🚀 go-pugleaf

On May 22, 8:01 am, Pentcho Valev <pva...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> I suspect clever cosmologists now clearly see the importance of the
> following question:
>
> Given the formula:
>
> frequency = (speed of light)/(wavelength)
>
> is the redshift of a distant star's light due to a change in the speed
> of light, or is it due to a change in wavelength?
>
> The correct answer "redshift is due to change in the speed of light"
> will have to be officially adopted soon:
>
> http://www.blazelabs.com/f-g-gcont.asp
> "So, faced with this evidence most readers must be wondering why we
> learn about the importance of the constancy of speed of light. Did
> Einstein miss this? Sometimes I find out that what's written in our
> textbooks is just a biased version taken from the original work, so
> after searching within the original text of the theory of GR by
> Einstein, I found this quote: "In the second place our result shows
> that, according to the general theory of relativity, the law of the
> constancy of the velocity of light in vacuo, which constitutes one of
> the two fundamental assumptions in the special theory of relativity
> and to which we have already frequently referred, cannot claim any
> unlimited validity. A curvature of rays of light can only take place
> when the velocity of propagation of light varies with position. Now we
> might think that as a consequence of this, the special theory of
> relativity and with it the whole theory of relativity would be laid in
> the dust. But in reality this is not the case. We can only conclude
> that the special theory of relativity cannot claim an unlimited domain
> of validity ; its results hold only so long as we are able to
> disregard the influences of gravitational fields on the phenomena
> (e.g. of light)." - Albert Einstein (1879-1955) - The General Theory
> of Relativity: Chapter 22 - A Few Inferences from the General
> Principle of Relativity-. Today we find that since the Special Theory
> of Relativity unfortunately became part of the so called mainstream
> science, it is considered a sacrilege to even suggest that the speed
> of light be anything other than a constant. This is somewhat
> surprising since even Einstein himself suggested in a paper "On the
> Influence of Gravitation on the Propagation of Light," Annalen der
> Physik, 35, 1911, that the speed of light might vary with the
> gravitational potential. Indeed, the variation of the speed of light
> in a vacuum or space is explicitly shown in Einstein's calculation for
> the angle at which light should bend upon the influence of gravity.
> One can find his calculation in his paper. The result is c'=c(1+V/c^2)
> where V is the gravitational potential relative to the point where the
> measurement is taken. 1+V/c^2 is also known as the GRAVITATIONAL
> REDSHIFT FACTOR."
>
> 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? 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://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0806/0806.4085.pdf
> "However, it may be interesting to note that Hubble, even up to his
> final lecture before the Royal Society, always held open the
> possibility that the redshift did not mean velocity of recession but
> might be caused by something else."
>
> The fact that it is the speed of light, not the wavelength, that
> varies with frequency suggests that a universal principle called the
> Redshift Law might be valid:
>
> 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 another reason
> (different from Big Bang ones) why the more distant galaxies are, the
> more redshifted light coming from them is. If, as it travels, the
> photon regularly bumps into something and so gradually loses its speed
> (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). One can also assume
> that the effect is virtually zero at small distances so, in the Pound-
> Rebka experiment for instance, the outcome is consistent with
> Einstein's 1911 equation c'=c(1+V/c^2) given by Newton's emission
> theory of light.

If I am right, some day the following text:

http://www.cosmosmagazine.com/features/online/2739/a-brief-guide-cosmology
"The cosmological redshift is not a Doppler effect. It is not caused
by galaxies moving through space, but by the space between the
galaxies stretching during the time it takes light to get from one
galaxy to another, and stretching the light to longer wavelengths.
Galaxies do move through space, producing Doppler effects in their
spectra, but these are simply added to or subtracted from the
cosmological redshift – which is why, for example, Andromeda shows a
blueshift. It is moving towards us through space faster than the space
between us and Andromeda is expanding. But for all except the nearest
galaxies, the cosmological redshift dominates."

will be modified in this way:

"The cosmological redshift is not a Doppler effect. It is not caused
by galaxies moving through space, but by the gradual decrease in the
speed of photons as they cross the space between the galaxies, a
concept close to the "tired light" hypothesis. Galaxies do move
through space, producing Doppler effects in their spectra, but these
are simply added to or subtracted from the cosmological redshift –
which is why, for example, Andromeda shows a blueshift. It is moving
towards us through space fast enough for the Doppler blueshift to
override the cosmological redshift. But for all except the nearest
galaxies, the cosmological redshift dominates."

Pentcho Valev
pvalev@yahoo.com