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

In the case of light, two facts are important:

1. The wavelength of light remains constant.

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

Concerning the constancy of the wavelength, there is no surprise because that is the case for sound or any other waves. However, when the source starts moving towards the observer, the wavelength becomes variable for all waves but doesn't for light! Big surprise, isn't it?

VARIABLE wavelength of light

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

violates the principle of relativity. If the wavelength varied, the emitter would measure variations inside his spaceship and then would calculate his speed without looking outside. For a given emitter, the wavelength of light never changes!

The formula

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

tolerates two axioms:

Axiom 1: The speed of light is constant.

Axiom 2: For a given emitter, the wavelength of light is constant.

Axiom 1 killed physics.

Axiom 2 will resurrect it (if it's not too late). Corollaries (established truths in future, Einstein-free physics):

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 absurd.

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

Banesh Hoffmann, Einstein's collaborator, admits that, originally ("without recourse to contracting lengths, local time, or Lorentz transformations"), the Michelson-Morley experiment directly proved Newton's variable speed of light and disproved the constant speed of light:

"Moreover, if light consists of particles, as Einstein had suggested in his paper submitted just thirteen weeks before this one, the second principle seems absurd: A stone thrown from a speeding train can do far more damage than one thrown from a train at rest; the speed of the particle is not independent of the motion of the object emitting it. And if we take light to consist of particles and assume that these particles obey Newton's laws, they will conform to Newtonian relativity and thus automatically account for the null result of the Michelson-Morley experiment without recourse to contracting lengths, local time, or Lorentz transformations. Yet, as we have seen, Einstein resisted the temptation to account for the null result in terms of particles of light and simple, familiar Newtonian ideas, and introduced as his second postulate something that was more or less obvious when thought of in terms of waves in an ether." Banesh Hoffmann, Relativity and Its Roots, p.92 https://www.amazon.com/Relativity-Its-Roots-Banesh-Hoffmann/dp/0486406768

Wikipedia tells the truth about the Michelson-Morley experiment here (elsewhere it says the opposite):

"Emission theory, also called emitter theory or ballistic theory of light, was a competing theory for the special theory of relativity, explaining the results of the Michelson–Morley experiment of 1887. [...] The name most often associated with emission theory is Isaac Newton. In his corpuscular theory Newton visualized light "corpuscles" being thrown off from hot bodies at a nominal speed of c with respect to the emitting object, and obeying the usual laws of Newtonian mechanics, and we then expect light to be moving towards us with a speed that is offset by the speed of the distant emitter (c ± v)." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emission_theory

John Norton, high priest in the Einstein cult, also tells the truth about the Michelson-Morley experiment:

John Norton: "The Michelson-Morley experiment is fully compatible with an emission theory of light that CONTRADICTS THE LIGHT POSTULATE." http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/1743/2/Norton.pdf

Now let us consider this:

Richard Feynman: "I want to emphasize that light comes in this form - particles. It is very important to know that light behaves like particles, especially for those of you who have gone to school, where you probably learned something about light behaving like waves. I'm telling you the way it does behave - like particles. You might say that it's just the photomultiplier that detects light as particles, but no, every instrument that has been designed to be sensitive enough to detect weak light has always ended up discovering the same thing: light is made of particles." https://www.amazon.com/QED-Strange-Theory-Light-Matter/dp/0691024170

In this text Feynman unwittingly suggests:

1. The speed of light varies as per Newton.

2. Variable wavelength of light (https://youtube.com/watch?v=xsVxC_NR64M) is an unrealistic wave-based concept.

In future, Einstein-free physics, the wavelength of light will be CONSTANT for a given emitter.

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

Pentcho Valev

On 12/28/21 7:42 AM, Pentcho Valev wrote:
> 1. The wavelength of light remains constant.

Dead in the water. This is experimentally refuted.

> 2. The speed of light relative to the observer is VARIABLE

Dead in the water. This is experimentally refuted (in vacuum).

> [... remainder ignored, as it is just stupid repetitions of nonsense]

Tom Roberts

>"Tom Roberts" wrote in message
>news:4eydnWPE5qFcqlb8nZ2dnUU7_81i4p2d@giganews.com...

>On 12/28/21 7:42 AM, Pentcho Valev wrote:
>> 1. The wavelength of light remains constant.

>Dead in the water. This is experimentally refuted.

>> 2. The speed of light relative to the observer is VARIABLE

>Dead in the water. This is experimentally refuted (in vacuum).

Not really.

Experiments can only show that that view is only consistent within the
circular definition of SR, not that it forms a refutation.

The measurement of the SOL by the observer, *requires* the *assumption* that
clocks tick independently of motion. That is the POR.

The speed of light can *only* be measured with clocks, if clocks tick change
in sync with a SOL change, it will cancel.

The *direct* experimental evidence on measuring clocks in motion, show that
they tick slower. Thus casting doubt on the claim that clocks tick the same.

SR unilaterally decide to explain these ticks as only apparently showing
that clocks themselves are slowing, and that there is a *different* reason
from the prima-facia evidence. That is SR, *claims* that the clocks take a
"different path in space time". There is no way to verify this.

SR is circular. There is no way to independently verify the SOL & the POR
together.

Both may be incorrect, yet still result in the same observations and same
mathematics.

Its absolutely fundamental to the claim that the SOL does not depend on
observer motion that there is an independent method to determine time, other
than clocks. If time is defined as "whatever a good clock says it is", this
is impossible.

