🚀 go-pugleaf

On Apr 9, 2:03 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)

            You have just invented a new, yet absolutely incorrect,
physical relation !
>
> 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 answer "redshift is due to change in the speed of light"
> automatically converts what Einstein in 1954 characterized as
> "entirely possible" into a fact:
>
> http://www.perimeterinstitute.ca/index.php?option=com_content&task=vi...
> John Stachel: "Einstein discussed the other side of the particle-field
> dualism - get rid of fields and just have particles."
> Albert Einstein 1954: "I consider it entirely possible that physics
> cannot be based upon the field concept, that is on continuous
> structures. Then nothing will remain of my whole castle in the air,
> including the theory of gravitation, but also nothing of the rest of
> contemporary physics."
> John Stachel's comment: "If I go down, everything goes down, ha ha,
> hm, ha ha ha."
>
> Silly old interpretations of "redshift is due to a change in
> wavelength" can only make clever cosmologists sick at heart:
>
> http://www.amazon.com/Brief-History-Time-Stephen-Hawking/dp/0553380168
> Stephen Hawking, "A Brief History of Time", Chapter 3:
> "In the 1920s, when astronomers began to look at the spectra of stars
> in other galaxies, they found something most peculiar: there were the
> same characteristic sets of missing colors as for stars in our own
> galaxy, but they were all shifted by the same relative amount toward
> the red end of the spectrum. To understand the implications of this,
> we must first understand the Doppler effect. As we have seen, visible
> light consists of fluctuations, or waves, in the electromagnetic
> field. The wavelength (or distance from one wave crest to the next) of
> light is extremely small, ranging from four to seven ten-millionths of
> a meter. The different wavelengths of light are what the human eye
> sees as different colors, with the longest wavelengths appearing at
> the red end of the spectrum and the shortest wavelengths at the blue
> end. Now imagine a source of light at a constant distance from us,
> such as a star, emitting waves of light at a constant wavelength.
> Obviously the wavelength of the waves we receive will be the same as
> the wavelength at which they are emitted (the gravitational field of
> the galaxy will not be large enough to have a significant effect).
> Suppose now that the source starts moving toward us. When the source
> emits the next wave crest it will be nearer to us, so the distance
> between wave crests will be smaller than when the star was stationary.
> This means that the wavelength of the waves we receive is shorter than
> when the star was stationary. Correspondingly, if the source is moving
> away from us, the wavelength of the waves we receive will be longer.
> In the case of light, therefore, means that stars moving away from us
> will have their spectra shifted toward the red end of the spectrum
> (red-shifted) and those moving toward us will have their spectra blue-
> shifted."
>
> 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."
>
> Pentcho Valev
> pva...@yahoo.com

Regards, LL