|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
NO RELATIVISTIC DOPPLER EFFECT
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relativ...Doppler_effect
"Assume the observer and the source are moving away from each other with a relative velocity v (v is negative if the observer and the source are moving toward each other). Considering the problem in the reference frame of the source, suppose one wavefront arrives at the observer. The next wavefront is then at a distance L=c/f_s away from him (where L is the wavelength, f_s is the frequency of the wave the source emitted, and c is the speed of light). (...) Lo/Ls=f_s/f_o=..." The equation Lo/Ls=f_s/f_o characterizes the RELATIVISTIC Doppler effect only - its raison d'être is Divine Albert's 1905 whim (the speed of light is constant and that's it). For any wave other than a light wave the wavelength measured in the frame of the observer, Lo, does not vary with the speed of the observer so in the case of a stationary source and a moving observer the relevant equation is c'/ c=f_o/f_s, where c'=c-v is the speed of the wave relative to the observer. It can be shown that, even for light waves, Lo/Ls=f_s/f_o is contradictory so c'/c=f_o/f_s is the only plausible equation. Let us assume that Einsteinians are correct in that Lo somehow varies with the speed of the observer (so that the speed of light could gloriously remain constant yes we all believe in relativity, relativity, relativity). Initially both the source and the observer are stationary so Lo=Ls holds good. Then the source starts moving with speed v and we notice that Ls, the wavelength measured in the frame of the source, remains unchanged (this is not valid for waves other than light waves). Since the observer has not moved, Lo remains unchanged as well, in accordance with our assumption. That is, Lo=Ls holds good again. Of the two equations, Lo/Ls=f_s/f_o and c'/c=f_o/f_s, only the latter is compatible with Lo=Ls. Pentcho Valev |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
NO RELATIVISTIC DOPPLER EFFECT
A stationary source emits light waves. Initially the observer is
stationary as well but then starts moving towards the source. Two hypotheses: HYPOTHESIS 1: The wavelength as measured by the observer does not vary with the speed of the observer: http://a-levelphysicstutor.com/wav-doppler.php "vO is the velocity of an observer moving towards the source. This velocity is independent of the motion of the source. Hence, the velocity of waves relative to the observer is c + vO. (...) The motion of an observer does not alter the wavelength. The increase in frequency is a result of the observer encountering more wavelengths in a given time." http://www.expo-db.be/ExposPrecedent...%20Doppler.pdf "La variation de la fréquence observée lorsqu'il y a mouvement relatif entre la source et l'observateur est appelée effet Doppler. (...) 6. Source immobile - Observateur en mouvement: La distance entre les crêtes, la longueur d'onde lambda ne change pas. Mais la vitesse des crêtes par rapport à l'observateur change !" HYPOTHESIS 2: The wavelength as measured by the observer does vary with the speed of the observer: 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)." Hypothesis 1 allows one to derive the correct Doppler formula by drawing a straightforward analogy between light waves and other waves: 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." However Hypothesis 1 directly annihilates Divine Albert's Divine Theory so Einsteinians fiercely sing "Divine Einstein" and staunchly stick to Hypothesis 2. But how can something as absurd as "The wavelength varies with the speed of the observer" be justified? It can't - the topic is forbidden in Einsteiniana - and yet Tom Roberts breaks the ban and explains the absurd in terms of the more absurd: http://groups.google.com/group/sci.p...239c921a61d6a0 Tom Roberts: "NOTHING that is intrinsic to the light wave "changes". But then, wavelength is NOT an intrinsic property of a light wave. What does change with the observer's velocity is the RELATIONSHIP between the observer's wavelength-measuring apparatus and the light wave, and this causes differently moving observers to MEASURE different wavelengths for the same light wave. Light is not sound (DUH!)." Still let us assume that Tom Roberts is correct and "what does change with the observer's velocity is the RELATIONSHIP between the observer's wavelength-measuring apparatus and the light wave, and this causes differently moving observers to MEASURE different wavelengths for the same light wave". Now the following scenario is relevant. Initially both the source and the observer are stationary. Then the source starts moving towards the observer and we notice that the wavelength as measured in the frame of the source remains unchanged (this is not valid for waves other than light waves). Since the observer has not moved, the wavelength as measured in the frame of the observer remains unchanged as well, in accordance with our assumption. So the assumption that the wavelength (as measured by the observer) does vary with the speed of the observer leads to the conclusion that the wavelength (as measured by the observer) does NOT vary with the speed of the source, which is a contradiction of course. The only way out of the predicament is to abandon Hypothesis 2 and accept Hypothesis 1. Pentcho Valev |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
NO RELATIVISTIC DOPPLER EFFECT
Stephen Hawking explains the Doppler effect:
