If Speed of Light Is Variable, Wavelength Is Constant

[Pentcho Valev]

The speed of light VARIES with the speed of the emitter, as posited by Newton's theory

and unequivocally proved by the Michelson-Morley experiment:

"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

Banesh Hoffmann, Einstein's co-author, admits that, originally ("without recourse to contracting lengths, local time, or Lorentz transformations"), the Michelson-Morley experiment was compatible with Newton's variable speed of light, c'=c±v, and incompatible with the constant speed of light, c'=c:

"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

It is easy to see that, given the formula

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

variable speed of light as per Newton implies constant wavelength. If the death of physics is not irreversible, the fundamental axiom of future, Einstein-free physics will be

The wavelength of light is constant (depends only on the nature of the emitting substance and is constant otherwise).

Corollaries of "The wavelength of light is constant":

Corollary 1: Any frequency shift entails (is caused by) a proportional speed-of-light shift.

Corollary 2: If the emitter and the observer travel towards each other with relative speed v, the speed of light relative to the observer is c' = c+v, as posited by Newton's theory.

Corollary 3: Spacetime and gravitational waves (ripples in spacetime) don't exist. LIGO's "discoveries" are fakes.

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.

Corollary 5: The so-called cosmological (Hubble) redshift is due to the speed of light gradually slowing down as light travels through vacuum, in a non-expanding universe.

Corollary 6: The dark sky in the Olbers' paradox can be explained by two facts. 1. Low-speed, high-redshifted light (known as CMB), coming from very distant sources, is invisible. 2. Beyond a certain distance, the star light does not reach us at all (its speed relative to us is reduced to zero).

 

[Pentcho Valev]

Below John Norton exposes theoretical physicists ("later writers") as deliberate liars. They use the Michelson-Morley experiment "as support for the light postulate of special relativity", knowing that this experiment is "fully compatible with an emission theory of light that contradicts the light postulate":

John Norton: "In addition to his work as editor of the Einstein papers in finding source material, Stachel assembled the many small clues that reveal Einstein's serious consideration of an emission theory of light; and he gave us the crucial insight that Einstein regarded the Michelson-Morley experiment as evidence for the principle of relativity, whereas later writers almost universally use it as support for the light postulate of special relativity. Even today, this point needs emphasis. 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

The deliberate lie:

"The conclusion of the Michelson-Morley experiment was that the speed of light was a constant c in any inertial frame. Why is this result so surprising? First, it invalidates the Galilean coordinate transformation. Note that with the frames as defined in the previous section, if light is travelling in the x' direction in frame O' with velocity c, then its speed in the O frame is, by the Galilean transform, c+v, not c as measured. This invalidates two thousand years of understanding of the nature of time and space. The only comparable discovery is the discovery that the earth isn't flat! The Michelson Morley experiment has inevitably brought about a profound change in our understanding of the world." http://www.berkeleyscience.com/relativity.htm

Joao Magueijo, Faster Than the Speed of Light: "A missile fired from a plane moves faster than one fired from the ground because the plane's speed adds to the missile's speed. If I throw something forward on a moving train, its speed with respect to the platform is the speed of that object plus that of the train. You might think that the same should happen to light: Light flashed from a train should travel faster. However, what the Michelson-Morley experiments showed was that this was not the case: Light always moves stubbornly at the same speed. This means that if I take a light ray and ask several observers moving with respect to each other to measure the speed of this light ray, they will all agree on the same apparent speed!" https://www.amazon.com/Faster-Than-Speed-Light-Speculation/dp/0738205257

Stephen Hawking, A Brief History of Time, Chapter 2: "The special theory of relativity was very successful in explaining that the speed of light appears the same to all observers (as shown by the Michelson-Morley experiment)..." http://www.amazon.com/Brief-History-Time-Stephen-Hawking/dp/0553380168

Brian Cox, p. 91: "...Maxwell's brilliant synthesis of the experimental results of Faraday and others strongly suggested that the speed of light should be the same for all observers. This conclusion was supported by the experimental result of Michelson and Morley, and taken at face value by Einstein." http://www.amazon.com/Why-Does-mc2-Should-Care/dp/0306817586

Ethan Siegel: "The speed of light doesn't change when you boost your light source. Imagine throwing a ball as fast as you can. Depending on what sport you're playing, you might get all the way up to 100 miles per hour (~45 meters/second) using your hand-and-arm alone. Now, imagine you're on a train (or in a plane) moving incredibly quickly: 300 miles per hour (~134 m/s). If you throw the ball from the train, moving in the same direction, how fast does the ball move? You simply add the speeds up: 400 miles per hour, and that's your answer. Now, imagine that instead of throwing a ball, you emit a beam of light instead. Add the speed of the light to the speed of the train... and you get an answer that's completely wrong. Really, you do! This was the central idea of Einstein's theory of special relativity, but it wasn't Einstein who made this experimental discovery; it was Albert Michelson, who's pioneering work in the 1880s demonstrated that this was the case." https://www.forbes.com/sites/starts...amental-physics-that-came-as-total-surprises/

