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

DOPPLER EFFECT WIPES OUT EINSTEIN'S RELATIVITY



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old September 10th 14, 10:28 PM posted to sci.astro
Pentcho Valev
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,078
Default DOPPLER EFFECT WIPES OUT EINSTEIN'S RELATIVITY

Einsteinians teach that, for all kinds of waves (light waves included), the wavefronts bunch up (the wavelength decreases) in front of a wave source which starts moving towards the observer:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h4OnBYrbCjY
"The Doppler Effect: what does motion do to waves?"

http://www.amazon.com/Brief-History-.../dp/0553380168
Stephen Hawking, "A Brief History of Time", Chapter 3: "Now imagine a source of light at a constant distance from us, such as a star, emitting waves of light at a constant wavelength. Obviously the wavelength of the waves we receive will be the same as the wavelength at which they are emitted (the gravitational field of the galaxy will not be large enough to have a significant effect). Suppose now that the source starts moving toward us. When the source emits the next wave crest it will be nearer to us, so the distance between wave crests will be smaller than when the star was stationary."

For waves other than light waves the moving source does indeed emit shorter wavelength - it is the same for all observers, including one moving with the source. That is, all observers measure the wavelength to be L when the source is stationary, and then all of them measure the wavelength to be L' (LL') when the source is moving.

For light waves this is obviously not the case. For instance, an observer moving with the source measures the wavelength to be L, not L', which simply means that the wavefronts do not bunch up in front of the moving source.

Conclusion: The moving light source does not emit shorter wavelength - rather, it emits faster light. If the source starts moving towards the observer with speed v, the speed of the light relative to the observer shifts from c to c'=c+v, in violation of Einstein's relativity.

Pentcho Valev
  #2  
Old September 11th 14, 08:00 AM posted to sci.astro
Pentcho Valev
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,078
Default DOPPLER EFFECT WIPES OUT EINSTEIN'S RELATIVITY

A light source emits a series of short pulses the distance between which is d (e.g. d = 300000 km). A stationary observer/receiver measures the frequency of the pulses to be f=c/d:

http://www.einstein-online.info/imag...ler_static.gif

The source starts moving with (small) speed v towards the observer - the measured frequency shifts from f=c/d to f'=(c+v)/d.

Why does the frequency shift from f=c/d to f'=(c+v)/d?

If the pulses do not bunch up in front of the moving source, Einstein's relativity immediately collapses - the Doppler frequency shift can only be caused by the increase in the speed of the pulses relative to the observer (this speed shifts from c to c'=c+v). So Einsteinians are forced to teach that the pulses do bunch up:

http://www.einstein-online.info/spotlights/doppler
Albert Einstein Institute: "Next, let us look at a slightly different situation, where the source is moving towards the detector.

http://www.einstein-online.info/imag...ource_blue.gif

We assume that the motion of the sender does not influence the speed at which the pulses travel, and that the pulses are sent with the same frequency as before. Still, as we can see in the following animation, the motion influences the pulse pattern: The distance between successive pulses is now smaller than when both sender and receiver were at rest. Consequently, the pulses arrive at the receiver in quicker succession."

Einstein's relativity is saved but only temporarily. The assumption that light pulses bunch up in front of the moving source is false but still sounds reasonable, insofar as this assumption is correct when waves other than light are considered. In contrast, to assume that pulses bunch up in front of the moving observer is downright insane. Einsteinians are usually silent on this but sometimes they explicitly admit that no bunching up occurs when the observer, not the source, starts moving. As a result, Einstein's relativity immediately collapses:

http://www.einstein-online.info/spotlights/doppler
Albert Einstein Institute: "Here is an animation of the receiver moving towards the source.

http://www.einstein-online.info/imag...ector_blue.gif

(...) 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."

The speed of the light pulses relative to the stationary receiver (observer) is:

c = d/t

where t is the time until pulse and (stationary) receiver meet up. For the moving receiver, "the time until pulse and receiver meet up is shortened". This means that the speed of the pulses relative to the moving receiver is:

c' = d/t' = c + v

where t' is the time until pulse and moving receiver meet up (tt') and v is the speed of the receiver relative to the source.

The speed of the light pulses (relative to the receiver) does vary with the speed of the receiver, in violation of Einstein's relativity:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bg7O4rtlwEE
"Doppler effect - when an observer moves towards a stationary source. ...the velocity of the wave relative to the observer is faster than that when it is still."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SC0Q6-xt-Xs
"Doppler effect - when an observer moves away from a stationary source. ....the velocity of the wave relative to the observer is slower than that when it is still."

Pentcho Valev
  #3  
Old September 11th 14, 09:42 PM posted to sci.astro
Pentcho Valev
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,078
Default DOPPLER EFFECT WIPES OUT EINSTEIN'S RELATIVITY

A light source emits a series of pulses the distance between which is d (e.g. d = 300000 km). A stationary observer/receiver measures the frequency of the pulses to be f=c/d:

http://www.einstein-online.info/imag...ler_static.gif

The source starts moving towards the observer with (small) speed v1, and the observer starts moving towards the source with (small) speed v2. The measured frequency shifts from f=c/d to f"=(c+v1+v2)/d.

Why does the frequency shift from f=c/d to f"=(c+v1+v2)/d ?

Answer 1 (fatal for Einstein's relativity): Because the speed of the pulses relative to the observer shifts from c to c"=c+v1+v2, as predicted by Newton's emission theory of light.

