIELD AS DO OBJECTS WITH REST MASS. For example, near the surface of Earth light will fall with acceleration 9.8 m/s^2." http://web.pdx.edu/~pmoeck/books/Tipler_Llewellyn.

pdf

More here: https://twitter.com/pentcho_valev

Pentcho Valev

If light was a particle, maybe this explanation would work.
But you forgot. Light is a wave only. However Pound Rebka still
can be explained. Using the same non GR explanation used to
describe GPS:
Atoms are resonant systems. We know this is true because any
measurement made of atoms always involves it displaying wave
like properties only consistent with resonance.
And resonant systems have resonant frequencies which as
with all classical resonant systems can be modulated
with external forces like gravity.
Gravitational pull is stronger closer to ground and dampens the
resonant frequency of the fe absorber atoms. Changing its res
frequency so that it’s resonant frequency is no longer the same
as the emitter fe atoms higher up.
Doppler shifting the emitter corrects the imbalance.
No GR or change in speed of light is needed.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Doppler Effect: Moving Observer https://youtube.com/watch?v=UHpPsnJNKrk

In the case of light, two conclusions from the above video are important:

(1) The wavelength of light remains constant.

(2) The speed of light relative to the observer is VARIABLE (V'w=Vw+Vo from the video can be replaced with c'=c+Vo), in violation of Einstein's relativity.

Conclusion (1) is not surprising because the wavelength remains constant in the case of sound or any other waves. However the analogy between light and sound stops working when, unlike in the above video, it is the source that starts moving towards the
observer. Then the wavelength of sound shifts but the wavelength of light doesn't! Big surprise, isn't it?

VARIABLE wavelength of light

https://youtube.com/watch?v=xsVxC_NR64M

contradicts the principle of relativity. If the wavelength varied with the speed of the emitter, the emitter would measure the variations inside his spaceship and then would be able to calculate his speed without looking outside! (Note that an emitter of
sound cannot perform an analogous procedure, so "variable wavelength of sound" does not contradict the principle of relativity.)

The fundamental axiom of future (Einstein-free) physics, valid in ANY scenario:

The wavelength of light is constant for a given emitter.

See more here: https://twitter.com/pentcho_valev

Pentcho Valev

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Sunday, 23 January 2022 at 14:37:23 UTC, Pentcho Valev wrote:

Doppler Effect: Moving Observer https://youtube.com/watch?v=UHpPsnJNKrk

In the case of light, two conclusions from the above video are important:

(1) The wavelength of light remains constant.

(2) The speed of light relative to the observer is VARIABLE (V'w=Vw+Vo from the video can be replaced with c'=c+Vo), in violation of Einstein's relativity.

Conclusion (1) is not surprising because the wavelength remains constant in the case of sound or any other waves. However the analogy between light and sound stops working when, unlike in the above video, it is the source that starts moving towards the

observer. Then the wavelength of sound shifts but the wavelength of light doesn't! Big surprise, isn't it?

VARIABLE wavelength of light

https://youtube.com/watch?v=xsVxC_NR64M

I agree with you that the relativistic concept of constant c in all frames
is incorrect. Light always travels at c only in the source frame.
But the video linked above is incorrect. Notice when the source moves
to the right near the beginning of the video, the waveform travels at c RELATIVE to the experiment frame. (With the frame being the video
frame where the observors don’t move). And the speed of light
SLOWS DOWN relative to the source as the source moves!!
If this were true then Michaelson Morley would have shown a fringe shift
as the experiment moves at 1000mph around the earths axis
or at 67,000 mph around the sun.
Even current much more sensitive modern MMX versions show no
fringe shift even thought MMX moves relative to other frames as
I’ve pointed out above.
*Light ALWAYS travels at c relative to the source only*. Regardless
of what the sources movement is relative to the observor frame.
Light does not move at c relative to the experiment/ observor frame
as the YouTube video incorrectly shows.




--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)