Joe Wolfe: "At this stage, many of my students say things like "The invariance of the speed of light among observers is impossible" or "I can't understand it". Well, it's not impossible. It's even more than possible, it is true. This is something that has been extensively measured, and many refinements to the Michelson and Morley experiment, and complementary experiments have confirmed this invariance to very great precision. As to understanding it, there isn't really much to understand. However surprising and weird it may be, it is the case. It's the law in our universe. The fact of the invariance of c doesn't take much understanding." https://newt.phys.unsw.edu.au/einsteinlight/jw/module3_weird_logic.htm

Neil deGrasse Tyson: "Beginning in 1905, investigations into the behavior of light got positively spooky. That year, Einstein published his special theory of relativity, in which he ratcheted up M & M's null result to an audacious level. The speed of light in empty space, he declared, is a universal constant, no matter the speed of the light-emitting source or the speed of the person doing the measuring." https://www.amazon.fr/Death-Black-Hole-Cosmic-Quandaries/dp/039335038X

Edward Witten on modern physics

View: https://youtu.be/fnzLpyDsn3M?t=77

 

[Classical Motion]

In reference to post #1. I do believe that you are half right. First of all what does it mean when they say constant velocity? Constant to what references? What is the reference that this constant velocity is based on? Can this reference be duplicated? AND how many references are required to measure that velocity?

Modern science says that the rate of time and the length of length, vary with the amount of mass in the neighborhood, or that velocity can vary the rate of time and the length of length.

So, what are we going to use as a reference for velocity? With space-time....there can be no such place as a stationary point in space. Because the properties of space(time and length) are constantly changing with the movement of mass.

Saying that ANYTHING has a constant velocity is meaningless. A constant velocity would need a constant space. And please remember, we have yet to measure the velocity of one way light.

Space-time removed all references. Nothing can be constant. The only constant that doesn't seem to change, is charge, +e and -e, which they have not changed yet. I'm sure it will come.

Newton was right about his corpuscle theory, only he was wrong about c`= c +/- v, like a ball from a train. There are two physical reasons for this. The c` = c+/-v, comes from the inertia of mass. The inertia is what shares the velocities. But a radio emission has no inertia. The velocity of the emitter can not be impinged on the velocity of the emission. And there is one more reason. The act of emission is an instant act, it takes no time. The field is emitted as a chunk, not a stream. Intermittent strobes. A duty cycle, not a wave.

These physicalities allow light to present a constant velocity to a stationary point in space.....from all emissions. Thus......the constant velocity of light. TO A STATIONARY POINT ONLY. If the emitter is moving, only the dead space time between emissions can change. But only the fight time, NOT the strobe time and length, changes. Only the dead space changes time and length. This is hard to understand, for the period of the frequency changes.......but the on time of the duty cycle does not. This dynamic is foreign to our engineering concepts and function designs. The velocity of the on time remains constant, no matter the emitter velocity. This is extremely hard for people who think of radio waves.

Unlike emission, detection takes time. That detection time can be changed with detector displacement, that is relative velocity. We detect this change in velocity as a change in phase and frequency when our detectors are moving. The very fact of changing frequency with detector V is proof, the c is constant.

Draw a 50% duty cycle square wave. This would represent the emission if no rel V. If the emitter moves, only the off time length changes. If the detector is moving, both the off time and the on time changes equally with the movement. The square wave represents the lengths and durations only......NOT the amplitude of the emission. The amplitude is saw toothed.

This is a valuable tool we will use in the future. If we know the true emitted frequency, we can calculate the true rel v of emitter and true rel v of detector. Separately.

Stars blink very quickly. All of those star's blink on times remain constant, but all of those blink off times change with the star's v. And on the other hand, our velocity effects both the off and on times equally. This should make it easy to separate these effects....and plot true relative velocities. But must be certain of emitted frequency. We will see this in the future with faster switches and detectors.

And there are many other causes for a shifted emitted frequency. Gravity. And space particle media can change the frequency of emitted light. Because of the media, shifts might be common with long distance. A moving reflector or a moving refractor can change frequency also. How much light from a super nova is reflected or refractored? Bounced from a moving object, before it gets to us. All that light will be different than the emitted light. If the bouncing platform is moving, the bounced light will be different.

Space-time, the intellect of contradiction. One constant that breaks all others. Trying to fit light into a continuous waveform.