 cerhu Fundamental Physics Needs Resurrection? Let Us Replace Einstein's1905 False Axiom!

 Pentcho Valev (03/12/2018, 14h19)
In future physics, Einstein's 1905 false axiom

"The speed of light is invariable"

will be replaced with the correct one

"The wavelength of light is invariable".

This means that, in accordance with the formula

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

any registered change in frequency corresponds to a proportional change in the speed of light. In other words, the frequency, as measured by an observer (receiver), shifts ONLY because the speed of the light relative to him shifts.

Some justification for the new axiom:

Albert Einstein Institute: "One of the three classical tests for general relativity is the gravitational redshift of light or other forms of electromagnetic radiation. However, in contrast to the other two tests - the gravitational deflection of light and the relativistic perihelion shift -, 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 inertialmass) suffices. [...] The gravitational redshift was first measured on earth in 1960-65 by Pound, Rebka, and Snider at Harvard University..." [..]

"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 intervalincreases 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." [..]

The quotations show that, for light falling in a gravitational field, the frequency and the speed vary proportionally, as predicted by Newton's theory.. This means that, in accordance with the formula

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

the wavelength is INVARIABLE.

Here is how the new axiom works:

Premise 1: The wavelength of light is invariable.

Premise 2: The formula (frequency)=(speed of light)/(wavelength) is correct.

Conclusion: The Hubble redshift is due to light slowing down as it travels through space. The universe is STATIC, not expanding.

The hypothesis that vacuum slows down light is largely discussed but only in terms of quantum gravity. The implication that the Hubble redshift might be due to decreasing speed of light is persistently ignored (crimestop).

Sabine Hossenfelder: "It's an old story: Quantum fluctuations of space-timemight change the travel-time of light. Light of higher frequencies would be a little faster than that of lower frequencies. Or slower, depending on the sign of an unknown constant. Either way, the spectral colors of light would run apart, or 'disperse' as they say if they don't want you to understand what they say. Such quantum gravitational effects are miniscule, but added up over long distances they can become observable. Gamma ray bursts are therefore ideal to search for evidence of such an energy-dependent speed oflight." [..]

Nature: "As waves travel through a medium, they lose energy over time. Thisdampening effect would also happen to photons traveling through spacetime,the researchers found. Although the effect is small, high-energy photons traveling very long distances should lose a noticeable amount of energy, theresearchers say. [...] If it is true that spacetime is a superfluid and that photons of different energies travel at different speeds or dissipate over time, that means relativity does not hold in all situations." [..]

"Some physicists, however, suggest that there might be one other cosmic factor that could influence the speed of light: quantum vacuum fluctuation. This theory holds that so-called empty spaces in the Universe aren't actuallyempty - they're teeming with particles that are just constantly changing from existent to non-existent states. Quantum fluctuations, therefore, couldslow down the speed of light." [..]

Pentcho Valev
 Pentcho Valev (03/12/2018, 17h54)
Einsteinians teach that light pulses or wavecrests bunch up (the wavelengthdecreases) in front of an emitter moving towards a receiver:

[..]

[..]

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 thesource 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." [..]

Light pulses don't bunch up (the wavelength does not decrease) - bunching up obviously violates the principle of relativity. Rather, the speed of light VARIES with the speed of the emitter, as posited by Newton's emission theory and proved (implicitly) by the Michelson-Morley experiment in 1887:

"Emission theory, also called emitter theory or ballistic theory of light, was a competing theory for the special theory of relativity, explaining theresults of the Michelson–Morley experiment of 1887. [...] The namemost 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)." [..]

Einstein's 1905 axiom

"The speed of light is invariable"

is false. It should be replaced with the correct axiom

"The wavelength of light is invariable"

Pentcho Valev
 Pentcho Valev (04/12/2018, 11h19)
The observer (receiver) starts moving towards the light source. Pulses or wavecrests now hit him more frequently (the frequency he measures increases), which means that the speed of the light relative to the observer (receiver) increases as well, in violation of Einstein's relativity:

[..]

"Doppler effect - when an observer moves towards a stationary source. ...the velocity of the wave relative to the observer is faster than that when itis still." [..]

"Let's say you, the observer, now move toward the source with velocity Vo. You encounter more waves per unit time than you did before. Relative to you, the waves travel at a higher speed: V' = V+Vo. The frequency of the waves you detect is higher, and is given by: f' = V'/λ = (V+Vo)/λ." [..]

"Vo is the velocity of an observer moving towards the source. This velocityis 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 notalter the wavelength. The increase in frequency is a result of the observer encountering more wavelengths in a given time." [..]

So Einstein's relativity is obviously false and yet there is an idiotic ad hoc assumption that saves it: When the initially stationary observer startsmoving towards the light source with speed v, his motion somehow changes the wavelength of the incoming light - from λ to λ'=λc/(c+v) - or the distance between the pulses. (The idiocy is too great, even for the standards of Einstein's schizophrenic world, so Einsteinians don't discuss it explicitly.)

In other words: Einsteinians save Einstein's original nonsense

"The speed of light is invariable"

by implicitly superimposing an even greater nonsense:

"The motion of the observer changes the wavelength of the incoming light".

Needless to say, the motion of the observer CANNOT change the wavelength ofthe incoming light. The validity of the new axiom

"The wavelength of light is invariable"

is more than obvious in this case.

Einstein knew that "The speed of light is invariable" was nonsense but in the end found it profitable to introduce it. Space and time were vandalized accordingly (to fit the nonsensical invariability) and the post-truth (post-sanity) era in science began:

John Stachel: "But this seems to be nonsense. How can it happen that the speed of light relative to an observer cannot be increased or decreased if that observer moves towards or away from a light beam? Einstein states that he wrestled with this problem over a lengthy period of time, to the point ofdespair." [..]

Peter Galison: "Only by criticizing the foundational notions of time and space could one bring the pieces of the theory - that the laws of physics were the same in all constantly moving frames; that light traveled at the samespeed regardless of its source - into harmony." [..]

[..]

Pentcho Valev