Pentcho Valev
2008-11-24 11:40:08 UTC
frequency = (speed of light)/(wavelength)
either the speed of light or the wavelength varies with the frequency.
The latter alternative is absurd, as demonstrated by John Kennaugh on
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/d9c0706da2fb96b0
"Suppose you are stationary w.r.t a source 1 light year away.
According to SR light is travelling w.r.t. you at c.....If you now
change your speed so that you are travelling away from the source at v
the frequency of the light you observe will be lower due to Doppler
shift but according to SR the light still travels at c w.r.t you. If c
hasn't changed and the frequency has, then the wavelength must have
changed. The wavelength is generated at the source and what the maths
says is that in your new situation - frame of reference (FoR)- the
wavelength has changed.....The problem with this is that your change
of speed has apparently caused a change in what is happening at the
source 1 light year away with no possible causal mechanism. What is
even more absurd is that the change has to be backdated by 1 year to
avoid a 1 year delay in the frequency changing."
The fact that it is the speed of light, not the wavelength, that
changes with frequency leads to a universal principle called the
f'/f = c'/c
where f' is the shifted frequency of light (at the moment of
reception), f is the original frequency (at the moment of emission),
c' is the speed of light relative to the observer (at the moment of
reception), c is the speed of light relative to the emitter (at the
moment of emission).
The variability of the speed of light and the constancy of the
wavelength also imply that one should look for some reason why the
more distant galaxies are, the more redshifted light coming from them
is. If, as it travels, the photon bumps into some much smaller
particles (this assumption has a lot to do with the tired light
hypothesis), its speed will decrease proportionally to the distance
(this reconciles Hubble's law with the idea of a static universe).
However one can also assume that the effect is virtually zero at small
distances so, in the Pound-Rebka experiment for instance, the result
is consistent with Einstein's 1911 equation c'=c(1+V/c^2) and,
equivalently, with the equation c'=c+v given by Newton's emission
theory of light.
The assumption that the decrease in the speed of photons is
c* - c' = kD
where c* is the speed of photons initially modified at the source by
the movement of the source (relative to the observer) and/or its
gravitational field, c' is the observed (final) speed, D is the
distance between the source and the observer and k is a
proportionality factor. This, combined with the redshift law f'/f = c'/
f'/f = (c*-kD)/c
If the initial modification of the speed of photons is negligible,
f'/f = 1 - kD/c
which is a formula for calculating the distance D or the factor k.
Conclusions: Einstein's 1905 light postulate is false, there was no
Big Bang, the universe is static.
The hypothesis that photons (as well as any other flying objects) bumpeither the speed of light or the wavelength varies with the frequency.
The latter alternative is absurd, as demonstrated by John Kennaugh on
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/d9c0706da2fb96b0
"Suppose you are stationary w.r.t a source 1 light year away.
According to SR light is travelling w.r.t. you at c.....If you now
change your speed so that you are travelling away from the source at v
the frequency of the light you observe will be lower due to Doppler
shift but according to SR the light still travels at c w.r.t you. If c
hasn't changed and the frequency has, then the wavelength must have
changed. The wavelength is generated at the source and what the maths
says is that in your new situation - frame of reference (FoR)- the
wavelength has changed.....The problem with this is that your change
of speed has apparently caused a change in what is happening at the
source 1 light year away with no possible causal mechanism. What is
even more absurd is that the change has to be backdated by 1 year to
avoid a 1 year delay in the frequency changing."
The fact that it is the speed of light, not the wavelength, that
changes with frequency leads to a universal principle called the
f'/f = c'/c
where f' is the shifted frequency of light (at the moment of
reception), f is the original frequency (at the moment of emission),
c' is the speed of light relative to the observer (at the moment of
reception), c is the speed of light relative to the emitter (at the
moment of emission).
The variability of the speed of light and the constancy of the
wavelength also imply that one should look for some reason why the
more distant galaxies are, the more redshifted light coming from them
is. If, as it travels, the photon bumps into some much smaller
particles (this assumption has a lot to do with the tired light
hypothesis), its speed will decrease proportionally to the distance
(this reconciles Hubble's law with the idea of a static universe).
However one can also assume that the effect is virtually zero at small
distances so, in the Pound-Rebka experiment for instance, the result
is consistent with Einstein's 1911 equation c'=c(1+V/c^2) and,
equivalently, with the equation c'=c+v given by Newton's emission
theory of light.
The assumption that the decrease in the speed of photons is
c* - c' = kD
where c* is the speed of photons initially modified at the source by
the movement of the source (relative to the observer) and/or its
gravitational field, c' is the observed (final) speed, D is the
distance between the source and the observer and k is a
proportionality factor. This, combined with the redshift law f'/f = c'/
f'/f = (c*-kD)/c
If the initial modification of the speed of photons is negligible,
f'/f = 1 - kD/c
which is a formula for calculating the distance D or the factor k.
Conclusions: Einstein's 1905 light postulate is false, there was no
Big Bang, the universe is static.
into some much smaller particles and so their speed decreases with
distance gets some support from the following texts:
http://www.sciscoop.com/story/2008/10/30/41323/484
"Does the apparently constant speed of light change over the vast
stretches of the universe? Would our understanding of black holes,
ancient supernovae, dark matter, dark energy, the origins of the
universe and its ultimate fate be different if the speed of light were
not constant?.....Couldn't it be that the supposed vacuum of space is
acting as an interstellar medium to lower the speed of light like some
cosmic swimming pool?"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pioneer_anomaly
"The Pioneer anomaly or Pioneer effect is the observed deviation from
expectations of the trajectories of various unmanned spacecraft
visiting the outer solar system, notably Pioneer 10 and Pioneer 11.
Both spacecraft are escaping from the solar system, and are slowing
down under the influence of the Sun's gravity. Upon very close
examination, however, they are slowing down slightly more than
expected."
Pentcho Valev
***@yahoo.com