Answer 2 (the only possible salvation for Einstein's relativity): Because the motion of the source shifts the distance between the pulses

from d to d' = (function of d and v1),

and the motion of the observer shifts the measured distance between the pulses

from d' to d" = (function of d' and v2) = cd/(c+v1+v2),

so that the product of f" and d" can remain equal to c.

There are no reasonable (function of d and v1) and (function of d' and v2) compatible with d"=cd/(c+v1+v2).

Pentcho Valev
  #4  
Old September 15th 14, 07:16 AM posted to sci.astro
Pentcho Valev
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,078
Default DOPPLER EFFECT WIPES OUT EINSTEIN'S RELATIVITY

It is obvious that, for any waves, the motion of the observer cannot change the wavelength of the incoming waves (or the distance between subsequent pulses) - accordingly, the speed of the waves relative to the observer VARIES with the speed of the observer (which is fatal for Einstein's relativity):

Stationary observer: http://www.einstein-online.info/imag...ler_static.gif

Moving observer: http://www.einstein-online.info/imag...ector_blue.gif

http://faculty.washington.edu/wilkes...erference..pdf
"Sound waves have speed c, and f and L are related by c=Lf. For an observer moving relative to medium with speed u, apparent propagation speed c' will be different: c'=c±u. Wavelength cannot change - it's a constant length in the medium, and same length in moving coordinate system (motion does not change lengths). Observed frequency has to change, to match apparent speed and fixed wavelength: f'=c'/L."

http://www.einstein-online.info/spotlights/doppler
"Here is an animation of the receiver moving towards the source. (...) 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..."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bg7O4rtlwEE
"Doppler effect - when an observer moves towards a stationary source. ...the velocity of the wave relative to the observer is faster than that when it is still."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SC0Q6-xt-Xs
"Doppler effect - when an observer moves away from a stationary source. ....the velocity of the wave relative to the observer is slower than that when it is still."

In order to save Einstein's relativity, silly Einsteinians teach that the motion of the observer changes the wavelength of any waves:

http://lewebpedagogique.com/physique...8doppler_p.gif

http://astro.berkeley.edu/~mwhite/da...plershift.html
"...the sound waves have a fixed wavelength (distance between two crests or two troughs) only if you're not moving relative to the source of the sound. If you are moving away from the source (or equivalently it is receding from you) then each crest will take a little longer to reach you, and so you'll perceive a longer wavelength. Similarly if you're approaching the source, then you'll be meeting each crest a little earlier, and so you'll perceive a shorter wavelength. (...) The same principle applies for light as well as for sound. In detail the amount of shift depends a little differently on the speed, since we have to do the calculation in the context of special relativity. But in general it's just the same: if you're approaching a light source you see shorter wavelengths (a blue-shift), while if you're moving away you see longer wavelengths (a red-shift)."

http://www.lp2i-poitiers.fr/doc/aps/...oppleffet.html
"The observer moves closer to the source. The wave received has a shorter wavelength (higher frequency) than that emitted by the source. The observer moves away from the source. The wave received has a longer wavelength (lower frequency) than that emitted by the source."

Clever Einsteinians are usually silent on whether or not the motion of the observer can change the wavelength of the incoming light. Yet the subtlest practitioners of doublethink are able to present the wavelength shift as something self-evident:

http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/teachi...ved/index.html
"Every sound or light wave has a particular frequency and wavelength. In sound, they determine the pitch; in light they determine the color. 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)."

http://ebooks.adelaide.edu.au/o/orwe...hapter2.9.html
"Doublethink means the power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one's mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them. The Party intellectual knows in which direction his memories must be altered; he therefore knows that he is playing tricks with reality; but by the exercise of doublethink he also satisfies himself that reality is not violated. The process has to be conscious, or it would not be carried out with sufficient precision, but it also has to be unconscious, or it would bring with it a feeling of falsity and hence of guilt. Doublethink lies at the very heart of Ingsoc, since the essential act of the Party is to use conscious deception while retaining the firmness of purpose that goes with complete honesty. To tell deliberate lies while genuinely believing in them, to forget any fact that has become inconvenient, and then, when it becomes necessary again, to draw it back from oblivion for just so long as it is needed, to deny the existence of objective reality and all the while to take account of the reality which one denies - all this is indispensably necessary. (...) It need hardly be said that the subtlest practitioners of doublethink are those who invented doublethink and know that it is a vast system of mental cheating. In our society, those who have the best knowledge of what is happening are also those who are furthest from seeing the world as it is. In general, the greater the understanding, the greater the delusion ; the more intelligent, the less sane.."

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
IS DOPPLER EFFECT FATAL FOR RELATIVITY, EINSTEINIANS ? Pentcho Valev Astronomy Misc 2 August 28th 14 07:52 PM
EINSTEIN'S RELATIVITY INCOMPATIBLE WITH DOPPLER EFFECT Pentcho Valev Astronomy Misc 2 August 15th 14 04:01 PM
SPECIAL RELATIVITY INCOMPATIBLE WITH DOPPLER EFFECT Pentcho Valev Astronomy Misc 4 September 26th 13 05:56 AM
EVEN RELATIVISTIC DOPPLER EFFECT TOPPLES RELATIVITY Pentcho Valev Astronomy Misc 2 September 10th 13 12:06 PM
DOPPLER EFFECT AGAINST SPECIAL RELATIVITY Pentcho Valev Astronomy Misc 3 August 22nd 11 12:23 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:32 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.