|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
DOPPLER EFFECT REFUTES SPECIAL RELATIVITY
When it comes to rigorous deduction, even relativists (implicitly)
admit that the motion of the observer cannot alter the wavelength of the light wave: http://members.home.nl/fg.marcelis/reldop.pdf The observer O receives a light wave from the source S. The wavelength of the emitted wave is Ls. (...) Let Ts be the time in which one wavelength is emitted as measured by a clock that is moving along with S. (...) Now let's suppose that the source is at rest and the observer is moving with velocity v in the direction of the source. Let To be the time in which the observer passes one wavelength, as measured by a clock that is moving along with the observer. In the time To the observer travels a distance v*To to the left and the light wave travels a distance Ls-v*To to the right. The light's distance is also equal to c*To. So Ls - v*To = c*To. Or c*Ts = c*To + v*To. The observed period in case of a moving observer is To = Ts(c/(c+v)) __________________________________________ [end of quotation] The last result, combined with the formula (frequency) = (speed of the light wave)/(wavelength) entails that the observer measures the frequency to be Fo=Fs(1+v/c) and the speed of the light wave to be c'=c+v. Pentcho Valev |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
DOPPLER EFFECT REFUTES SPECIAL RELATIVITY
http://www-cosmosaf.iap.fr/RELATIVIT...20Thibault.htm
Thibault Damour: "Or, en relativité restreinte, les fréquences mesurées par deux observateurs en mouvement relatif sont différentes (effet Doppler-Fizeau). Pour une vitesse relative faible, l'effet (f'- f)/f est égal à v/c." C'est-à-dire, si pour un observateur stationnaire la fréquence mesurée est f et la vitesse de la lumière c, et qu'il se met en mouvement vers la source lumineuse à une vitesse v, la nouvelle fréquence qu'il mesurera sera f'=f(1+v/c) et la vitesse de la lumière par rapport à lui deviendra c'=c+v. C'est une prédiction de la théorie de l'émission de Newton qui contredit la relativité restreinte. Pentcho Valev |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
DOPPLER EFFECT REFUTES SPECIAL RELATIVITY
http://rockpile.phys.virginia.edu/mod04/mod34.pdf
Paul Fendley: "Now let's see what this does to the frequency of the light. We know that even without special relativity, observers moving at different velocities measure different frequencies. (This is the reason the pitch of an ambulance changes as it passes you it doesn't change if you're on the ambulance). This is called the Doppler shift, and for small relative velocity v it is easy to show that the frequency shifts from f to f(1+v/c) (it goes up heading toward you, down away from you). There are relativistic corrections, but these are negligible here." By taking into account the formula: (frequency) = (speed of light)/(wavelength) one concludes that the speed of light (relative to the observer) shifts from c to c+v. Pentcho Valev |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
DOPPLER EFFECT REFUTES SPECIAL RELATIVITY
http://www.phys.uconn.edu/~gibson/No...6_3/Sec6_3.htm
Professor George N. Gibson, University of Connecticut: "However, if either the source or the observer is moving, things change. This is called the Doppler effect. (...) To understand the moving observer, imagine you are in a motorboat on the ocean. If you are not moving, the boat will bob up and down with a certain frequency determined by the ocean waves coming in. However, imagine that you are moving into the waves fairly quickly. You will find that you bob up and down more rapidly, because you hit the crests of the waves sooner than if you were not moving. So, the frequency of the waves appears to be higher to you than if you were not moving. Notice, THE WAVES THEMSELVES HAVE NOT CHANGED, only your experience of them. Nevertheless, you would say that the frequency has increased. Now imagine that you are returning to shore, and so you are traveling in the same direction as the waves. In this case, the waves may still overtake you, but AT A MUCH SLOWER RATE - you will bob up and down more slowly. In fact, if you travel with exactly the same speed as the waves, you will not bob up and down at all. The same thing is true for sound waves, or ANY OTHER WAVES. (...) The formula for the frequency that the observer will detect depends on the speed of the observer; the larger the speed the greater the effect. If we call the speed of the observer, Vo, the frequency the observer detects will be: f'=f(1+Vo/Vwave). Here, f is the original frequency and Vwave is the speed of the wave." By combining f'=f(1+Vo/Vwave) with the formula: (frequency) = (speed of the light wave)/(wavelength) one concludes that the speed of light (relative to the observer) varies with the speed of the observer, Vo, in accordance with the equation c'=c+Vo. Pentcho Valev |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