It is crucial to understand that axioms may be false, but consistent, still
resulting in a correct answer. Alternative axioms are just as valid if that
achieves the same LT. Such alternatives exist.

Its a fundamental problem that Quantum Mechanics regards time as universal
and absolute.

Its the elephant in the room.

SR fundamentally depends on deterministic events. Its fundamentally time
travel into a pre existing future. This is impossible according to QM

The reality, is that SR's "space-time" is only a convenient mathematical
model, that ignores the actual physics. SR ignores what time actually is.

Unfortunately, too many believe that if they get the correct answer, that
the reason for it must also be correct.

SR appears on the surface correct, because it has evolved from a long
history of alternative theories. It is thus not surprising that theories
exist, that are based on falsities.

-- Kevin Aylward
http://www.kevinaylward.co.uk/gr/index.html
http://www.kevinaylward.co.uk/qm/index.html

The texts below implicitly contain basic principles of future, Einstein-free physics:

1. The wavelength of light always remains constant (the fundamental axiom).

2. The speed and the frequency of light always vary proportionally, 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

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

Pentcho Valev

On 12/28/21 3:46 PM, Kevin Aylward wrote:
>> "Tom Roberts" wrote in message
>> news:4eydnWPE5qFcqlb8nZ2dnUU7_81i4p2d@giganews.com... On 12/28/21
>> 7:42 AM, Pentcho Valev wrote:
>>> 1. The wavelength of light remains constant.
>> Dead in the water. This is experimentally refuted.
>>> 2. The speed of light relative to the observer is VARIABLE
>> Dead in the water. This is experimentally refuted (in vacuum).
>
> Not really.

Yes, really. You do not know what you are attempting to talk about.

> Experiments can only show that that view is only consistent within
> the circular definition of SR, not that it forms a refutation.

The "circular definition" is only in your mind. Basically because you do
not know what the words you use actually mean.

> The measurement of the SOL by the observer, *requires* the
> *assumption* that clocks tick independently of motion.

No. This is no "assumption", it is OBSERVED. In any laboratory on earth,
take any atomic transition as the basis of a clock, and compare it to
the definition of a second (9,192,631,770 cycles of the Cs-133 hyperfine
ground state transition). In all cases, the comparison is independent of
the time of year to about 1 part in 10^16; during the year the earth
varies its velocity relative to the ICRS by ~60 km/sec (~0.0002 c).

> That is the POR.

No. The Principle of Relativity is QUITE different. It does, however,
imply what is observed: identical clocks at rest in any lab on earth
tick at the same rate, independent of time of year.

[Note this is independent of the altitude of the lab.
THINK about what that means....]

> The speed of light can *only* be measured with clocks, if clocks
> tick change in sync with a SOL change, it will cancel.

Pure fantasy. You should learn how the speed of light was ACTUALLY
measured in the years leading up to the redefinition of the meter in
1983 (after which the vacuum speed of light is fixed and used to define
the meter, making measurements of SOL useless).

> The *direct* experimental evidence on measuring clocks in motion,
> show that they tick slower. Thus casting doubt on the claim that
> clocks tick the same.

Pure fantasy. There is no doubt that two clocks in relative motion do
not remain in sync. But the evidence is NOT as you claim, but rather
that MEASUREMENTS of moving clocks are slower than MEASUREMENTS of
identical clocks at rest. Moreover, that difference is modeled by SR/GR
at least as accurately as the clocks themselves.

> [... repetitions of the above mistakes]

There is no point in continuing until you educate yourself on what the
experimental evidence ACTUALLY is. Your fantasies, dreams, and hopes are
all wrong.

Hint: there is only one way to measure the tick rate
of a clock without extraneous effects: place a Cs-133
standard right next to it and make a measurement.
THINK about what that means....

Tom Roberts

On Sunday, 2 January 2022 at 00:18:43 UTC+1, tjrob137 wrote:
> On 12/28/21 3:46 PM, Kevin Aylward wrote:
> >> "Tom Roberts" wrote in message
> >> news:4eydnWPE5qFcqlb8...@giganews.com... On 12/28/21
> >> 7:42 AM, Pentcho Valev wrote:
> >>> 1. The wavelength of light remains constant.
> >> Dead in the water. This is experimentally refuted.
> >>> 2. The speed of light relative to the observer is VARIABLE
> >> Dead in the water. This is experimentally refuted (in vacuum).
> >
> > Not really.
> Yes, really. You do not know what you are attempting to talk about.
> > Experiments can only show that that view is only consistent within
> > the circular definition of SR, not that it forms a refutation.
> The "circular definition" is only in your mind. Basically because you do
> not know what the words you use actually mean.
> > The measurement of the SOL by the observer, *requires* the
> > *assumption* that clocks tick independently of motion.
> No. This is no "assumption", it is OBSERVED.

In the delusional world of poor idiot Tom Roberts, where
everyone is FORCED to adjust clocks to his moronic
religion. In the meantime in the real world, forbidden
by it TAI keep measuring t'=t. just like all serious clocks
always did.

> the definition of a second (9,192,631,770 cycles of the Cs-133 hyperfine
> ground state transition).

Such definition of a second is only in your mind. Basically because you do
not know what the words you use actually mean. Real second is
still Earth related, samely as it was when your idiot guru lived
and mumbled.