Get Connected!

www.phys.unsw.edu.au/einsteinlight/jw/module3_weird_logic.htm
Professor Joe Wolfe: "At this stage, many of my students say things like "The invariance of the speed of light among observers is impossible" or "I can't understand it". Well, it's not impossible. It's even more than possible, it is true. This is something that has been extensively measured, and many refinements to the Michelson and Morely experiment, and complementary experiments have confirmed this invariance to very great precision. As to understanding it, there isn't really much to understand. However surprising and weird it may be, it is the case. It's the law in our universe. The fact of the invariance of c doesn't take much understanding: what requires understanding are its consequences, and how it can be integrated into what we already know."

Needless to say, the Michelson-Morley experiment has not confirmed the invariance of the speed of light:

www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/papers/companion.doc
John Norton: "These efforts were long misled by an exaggeration of the importance of one experiment, the Michelson-Morley experiment, even though Einstein later had trouble recalling if he even knew of the experiment prior to his 1905 paper. This one experiment, in isolation, has little force. Its null result happened to be fully compatible with Newton's own emission theory of light. Located in the context of late 19th century electrodynamics when ether-based, wave theories of light predominated, however, it presented a serious problem that exercised the greatest theoretician of the day."

philsci-archive.pitt.edu/1743/2/Norton.pdf
John Norton: "In addition to his work as editor of the Einstein papers in finding source material, Stachel assembled the many small clues that reveal Einstein's serious consideration of an emission theory of light; and he gave us the crucial insight that Einstein regarded the Michelson-Morley experiment as evidence for the principle of relativity, whereas later writers almost universally use it as support for the light postulate of special relativity. Even today, this point needs emphasis. The Michelson-Morley experiment is fully compatible with an emission theory of light that CONTRADICTS THE LIGHT POSTULATE."

www.amazon.com/Relativity-Its-Roots-Bane...ffmann/dp/0486406768
"Relativity and Its Roots" By Banesh Hoffmann: "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."

As to the important consequences of the invariance of c that Joe Wolfe's students have to understand, here are some of them:

math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/barn_pole.html
"These are the props. You own a barn, 40m long, with automatic doors at either end, that can be opened and closed simultaneously by a switch. You also have a pole, 80m long, which of course won't fit in the barn. (...) If it does not explode under the strain and it is sufficiently elastic it will come to rest and start to spring back to its natural shape but since it is too big for the barn the other end is now going to crash into the back door and the rod will be trapped IN A COMPRESSED STATE inside the barn."

www.quebecscience.qc.ca/Revolutions
Stéphane Durand: "Ainsi, une fusée de 100 m passant à toute vitesse dans un tunnel de 60 m pourrait être entièrement contenue dans ce tunnel pendant une fraction de seconde, durant laquelle il serait possible de fermer des portes aux deux bouts! La fusée est donc réellement plus courte. Pourtant, il n'y a PAS DE COMPRESSION matérielle ou physique de l'engin."

hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/Hbase/Relativ/bugrivet.html
"The bug-rivet paradox is a variation on the twin paradox and is similar to the pole-barn paradox.....The end of the rivet hits the bottom of the hole before the head of the rivet hits the wall. So it looks like the bug is squashed.....All this is nonsense from the bug's point of view. The rivet head hits the wall when the rivet end is just 0.35 cm down in the hole! The rivet doesn't get close to the bug....The paradox is not resolved."

math.ucr.edu/~jdp/Relativity/Bug_Rivet.html
John de Pillis Professor of Mathematics: "In fact, special relativity requires that after collision, the rivet shank length increases beyond its at-rest length d."

Pentcho Valev
pvalev@yahoo.com

CRUCIAL QUESTION 3: Both Newton's emission theory of light and Maxwell's ether theory, unlike special relativity, predict that the frequency and the speed of light, as measured by the observer, vary with the speed of the observer. On the other hand, when the observer starts moving towards the light source with speed v (c>>v), the frequency shift seems to ALWAYS obey the equation f'=f(1+v/c). Does this support Newton's emission theory of light or Maxwell's ether theory (or both)?

ANSWER: If the frequency shift ALWAYS obeys the equation f'=f(1+v/c), then only Newton's emission theory of light gets support while Maxwell's ether theory is refuted. The latter predicts that the frequency shifts in accordance with the equation f'=f(1+v/(c±V)), where V is the speed of the ether wind along the line connecting source and observer, relative to the source.

