Albert Einstein Institute: "In the above paragraphs, we have only considered moving sources. In fact, a closer look at cases where it is the receiver that is in motion will show that this kind of motion leads to a very similar kind of Doppler effect. Here is an animation of the receiver moving towards the source:

https://www.einstein-online.info/wp-content/uploads/SRT_Dopplereffekt_Pulse_4_%C2%A9_Daniela_Leitner_Markus_Poessel_Einstein-Online.gif

By observing the two indicator lights, you can see for yourself that, once more, there is a blue-shift - the pulse frequency measured at the receiver is somewhat higher than the frequency with which the pulses are sent out. This time, the DISTANCES BETWEEN SUBSEQUENT PULSES ARE NOT AFFECTED, BUT STILL THERE IS A FREQUENCY SHIFT: As the receiver moves towards each pulse, the time until pulse and receiver meet up is shortened. In this particular animation, which has the receiver moving towards the source at one third the speed of the pulses themselves, four pulses are received in the time it takes the source to emit three pulses." http://www.einstein-online.info/spotlights/doppler.html

Two crucial facts in the stationary-source-moving-receiver scenario:

(A) Speed and frequency of light pulses vary proportionally for the receiver/observer.

(B) Wavelength (distance between light pulses) remains constant.

(A) and (B), generalized over any possible scenario (e.g. moving-source-stationary-receiver, light-falling-in-gravity), will become basic principles of future, Einstein-free physics (if it's not too late for resurrection of physics).

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

Pentcho Valev

The texts below unwittingly lay the foundation of future, Einstein-free physics:

1. Speed and frequency of light vary proportionally, as per Newton's theory..

2. 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

Pentcho Valev <pvalev@yahoo.com> wrote:
> The texts below unwittingly lay the foundation of future, Einstein-free physics:

Pentcho, if you believe you are laying the foundation for future physics
(and on Twitter!), you are completely nuts.

>
> 1. Speed and frequency of light vary proportionally, as per Newton's theory.
>
> 2. 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
>

--
Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables