Discussion:
Speed of Light: Obviously Variable
Add Reply
Pentcho Valev
2018-04-03 10:06:45 UTC
Réponse
Permalink
Raw Message
Stationary light source; moving receiver: Loading Image...

Frequency measured by the source: f; by the moving receiver: f' > f.

Speed of pulses relative to the source: c = df (d is distance between pulses).

Speed of pulses relative to the moving receiver:

c' = df' > c

in violation of Einstein's relativity.
Pentcho Valev
2018-04-04 08:01:31 UTC
Réponse
Permalink
Raw Message
"If we accept the principle of equivalence, we must also accept that light falls in a gravitational field with the same acceleration as material bodies." http://sethi.lamar.edu/bahrim-cristian/Courses/PHYS4480/4480-PROBLEMS/optics-gravit-lens_PPT.pdf

This (Newtonian) acceleration is incompatible with gravitational time dilation. That is, if light does fall in this way, gravitational time dilation does not exist and Einstein's general relativity is absurd:

Loading Image...

The Newtonian acceleration of light in a gravitational field has been unequivocally proved by the Pound-Rebka experiment:

R. V. Pound and J. L. Snider, Effect of Gravity on Gamma Radiation: "It is not our purpose here to enter into the many-sided discussion of the relationship between the effect under study and general relativity or energy conservation. It is to be noted that no strictly relativistic concepts are involved and the description of the effect as an "apparent weight" of photons is suggestive. The velocity difference predicted is identical to that which a material object would acquire in free fall for a time equal to the time of flight." http://virgo.lal.in2p3.fr/NPAC/relativite_fichiers/pound.pdf

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: "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 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

Pentcho Valev
Pentcho Valev
2018-04-05 12:49:47 UTC
Réponse
Permalink
Raw Message
Whether Einstein's 1905 light postulate is true or false depends on whether light pulses bunch up in front of the moving source or not:

Loading Image...

Loading Image...

Light pulses don't bunch up - bunching up obviously violates the principle of relativity. The speed of light VARIES with the speed of the light source, as shown by the Michelson-Morley experiment in 1887:

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

Pentcho Valev

Loading...