🚀 go-pugleaf

On Apr 16, 10:31 pm, Pentcho Valev <pva...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> According to the formula:
>
> (frequency) = (speed of light)/(wavelength)
>
> any shift in the speed of light produces a frequency shift (redshift
> or blueshift). Since frequency shifts have been confirmed
> experimentally, Einsteiniana's main concern has always been to
> procrusteanize the wavelength so that the above formula could give
> CONSTANT speed of light and believers could continue singing "Divine
> Einstein" and "Yes we all believe in relativity, relativity,
> relativity". The procrusteanization described below in which the
> wavelength is stretched by the expanding universe is perhaps the least
> idiotic one. The most idiotic procrusteaization is undoubtedly the one
> in which the wavelength depends on the movements of the observer:
>
> http://sampit.geol.sc.edu/Doppler.html
> "Moving observer: A man is standing on the beach, watching the tide.
> The waves are washing into the shore and over his feet with a constant
> frequency and wavelength. However, if he begins walking out into the
> ocean, the waves will begin hitting him more frequently, leading him
> to perceive that the wavelength of the waves has decreased. Again,
> this phenomenon is due to the fact that the source and the observer
> are not the in the same frame of reference. Although the wavelength
> appears to have decreased to the man, the wavelength would appear
> constant to a jellyfish floating along with the tide."
>
> http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/teaching/HPS_0410/chapters/big_bang/ind...
> John Norton: "Here's a light wave and an observer. If the observer
> were to hurry towards the source of the light, the observer would now
> pass wavecrests more frequently than the resting observer. That would
> mean that moving observer would find the frequency of the light to
> have increased (AND CORRESPONDINGLY FOR THE WAVELENGTH - THE DISTANCE
> BETWEEN CRESTS - TO HAVE DECREASED)."
>
> The idea that the speed of light can be kept CONSTANT by
> procrusteanizing the wavelength into conformity with the gravitational
> redshift can be referred to as Einsteiniana's classical idiocy:
>
> http://www.astronomynotes.com/relativity/s4.htm
> "Prediction: light escaping from a large mass should lose energy---the
> wavelength must increase since the speed of light is constant.
> Stronger surface gravity produces a greater increase in the
> wavelength. This is a consequence of time dilation. Suppose person A
> on the massive object decides to send light of a specific frequency f
> to person B all of the time. So every second, f wave crests leave
> person A. The same wave crests are received by person B in an interval
> of time interval of (1+z) seconds. He receives the waves at a
> frequency of f/(1+z). Remember that the speed of light c = (the
> frequency f) (the wavelength L). If the frequency is reduced by (1+z)
> times, the wavelength must INcrease by (1+z) times: L_atB = (1+z)
> L_atA. In the doppler effect, this lengthening of the wavelength is
> called a redshift. For gravity, the effect is called a GRAVITATIONAL
> REDSHIFT."
>
> http://helios.gsfc.nasa.gov/qa_sp_gr.html
> "Is light affected by gravity? If so, how can the speed of light be
> constant? Wouldn't the light coming off of the Sun be slower than the
> light we make here? If not, why doesn't light escape a black hole?
> Yes, light is affected by gravity, but not in its speed. General
> Relativity (our best guess as to how the Universe works) gives two
> effects of gravity on light. It can bend light (which includes effects
> such as gravitational lensing), and it can change the energy of light.
> But it changes the energy by shifting the frequency of the light
> (gravitational redshift) not by changing light speed. Gravity bends
> light by warping space so that what the light beam sees as "straight"
> is not straight to an outside observer. The speed of light is still
> constant." Dr. Eric Christian
>
> Believers' reaction to any procrusteanization of the wavelength:
>
> http://www.haverford.edu/physics/songs/divine.htm
> No-one's as dee-vine as Albert Einstein
> Not Maxwell, Curie, or Bohr!
> He explained the photo-electric effect,
> And launched quantum physics with his intellect!
> His fame went glo-bell, he won the Nobel --
> He should have been given four!
> No-one's as dee-vine as Albert Einstein,
> Professor with brains galore!
> No-one could outshine Professor Einstein --
> Egad, could that guy derive!
> He gave us special relativity,
> That's always made him a hero to me!
> Brownian motion, my true devotion,
> He mastered back in aught-five!
> No-one's as dee-vine as Albert Einstein,
> Professor in overdrive!
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5PkLLXhONvQ
> We all believe in relativity, relativity, relativity.
> Yes we all believe in relativity, 8.033, relativity.
> Einstein's postulates imply
> That planes are shorter when they fly.
> Their clocks are slowed by time dilation
> And look warped from aberration.
> We all believe in relativity, relativity, relativity.
