|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Special Relativity proof Chapt9 Proof that Doppler shift isnonexistent in light-waves #46 Atom Totality theory 5th ed.
Now here is quoting Wikipedia on special-relativity and the salient
feature is "regardless of the state of motion of the source." --- quoting === http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_relativity Special relativity (SR, also known as the special theory of relativity or STR) is the physical theory of measurement in an inertial frame of reference proposed in 1905 by Albert Einstein (after the considerable and independent contributions of Hendrik Lorentz, Henri Poincaré[1] and others) in the paper "On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies".[2] It generalizes Galileo's principle of relativity—that all uniform motion is relative, and that there is no absolute and well-defined state of rest (no privileged reference frames)—from mechanics to all the laws of physics, including both the laws of mechanics and of electrodynamics, whatever they may be.[3] Special relativity incorporates the principle that the speed of light is the same for all inertial observers regardless of the state of motion of the source.[4] This theory has a wide range of consequences which have been experimentally verified,[5] including counter-intuitive ones such as length contraction, time dilation and relativity of simultaneity, contradicting the classical notion that the duration of the time interval between two events is equal for all observers. --- end quoting --- There should have been a fourth counter-intuitive consequence listed above, and not just length contraction, time dilation, simultaneity. The fourth should have been "nonexistent Doppler shift of light or any other EM spectrum". You know what started the ball rolling to gain Special Relativity and its consequences was the search for the lumeniferous aether medium of light waves. That was the Michelson experiment which proves that light waves need no medium to propagate, done in 1887. But all of Special Relativity can be summarized in one sentence, that in the Maxwell Equations, a moving wire coil on a stationary magnet creates a current, and a moving magnet in a stationary wire coil creates a current. Special Relativity is simply the fact that those two are the same. Now, are those two the same if Doppler redshift of light waves occurs when the source is moving away from the observer? The Maxwell Equations are Lorentz transformation invariant. If a Doppler redshift occurs for light waves when the source speed in included, then the Maxwell Equations are no longer Lorentz transformation invariant because the speed of light is not a constant. If the source speed changes the wavelength of light then the speed of light is not a constant. I do not know why or when or how the Doppler shift became accepted in physics and astronomy. This is one of those things that Dirac or DeBroglie should have and could have easily picked out and said, "stop this, for light cannot have a Doppler shift". John Bell could have and should have also picked this out. But this is something that slipped through the cracks of the 20th century. Why it slipped is a wonder to us all, looking back. Perhaps because so many wanted a Doppler shift of light to make astronomy easy. Making a science easy is always sought for, even at the price of being totally in error with the conclusions brought forth from that nonexistent Doppler shift. Maybe Dirac, DeBroglie and Bell all noticed the contradiction of a Doppler shift of light with Special Relativity but did not want to get into a fight. I do not know, but it would be interesting for a sociology study of physics as to why a Doppler shift of light survived so long as the heart of astronomy? Is it that astronomers go by so many oddball and ludricous assumptions on a daily basis, that a Doppler light shift could easily pass the nonrigorous astronomy community? Keep in mind that the physics community was also bamboozled on the Doppler shift. Or is it that scientist who have a highly developed sense of Logic are rare scientists? This is what I am beginning to lean on as the answer. That scientists are dime a dozen who can repeat experiments or learn physics or math and parrot back the answers to test questions, but a scientist who is borne with a Logical mind and can sense if a theory has holes in it or where a theory is contradictory, those type of scientists are so rare that only a few are around in a millenium of time. And that normal science builds up these silly contradictory errors and has to wait for that logical-scientist to appear and straighten out the science. The obvious example is that Copernicus was that logical astronomer to straighten out the contradictory mess of a geocentric solar system. So to be a top ranking scientist is not one who passes all tests with A's, and never seems to have to study hard for tests, but rather a top ranking scientist is one that can perceive where the contradictory loopholes occur in astronomy and physics and can point them out. Archimedes Plutonium http://www.iw.net/~a_plutonium/ whole entire Universe is just one big atom where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
rainbow comparison Chapt9 Proof that Doppler shift is nonexistent inlight-waves #47 Atom Totality theory 5th ed.
