4th ed. book, preface #1; ATOM TOTALITY (Atom Universe) theory;replaces Big Bang theory

On Thu, 3 Jun 2010 02:24:11 -0700 (PDT), Archimedes Plutonium
wrote:


The fact is that noone on Earth has ever witnessed a Doppler blueshift
or redshift on anything within our Solar System or here on Earth.

Doppler radar witnesses both:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doppler_radar

I am afraid I do not have time for what I call socialized error-clad
physics. Where a
term of Doppler radar is placed into the social network. Much like if
someone
called a radar a Mossbauer Radar, thinking that the Mossbauer Effect
had some
role in radar. I do not have time to unravel socialized errors of
physics. Some actually
believe a radar can pick up a Doppler shift, but if that were true,
why is that all
radars require at least two echoes? If a Radar were truly a Doppler
Radar, it would
need just one echo (one reflection) to tell the speed of the object.
As far as I know,
all radars, whether dubbed doppler radars or not, require two echoes.

What I am after is whether the Doppler Effect is contradictory to
Special Relativity
for lightwaves. I have no complaints about Doppler shift on sound
waves. But
sound does not have a Special Relativity Principle.

Chapter 8 in this book is basically this:

*(8) Redshift of light from galaxies caused by
refraction and scattering, not a Doppler effect

And in that chapter I want to show that the Doppler Effect exists on
sound waves
but never on lightwaves or the EM spectrum.

Now one experiment that already is pointed in the direction that
lightwaves cannot
be doppler shifted is the Michelson Morley experiment where the
interferometer
interpretation can be reinterpretated to mean that there was no shift
in either wavelength
or frequency. The Michelson Experiment of the late 1800s was a
experiment to try
to detect the motion of the lumiferous aether, the medium for
lightwaves. The Experiment
ended with a null result. If we refurbish the Michelson Experiment, I
feel we
can coax out of it, the result that lightwaves cannot be Doppler
shifted.

Evidence for that idea that lightwaves cannot be Doppler shifted comes
from everyday
experience on Earth and the Solar System. Sound waves are doppler
shifted is a common
every day experience, but lightwaves doppler shifted have never
actually been experimentally
confirmed, except for the Michelson Experiment with its null results.

Now some claim that the radar technology is a Doppler technology. But
this is only a fantasy,
a wishful thinking, because in all the radar uses to detect speed,
boils down, in the end to
two echoes determining the speed. If a Doppler Effect truly existed
for radar, then the
Space Station astronauts would have trouble with radio signals from
Earth, same as
a train with its sound waves having trouble with Doppler. But
listening to the radio in the
Space Station is a null Doppler.

To prove that the Doppler Effect cannot exist with lightwaves, I must
ultimately show
that the Doppler Effect is nonexistant in the Maxwell theory of a
stationary wire loop
and moving magnet is the same as a moving wire loop and stationary
magnet. So I need
to show that this symmetry of wire loop and magnet are broken if a
Doppler effect
occurrs on lightwaves. So that, let us say a magnet is moving with the
speed of light
towards a wire loop and then a magnet away at the speed of light. I
must show that
such is a contradiction if a Doppler Effect occurred in the Maxwell
theory and thus Special Relativity.

Perhaps a Proof: suppose both the magnet and wire loop were moving at
the speed of light.
Then in the case of moving towards one another it would be a huge
Doppler blueshift. In
the case of moving away from one another is a huge redshift. The
energy in the Maxwell
theory would be unequal in those two cases, and thus a broken
symmetry. Thus a
Doppler Effect cannot exist for lightwaves.

That is a first stab, and it may hold up.

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

Archimedes Plutonium wrote:


Jeroen Belleman wrote:

Answer my questions. The second one only, if you can.

Not that it matters. I won't attempt to educate you beyond this.

Jeroen Belleman

You don't know what you are talking about and you have a foul mouth
accompanying. You claim radar speed is a doppler measurement. You
don't know the first thing about it.

Speed radar is measured using simple math. Some police officers even
do the maths rather than have the gadget compute it.

In the Navy, they call it the "Mo Board" of radar telling the speed
and
direction of a distant ship. This speed radar has been around since
world war 2.

