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

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

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

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

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

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

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