To think that the redshift in Astronomy is caused by a Doppler shift
is as silly as thinking that the rainbow we see from rain is caused by a Doppler shift. Now how long would it take physicists to figure out that a Doppler shift has nothing to do with rainbows? --- quoting Wikipedia on rainbow --- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rainbow In a so-called "primary rainbow" (the lowest, and also normally the brightest rainbow) the arc of a rainbow shows red on the outer (or upper) part of the arc, and violet on the inner section. This rainbow is caused by light being refracted then reflected once in droplets of water. In a double rainbow, a second arc may be seen above and outside the primary arc, and has the order of its colours reversed (red faces inward toward the other rainbow, in both rainbows). This second rainbow is caused by light reflecting twice inside water droplets. --- end quoting --- Now it states that "refraction" is what causes rainbows, so it is reasonable to think that refraction causes the Cosmology galaxy redshift of light, not some Doppler effect. But the reason I quoted the above is that perhaps that information on rainbows gives us some sort of way-out explanation of blue shift of galaxies. Notice that the secondary rainbow is reverse order of color with blue first, not red. So maybe, just maybe the blueshifted galaxies involves some sort of reflection along with refraction. As I stated earlier in a post, the science of optics is not easy and that it has a lot of phenomenon of high complexity. So to think that when we see light from distant galaxies as redshifted, it makes perfect sense that the shift is due to a refraction caused by the curvature of Space. The Hubble Law that the redshift is directly proportional to distance is false, for the Hubble law is based on the idea of a Doppler shift on light. It is true that redshift is related to distance, because the further away, the chances are that you are in far greater bent space to give a refraction redshift. But relationship of redshift to distance is not the linear relationship of the Hubble law. Archimedes Plutonium http://www.iw.net/~a_plutonium/ whole entire Universe is just one big atom where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
physics community too lazy to experimentally verify Chapt9 Proofthat Doppler shift is nonexistent in light-waves #49 Atom Totality theory 5th ed.
thou typest too much;
you could have thought about it for an extra day, and reduced it to a couple of paragraphs. Edwin Hubble did not believe in the Doppler interpretation of his empirical "law" of redshifts, probably more -- as you suggest -- due to the proerpties of space, and it is certainly interesting to see if & where rainbow-like effects are created in the cosmos. anyway, I'm sure that most of the problems were resolved in the Alfven cosmology, or "Beyond Einsteinmania." read more »... thus: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/7c/ Atmospheric_Transm... |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
how does Halliday & Resnick handle Doppler with Special Relativity?Chapt9 #50 Atom Totality theory 5th ed.
I wrote earlier today:
But of course that is nonsense, for wavelength and frequency and speed are all connected, so that if you imagine light being Doppler shifted, means you violate Special Relativity. I have to check tonight to see what actually Halliday and Resnick do to get out of their dilemma of a Doppler shift on light. As promised I looked up how Halliday & Resnick handled themselves on the issue that Special Relativity forbids light to have a Doppler effect. It was not a pretty picture reading Halliday & Resnick, PHYSICS, part 2, extended version, 1986, pages 929 through 932. Just moments after describing the Ives-Stilwell Experiment of 1938, we expect there to be some justification of thinking that light waves can have a Doppler shift effect, but the Ives-Stilwell experiment supports Special Relativity, and Halliday and Resnick never provide any justification for a Doppler effect on light. They immediately go into a endorsement of Hubble's Law by saying: "The Doppler effect for light finds many applications in astronomy, . ." Now earlier on page 929, perhaps is the justification by Halliday and Resnick for they remark that the frequency and wavelength can change but not the speed. So perhaps, what the justification by Halliday and Resnick is that the speed stays the same and both the wavelength and frequency change. But is that not refraction then? So what it boils down to is that we have now three experiments all pointing to a Nonexistent Doppler effect on light: (a) Michelson Experiment (b) Ives-Stilwell Experiment (c) Harvard's Hua slowed-light experiment So, to date, the world of physics has never had a experiment that confirms light capable of being Doppler shifted, but three experiments that says light is never Doppler shifted. Because if you want to argue like Halliday and Resnick that as the wavelength changes, that the frequency changes, then the motion of the source is not what has changed the frequency, but rather light must be refracted to change both wavelength and frequency simultaneously to maintain constant speed. So the flaw in the logic of Halliday and Resnick is that they blame the change in frequency to the motion of the source, but the true change in frequency is due to refraction causing frequency with wavelength change. I have some other Halliday and Resnick texts and will look to see if they repeat that error. Mind you, it is an innocent mistake, but a mistake that overturns much of what was thought true in Cosmology. Archimedes Plutonium 
http://www.iw.net/~a_plutonium/ whole entire Universe is just one big atom 
where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Halliday & Resnick false justification and experiment Chapt9 #51Atom Totality theory 5th ed.
