John Norton: "Here's a light wave and an observer. If the observer were to hurry towards the source of the light, the observer would now pass wavecrests more frequently than the resting observer. That would mean that moving observer would find the frequency of the light to have increased (and correspondingly for the wavelength - the distance between crests - to have decreased)." http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/teaching/HPS_0410/chapters/big_bang_observed/index.html

Kip Thorne: "If you move toward the [light] source, you see the wavelength shortened but you don't see the speed changed" https://youtu.be/mvdlN4H4T54?t=296

Can the motion of the observer shorten the wavelength of the incoming light? Obviously not - see https://youtube.com/watch?v=bg7O4rtlwEE. Then why do John Norton and Kip Thorne lie so blatantly? Because, if the wavelength remains constant, the speed of light relative to the observer varies proportionally to the frequency, in accordance with the formula

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

And if the speed of light is variable, modern physics has been long dead (exists in a zombie state), as the following texts clearly suggest:

"He opened by explaining how Einstein's theory of relativity is the foundation of every other theory in modern physics and that the assumption that the speed of light is constant is the foundation of that theory. Thus a constant speed of light is embedded in all of modern physics and to propose a varying speed of light (VSL) is worse than swearing! It is like proposing a language without vowels." http://www.thegreatdebate.org.uk/VSLRevPrnt.html

"If there's one thing every schoolboy knows about Einstein and his theory of relativity, it is that the speed of light in vacuum is constant. No matter what the circumstances, light in vacuum travels at the same speed... The speed of light is the very keystone of physics, the seemingly sure foundation upon which every modern cosmological theory is built, the yardstick by which everything in the universe is measured. [...] The only aspect of the universe that didn't change was the speed of light. And ever since, the constancy of the speed of light has been woven into the very fabric of physics, into the way physics equations are written, even into the notation used. Nowadays, to "vary" the speed of light is not even a swear word: It is simply not present in the vocabulary of physics." https://www.amazon.com/Faster-Than-Speed-Light-Speculation/dp/0738205257

"The whole of physics is predicated on the constancy of the speed of light," Joao Magueijo, a cosmologist at Imperial College London and pioneer of the theory of variable light speed, told Motherboard. "So we had to find ways to change the speed of light without wrecking the whole thing too much." https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/8q87gk/light-speed-slowed

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

Pentcho Valev

Pentcho Valev wrote:

> Kip Thorne: "If you move toward the [light] source, you see the
> wavelength shortened but you don't see the speed changed"

that's exactly the problem they have in relativity.

The idea that the motion of the observer changes the wavelength of the incoming light is too idiotic, even by the standards of the Einstein cult, so Einsteinians don't discuss it explicitly (there are exceptions of course). On the other hand, the idiocy is life-saving. If the motion of the observer does not change the wavelength of the incoming light (which is more than obvious), the speed of light relative to the moving observer is VARIABLE and modern physics collapses. The danger is so great that some Einsteinians lose control of themselves and attribute the idiocy to sound waves as well:

http://bretagnemontagne.files.wordpress.com/2011/02/23.jpg

Professor Martin White, UC Berkeley: "...the sound waves have a fixed wavelength (distance between two crests or two troughs) only if you're not moving relative to the source of the sound. If you are moving away from the source (or equivalently it is receding from you) then each crest will take a little longer to reach you, and so you'll perceive a longer wavelength. Similarly if you're approaching the source, then you'll be meeting each crest a little earlier, and so you'll perceive a shorter wavelength. [...] The same principle applies for light as well as for sound. In detail the amount of shift depends a little differently on the speed, since we have to do the calculation in the context of special relativity. But in general it's just the same: if you're approaching a light source you see shorter wavelengths (a blue-shift), while if you're moving away you see longer wavelengths (a red-shift)." http://w.astro.berkeley.edu/~mwhite/darkmatter/dopplershift.html

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

Pentcho Valev

On 28-Dec-21 1:55 am, Pentcho Valev wrote:
> John Norton: "Here's a light wave and an observer. If the observer
> were to hurry towards the source of the light, the observer would now
> pass wavecrests more frequently than the resting observer. That would
> mean that moving observer would find the frequency of the light to
> have increased (and correspondingly for the wavelength - the distance
> between crests - to have decreased)."
> http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/teaching/HPS_0410/chapters/big_bang_observed/index.html
>
> Kip Thorne: "If you move toward the [light] source, you see the
> wavelength shortened but you don't see the speed changed"
> https://youtu.be/mvdlN4H4T54?t=296
>
> Can the motion of the observer shorten the wavelength of the incoming
> light? Obviously not - see https://youtube.com/watch?v=bg7O4rtlwEE.
> Then why do John Norton and Kip Thorne lie so blatantly? Because, if
> the wavelength remains constant, the speed of light relative to the
> observer varies proportionally to the frequency, in accordance with
> the formula
>

Yes, if we assume that time and space are absolute.

Oh, wait, that's what you're trying to prove.

Sylvia.

On Monday, December 27, 2021 at 6:08:38 PM UTC-8, Sylvia Else wrote:
> On 28-Dec-21 1:55 am, Pentcho Valev wrote:
> > John Norton: "Here's a light wave and an observer. If the observer
> > were to hurry towards the source of the light, the observer would now
> > pass wavecrests more frequently than the resting observer. That would
> > mean that moving observer would find the frequency of the light to
> > have increased (and correspondingly for the wavelength - the distance
> > between crests - to have decreased)."
> > http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/teaching/HPS_0410/chapters/big_bang_observed/index.html
> >
> > Kip Thorne: "If you move toward the [light] source, you see the
> > wavelength shortened but you don't see the speed changed"
> > https://youtu.be/mvdlN4H4T54?t=296
> >
> > Can the motion of the observer shorten the wavelength of the incoming
> > light? Obviously not - see https://youtube.com/watch?v=bg7O4rtlwEE.
> > Then why do John Norton and Kip Thorne lie so blatantly? Because, if
> > the wavelength remains constant, the speed of light relative to the
> > observer varies proportionally to the frequency, in accordance with
> > the formula
> >
> Yes, if we assume that time and space are absolute.
>
> Oh, wait, that's what you're trying to prove.
>
> Sylvia.

The universe has an absolute size that expands forever.
There is math before man's mind.
All of the way back to the universe's initial conditions.
Poo Poo you sylvia...
Do you want to be an authority?

Mitchell Raemsch

On 12/27/21 8:55 AM, Pentcho Valev wrote:
> Doppler Effect Can Topple Modern Physics

Sure. ANY experimental result could potentially refute ("topple") any
physical theory, including those of modern physics. But to do so there
must be an experimental result that is inconsistent with the prediction
of the theory.

To date, for SR, GR, and the standard model, that has not happened.

Valev just continues his mind-numbingly stupid repetitions of his
personal fantasies, pretending they are real. I'll resume ignoring him,
as he clearly is not serious.

Tom Roberts

On Tuesday, 28 December 2021 at 17:04:46 UTC+1, tjrob137 wrote:
> On 12/27/21 8:55 AM, Pentcho Valev wrote:
> > Doppler Effect Can Topple Modern Physics
>
> Sure. ANY experimental result could potentially refute ("topple") any
> physical theory, including those of modern physics. But to do so there
> must be an experimental result that is inconsistent with the prediction
> of the theory.
>
> To date, for SR, GR, and the standard model, that has not happened.

In the meantime in the real world, however, forbidden
by your moronic religion TAI keep measuring t'=t, just
like all serious clocks always did.

Roberts just continues his mind-numbingly stupid repetitions of his
personal fantasies, pretending they are real. I'll resume ignoring him,
as he clearly is not serious.