Doppler shift has nothing to do with it.
[...]

Imagine the police radar is at rest and emits sine waves with
crests one meter apart (a signal at about 300 Mega-Hertz).

Suppose a mirror is moving away at 10% of the speed of light from
the radar, in a radial (in-line with the signal) direction.

When a crest advances 1 meter, the mirror recedes by 0.1 meter.
The question is then what is the crest-to-crest separation
after reflection off the mirror?

This might involve special relativity, I'm not completely sure.
But think about planets orbiting about far away stars. It's often
said that as the earth-planet radial velocity varies as
the planet moves in its orbit, periodic variations in
spectral lines (wavelengths or frequencies) are measured,
interpreted as Doppler effects. Don't you think
this is well established?

David Bernier

David Bernier wrote:


Imagine the police radar is at rest and emits sine waves with
crests one meter apart (a signal at about 300 Mega-Hertz).

Suppose a mirror is moving away at 10% of the speed of light from
the radar, in a radial (in-line with the signal) direction.

When a crest advances 1 meter, the mirror recedes by 0.1 meter.
The question is then what is the crest-to-crest separation
after reflection off the mirror?

This might involve special relativity, I'm not completely sure.
But think about planets orbiting about far away stars. It's often
said that as the earth-planet radial velocity varies as
the planet moves in its orbit, periodic variations in
spectral lines (wavelengths or frequencies) are measured,
interpreted as Doppler effects. Don't you think
this is well established?

David Bernier

All physical systems involve SR, since SR is nothing more than saying
that
the Maxwell Equations are invariant as per whether a magnet is moving
or a
wire loop is moving while the other is stationary.

Let me answer you by asking you some questions. Doppler Effect
discovered in
1842; Michelson Morley Experiment 1887; Special Relativity of Lorentz-
Poincare
1900; Hubble Law of redshift of galaxies 1929.

Questions, David:
(1) Would there be any reason for any scientist to question whether
lightwaves
obeyed a Doppler shift? The actual history shows that noone bothered
to
question whether lightwaves must or must not have a Doppler Effect.

Answer to (1) When the Michelson interferometer experiment arose,
there should
have been at least one physicist or mathematician to raise the
question of whether
we can assume the doppler effect exists for lightwaves. Because the
Interferometer
actually measures wavelengths. So beyond 1887, some people, a few
should have
no longer assumed or presumed that lightwaves obey a Doppler Effect
and begin
to experiment or look for Doppler effect on lightwaves. To my
knowledge, noone
did any such. Noone even raised the question, and all were asleep
under the assumption.

(2) Should anyone have questioned whether a Doppler Effect existed on
lightwaves
after Special Relativity was formulated by Lorentz, Poincare and later
by Einstein?
Answer (2) as David even mentions that SR comes into question with the
Doppler
Effect. But here again, apparently not a single person in physics nor
mathematics
raised the fundamental questions of whether SR can support a Doppler
Effect
on lightwaves?

(3) So here comes 1929 with the Hubble Law and we can appreciate how
totally
immersed into the belief or misbelief of a Doppler Shift prevalent and
pervasive.
So the question is by 1929 and after, what chances were there that
anyone in
physics or mathematics was sober enough to ask the fundamental
question:
is lightwaves and Special Relativity compatible or contradictory?
Answer: By the time of the Hubble Law, only a lone wolf could ask for
a objective
research into whether Doppler Effect on lightwaves contradicted
Special Relativity.

Do you see the historical pattern, David? That a Doppler effect was so
presumed,
that noone from 1842 to 2010, had the objective commonsense to
question
the assumption of whether lightwaves can have a Doppler shift.

Now, possibly a mathematician from 1842 to 2010 is more likely to call
attention
to the question of whether Doppler is compatible with SR. Since a
mathematician
often works with consistency and with contradictions. A physicist is
unlikely to
have suspected anything wrong. And a mathematician is more likely to
spot where
a scientist is "making an assumption" that needs valid evidence. From
Christian
Doppler in 1842, who was a mathematician, noone really stepped up and
said
"let us no longer assume lightwaves can be Doppler shifted, but let us
show
evidence that such is or is not the case." Noone did this. They were
crushed
under the avalanche of Hubble's law and then under the mountain of
the
Doppler radar misnomer.

