🚀 go-pugleaf

On Apr 20, 9:19 am, Pentcho Valev <pva...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Apr 19, 10:30 am, Pentcho Valev <pva...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > Usually Einsteinians avoid any discussion of the implications of the
> > formula:
>
> > frequency = (speed of light)/(wavelength)
>
> > but still from time to time they extract career and money from an
> > idiotic interpretation of the fact that the frequency and the speed of
> > light change while the wavelength remains constant:
>
> > http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2001/02/010212075309.htm
> > "Einstein In Need Of Update? Calculations Show The Speed Of Light
> > Might Change.....Dimitri Nanopoulos, who holds the rank of
> > Distinguished Professor of Physics at Texas A&M University and heads
> > the Houston Advanced Research Center's Group for Astroparticle
> > Physics, established, along with other physicists, that the speed of
> > light, instead of being the constant value of 186,282 miles per
> > second, might change. In 1905, Einstein established that light was the
> > only object to have a constant speed in all reference frames. This
> > idea was the cornerstone to his theory of relativity, and later to
> > laws of physics. "If the speed of light proves not to be constant any
> > more, even by a very small changeable amount, laws of physics - the
> > theory of relativity included - will have to undergo significant
> > changes," says Nanopoulos. Nanopoulos, who chairs the Theoretical
> > Physics Division of the Academy of Athens, is among the many
> > physicists who are trying to establish the basis of quantum gravity, a
> > theory that has been dreamed of by physicists since the
> > 1920s...."Through our calculations, we found that the speed of light
> > is frequency-dependent," says Nanopoulos. "But a change in the usual
> > speed of light value of 186,282 miles per second is noticeable only
> > for light coming from astronomical objects situated very far from
> > Earth, which is why this frequency dependence has not been noticed so
> > far."....Nanopoulos says that if the frequency-dependence of the speed
> > of light is further confirmed by other experiments, the theory of
> > relativity would still be valid under certain circumstances. "There is
> > nothing wrong with Einstein's theory of relativity. If the energy of
> > an object is much smaller than 1019 proton masses or if the distance
> > between two objects is smaller than millions of light-years,
> > Einstein's equations are still valid," he says."
>
> 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.
>
> The speed-of-light-changes-over-the-vast-stretches-of-the-universe
> idea seems to be seriously considered by the Establishment (ordinary
> mortals are still to sing "Yes we all believe in relativity,
> relativity, relativity"):
>
> 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."

Although all clever Einsteinians know that, in conformity with the
formula:

frequency = (speed of light)/(wavelength)

the cosmological redshift implies that both the frequency and the
speed of light vary while the wavelength remains constant, officially
Einsteiniana continues to teach idiocies of this kind:

http://www.cosmosmagazine.com/features/print/2704/dark-forces
"Here's a question for you. What is the stuff that makes up the
majority of the universe? Stars and galaxies? Hydrogen gas? Planets
like ours? Nope. It's none of them. Here's a hint: we have absolutely
no idea....Even more astounding: there appeared to be a strong linear
relationship between the distance and shift into the red. The
implication was staggering. If the light had been stretched, or
'redshifted', through the Doppler effect – the same distorting effect
that causes an ambulance siren to rise in pitch when approaching or
drop as it recedes – it could only mean one thing: everything in the
universe was hurtling away from our humble Milky Way, and the further
away it was, the faster it fled."

Pentcho Valev
pvalev@yahoo.com