DOPPLER EFFECT REFUTES SPECIAL RELATIVITY
On Dec 27, 12:00*pm, Pentcho Valev wrote:
When it comes to rigorous deduction, even relativists (implicitly) admit that the motion of the observer cannot alter the wavelength of the light wave: http://members.home.nl/fg.marcelis/reldop.pdf The observer O receives a light wave from the source S. The wavelength of the emitted wave is Ls. (...) Let Ts be the time in which one wavelength is emitted as measured by a clock that is moving along with S. (...) Now let's suppose that the source is at rest and the observer is moving with velocity v in the direction of the source. Let To be the time in which the observer passes one wavelength, as measured by a clock that is moving along with the observer. In the time To the observer travels a distance v*To to the left and the light wave travels a distance Ls-v*To to the right. The light's distance is also equal to c*To. So Ls - v*To = c*To. Or c*Ts = c*To + v*To. The observed period in case of a moving observer is To = Ts(c/(c+v)) __________________________________________ [end of quotation] The last result, combined with the formula (frequency) = (speed of the light wave)/(wavelength) entails that the observer measures the frequency to be Fo=Fs(1+v/c) and the speed of the light wave to be c'=c+v. Pentcho Valev Since there's still no objective proof that individual photons even travel, and only those leading or trailing wave-ends seem to count as denoting its frequency (because individual amplitudes mean absolutely nothing, especially when its amplitude represents only a quantum string 2D like existence that represents an energy transfer of zero volume), is perhaps why there's some ongoing confusion and poorly contrived interpretations about photons and their apparent velocity limit. Quantum transpondering seems more likely, but I’ve been there and done that version for a good decade with no takers brave enough to withstand the mainstream gauntlet of naysay flack, perhaps because it might suggest an aether/ether quantum string like dimension, and that’s just too dark and scary to think about. A quantum transponder that’s acting as a aether FIFO photon node might actually help to explain a great many things of our universe that supposedly has no tired photons regardless of their vast distance from the originating source, because a transponder photon never has to lose amplitude. How about a frequency modulated photon? (seems doable, especially if gravity affects the fabric of space) http://translate.google.com/# Brad Guth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth, BradGuth, BG / “Guth Usenet” |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
DOPPLER EFFECT REFUTES SPECIAL RELATIVITY
When the observer starts moving towards the wave source with speed v,
both relativists and antirelativists admit that, for ANY wave, the frequency shift he measures obeys the equation f'=f(1+v/c), where f and c are, respectively, the frequency and the speed of the wave the stationary observer measures. The only sane scenario allowing a rigorous derivation of the equation, for ANY wave, is: "The motion of the observer cannot change the wavelength; the increased frequency is due to an increased speed of the wave relative to the observer": http://www.phys.uconn.edu/~gibson/No...6_3/Sec6_3.htm Professor George N. Gibson, University of Connecticut: "However, if either the source or the observer is moving, things change. This is called the Doppler effect. (...) To understand the moving observer, imagine you are in a motorboat on the ocean. If you are not moving, the boat will bob up and down with a certain frequency determined by the ocean waves coming in. However, imagine that you are moving into the waves fairly quickly. You