Noteworthy, David, there has never been a eye witness case example to
anything
involving light and a Doppler shift. Unlike sound from a train to
prove Doppler shift
on Soundwaves, noone has seen a Doppler shift on lightwaves. And there
is one
case in particular that a Doppler Shift should occur but has not. And
that case is
the radio on the Space Station with the astronauts. Their radio is not
Doppler shifted
of any radio signal from ground. If their radio has no Doppler shift,
then no Doppler
shift on lightwaves exists. If the world has any Doppler shift, the
radio turned on
in the Space Station listening to radio ground waves should have a
Doppler shift.
But they have no shift.

And the Space Station is a similar experiment to the Michelson Morley
experiment where
the end result in both cases is a "null result". No Doppler shift in
either the Space Station
nor the Michelson interferometer.

Final question David: How could so many be fooled into thinking their
radar waves were
Doppler shifted? Answer: easily fooled since the speed of the object
is begot whether
a Doppler shift exists or does not exist when using the radar gadgets.

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

On 06/05/2010 07:59 AM, David Bernier wrote:
Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
{...]
Doppler shift has nothing to do with it.
[...]

Imagine the police radar [...]

Don't bother.

What puzzles me is: Why does he do this? What's
so entertaining about it, that it's worth spending
so much time on?

And what draws people to keep trying to explain
things, knowing full well that it's totally pointless,
and that he'll never stop reciting his twisted
arguments?

He's been doing this for years! What's the point?
I'd like to understand what kind of grotesque mind
we have on our hands here.

Jeroen Belleman

AP is his own Universe (as in, the Solopsist school,
the original "many universes" school of Bishop Everrit)
of pidgen circumlocution about all topics, BUT
I do agree that an actual doppler interferonetry would
not be needed for radar-ranging objects at close range,
and even that "doppler radar imaging" of storms may
not actually use the principle, or only *translate* it
into a graphical representation that evokes doppler-
gangers.

the rest of his ****, seems to be scatology, or
jsut English as a One-and-a-half language ... I mean,
English as a second of two halves of two langauges,
as he was adopted from immigrant parents,
per his CV.

thusNso:
the poor man is insisting upon the base of ten, and
that is guaranteed to be a barren approach, by all
of the work of Fermatttt (Fermat's Little Theorem e.g.; of course,
the theorem applies in any base, but ... y'know?).

also, the simple idea of assuming that a^n etc. are rational,
thence seeking a contradiction,
is very well-illustrated in the literature; however,
that is in English and other languages,
that AP does not appear to know past Kindergarten.

Please post your proof, at last!

thusNso:
maybe AP has a good thought, that speed-trap radars have
no need of using such a doppler shift, assuming that
it does exist, because mere timing of the radar's return,
over some part of a second, is adequate to do the math. and,
one always hears of "dppler radar" by weather satellites,
whether or not that *inerferometry* is actully required, and
the radar-ranging can stil be interpreted in terms
of doppler shifts (in the colors of the Weather Channel graphics
e.g.).

now, why AP does not "beleive" in doppler shifts, apart
from the belief in the so-called Hubble *interpretation*
of the prevailing redshift-woith-distance effect,
seen in the starfield ... you'd have to read his ****,
more carefully; and that, ladies & germs, is scatology.

--Stop BP's and Waxman's capNtrade arbitrage rip-off!
http://wlym.com

I take it back, reserving judgement
til I don't googol it, but the matter
of taking the fix on a vehicle with radar,
begs the question, Just how does the device go-
about detecting it?... well,
a simple interference of the reflecting waves,
with the referent of the outgoing waves,
could essentially be dopplerian; eh?

thusNso:
re Klein's 3rd volume
of _Geometry from an Advanced Standpoint_,
try _The Icosahedron_.

--Stop BP's and Waxman's aritrageur rip-off,
facetiouslt a.k.a. cap&tax in WSUrinal community;
institute a tiny carbon tax, instead!
http://wlym.com