Alright, in the prior post I spoke of the Halliday & Resnick
justification for a Doppler effect on light from their 1986 textbook and now I am reading from their 1988, Fundamentals of Physics, pages 433 to 434. Again they repeat basically the justification that since speed can be kept the same by changing both wavelength and frequency, does Halliday and Resnick feel that light can possess a Doppler shift effect. Alright, so, here I think I pinpointed the flaw in logic by Halliday and Resnick and the entire physics community on this subject -- Can lightwaves be Doppler affected? According to Halliday and Resnick they can by means of the frequency changing to accommodate the change in wavelength. And here is an experiment to prove them wrong. Experiment to show that you cannot have a Doppler effect with a Refraction effect. What we do is set up the Ives-Stilwell experiment to contain both refraction with supposed Doppler effect. That means we will have two frequency adjustments along with two wavelength adjustments. Of course we can visualize the end results that such an experiment ends up with only one wavelength adjustment to one frequency adjustment, and that a Doppler effect is nonexistent. We could validate the experiment by noting all cases of Refraction in the laboratory, that all those cases follow the theory to exacting precision, but if the world has a Doppler effect on light simultaneous to a refraction effect, that we would have noticed our Refraction testing was off by a factor of 2X since it did not incorporate a Doppler effect. So what I am saying is that the world has only one shifting effect on light-refraction and not a second shifter of a Doppler effect. Archimedes Plutonium http://www.iw.net/~a_plutonium/ whole entire Universe is just one big atom where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Hau experiment of slow light Chapt9 Proving that Doppler shift oflight is nonexistent #52 Atom Totality theory 5th ed.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EK6HxdUQm5s
Alright I was able to find the exact TV show of "slowed light" that I had seen some years back on NOVA. It was red light and reading some of the articles, there is a lot of refraction involved. But I am undeterred for I sense that a additional experiment can be arranged to where we have both a test of Doppler shift and of refraction on slowed-light. The outcome, I predict is that there is *no Doppler shift possible*. Archimedes Plutonium http://www.iw.net/~a_plutonium/ whole entire Universe is just one big atom where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Hau experiment of slow light using blue-light Chapt9 Proving thatDoppler shift of light is nonexistent #53 Atom Totality theory 5th ed.
On Oct 11, 4:28*am, Archimedes Plutonium
wrote: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EK6HxdUQm5s Alright I was able to find the exact TV show of "slowed light" that I had seen some years back on NOVA. It was red light and reading some of the articles, there is a lot of refraction involved. But I am undeterred for I sense that a additional experiment can be arranged to where we have both a test of Doppler shift and of refraction on slowed-light. The outcome, I predict is that there is *no Doppler shift possible*. Alright, I see the Hau experiment still falsifying the existence of a Doppler shift effect, since the light going into the BEC is the same wavelength as the light coming out of the BEC and during its travel in the BEC is the same wavelength throughout the journey. I see no reason that this experiment cannot be replicated using a blue light entering the BEC, traveling in the BEC and coming out the BEC all maintaining the same wavelength throughout. Now I wonder if we can repeat the experiment and place some prism refractors in the path and whether we change the wavelength and by how much. In other words, the Hau experiment is our best chance of proving that the Doppler effect on light is nonexistent. Archimedes Plutonium http://www.iw.net/~a_plutonium/ whole entire Universe is just one big atom where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Hau experiment of slow light using blue-light Chapt9 Proving thatDoppler shift of light is nonexistent #54 Atom Totality theory 5th ed.
