Variable Wavelength of Light : Reality or Absurdity?

[Pentcho Valev]

Modern physics teaches that light waves, like sound or water waves, bunch up AT THE EMITTER:

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


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 the source 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." http://www.fisica.net/relatividade/stephen_hawking_a_brief_history_of_time.pdf

The wavelength-variation-at-the-emitter scenario clearly violates the principle of relativity. The traveler could measure the wavelength variations inside his spaceship - so he would know his spaceship's speed without looking outside.

Theoretical physicists see no problem in teaching the absurd wavelength-variation-at-the-emitter scenario because they know the physics community neither understands nor cares about the principle-of-relativity violation. In some situations, however, they are forced to answer the provocative question and then they say: There are wavelength variations, but the emitter does not see them; only the receiver/observer does.

In Einstein's relativity, any absurdity can be "explained" by introducing another absurdity. No red lines at all.

 

[billslugg]

The wavelength shortening at the emitter is only seen by an external observer. Those inside the space ship see the wavelengths as normal thus are unable to judge their speed.

 

[Pentcho Valev]

Einsteinian physics: The motion of the emitter changes the wavelength, but the emitter himself does not see the change - for him, the wavelength remains unchanged. Only the receiver/observer can see the change - this helps him to conclude that the speed of light is gloriously constant.

If someone finds Einsteinian physics preposterous, he/she could come to the only reasonable conclusion: Both emitter and receiver see the wavelength unchanged. In other words, in vacuum, the wavelength of light is constant.

Actually, a lot of evidence suggests that the wavelength of light, in ANY scenario, with or without gravity, depends only on the nature and state of the emitting substance and is constant otherwise.

"The wavelength of light is constant" will become the fundamental axiom of future, Einstein-free physics (if the death of physics is not irreversible). Here are some corollaries of the new axiom:

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 is reduced to zero).

 

[billslugg]

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

Then what did Ligo hear when the "chirps" were detected? Could it be a rogue scientist injecting fake signals? That would be my guess.