Exploring the Constant Velocity of Light

[David]

Yogi,

Look at the Harvard Tower experiment. Radiation emitted at ground level was of a lower frequency than radiation emitted at the top of the tower. Just what Einstein said in 1911, and I believe that theory was correct. But people try to explain it as light being emitted at a normal rate, then the light “struggles” to climb out of the gravity well. While it struggles, it somehow loses frequencies. The atoms are supposed to emit more frequencies at the bottom of the tower than were received at the top of the tower. So where do those lost frequencies go? If we consider them to be waves, then where do the lost waves go? No, the better explanation is that the atoms emit light of a lower frequency from the beginning. And also, the light starts out slightly slower at the bottom and speeds up a little as it leaves the stronger area of the gravitational field. But that speed change wouldn't cause a redshift at the receiver. It would only cause a slight delay in the initial light reception time at the top of the tower.

The speed change is why light slows down when it passes the sun. It doesn’t “lose” frequencies at the sun and then “gain them back” when it gets away from the sun. The light just slows down as it passes the sun. We seen only bending of the light at the earth. We don’t see a redshift of the light.

What a lot of physicists don’t seem to want to admit that it is not “empty expanding space” that regulates the speed of light, but evidently it’s the fields in the space that do it, and they, in effect, are the local “ethers” of space... the fields. In my opinion.

 

[yogi]

David - Roberson was the first to suggest spatial expansion as the cause of the red shift (Robertson of the Robertson/Walker metric). Almost every cosmologist takes the view that the galaxies are not traveling with respect to space - but with it. There are some profound reasons for that view.

There are many so called accepted truths that are copied and endorsed in the physics community that need to be overhauled in the light of new discoveries. - - But in many cases there will be conflicting data and inconsistent interpretations - For example, I do not believe the issue of light velocity can be settled for or against SR based upon our present knowledge - just as in Einstein's 1911 paper to which you have referred - there were errors (Einstein had incorrectly determined the deflection angle of light by the Sun) - It is great to advance new ideas, but beware of rashness - its been my experience that when someone is absolutely sure they are right - they are usually wrong.

 

[David]

Originally posted by yogi
David - Roberson was the first to suggest spatial expansion as the cause of the red shift (Robertson of the Robertson/Walker metric).

Just plain motion through space can cause both the redshifts and blueshifts. Doppler predicted this with starlight in 1832. This is a common phenomenon within our own galaxy, and it has been understood for the past 171 years. Some of these modern ideas are going against common sense and observation because they are very insistent on not using an “ether” theory. There is no observational evidence that “space is expanding”. It is “distance” that is expanding, and that causes “gravitational fields in the space between the galaxies to thin out” as the galaxies separate in deep space. The gravitational field potentials apparently serve as an “ether”, which regulate the local speed of light. People can call this “space”, but it’s not “empty space”, it’s space filled with local field potentials

 

[yogi]

The cosmological red shift due to expansion and the redshift (or blue shift) due to the local motion of the galaxies (called the peculiar motion by cosmologists) are two different phenomena. M31 is blue shifted - it is a member of the local group - and it is not far enough away to be predominately governed by Hubbles law (exhibit a greater expansion redshift that the blue shift that is consequent to its motion due to gravitational forces between it and the other members of the local group including our own Milky Way)- we say that such entities are gravitational bound - like the distance between the Earth and the moon - this doesn't negate conventional wisdom. The galaxies at greater distances - like those in the Virgo cluster - all exhibit red shifts. Bodies with large masses will require a greater separation distance before the influence of expansion swamps out the affects of gravitational attraction.

 

[1100f]

Originally posted by Kannan Kailas
Thanks for the replies,

But if we say E=hu, or F=GMm/r2 ,the constants here is not making any kind of nonsense to us.

But the consistancy of the velocity of light is TRUE, but still it remains to be a nonsense.

Why is it a nonsense?

 

[1100f]

Originally posted by TheAtheistKing
the following:
Now, suppose that initially he was moving away at a speed of 29979458 meters per second from the emitting body. Common sense tells you that the photon should never reach him, that the distance between him and the photon should remain constant. Again relativity says that not only will the photon pass him, but it will pass him at a speed of 299792458 meters per second, simply because he is in an inertial reference frame.

The above conclusions show why the assumption that the speed of light is the same in ALL inertial reference frames is nonsensical.

If you want to find flaws in the theory of relativity, please use what relativity says, not what your "common sense" says. Relativity says that you cannot suppose that initially he was moving away at a speed of 29979458 meters per second from the emitting body. So pleas don't start with that assumption to find flaws in SR.