1. Forum
  2. Usenet
  3. SCI.ASTRO

  • Principles of Einstein-Free Physics

    From Pentcho Valev@21:1/5 to All on Fri Aug 26 03:16:12 2022
    The principles of Einstein-free physics are so obviously correct that even mainstream physicists unwittingly advocate them sometimes:

    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." https://courses.physics.illinois.edu/phys419/sp2011/lectures/Lecture13/L13r.html

    Two principles implied in this particular scenario are actually valid in any scenario:

    (1) Frequency and speed of light vary proportionally.

    (2) The wavelength of light is invariable.

    It is easy to see that (1) and (2) are equivalent, given the formula (frequency)=(speed of light)/(wavelength).

    Another scenario where (1) and (2) are obviously true is Doppler (moving observer):

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

    "Thus, the moving observer sees a wave possessing the same wavelength [...] but a different frequency [...] to that seen by the stationary observer." http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/315/Waveshtml/node41.html

    "The wavelength is staying the same in this case." https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MHepfIIsKcE

    "Vo is the velocity of an observer moving towards the source. This velocity is independent of the motion of the source. Hence, the velocity of waves relative to the observer is c + Vo. [...] The motion of an observer does not alter the wavelength. The
    increase in frequency is a result of the observer encountering more wavelengths in a given time." http://a-levelphysicstutor.com/wav-doppler.php

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

    Pentcho Valev

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Pentcho Valev@21:1/5 to All on Fri Aug 26 04:52:34 2022
    Physicists would not readily accept the principle "The 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/stephen_hawking_a_brief_history_of_time.pdf

    Hawking is not alone - all physicists believe that the wavelength of light varies with the speed of the emitter. Here is an animation: https://youtu.be/3mJTRXCMU6o?t=77

    Variable wavelength of light contradicts the principle of relativity. If the wavelength varied, the emitter could regularly measure the (varying) wavelength inside his spaceship - so he would know his speed without looking outside. If, for instance,
    measurements inside the spaceship show that the wavelength has decreased, the emitter will conclude that his spaceship is now moving faster than before.

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

    Pentcho Valev

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Pentcho Valev@21:1/5 to All on Fri Aug 26 14:45:29 2022
    The formula (frequency) = (speed of light)/(wavelength) leads to the following two arguments:

    (1) Axiom: The speed of light is invariable. Corollary: Any frequency shift entails (is caused by) an inversely proportional wavelength shift.

    (2) Axiom: The wavelength of light is invariable. Corollary: Any frequency shift entails (is caused by) a proportional speed-of-light shift.

    Argument (1) belongs to Einsteinian physics. The corollary is obviously false:

    "The moving observer sees a wave possessing the same wavelength [...] but a different frequency [...] to that seen by the stationary observer." http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/315/Waveshtml/node41.html

    Argument (2) belongs to future, Einstein-free physics.

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

    Pentcho Valev

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Lou@21:1/5 to Pentcho Valev on Sat Aug 27 01:45:03 2022
    On Friday, 26 August 2022 at 22:45:30 UTC+1, Pentcho Valev wrote:
    The formula (frequency) = (speed of light)/(wavelength) leads to the following two arguments:

    (1) Axiom: The speed of light is invariable. Corollary: Any frequency shift entails (is caused by) an inversely proportional wavelength shift.

    (2) Axiom: The wavelength of light is invariable. Corollary: Any frequency shift entails (is caused by) a proportional speed-of-light shift.

    Argument (1) belongs to Einsteinian physics. The corollary is obviously false:

    "The moving observer sees a wave possessing the same wavelength [...] but a different frequency [...] to that seen by the stationary observer." http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/315/Waveshtml/node41.html

    Argument (2) belongs to future, Einstein-*infested* physics.
    Note argument 2 ignores MMX which shows us that emr always travels at c in the source frame. And the source in pound Rebka does not move relative to the detector.

    Argument (3) is the only argument which obeys all empirically observed properties
    of light and atoms. Because for centuries light has been observed to only have wave
    properties, and atoms only resonant properties.
    And photons are Einsteins fantasy, never actually observed and only
    assumed. Then it follows that emr must be wave only. And atoms are resonant systems.

    And centuries of observations of resonant systems shows is that the natural resonant
    frequency of a system will change if subjected to an external force. Like gravity.
    The detector and emitter are at different gravitational potentials. Hence both have slightly different resonant frequencies due to different potentials of g. And would be the same f only if not seperated by height.
    So the conclusion is it’s the *detector* which changes its resonant frequency.
    due to its different altitude relative to the source.
    Not the *light*.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Pentcho Valev@21:1/5 to All on Sat Aug 27 13:07:52 2022
    The formula

    (frequency) = (speed of light)/(wavelength)

    can be combined with two axioms:

    Axiom 1: The speed of light is invariable (Einstein 1905).

    Axiom 2: The wavelength of light is invariable.

    Axiom 1 killed physics.

    Axiom 2 will resurrect it (if it's not too late). Important corollaries:

    Corollary 1: Any frequency shift 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 fakes.

    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.

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

    See also: https://twitter.com/pentcho_valev

    Pentcho Valev

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Lou@21:1/5 to Pentcho Valev on Sun Aug 28 01:10:59 2022
    On Saturday, 27 August 2022 at 21:07:53 UTC+1, Pentcho Valev wrote:
    The formula

    (frequency) = (speed of light)/(wavelength)
    can be combined with two axioms:

    Axiom 1: The speed of light is invariable (Einstein 1905).

    Axiom 2: The wavelength of light is invariable.

    Axiom 1 killed physics.

    Axiom 2 will resurrect it (if it's not too late). Important corollaries:

    Corollary 1: Any frequency shift 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 fakes.

    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.

    Corollary 5: The Hubble redshift is due to light slowing down as it travels through vacuum. The universe is not expanding.
    Dont get me wrong I agree that the Big Bang Theory is nonsense. But how can light
    slow down as it propagates through space and still be redshifted?

    If you slow down waves at a steady rate as they move away from the source then it is UNDENIABLE that the distance between the waves also reduces over distance.
    And contrary to your (and Eric Lerner) claims, this *has* to result in a shorter
    wavelength the farther it travels from the source.
    And so ultimately whenever it reaches the observer the slower light
    will not appear redshifted because the faster arrival frequency due to a shorter
    wavelength compensates for the slower wave speed and will result in no difference between emitted and observed light. No matter how far away the source is from the observer.
    The universe is not expanding. And redshift must be due to some frequency change over distance. But a slower light speed will not deliver redshift.

    See also: https://twitter.com/pentcho_valev

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