• #### Towards Einstein-Free Physics : Two Important Conditionals

From Pentcho Valev@21:1/5 to All on Mon Aug 21 12:32:11 2023
If the speed of light is variable as per Newton https://qph.cf2.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-f10f1c25528a4e5edc9bae200640f31c-pjlq, then the wavelength is invariable (depends only on the emitting substance).

If the wavelength of light is invariable (basic axiom of future, Einstein-free physics), then the frequency and the speed of light ALWAYS vary proportionally, in accordance with the formula (speed of light)=(wavelength)(frequency).

"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

"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

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
• From Laurence Clark Crossen@21:1/5 to Pentcho Valev on Mon Aug 21 20:25:34 2023
On Monday, August 21, 2023 at 12:32:14 PM UTC-7, Pentcho Valev wrote:
If the speed of light is variable as per Newton https://qph.cf2.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-f10f1c25528a4e5edc9bae200640f31c-pjlq, then the wavelength is invariable (depends only on the emitting substance).

If the wavelength of light is invariable (basic axiom of future, Einstein-free physics), then the frequency and the speed of light ALWAYS vary proportionally, in accordance with the formula (speed of light)=(wavelength)(frequency).

"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

"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

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
• From Gary Harnagel@21:1/5 to Pentcho Valev on Mon Aug 21 20:54:37 2023
On Monday, August 21, 2023 at 1:32:14 PM UTC-6, Pentcho Valev wrote:

If the speed of light is variable as per Newton https://qph.cf2.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-f10f1c25528a4e5edc9bae200640f31c-pjlq, then the wavelength is invariable (depends
only on the emitting substance).

Simple laboratory experiments demonstrate that wavelength is variable, so it's irrational to
pursue this foolishness.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
• From Pentcho Valev@21:1/5 to All on Tue Aug 22 02:59:18 2023
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

Feynman's words, if taken at face value, imply that variations of the wavelength of light, as shown e.g. here https://youtube.com/watch?v=xsVxC_NR64M, are preposterous. The particle model of light is incompatible with the idea of variable wavelength.

The wave model of light is ALSO incompatible with this idea. Variable wavelength of light https://youtu.be/3mJTRXCMU6o?t=77 violates the principle of relativity. If, as Hawking teaches, the wavelength varied at the emitter, measuring it inside the
emitter's spaceship would allow the emitter to know his spaceship's speed without looking outside:

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

In future, Einstein-free physics, the wavelength of light will be an invariable proportionality factor in the formula

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

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
• From Laurence Clark Crossen@21:1/5 to Gary Harnagel on Wed Aug 23 11:24:28 2023
On Monday, August 21, 2023 at 8:54:40 PM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:
On Monday, August 21, 2023 at 1:32:14 PM UTC-6, Pentcho Valev wrote:

If the speed of light is variable as per Newton https://qph.cf2.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-f10f1c25528a4e5edc9bae200640f31c-pjlq, then the wavelength is invariable (depends
only on the emitting substance).
Simple laboratory experiments demonstrate that wavelength is variable, so it's irrational to
pursue this foolishness.
No, Gary. That is an irrational interpretation dictated by relativity. It's a petitio principii assuming what one wants to conclude.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
• From Laurence Clark Crossen@21:1/5 to Delbert Ligorner on Wed Aug 23 12:56:43 2023
On Wednesday, August 23, 2023 at 11:49:31 AM UTC-7, Delbert Ligorner wrote:
Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:

On Monday, August 21, 2023 at 8:54:40 PM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:
On Monday, August 21, 2023 at 1:32:14 PM UTC-6, Pentcho Valev wrote:

If the speed of light is variable as per Newton
https://qph.cf2.quoracdn.net/main-qimg- f10f1c25528a4e5edc9bae200640f31c-pjlq,
then the wavelength is invariable (depends only on the emitting
substance).
Simple laboratory experiments demonstrate that wavelength is variable,
so it's irrational to pursue this foolishness.
No, Gary. That is an irrational interpretation dictated by relativity. It's a petitio principii assuming what one wants to conclude.
so homodyne and heterodyne laser scattering are fake, cannot be used to anything. Read the papers, fucking stupid.
It's not that light does not have different wavelengths. It's that its wavelength does not change due to relative velocity. It's frequency does.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
• From Paul Alsing@21:1/5 to Laurence Clark Crossen on Wed Aug 23 19:31:15 2023
On Wednesday, August 23, 2023 at 12:56:46 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:

It's not that light does not have different wavelengths. It's that its wavelength does not change due to relative velocity. It's frequency does.

You do not understand that tens of thousands of textbooks are filled with things that you do not know!

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
• From Maciej Wozniak@21:1/5 to Paul Alsing on Wed Aug 23 22:13:43 2023
On Thursday, 24 August 2023 at 04:31:17 UTC+2, Paul Alsing wrote:
On Wednesday, August 23, 2023 at 12:56:46 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:

It's not that light does not have different wavelengths. It's that its wavelength does not change due to relative velocity. It's frequency does.
You do not understand that tens of thousands of textbooks are filled with things that you do not know!

Come on, trash, stop making wise faces, the
mumble of your idiot guru wasn't even
consistent.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
• From Gary Harnagel@21:1/5 to Laurence Clark Crossen on Thu Aug 24 11:26:24 2023
On Wednesday, August 23, 2023 at 12:24:30 PM UTC-6, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:

On Monday, August 21, 2023 at 8:54:40 PM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:

On Monday, August 21, 2023 at 1:32:14 PM UTC-6, Pentcho Valev wrote:

If the speed of light is variable as per Newton https://qph.cf2.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-f10f1c25528a4e5edc9bae200640f31c-pjlq, then the wavelength is invariable (depends
only on the emitting substance).

Simple laboratory experiments demonstrate that wavelength is variable, so it's irrational to
pursue this foolishness.

No, Gary. That is an irrational interpretation dictated by relativity. It's a petitio principii
assuming what one wants to conclude.

You are devastatingly wrong, Li'l Larry. Measuring the wavelength of em radiation from moving
sources does not require use of relativity.

On Wednesday, August 23, 2023 at 12:24:30 PM UTC-6, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:

On Monday, August 21, 2023 at 8:54:40 PM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:

On Monday, August 21, 2023 at 1:32:14 PM UTC-6, Pentcho Valev wrote:

If the speed of light is variable as per Newton https://qph.cf2.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-f10f1c25528a4e5edc9bae200640f31c-pjlq, then the wavelength is invariable (depends
only on the emitting substance).

Simple laboratory experiments demonstrate that wavelength is variable, so it's irrational to
pursue this foolishness.

No, Gary. That is an irrational interpretation dictated by relativity. It's a petitio principii
assuming what one wants to conclude.

You are devastatingly wrong, Li'l Larry. Measuring the wavelength of em radiation from moving
sources does not require use of relativity.

t's not that light does not have different wavelengths. It's that its wavelength does not change
due to relative velocity. It's frequency does.

It's a relatively (pardon that word :-) simple experiment to confirm or refute. Would you agree
that light is an electromagnetic phenomenon?

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