Pentcho Valev
pvalev@yahoo.com

Does somebody know what Vacuum is ?
1.
Book : ‘Dreams of a final theory’ by Steven Weinberg. Page 138.
‘ It is true . . . there is such a thing as absolute zero; we cannot
reach temperatures below absolute zero not because we are not
sufficiently clever but because temperatures below absolute zero
simple have no meaning.’
/ Steven Weinberg. The Nobel Prize in Physics 1979 /
2.
‘If we were looking for something that we could conceive
of as God within the universe of the new physics,
this ground state, coherent quantum vacuum might be
a good place to start.’
/ Book ‘The quantum self ’ page 208 by Danah Zohar. /
3.
And Paul Dirac wrote:
‘ The problem of the exact description of vacuum, in my opinion,
is the basic problem now before physics. Really, if you can’t correctly
describe the vacuum, how it is possible to expect a correct description
of something more complex? ‘
==.
Does somebody know what Vacuum is ?
==.
Socratus

QUESTION 1: The frequency of light (as measured by the observer) varies with the speed of the observer. Does this mean that the speed of light (as measured by the observer) also varies with the speed of the observer, in violation of Einstein's special relativity?

Clues:

a-levelphysicstutor.com/wav-doppler.php
"vO is the velocity of an observer moving towards the source. This velocity is independent of the motion of the source. Hence, the velocity of waves relative to the observer is c + vO. (...) The motion of an observer does not alter the wavelength. The increase in frequency is a result of the observer encountering more wavelengths in a given time."

www.expo-db.be/ExposPrecedentes/Expo/Ond.../Effet%20Doppler.pdf
"La variation de la fréquence observée lorsqu'il y a mouvement relatif entre la source et l'observateur est appelée effet Doppler. (...) 6. Source immobile - Observateur en mouvement: La distance entre les crêtes, la longueur d'onde lambda ne change pas. Mais la vitesse des crêtes par rapport à l'observateur change !"

www.usna.edu/Users/physics/mungan/Scholarship/DopplerEffect.pdf
Carl Mungan: "Consider the case where the observer moves toward the source. In this case, the observer is rushing head-long into the wavefronts... (...) In fact, the wave speed is simply increased by the observer speed, as we can see by jumping into the observer's frame of reference."

www.hep.man.ac.uk/u/roger/PHYS10302/lecture18.pdf
Roger Barlow, Professor of Particle Physics: "Moving Observer. Now suppose the source is fixed but the observer is moving towards the source, with speed v. In time t, ct/(lambda) waves pass a fixed point. A moving point adds another vt/(lambda). So f'=(c+v)/(lambda)."

www.cmmp.ucl.ac.uk/~ahh/teaching/1B24n/lect19.pdf
Tony Harker, University College London: "If the observer moves with a speed Vo away from the source (...), then in a time t the number of waves which reach the observer are those in a distance (c-Vo)t, so the number of waves observed is (c-Vo)t/lambda, giving an observed frequency f'=f((c-Vo)/c) when the observer is moving away from the source at a speed Vo."

www.einstein-online.info/spotlights/doppler
Albert Einstein Institute: "As the receiver moves towards each pulse, the time until pulse and receiver meet up is shortened. In this particular animation, which has the receiver moving towards the source at one third the speed of the pulses themselves, four pulses are received in the time it takes the source to emit three pulses [that is, the speed of light as measured by the receiver is (4/3)c]."

QUESTION 2: The frequency of light falling in a gravitational field increases in accordance with the equation f'=f(1+gh/c^2), as predicted by Newton's emission theory of light. Does this mean that the speed of light also increases, in accordance with another prediction of the emission theory, c'=c(1+gh/c^2)?

