Richard Feynman: "I want to emphasize that light comes in this form - particles. It is very important to know that light behaves like particles, especially for those of you who have gone to school, where you probably learned something about light
behaving like waves. I'm telling you the way it does behave - like particles. You might say that it's just the photomultiplier that detects light as particles, but no, every instrument that has been designed to be sensitive enough to detect weak light
has always ended up discovering the same thing: light is made of particles." QED: The Strange Theory of Light and Matter p. 15 https://www.amazon.com/QED-Strange-Theory-Light-Matter/dp/0691024170

Whether Feynman is correct is not a matter of discussion here. I am just drawing the attention to a crucial implication. The concept of VARIABLE wavelength of light

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xsVxC_NR64M

is preposterous if light is particles and not waves. That is, Feynman's words imply that the wavelength of light can only be an invariable proportionality factor in the formula

(speed of light) = (wavelength)(frequency)

Here is a crucial question:

Variable speed of light and constant wavelength, in accordance with the particle model of light, or constant speed of light and variable wavelength, in accordance with the wave model of light?

The answer was given in 1887 (prior to the introduction of the length-contraction fudge factor):

"Emission theory, also called emitter theory or ballistic theory of light, was a competing theory for the special theory of relativity, explaining the results of the Michelson–Morley experiment of 1887...The name most often associated with emission
theory is Isaac Newton. In his corpuscular theory Newton visualized light "corpuscles" being thrown off from hot bodies at a nominal speed of c with respect to the emitting object, and obeying the usual laws of Newtonian mechanics, and we then expect
light to be moving towards us with a speed that is offset by the speed of the distant emitter (c ± v)." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emission_theory

Banesh Hoffmann, Einstein's co-author, admits that, originally ("without recourse to contracting lengths, local time, or Lorentz transformations"), the Michelson-Morley experiment was compatible with Newton's variable speed of light, c'=c±v, and
incompatible with the constant speed of light, c'=c:

"Moreover, if light consists of particles, as Einstein had suggested in his paper submitted just thirteen weeks before this one, the second principle seems absurd: A stone thrown from a speeding train can do far more damage than one thrown from a train
at rest; the speed of the particle is not independent of the motion of the object emitting it. And if we take light to consist of particles and assume that these particles obey Newton's laws, they will conform to Newtonian relativity and thus
automatically account for the null result of the Michelson-Morley experiment without recourse to contracting lengths, local time, or Lorentz transformations. Yet, as we have seen, Einstein resisted the temptation to account for the null result in terms
of particles of light and simple, familiar Newtonian ideas, and introduced as his second postulate something that was more or less obvious when thought of in terms of waves in an ether." Banesh Hoffmann, Relativity and Its Roots, p.92 https://www.amazon.
com/Relativity-Its-Roots-Banesh-Hoffmann/dp/0486406768

If it is not too late and physics can still be resurrected, "The wavelength of light is constant" will become the fundamental axiom of future, Einstein-free physics.

See more here: https://twitter.com/pentcho_valev

Pentcho Valev

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Saturday, 28 January 2023 at 00:34:24 UTC, Pentcho Valev wrote:

Richard Feynman: "I want to emphasize that light comes in this form - particles. It is very important to know that light behaves like particles, especially for those of you who have gone to school, where you probably learned something about light

behaving like waves. I'm telling you the way it does behave - like particles. You might say that it's just the photomultiplier that detects light as particles, but no, every instrument that has been designed to be sensitive enough to detect weak light
has always ended up discovering the same thing: light is made of particles." QED: The Strange Theory of Light and Matter p. 15 https://www.amazon.com/QED-Strange-Theory-Light-Matter/dp/0691024170

Whether Feynman is correct is not a matter of discussion here. I am just drawing the attention to a crucial implication. The concept of VARIABLE wavelength of light

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xsVxC_NR64M

is preposterous if light is particles and not waves. That is, Feynman's words imply that the wavelength of light can only be an invariable proportionality factor in the formula

(speed of light) = (wavelength)(frequency)

Here is a crucial question:

Variable speed of light and constant wavelength, in accordance with the particle model of light, or constant speed of light and variable wavelength, in accordance with the wave model of light?

The answer was given in 1887 (prior to the introduction of the length-contraction fudge factor):

"Emission theory, also called emitter theory or ballistic theory of light, was a competing theory for the special theory of relativity, explaining the results of the Michelson–Morley experiment of 1887...The name most often associated with emission

theory is Isaac Newton. In his corpuscular theory Newton visualized light "corpuscles" being thrown off from hot bodies at a nominal speed of c with respect to the emitting object, and obeying the usual laws of Newtonian mechanics, and we then expect
light to be moving towards us with a speed that is offset by the speed of the distant emitter (c ± v)." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emission_theory

One of the many falsifications of a non relativistic emission model is that made by the liar DeSitter. He said if emitted light in emission theory always was
c+-v relative to the source, from-a rotating source it would “pile up” when observed
here on earth.
And the many references trying to back his ridiculous assumption indeed
show light piling up. Including the dishonest and ridiculous wiki page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Sitter_double_star_experiment
And yet if one studies the animated example based on his maths in the
above cited wiki page it becomes obvious deSitter falsified the maths to
make emission theory look like its predictions were not consistent with the observations.
And it’s to wiki discredit that it publishes such lies as “fact”
Because if one studies the DeSitter version shown in the blatantly false
Wiki page animation you can see that as the light wave leaves the source
on the left of the animated gif...it travels at a constant speed in the frame even though the source itself moves back and forth.
In case any reader here hasn’t understood this. It means that the video Animation has the wave moving away from the source at a variable speed relative to the source. Contrary to the emission model which predicates that light in the emission model must ALWAYS propagate at c in the source frame. Only an idiot or a liar ( like a relativist ) would make such a brazen false claim. Because they know that there is ONE unviable rule in emission
theory. Be it my preferred Wave only model of light or a particle one that Pentcho prefers.
And that is that light always propagates *away* from a source at c *relative* to
the source. MMX proves this.