On Oct 11, 4:40*am, Archimedes Plutonium
wrote: On Oct 11, 4:28*am, Archimedes Plutonium wrote: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EK6HxdUQm5s Now in that Youtube clip by NOVA of the Hau experiment, she discusses how the information of the light wave going into the BEC is the same information that comes out of the BEC. Now I ask a question at that phenomenon. Could a light wave that was Doppler shifted, could it have the same information as it leaves the BEC as it had before entering the BEC? I suspect not, because if we did a refraction experiment, the leaving beam has to go through another prism to restore its white light. So it is not looking good for the Doppler shift effect, not good at all. Archimedes Plutonium http://www.iw.net/~a_plutonium/ whole entire Universe is just one big atom where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Hau experiment refraction versus Doppler shift Chapt9 Proving thatDoppler shift for light is nonexistent #55 Atom Totality theory 5th ed.
On Oct 11, 4:51*am, Archimedes Plutonium
wrote: On Oct 11, 4:40*am, Archimedes Plutonium wrote: On Oct 11, 4:28*am, Archimedes Plutonium wrote: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EK6HxdUQm5s Now in that Youtube clip by NOVA of the Hau experiment, she discusses how the information of the light wave going into the BEC is the same information that comes out of the BEC. Now I ask a question at that phenomenon. Could a light wave that was Doppler shifted, could it have the same information as it leaves the BEC as it had before entering the BEC? I suspect not, because if we did a refraction experiment, the leaving beam has to go through another prism to restore its white light. So it is not looking good for the Doppler shift effect, not good at all. Now in the TV program by NOVA, which I believe was on the topic of cold temperatures where this Hau experiment appeared: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EK6HxdUQm5s In that TV program the light rays were red colored and that was just a graphic, but the theory behind the statement made by Hau, saying she believes no information is lost when the ray comes out of the BEC and resumes full light speed, not the slowed-light. So here is a challenge to the notion that light can be Doppler shifted. If light can be Doppler shifted then the light emerging out of Hau's experiment cannot have the information that it contained before entering the BEC. But if light is only affected by the refraction in the Hau experiment, then it can emerge with the full information it entered the BEC and departed the BEC. This reminds me of the physics experiment where you double refract light such that in the end you have the same light ray, although diminished in intensity. In the Hau experiment the light ray is slowed but emerges with full information and diminished intensity. If a Doppler effect existed, then the light in the Hau experiment would not emerge with full information and that some information is destroyed in the effect of Doppler. What information would be destroyed? Well, I do not know at the moment. As I said, Optics is complex and difficult and you have to be working in that field everyday of your life to be skilled with it. So what would be destroyed if light is Doppler shifted? The final end conclusions are obvious, that the world of physics has refraction of light but *no Doppler shift effect on light exists*. Archimedes Plutonium http://www.iw.net/~a_plutonium/ whole entire Universe is just one big atom where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Chapt9 Proof that Doppler shift is nonexistent in light-waves #41Atom Totality theory 5th ed. | Archimedes Plutonium[_2_] | Astronomy Misc | 7 | October 10th 11 07:50 AM |
Chapt15 Doppler shift occurs only for sound waves, not light waves#440 Atom Totality 4th ed | Archimedes Plutonium[_2_] | Astronomy Misc | 1 | May 23rd 11 05:47 AM |
ever since 1842, the Doppler shift was assumed to exist forlightwaves and never experimentally verified Chapt 8 #138; ATOM TOTALITY | Archimedes Plutonium[_2_] | Astronomy Misc | 118 | July 10th 10 07:38 PM |
Chapt9 Tifft quantized galaxy speeds #211 Atom Totality Theory | Archimedes Plutonium[_2_] | Astronomy Misc | 0 | December 20th 09 05:10 AM |
Debunked by Proof: Einstein's Relativity Theory Is Wrong! - PROOF #1 | qbit | Astronomy Misc | 6 | August 9th 07 04:04 PM |