Clues:

online.physics.uiuc.edu/courses/phys419/.../Lecture13/L13r.html
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign: "Consider a falling object. ITS SPEED INCREASES AS IT IS FALLING. Hence, if we were to associate a frequency with that object the frequency should increase accordingly as it falls to earth. Because of the equivalence between gravitational and inertial mass, WE SHOULD OBSERVE THE SAME EFFECT FOR LIGHT. So lets shine a light beam from the top of a very tall building. If we can measure the frequency shift as the light beam descends the building, we should be able to discern how gravity affects a falling light beam. This was done by Pound and Rebka in 1960. They shone a light from the top of the Jefferson tower at Harvard and measured the frequency shift. The frequency shift was tiny but in agreement with the theoretical prediction."

www.einstein-online.info/spotlights/redshift_white_dwarfs
Albert Einstein Institute: "One of the three classical tests for general relativity is the gravitational redshift of light or other forms of electromagnetic radiation. However, in contrast to the other two tests - the gravitational deflection of light and the relativistic perihelion shift -, you do not need general relativity to derive the correct prediction for the gravitational redshift. A combination of Newtonian gravity, a particle theory of light, and the weak equivalence principle (gravitating mass equals inertial mass) suffices."

arxiv.org/ftp/gr-qc/papers/0403/0403082.pdf
The Gravitational Red-Shift, R.F.Evans and J.Dunning-Davies, Department of Physics, University of Hull: "Attention is drawn to the fact that the well-known expression for the red-shift of spectral lines due to a gravitational field may be derived with no recourse to the theory of general relativity. This raises grave doubts over the inclusion of the measurement of this gravitational red-shift in the list of crucial tests of the theory of general relativity. (...) In truth, it would seem that the result for the red-shift of spectral lines due to the action of a gravitational field has nothing specifically to do with the theory of general relativity. It is a result which draws on more modern results due to such as Planck and Poincaré, but, apart from those, is deduced from notions of Newtonian mechanics alone."


"Relativity 3 - gravity and light"

www.damtp.cam.ac.uk/user/hsr1000/lecturenotes12_02.pdf
Harvey Reall, University of Cambridge: "...light falls in the gravitational field in exactly the same way as a massive test particle."

sethi.lamar.edu/bahrim-cristian/Courses/...-gravit-lens_PPT.pdf
Dr. Cristian Bahrim: "If we accept the principle of equivalence, we must also accept that light falls in a gravitational field with the same acceleration as material bodies."

membres.multimania.fr/juvastro/calculs/einstein.pdf
"Le principe d'équivalence, un des fondements de base de la relativité générale prédit que dans un champ gravitationnel, la lumière tombe comme tout corps matériel selon l'acceleration de la pesanteur."

www.wfu.edu/~brehme/space.htm
Robert W. Brehme: "Light falls in a gravitational field just as do material objects."

Pentcho Valev
pvalev@yahoo.com

PREMISE 1: In a gravitational field, the speed of light does not vary at all:

www.amazon.com/Why-Does-mc2-Should-Care/dp/0306817586
Why Does E=mc2?: (And Why Should We Care?), Brian Cox, Jeff Forshaw, p. 236: "If the light falls in strict accord with the principle of equivalence, then, as it falls, its energy should increase by exactly the same fraction that it increases for any other thing we could imagine dropping. We need to know what happens to the light as it gains energy. In other words, what can Pound and Rebka expect to see at the bottom of their laboratory when the dropped light arrives? There is only one way for the light to increase its energy. We know that it cannot speed up, because it is already traveling at the universal speed limit, but it can increase its frequency."

www.amazon.com/Brief-History-Time-Stephen-Hawking/dp/0553380168
Stephen Hawking, A Brief History of Time, Chapter 6: "A cannonball fired upward from the earth will be slowed down by gravity and will eventually stop and fall back; a photon, however, must continue upward at a constant speed..."

CONCLUSION 1: In gravitation-free space, the speed of light (as measured by the receiver) does not vary with the speed of the receiver.

VALIDITY OF ARGUMENT 1: The emitter (E) and the receiver (R) are at rest: E at the earth surface, R at a distance h above E. In accordance with PREMISE 1, the receiver measures the speed of light to be unchanged, c'=c. This scenario is equivalent to one in which E and R are fixed in an elevator accelerating, in gravitation-free space, with constant acceleration g in the direction E->R. So when the light signal reaches R, R has acquired speed v=gh/c. Nevertheless, the receiver in the elevator measures the speed of light to be c'=c.