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. This means that the wavelength of the waves we receive is shorter than when the star was stationary. Correspondingly, if the source is moving away from us, the wavelength of the waves we receive will be longer. In the case of light, therefore, means that stars moving away from us will have their spectra shifted toward the red end of the spectrum (red- shifted) and those moving toward us will have their spectra blue- shifted." The mechanism of wavelength change Hawking describes is valid for sound waves but not for light waves. It is obvious that, for light, the wavelength leaving the stationary source is equal to the wavelength leaving the moving source. So the variation in frequency the observer measures can only be due to a variation in the speed of light (relative to the observer), in accordance with the equation c'=c +v given by Newton's emission theory of light (v is the speed of the source relative to the observer). Pentcho Valev |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
NO RELATIVISTIC DOPPLER EFFECT
Einsteinians are shown the result (frequency)=(c+v)/(wavelength):
http://www.hep.man.ac.uk/u/roger/PHY.../lecture18.pdf Roger Barlow, Professor of Particle Physics: "The Doppler effect - changes in frequencies when sources or observers are in motion - is familiar to anyone who has stood at the roadside and watched (and listened) to the cars go by. It applies to all types of wave, not just sound. (...) Moving Observer. Now suppose the source is fixed but the observer is moving towards the source, with speed v. In time t, ct/ (lambda) waves pass a fixed point. A moving point adds another vt/ (lambda). So f'=(c+v)/(lambda)." Einsteinians, Does the result f'=(c+v)/(lambda) topple Divine Albert's Divine Special Relativity? Einsteinians ready to reply: http://game2gether.de/wordpress/wp-c...4-1024x819.jpg Pentcho Valev |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
NO RELATIVISTIC DOPPLER EFFECT
Einsteinians,
The statement "the velocity of waves relative to the observer is c + vO" can be found on Internet. It is clear from the context that the reference is to light waves: http://a-levelphysicstutor.com/wav-doppler.php "vO is the velocity of an observer moving towards the source. This velocity is independent of the motion of the source. Hence, the velocity of waves relative to the observer is c + vO. (...) The motion of an observer does not alter the wavelength. The increase in frequency is a result of the observer encountering more wavelengths in a given time." Einsteinians looking for the author: http://images.yume.vn/blog/20101026/halloween-31.JPG Pentcho Valev |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
NO RELATIVISTIC DOPPLER EFFECT
Einsteinians,
Any sound interpretation of the Doppler effect (moving observer) unequivocally shows that the speed of light (relative to the observer) varies with the speed of the observer: http://www.cmmp.ucl.ac.uk/~ahh/teach...24n/lect19.pdf Tony Harker, University College London: "The Doppler Effect: Moving sources and receivers. The phenomena which occur when a source of sound is in motion are well known. The example which is usually cited is the change in pitch of the engine of a moving vehicle as it approaches. In our treatment we shall not specify the type of wave motion involved, and our results will be applicable to sound and light. (...) Now suppose that the observer is moving with a velocity Vo away from the source. (...) If the observer moves with a speed Vo away from the source (...), then in a time t the number of waves which reach the observer are those in a distance ct-Vo*t, so the number of waves observed is (ct-Vo*t)/lambda, giving an observed frequency f'=f((c-Vo)/c) when the observer is moving away from the source at a speed Vo." PREMISE: "...in a time t the number of waves which reach the observer are those in a distance ct-Vo*t..." CONCLUSION: The speed of the waves relative to the observer is c-Vo. Einsteinians prostrated with grief: http://rtlstatic01.host25.com/reposi..._bg.jpg? v=25 Pentcho Valev |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
NO RELATIVISTIC DOPPLER EFFECT
The speed of light (relative to the observer/receiver) varies with the
speed of the observer, v, in accordance with the equation c'=c+v, and with the gravitational potential, gh, in accordance with the equation c'=c(1+gh/c^2), both equations given by Newton's emission theory of light: http://physics.ucsd.edu/students/cou...ecture5-11.pdf "Doppler Shift. As long as the velocity of the observer, v, is much smaller than the speed of light, c, (for the case of sound waves much smaller than the speed of sound) then the expression that we derived is a very good approximation. Taking into account v may be in the opposite direction f'=f(1±v/c). At this point you might ask why the shift in direction from the discussion of the equivalence principle. Soon, as we shall see, we can put this together with the equivalence principle to derive the gravitational redshift of light! Gravitational Redshift of Light. In 1960 Pound and Rebka and later, 1965, with an improved version Pound and Snider measured the gravitational redshift of light using the Harvard tower, h=22.6m. From the equivalence principle, at the instant the light is emitted from the transmitter, only a freely falling observer will measure the same value of f that was emitted by the transmitter. But the stationary receiver is not free falling. During the time it takes light to travel to the top of the tower, t=h/c, the receiver is traveling at a velocity, v=gt, away from a free falling receiver. Hence the measured frequency is: f'=f(1- v/c)=f(1-gh/c^2)." Einsteinians teaching that light falls and even accelerates in a gravitational field but its speed does not change, no it doesn't, impossible, absurd, help, help, Divine Einstein, yes we all believe in relativity, relativity, relativity, and the emission theory is very very wrong, help, help, and the Pound-Rebka experiment has gloriously confirmed Divine Albert's Divine Theory because yes we all believe in relativity, relativity, relativity: http://www.ringincentrulvechi.ro/wp-...io-costume.jpg Pentcho Valev |
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 |
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 |
GRAVITATIONAL REDSHIFT AND DOPPLER EFFECT | Pentcho Valev | Astronomy Misc | 5 | August 5th 07 09:33 AM |
TOM ROBERTS WILL EXPLAIN THE DOPPLER EFFECT | Pentcho Valev | Astronomy Misc | 0 | May 27th 07 06:46 AM |