Banesh Hoffmann, Einstein's co-author, admits that, originally ("without recourse to contracting lengths, local time, or Lorentz transformations"), the Michelson-Morley experiment was compatible with Newton's variable speed of light, c'=c±v, and

incompatible with the constant speed of light, c'=c:

"Moreover, if light consists of particles, as Einstein had suggested in his paper submitted just thirteen weeks before this one, the second principle seems absurd: A stone thrown from a speeding train can do far more damage than one thrown from a train

at rest; the speed of the particle is not independent of the motion of the object emitting it. And if we take light to consist of particles and assume that these particles obey Newton's laws, they will conform to Newtonian relativity and thus
automatically account for the null result of the Michelson-Morley experiment without recourse to contracting lengths, local time, or Lorentz transformations. Yet, as we have seen, Einstein resisted the temptation to account for the null result in terms
of particles of light and simple, familiar Newtonian ideas, and introduced as his second postulate something that was more or less obvious when thought of in terms of waves in an ether." Banesh Hoffmann, Relativity and Its Roots, p.92 https://www.amazon.
com/Relativity-Its-Roots-Banesh-Hoffmann/dp/0486406768

If it is not too late and physics can still be resurrected, "The wavelength of light is constant" will become the fundamental axiom of future, Einstein-free physics.

See more here: https://twitter.com/pentcho_valev

Pentcho Valev

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

The particle model of light is incompatible with VARIABLE wavelength of light, and so is the wave model:

Stephen Hawking, "A Brief History of Time", Chapter 3: "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." http://www.fisica.net/relatividade/stephen_hawking_a_brief_history_of_time.pdf

This interpretation implies that the moving source is CHASING the emitted crest - that is the reason why, when the next crest is emitted, the distance between the two crests is smaller than when the source is stationary. As chasing becomes faster and
faster, the distance between crests approaches zero. In other words, the wavelength at the source varies with the speed of the source, which is absurd (contradicts the principle of relativity).

For light waves, there can be no chasing. No matter how fast the source is moving, the speed of the emitted crest relative to the source remains constant, c. Accordingly, when the next crest is emitted, the distance between the two crests remains
unchanged - the same as when the source is stationary.

The wavelength of light depends only on the nature of the emitting substance and is constant otherwise.

More here: https://twitter.com/pentcho_valev

Pentcho Valev

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Sunday, 29 January 2023 at 03:00:15 UTC, Pentcho Valev wrote:

The particle model of light is incompatible with VARIABLE wavelength of light, and so is the wave model:

Stephen Hawking, "A Brief History of Time", Chapter 3: "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." http://www.fisica.net/relatividade/stephen_hawking_a_brief_history_of_time.pdf

This interpretation implies that the moving source is CHASING the emitted crest - that is the reason why, when the next crest is emitted, the distance between the two crests is smaller than when the source is stationary. As chasing becomes faster and

faster, the distance between crests approaches zero. In other words, the wavelength at the source varies with the speed of the source, which is absurd (contradicts the principle of relativity).

For light waves, there can be no chasing. No matter how fast the source is moving, the speed of the emitted crest relative to the source remains constant, c. Accordingly, when the next crest is emitted, the distance between the two crests remains

unchanged - the same as when the source is stationary.

The wavelength of light depends only on the nature of the emitting substance and is constant otherwise.

Yes and the interesting point here is: seeing that this is confirmed experimentally by MMX and
other experiments then it also means that any light that has left the source is pulled back
and forth by the source if propagating in a vacuum. Amazing but true. So for instance
if a light source in the vacuum of space shines a light beam towards two observers
floating besides each other at a distance of 50,000k from the source. Then the light
beams will travel towards the 2 observer at c. Both will see a steady source of light
But if one observer A moves back and forth rapidly ( think pound Rebka) then that
observer A will suddenly observe all the incoming light as being rapidly blue shifted
then redshifted. And that Doppler shifting effect starts instantly. As soon
as observer A starts vibrating. But the other observer B next to the moving observer who isn’t
moving back and forth will still see the steady incoming light beam as non Doppler
shifted. Because Observer B is not moving and always in the same frame as the source.
*Then all things being equal* the opposite must also be true. If Observer A doesnt
move back and forth and The source and Observer B suddenly move back and forth ...then Observer A doesnt have to wait for the light to travel from the source. He can see the light being Doppler shifted immediately the source starts moving!
In other words when the source starts moving back and forth the light that has already left the source and is arriving 50,000k away at observerA will ALSO start moving back and forth.As if dragged back and forth by its source
50,000k away. (And the deSitter example of a double star light not piling up is
proof of this feature of a wave only emission model of emr.)

Counterintuitive but backed up by endless MMX style experiments.
It’s called instantaneous transfer of information over distance in a vacuum .
Assuming no extinction. And the conclusion is that if light is always
observed in MMX style experiments to be always moving at c relative to the source
regardless of the sources relative motion to anything else...then the
only model for EMR that fits this odd conclusion is the very model that was used for mass
in the pre Copernican universe (Planets and sun rotating around a non moving earth)

In that as far as emr is concerned and assuming no extinction then the universe
always moves back and forth or around the source. The source is always static in its own frame at the Center of the universe.
MMX, double star observations and other experiments confirm this.

More here: https://twitter.com/pentcho_valev

Pentcho Valev

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)