PREMISE 2: In a gravitational field, the speed of light varies two times faster than the speed of cannonballs:

arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/9909014v1.pdf
Steve Carlip: "It is well known that the deflection of light is twice that predicted by Newtonian theory; in this sense, at least, light falls with twice the acceleration of ordinary "slow" matter."

www.speed-light.info/speed_of_light_variable.htm
"You can find a more sophisticated derivation later by Einstein (1955) from the full theory of general relativity in the weak field approximation: (...) Namely the 1955 approximation shows a variation in km/sec twice as much as first predicted in 1911."

CONCLUSION 2: In gravitation-free space, the speed of light (as measured by the receiver) varies with the speed of the receiver.

VALIDITY OF ARGUMENT 2: The emitter (E) and the receiver (R) are at rest: E at the earth surface, R at a distance h above E. In accordance with PREMISE 2, the receiver measures the speed of light to be c'=c(1-2gh/c^2). This scenario is equivalent to one in which E and R are fixed in an elevator accelerating, in gravitation-free space, with constant acceleration g in the direction E->R. So when the light signal reaches R, R has acquired speed v=gh/c. Accordingly, the receiver in the elevator measures the speed of light to be c'=c(1-2gh/c^2)=c-2v.

Clearly only PREMISE 1 is compatible with special relativity. Both Einstein's general relativity and Newton's emission theory of light are incompatible with special relativity. Joao Magueijo and Lee Smolin were right:

www.amazon.com/Faster-Than-Speed-Light-S...lation/dp/0738205257
Joao Magueijo, Faster Than the Speed of Light: The Story of a Scientific Speculation, p. 250: "Lee [Smolin] and I discussed these paradoxes at great length for many months, starting in January 2001. We would meet in cafés in South Kensington or Holland Park to mull over the problem. THE ROOT OF ALL THE EVIL WAS CLEARLY SPECIAL RELATIVITY. All these paradoxes resulted from well known effects such as length contraction, time dilation, or E=mc^2, all basic predictions of special relativity."

Pentcho Valev
pvalev@yahoo.com

PREMISE 1: In a gravitational field, the speed of light varies exactly as the speed of cannonballs does.

PREMISE 2: The variation of the frequency with the gravitational potential is due to the variation of the speed of light with the gravitational potential:

online.physics.uiuc.edu/courses/phys419/.../Lecture13/L13r.html
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign: "Consider a falling object. ITS SPEED INCREASES AS IT IS FALLING. Hence, if we were to associate a frequency with that object the frequency should increase accordingly as it falls to earth. Because of the equivalence between gravitational and inertial mass, WE SHOULD OBSERVE THE SAME EFFECT FOR LIGHT. So lets shine a light beam from the top of a very tall building. If we can measure the frequency shift as the light beam descends the building, we should be able to discern how gravity affects a falling light beam. This was done by Pound and Rebka in 1960. They shone a light from the top of the Jefferson tower at Harvard and measured the frequency shift. The frequency shift was tiny but in agreement with the theoretical prediction."

arxiv.org/pdf/1109.6571v1.pdf
Nature 477, 567-569 (29 September 2011), Gravitational redshift of galaxies in clusters as predicted by general relativity, Radoslaw Wojtak, Steen H. Hansen, Jens Hjorth: "According to the theory of general relativity, light emitted from galaxies moving in the gravitational potential well of galaxy clusters is expected to be redshifted proportionally to the difference in gravitational potential phi between the clusters and an observer, i.e., z_gr = (delta phi)/c^2, where c is the velocity of light in vacuum."

CONCLUSION: Redshifted light coming to earth has a speed lower than c. Part of the decrease is caused by the gravitational field of the emitter.

Pentcho Valev
pvalev@yahoo.com

The speed of cannonballs shot downwards with initial speed V (relative to the shooter) varies with the gravitational potential (gh) in accordance with the equation V'=V(1+gh/V^2) (it is assumed that V>>(V'-V) and air friction is ignored). If the cannonball is shot from top to bottom in an elevator of height h accelerating, in gravitation-free space, with constant acceleration g, then the bottom has acquired speed v=gh/V when it meets the cannonball. Accordingly, the speed of the cannonball as measured at the bottom is V'=V(1+gh/V^2)=V+v.