will find that you bob up and down more rapidly, because you hit the crests of the waves sooner than if you were not moving. So, the frequency of the waves appears to be higher to you than if you were not moving. Notice, THE WAVES THEMSELVES HAVE NOT CHANGED, only your experience of them. Nevertheless, you would say that the frequency has increased. Now imagine that you are returning to shore, and so you are traveling in the same direction as the waves. In this case, the waves may still overtake you, but AT A MUCH SLOWER RATE - you will bob up and down more slowly. In fact, if you travel with exactly the same speed as the waves, you will not bob up and down at all. The same thing is true for sound waves, or ANY OTHER WAVES. (...) The formula for the frequency that the observer will detect depends on the speed of the observer; the larger the speed the greater the effect. If we call the speed of the observer, Vo, the frequency the observer detects will be: f'=f(1+Vo/Vwave). Here, f is the original frequency and Vwave is the speed of the wave." Einsteiniana's priests (implicitly) admit that the above scenario is the only sane one for e.g. sound or water waves but automatically shift to insanity when it comes to light waves: http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/teachi...ang/index.html John Norton: "Here's a light wave and an observer. If the observer were to hurry towards the source of the light, the observer would now pass wavecrests more frequently than the resting observer. That would mean that moving observer would find the frequency of the light to have increased (AND CORRESPONDINGLY FOR THE WAVELENGTH - THE DISTANCE BETWEEN CRESTS - TO HAVE DECREASED)." Still Einsteiniana's priests are unable to derive the equation f'=f(1+v/c) based on their schizophrenic wavelength-varies-with-speed- of-observer scenario so silence is their usual reaction - John Norton's revelation is perhaps the only one on Internet. However Einsteiniana's zombies are not silent and fiercely teach the wavelength-varies-with-speed-of-observer wisdom all over the world. Pentcho Valev |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
DOPPLER EFFECT REFUTES SPECIAL RELATIVITY
Note again that scientists have no other way to derive the correct
formula for the Doppler frequency shift (moving observer), F'=F(1+V/ c), than to admit that the motion of the observer CANNOT alter the wavelength and that the velocity of the wave (relative to the observer) VARIES with the velocity of the observer: http://web.ntnu.edu.tw/~fangyuhlo/shares/GP/15SS.pdf Fang-Yuh Lo, Department of Physics, National Taiwan Normal University: * What happens when the observer of a wave itself is in motion as well? * observer moves toward source : frequency becomes higher * observer moves away from source : frequency becomes lower * how much higher (lower)? * wavelength does not change * change in velocity Vnew = Vwave ± Vobs Lwave*Fnew = Vwave ± Vobs Fnew = ((Vwave ± Vobs)/Vwave)F ______________________________________ [end of quotation] Pentcho Valev |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
DOPPLER EFFECT REFUTES SPECIAL RELATIVITY
"Pentcho Valev" wrote in message ... Note again that scientists have no other way to derive the correct formula for the Doppler frequency shift (moving observer), F'=F(1+V/ c), than to admit that the motion of the observer CANNOT alter the wavelength and that the velocity of the wave (relative to the observer) VARIES with the velocity of the observer: ========================================= You are being ridiculous, wavelength is relative. LOOK! http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonde...e/Relative.gif |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Annular Doppler effect | Szczepan Bialek | History | 0 | November 5th 11 06:02 PM |
Special Relativity proof Chapt9 Proof that Doppler shift isnonexistent in light-waves #46 Atom Totality theory 5th ed. | Archimedes Plutonium[_2_] | Astronomy Misc | 21 | October 13th 11 09:26 PM |
DOPPLER EFFECT AGAINST SPECIAL RELATIVITY | Pentcho Valev | Astronomy Misc | 3 | August 22nd 11 12:23 PM |
Fallacy of Relativistic Doppler Effect | Koobee Wublee | Astronomy Misc | 149 | April 14th 11 03:08 AM |
Photon hypothesis, special relativity and photoelectric effect | Koobee Wublee | Astronomy Misc | 0 | February 18th 11 06:11 AM |