A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

Go Back   Home » SpaceBanter.com forum » Astronomy and Astrophysics » Astronomy Misc
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

EINSTEIN DISPROVED BY DOPPLER



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old September 11th 15, 03:34 PM posted to sci.astro
Pentcho Valev
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,078
Default EINSTEIN DISPROVED BY DOPPLER

http://physics.bu.edu/~redner/211-sp...9_doppler.html
Professor Sidney Redner: "The Doppler effect is the shift in frequency of a wave that occurs when the wave source, or the detector of the wave, is moving. Applications of the Doppler effect range from medical tests using ultrasound to radar detectors and astronomy (with electromagnetic waves). (...) We will focus on sound waves in describing the Doppler effect, but it works for other waves too. (...) Let's say you, the observer, now move toward the source with velocity vO. You encounter more waves per unit time than you did before. Relative to you, the waves travel at a higher speed: v'=v+vO. The frequency of the waves you detect is higher, and is given by: f'=v'/λ=(v+vO)/λ."

"Relative to you, the waves travel at a higher speed" = Goodbye Einstein!

Pentcho Valev
  #2  
Old September 12th 15, 07:46 AM posted to sci.astro
Pentcho Valev
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,078
Default EINSTEIN DISPROVED BY DOPPLER

The Albert Einstein Institute inadvertently disproves Einstein's relativity:

http://www.einstein-online.info/spotlights/doppler
Albert Einstein Institute: "The frequency of a wave-like signal - such as sound or light - depends on the movement of the sender and of the receiver. This is known as the Doppler effect. (...) Here is an animation of the receiver moving towards the source:

http://www.einstein-online.info/imag...ler_static.gif (stationary receiver)

http://www.einstein-online.info/imag...ector_blue.gif (moving receiver)

By observing the two indicator lights, you can see for yourself that, once more, there is a blue-shift - the pulse frequency measured at the receiver is somewhat higher than the frequency with which the pulses are sent out. This time, the distances between subsequent pulses are not affected, but still there is a frequency shift: 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."

If the distance between subsequent pulses is d and "the time it takes the source to emit three pulses" is t, then the speed of the pulses relative to the source is

3d/t = c,

and relative to the receiver is

4d/t = (4/3)c,

clearly in violation of Einstein's relativity.

Pentcho Valev
  #3  
Old September 19th 15, 07:29 PM posted to sci.astro
Pentcho Valev
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,078
Default EINSTEIN DISPROVED BY DOPPLER

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PwBADFyjpzE
Jim Al-Khalili (15:33): "He [Einstein] argued that we have to forget all about the idea that light is a wave and think of it instead as a stream of tiny bullet-like particles."

Then the speed of light does depend on the speed of the light source, as predicted by Newton's emission theory of light and confirmed by the Michelson-Morley experiment:

http://books.google.com/books?id=JokgnS1JtmMC
Relativity and Its Roots, Banesh Hoffmann, p.92: "There are various remarks to be made about this second principle. For instance, if it is so obvious, how could it turn out to be part of a revolution - especially when the first principle is also a natural one? 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. If it was so obvious, though, why did he need to state it as a principle? Because, having taken from the idea of light waves in the ether the one aspect that he needed, he declared early in his paper, to quote his own words, that "the introduction of a 'luminiferous ether' will prove to be superfluous."

Pentcho Valev
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
DOPPLER AND EINSTEIN INCOMPATIBLE Pentcho Valev Astronomy Misc 1 May 27th 14 10:12 PM
Is Einstein's principle of constancy of the speed of lightexperimentally disproved? Pentcho Valev Astronomy Misc 1 March 10th 14 10:27 AM
DOPPLER TOPPLES EINSTEIN Pentcho Valev Astronomy Misc 5 August 25th 13 01:51 AM
DOPPLER AGAINST EINSTEIN Pentcho Valev Astronomy Misc 2 July 8th 12 02:04 PM
red shift: doppler or einstein? waz Amateur Astronomy 40 February 22nd 05 11:12 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 02:24 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.