If, in a gravitational field, the speed of photons varies exactly as the speed of cannonballs does, then the speed of a light signal emitted downwards with initial speed c (relative to the emitter) varies with the gravitational potential (gh) in accordance with the equation c'=c(1+gh/c^2). If the signal is emitted from top to bottom in an elevator of height h accelerating, in gravitation-free space, with constant acceleration g, then the bottom has acquired speed v=gh/c when it meets the signal. Accordingly, the speed of the signal as measured at the bottom is c'=c(1+gh/c^2)=c+v.

The equation c'=c+v is fatal for Einstein's relativity. In the context of the above argument, its truth entirely depends on the PREMISE:

"Light falls in a gravitational field with the same acceleration as cannonballs"

If the PREMISE is true, the equation c'=c+v is true. If not, not.

Pentcho Valev
pvalev@yahoo.com

PREMISE: In a gravitational field, the speed of light varies exactly as the speed of cannonballs does:

www.damtp.cam.ac.uk/user/hsr1000/lecturenotes12_02.pdf
Harvey Reall, University of Cambridge: "...light falls in the gravitational field in exactly the same way as a massive test particle."

sethi.lamar.edu/bahrim-cristian/Courses/...-gravit-lens_PPT.pdf
Dr. Cristian Bahrim: "If we accept the principle of equivalence, we must also accept that light falls in a gravitational field with the same acceleration as material bodies."

CONCLUSION: In gravitation-free space, the speed of light (as measured by the receiver) varies with the speed of the receiver.

VALIDITY OF THE ARGUMENT: The emitter (E) and the receiver (R) are at rest: E at the earth surface, R at a distance h above E. In accordance with the PREMISE, the receiver measures the speed of light to be c'=c(1-gh/c^2). This scenario is equivalent to one in which E and R are fixed in an elevator accelerating, in gravitation-free space, with constant acceleration g in the direction E->R. So when the light signal reaches R, R has acquired speed v=gh/c. Accordingly, the receiver in the elevator measures the speed of light to be c'=c(1-gh/c^2)=c-v.

Pentcho Valev
pvalev@yahoo.com

www.einstein-online.info/spotlights/redshift_white_dwarfs
Albert Einstein Institute: "One of the three classical tests for general relativity is the gravitational redshift of light or other forms of electromagnetic radiation. However, in contrast to the other two tests - the gravitational deflection of light and the relativistic perihelion shift -, you do not need general relativity to derive the correct prediction for the gravitational redshift. A combination of Newtonian gravity, a particle theory of light, and the weak equivalence principle (gravitating mass equals inertial mass) suffices."

adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1964AmJPh..32...52O
American Journal of Physics, Volume 32, Issue 1, pp. 52-55 (1964): "Gravitational redshift of photons from a star and gravitational bending of the path of photons grazing the sun can be derived by using only Newton's laws and the idea of a photon as a particle of mass hv/c^2. The difference between the relativistic and Newtonian equations for gravitational redshift is too small to be detected and, therefore, gravitational redshift does not provide experimental verification of the general theory of relativity."

Opponent: Einsteinians? No problem with the above quotations? Is the gravitational redshift a measure of the reduction in the speed of light, as predicted by Newton's emission theory of light?

Einsteiniana's priests:

skipper810.files.wordpress.com/2010/06/0...uldsharia1.png?w=640

Einsteiniana's zombies:

www.theglaringfacts.com/wp-content/uploa...11/04/fearappeal.jpg

Pentcho Valev
pvalev@yahoo.com

online.physics.uiuc.edu/courses/phys419/.../Lecture13/L13r.html
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign: "Consider a falling object. ITS SPEED INCREASES AS IT IS FALLING. Hence, if we were to associate a frequency with that object the frequency should increase accordingly as it falls to earth. Because of the equivalence between gravitational and inertial mass, WE SHOULD OBSERVE THE SAME EFFECT FOR LIGHT. So lets shine a light beam from the top of a very tall building. If we can measure the frequency shift as the light beam descends the building, we should be able to discern how gravity affects a falling light beam. This was done by Pound and Rebka in 1960. They shone a light from the top of the Jefferson tower at Harvard and measured the frequency shift. The frequency shift was tiny but in agreement with the theoretical prediction."