> Yes we all believe in relativity, 8.033, relativity.
>
> Pentcho Valev wrote:
>
> An explanation of the Hubble redshift that might be referred to as
> "the elastic wavelength explanation":
>
> http://www.littleindia.com/news/143/ARTICLE/6359/2010-04-06.html
> "When light begins its long journey from an exploding supernova, it
> has to confront an expanding universe along its path. This expansion
> of pace "redshifts" the light waves. In other words, the wavelength of
> light is stretched to the red end of the spectrum. The level of
> redshift and the distance of the explosion allow us to measure the
> rate of the expansion of the universe. These observational data form a
> large number of supernovae record the expansion history of the
> universe. Some unknown force is prompting the acceleration. This force
> is greater than that neutralizing the combined gravitational pull of
> normal and dark matter. This discovery wasn't cause for celebration
> among astronomers - rather it was shocking."
>
> The "unknown force" (Dark Energy) may be "shocking" but Einsteinians
> know it is a fantastic money-spinner:
>
> http://www.physorg.com/news179508040.html
> "More than a dozen ground-based Dark Energy projects are proposed or
> under way, and at least four space-based missions, each of the order
> of a billion dollars, are at the design concept stage."
>
> Billions are billions and yet, late at night, alone in beds,
> Einsteinians indulge in blasphemy: something in the vacuum seems to be
> responsible for slowing down the speed of light (sorry, Divine Albert)
> and this, combined with the formula:
>
> (frequency) = (speed of light)/(wavelength)
>
> gives an explanation of the Hubble redshift much more reasonable than
> the elastic wavelength explanation:
>
> http://www.littleindia.com/news/143/ARTICLE/6359/2010-04-06.html
> "This repulsive background energy associated with the empty space
> could be dark energy. However, there is no compelling evidence for
> that claim. The theoretical calculations suggest that the amount of
> vacuum energy is too high for reasonable explanations. Emptiness is
> not a true void as was deemed in the past. Quantum theory considers a
> vacuum as a pool of virtual particles rapidly popping in and out of
> existence. The particles and energy incarnate inside the so-called
> emptiness as a result of invisible interactions."
>
> http://www.sciscoop.com/2008/10
> "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? If so, wouldn't a stick plunged into the pool
> appear bent as the light is refracted and won't that affect all our
> observations about the universe. I asked theoretical physicist Leonard
> Susskind, author of The Black Hole War, recently reviewed in Science
> Books to explain this apparent anomaly....."You are entirely right,"
> he told me, "there are all sorts of effects on the propagation of
> light that astronomers and astrophysicists must account for. The point
> of course is that they (not me) do take these effects into account and
> correct for them." "In a way this work is very heroic but unheralded,"
> adds Susskind, "An immense amount of extremely brilliant analysis has
> gone into the detailed corrections that are needed to eliminate these
> 'spurious' effects so that people like me can just say 'light travels
> with the speed of light.' So, there you have it. My concern about
> cosmic swimming pools and bent sticks does indeed apply, but
> physicists have taken the deviations into account so that other
> physicists, such as Susskind, who once proved Stephen Hawking wrong,
> can battle their way to a better understanding of the universe."
>
> http://www.springerlink.com/content/w6777w07xn737590/fulltext.pdf
> Astrophys Space Sci (2009) 323: 205211
> Misconceptions about the Hubble recession law
> Wilfred H. Sorrell
> "The question is this: Do astronomical observations necessarily
> support the idea of an expanding universe? Almost all cosmologists
> believe as sacrosanct that the Hubble recession law was directly
> inferred from astronomical observations. As this belief might be ill-
> founded... (...) It turns out that the Hubble recession law was not
> directly inferred from astronomical observations. The Hubble recession
> law was directly inferred from the ad hoc assumption that the observed
> spectroscopic redshifts of distant galaxies may be interpreted as
> ordinary Doppler shifts. The observational techniques used by Hubble
> led to the empirical discovery of a linear dependence of redshift on
> distance. Based upon these historical considerations, the first
> conclusion of the present study is that astronomical evidence in favor
> of an expanding universe is circumstantial at best. The past eight
> decades of astronomical observations do not necessarily support the
> idea of an expanding universe. (...) Reber (1982) made the interesting
> point that Edwin Hubble was not a promoter of the expanding universe
> idea. Some
>
> read more »...

Moving in space behind light gives you an absolute motion below light
speed flow constant. Relatively speaking light frame moves ahead of
you only by inches.

Mitch Raemsch