As the observer starts moving towards the light source with speed v https://youtube.com/watch?v=bg7O4rtlwEE, the frequency at the observer shifts from f=c/d to f'=(c+v)/d, where d is the distance between subsequent light pulses. This result is acceptable in both Einsteinian physics and Einstein-free physics, but then there is a difference:

Einsteinian physics: The distance between subsequent pulses shifts from d to d'=dc/(c+v) so that the speed of the pulses relative to the moving observer can gloriously remain unchanged.

Einstein-free physics: The distance between subsequent pulses remains unchanged. The speed of the pulses relative to the moving observer shifts from c to c'=c+v.

Clearly Einsteinian physics is absurd while Einstein-free physics is reasonable.

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

Pentcho Valev

måndag 22 augusti 2022 kl. 12:39:33 UTC+2 skrev pva...@yahoo.com:
> As the observer starts moving towards the light source with speed v https://youtube.com/watch?v=bg7O4rtlwEE, the frequency at the observer shifts from f=c/d to f'=(c+v)/d, where d is the distance between subsequent light pulses. This result is acceptable in both Einsteinian physics and Einstein-free physics, but then there is a difference:
>
> Einsteinian physics: The distance between subsequent pulses shifts from d to d'=dc/(c+v) so that the speed of the pulses relative to the moving observer can gloriously remain unchanged.
>
> Einstein-free physics: The distance between subsequent pulses remains unchanged. The speed of the pulses relative to the moving observer shifts from c to c'=c+v.
>
> Clearly Einsteinian physics is absurd while Einstein-free physics is reasonable.
>
> See more here: https://twitter.com/pentcho_valev
>
> Pentcho Valev
Einsteins stuff works and the non-einstein does not.

Einsteinian physics: The speed of light falling in gravity DECREASES (if the light moves away from the source of gravity, its speed INCREASES):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FJ2SVPahBzg

"Contrary to intuition, the speed of light (properly defined) decreases as the black hole is approached. [...] If the photon, the 'particle' of light, is thought of as behaving like a massive object, it would indeed be accelerated to higher speeds as it falls toward a black hole. However, the photon has no mass and so behaves in a manner that is not intuitively obvious." http://www.physlink.com/Education/AskExperts/ae13.cfm

"Simply put: Light appears to travel slower near bigger mass (in stronger gravitational fields)." https://speed-of-light.com/speed_of_light_gravity.html

"Thus, as φ becomes increasingly negative (i.e., as the magnitude of the potential increases), the radial "speed of light" c_r defined in terms of the Schwarzschild parameters t and r is reduced to less than the nominal value of c." https://www.mathpages.com/rr/s6-01/6-01.htm

Einstein-free physics: The speed of light, like the speed of ordinary projectiles (e.g. bullets), INCREASES as the light approaches the source of gravity. This is so obvious that mainstream physicists often admit it, ignoring for a while the divine prescriptions:

"To see why a deflection of light would be expected, consider Figure 2-17, which shows a beam of light entering an accelerating compartment. Successive positions of the compartment are shown at equal time intervals. Because the compartment is accelerating, the distance it moves in each time interval increases with time. The path of the beam of light, as observed from inside the compartment, is therefore a parabola. But according to the equivalence principle, there is no way to distinguish between an accelerating compartment and one with uniform velocity in a uniform gravitational field. 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

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

R. V. Pound and J. L. Snider, Effect of Gravity on Gamma Radiation: "It is not our purpose here to enter into the many-sided discussion of the relationship between the effect under study and general relativity or energy conservation. It is to be noted that no strictly relativistic concepts are involved and the description of the effect as an "apparent weight" of photons is suggestive. The velocity difference predicted is identical to that which a material object would acquire in free fall for a time equal to the time of flight." http://virgo.lal.in2p3.fr/NPAC/relativite_fichiers/pound.pdf

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

Pentcho Valev

Einsteinian physics: Any frequency shift in light is caused by an inversely proportional wavelength shift.

This is too absurd, even by the standards of the Einstein cult, so Einsteinians do not teach it explicitly. The statement is a direct corollary of Einstein's constant-speed-of-light postulate combined with the formula (frequency)=(speed of light)/(wavelength).

Einstein-free physics: Any frequency shift is caused by a proportional speed-of-light shift.

The statement is universally correct, in any scenario. In this particular scenario https://youtube.com/watch?v=bg7O4rtlwEE the statement is obviously correct.

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

Pentcho Valev