Einsteiniana's zombies want to know who at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign teaches that the increase in frequency is due to an increase in the speed of light:

game2gether.de/wordpress/wp-content/uplo...80x1024-1024x819.jpg

Pentcho Valev
pvalev@yahoo.com

In 1911 Divine Albert said that the speed of light varies with phi, the gravitational potential, in accordance with the equation c'=c(1+phi/c^2), an equation given by Newton's emission theory of light and showing that photons accelerate just as fast as cannonballs. Then in 1916 Divine Albert decided to outdo Newton and ordered the photons to accelerate twice as fast as cannonballs, in accordance with the equation c'=c(1+2phi/c^2):

www.relativitybook.com/resources/Einstein_gravity.html
Albert Einstein 1911: "If we call the velocity of light at the origin of co-ordinates c0, then the velocity of light c at a place with the gravitation potential phi will be given by the relation c=c0(1+phi/c^2)."

www.speed-light.info/speed_of_light_variable.htm
"Einstein wrote this paper in 1911 in German. (...) ...you will find in section 3 of that paper Einstein's derivation of the variable speed of light in a gravitational potential, eqn (3). The result is: c'=c0(1+phi/c^2) where phi is the gravitational potential relative to the point where the speed of light co is measured. (...) You can find a more sophisticated derivation later by Einstein (1955) from the full theory of general relativity in the weak field approximation. (...) Namely the 1955 approximation shows a variation in km/sec twice as much as first predicted in 1911."

www.mathpages.com/rr/s6-01/6-01.htm
"Specifically, Einstein wrote in 1911 that the speed of light at a place with the gravitational potential phi would be c(1+phi/c^2), where c is the nominal speed of light in the absence of gravity. In geometrical units we define c=1, so Einstein's 1911 formula can be written simply as c'=1+phi. However, this formula for the speed of light (not to mention this whole approach to gravity) turned out to be incorrect, as Einstein realized during the years leading up to 1915 and the completion of the general theory. (...) ...we have c_r =1+2phi, which corresponds to Einstein's 1911 equation, except that we have a factor of 2 instead of 1 on the potential term."

arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/9909014v1.pdf
Steve Carlip: "It is well known that the deflection of light is twice that predicted by Newtonian theory; in this sense, at least, light falls with twice the acceleration of ordinary "slow" matter."

The problem is: Is the gravitational redshift, that is, the equation f'=f(1+phi/c^2) experimentally confirmed by Pound and Rebka, consistent with c'=c(1+phi/c^2) or is it consistent with c'=c(1+2phi/c^2)? Could f'=f(1+phi/c^2) be consistent with both c'=c(1+phi/c^2) and c'=c(1+2phi/c^2)?

Anything can be consistent with anything else in Einsteiniana's schizophrenic world so f'=f(1+phi/c^2) is absolutely consistent with both c'=c(1+phi/c^2) and c'=c(1+2phi/c^2):

www.d1heidorn.homepage.t-online.de/Physik/VSL/VSL.html
"The difference between c'=c(1+2phi/c^2)(1916) and c'=c(1+phi/c^2)(1911) is the factor 2 with the gravitational potential. Gravitational redshift gives no decision which of the equations is the right one. Of course eq.(1911) is consistent with gravitational redshift because it was derived from redshift. On the contrary the inversion is not true..."

Einsteiniana's zombies are not supposed to discuss the subtleties of the variable speed of light. They should just buy and read bestsellers where things are simple: the speed of light is always constant and that's it:

www.amazon.com/Why-Does-mc2-Should-Care/dp/0306817586
Why Does E=mc2?: (And Why Should We Care?), Brian Cox, Jeff Forshaw, p. 236: "If the light falls in strict accord with the principle of equivalence, then, as it falls, its energy should increase by exactly the same fraction that it increases for any other thing we could imagine dropping. We need to know what happens to the light as it gains energy. In other words, what can Pound and Rebka expect to see at the bottom of their laboratory when the dropped light arrives? There is only one way for the light to increase its energy. We know that it cannot speed up, because it is already traveling at the universal speed limit, but it can increase its frequency."

www.amazon.com/Brief-History-Time-Stephen-Hawking/dp/0553380168
Stephen Hawking, A Brief History of Time, Chapter 6: "A cannonball fired upward from the earth will be slowed down by gravity and will eventually stop and fall back; a photon, however, must continue upward at a constant speed..."

Pentcho Valev
pvalev@yahoo.com

www.usna.edu/Users/physics/mungan/Scholarship/DopplerEffect.pdf
Carl Mungan: "Consider the case where the observer moves toward the source. In this case, the observer is rushing head-long into the wavefronts, so that we expect v'>v. In fact, the wave speed is simply increased by the observer speed, as we can see by jumping into the observer's frame of reference. Thus, v'=v+v_o=v(1+v_o/v). Finally, the frequency must increase by exactly the same factor as the wave speed increased, in order to ensure that L'=L -> v'/f'=v/f. Putting everything together, we thus have: OBSERVER MOVING TOWARD SOURCE: L'=L; f'=f(1+v_o/v); v'=v+v_o."

That is, if the observer starts moving towards the light source with speed V, the wavelength remains unchanged (L'=L), the frequency shifts from f to f'=f(1+V/c) and the speed of light as measured by the observer shifts from c to c'=c+V, in violation of Einstein's special relativity. Both the frequency and the speed of light shifts, as well as the invariability of the wavelength, are clearly seen in this video:


"Fermilab physicist, Dr. Ricardo Eusebi, discusses the Doppler effect..."

Pentcho Valev
pvalev@yahoo.com

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC136...ophysj00645-0017.pdf
POLYELECTROLYTES AND THEIR BIOLOGICAL INTERACTIONS, A. KATCHALSKY, pp. 13-15: "Let the polymolecule be a negatively charged polyacid in a stretched state and have a length L. Now let us add to the molecule a mineral acid to provide hydrogen ions to combine with the ionized carboxylate groups and transform them into undissociated carboxylic groups according to the reaction RCOO- + H+ = RCOOH. By means of this reaction, the electrostatic repulsion which kept the macromolecule in a highly stretched state vanishes and instead the Brownian motion and intramolecular attraction cause a coiling up of the polymeric chains. Upon coiling, the polymolecule contracts and lifts the attached weight through a distance deltaL. On lifting the weight, mechanical work f*deltaL was performed... (...) FIGURE 4: Polyacid gel in sodium hydroxide solution: expanded. Polyacid gel in acid solution: contracted; weight is lifted."

So the mineral acid is added to the system and "the polymolecule contracts and lifts the attached weight through a distance deltaL". Then the mineral acid can be removed and so the macromolecule will resume its initial stretched state, ready to lift another weight. Is this an example of perpetuum mobile of the second kind? That is, can the net work extracted from the isothermal cycle be positive? In order to answer the question, one must evaluate the work involved in adding and removing the mineral acid (the work extracted from the lifting of the weight is obviously positive).

Clearly the problem with the second law of thermodynamics is psychological, not scientific. Scientists would not even think of evaluating the work involved in adding and removing the mineral acid, even if the evaluation is easy. There is falsehood (like the second law of thermodynamics or Einstein's 1905 light postulate) which is inherent in our civilization - you cannot remove the falsehood without destroying the civilization.

Pentcho Valev
pvalev@yahoo.com

So far Einsteinians have been teaching that superluminal signals don't violate Divine Albert's Divine Theory because they are the only signals in the world that carry no information, Divine Einstein, yes we all believe in relativity, relativity, relativity. Recently the wisdom changed a bit. Divine Albert's Divine Theory continues to successfully withstand superluminal attacks but signals are now powerless because they carry just information and nothing else, so Einsteinians are not excited at all, they are just quietly singing, Divine Einstein, yes we all believe in relativity, relativity, relativity:

www.gizmodo.com.au/2012/05/did-scientist...-the-speed-of-light/
"According to Einstein's special theory of relativity, light travelling in a vacuum is the universal speed limit. That's a well-established rule - but it is one that scientists like to flirt with the idea of breaking. Including researchers at the US National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), who have been trying to exploit a loophole in the rule, that could see something travel faster than light. That thing is information, and the loophole relies on forcing one pulse to propagate through a second one. If the second pulse is moving at a speed close to the speed of light, it should in theory be possible to make the first one travel faster than the speed of light. Which is pretty much exactly what the researchers from NIST have done, if you read their paper in Physical Review Letters. (...) So yes, something did move faster than the speed of light, and it was real this time. And, yes, it is impressive in a very abstract physical science kinda way, but it's not going to turn Einstein's theory on its head, nor revolutionise physics. So I wouldn't get too excited."

Pentcho Valev
pvalev@yahoo.com