SR time dilation on remote objects ?

"Marcel Luttgens" wrote in message
om...
....
I show hereafter that the SR formula Nu(o) = Nu sqrt((1-v/c)/(1+v/c))
cannot be right. ...

Really, let's see.

Let's apply the sound Doppler to light:

Remember those words Marcel, we will return to
them later.

1) The light source is receding at v from light the receiver

The equation you give is specifically for a moving
source and an observer at rest in the medium:

Then Nu(o)/Nu = c/(c+v), which leads to z = v/c.

Such formula is nonsensical for light, because with it, z can
never be greater than 1. ...

True, so you have proved that the sound formula
alone is not correct for light. We all know that.
Now let's do it properly. You said you were using
LET and you are using a formula that is applicable
to waves in a medium but you have omitted the time
dilation which LET requires. The equation you gave
is for a moving source so the source frequency will
be further reduced by the time dilation factor:

Nu(o)/Nu = [c/(c+v)] * [sqrt(1-(v/c)^2)]

Note that c^2-v^2 = (c-v)*(c+v) so this can be written:

Nu(o)/Nu = [ c/(c+v) ] * [ sqrt((c-v)(c+v)/c^2) ]

which obviously simplifies to:

Nu(o)/Nu = sqrt((c-v)/(c+v))


.. Or galactic light can have much bigger redshifts
than 1.

Let fS = c/(c+v)

2) The receiver is receding at v from the emitter

The equation you give next is specifically for a moving
observer and a source at rest in the medium:

Then Nu(o)/Nu = (c-v)/c ...

Again you omit the time dilation. In this case
the source is not moving through the medium so
is not affected, but the observer is. Since his
clocks run slow, he will measure the frequency
to be higher than it really is so we have to
_divide_ by the usual factor, not multiply:

Nu(o)/Nu = [ (c-v)/c ] / [ sqrt((c-v)(c+v)/c^2) ]

which again simplifies to:

Nu(o)/Nu = sqrt((c-v)/(c+v))

This formula gives sensible results.

This formula, when your errors are corrected, gives
exactly the same result as the first.

The same formula can be obtained when the source is moving
by hypothetising a stable universe where light is subject at
every point of its trajectory to a negative acceleration cH.
Notice that the reddening is then absolute, in the sense that
it is independent from observers.

Let fR = (c-v)/c

Now, the SR formula Nu(o) = Nu sqrt((1-v/c)/(1+v/c)), can be written

Nu(o) = Nu sqrt((c-v)/c) * c/(c+v)), or
Nu(o)/Nu = sqrt(fR * fS)

or it can be written:

Nu(o)/Nu = sqrt((c-v)/(c+v))

which is exactly the same as your formulae once
your omission of time dilation has been corrected.
This is as expected because LET and SR give
identical predictions and what you would have
discovered for yourself if you had taken the hint
I gave in the last two posts.

The SR frequency ratio is simply the geometric mean of the frequency
ratio fR obtained when the receiver is receding and the frequency ratio
fS corresponding to the receding source!

Since fS is wrong for light, the SR formula must be wrong.

No, you are forgetting that _your_ "fS" is the
formula for sound, not light. Good try but no
coconut.

Notice also that no trace of a time dilation factor is to be found in
Nu(o)/Nu = sqrt(fR * fS).

If a single SR formula is wrong, the whole theory is wrong, and
GR, from which SR can be derived, is logically also wrong.

But you didn't show that, you said "Let's apply the
sound Doppler to light" and then showed that was
wrong. Well congratulations, but we all know that.

The problem with SR/GRists is that most of them swallow all
what they find in textbooks, and consider their findings as
gospel truth.

The problem with cranks is that they think they
can pick any old equation from a textbook and
use it anywhere. The lessons here are that you
cannot apply the formula for sound to light, and
you cannot use bits of LET but ignore other
factors.

George

Bjoern Feuerbacher wrote in message ...
Marcel Luttgens wrote:
Bjoern Feuerbacher wrote in message ...

Jonathan Silverlight wrote:

In message , Marcel
Luttgens writes


In my model, everything is *very* close to the center of the (stable)
universe,
which is so big that a distance c/H is so much smaller than the universe
radius, that the universe could as well be considered as infinite.
If it were mathematically infinite, the Earth, and all of its points,
would of course coincide with its center. In particular, all points
of the trajectory of a light signal (emitted for instance by a galaxy)
would be at the center of a sphere of radius c/H centered on the
universe's
center, and thus subject to an acceleration cH explaining its redshift.


What acceleration? I thought your universe was static.

Well, apparently in his universe, the matter is not accelerated, but
the photons are.

Who cares about consistency...


Like photons, material objects should also be subjected to such
*negative* acceleration, but this would be difficult to observe,
since all objects are gravitationally linked (for instance, a satellite
orbiting a planet),

Wrong. Not all objects are gravitanionally linked. E.g. galaxies
which are distant from each other are not linked at all.


This is nonsensical, unless you can prove your assertion.


and the "deceleration" effect would be masked by
the gravitational effects.

Well, didn't you say that the deceleration of the photons *is* due
to gravitation?


It would be very difficult to reveal, because it is very small compared
to the effects of gravity.


Bye,
Bjoern

Marcel Luttgens

Marcel Luttgens wrote:
Bjoern Feuerbacher wrote in message ...

Marcel Luttgens wrote:


[snip]

Like photons, material objects should also be subjected to such
*negative* acceleration, but this would be difficult to observe,
since all objects are gravitationally linked (for instance, a satellite
orbiting a planet),

Wrong. Not all objects are gravitationally linked. E.g. galaxies
which are distant from each other are not linked at all.



This is nonsensical, unless you can prove your assertion.

Well, depends on what exactly you meant by "gravitationally linked".
What *I* meant that for galaxies which are very distant from each
other, the increasing of the distance due to space expansion is much
greater than the gravitational force between them.



and the "deceleration" effect would be masked by
the gravitational effects.

Well, didn't you say that the deceleration of the photons *is* due
to gravitation?



It would be very difficult to reveal, because it is very small compared
to the effects of gravity.

Is the deceleration of photons in your model due to gravity or not?

Make up your mind!


Bye,
Bjoern

Bjoern Feuerbacher wrote in message ...
Marcel Luttgens wrote:
Bjoern Feuerbacher wrote in message ...

Marcel Luttgens wrote:

Bjoern Feuerbacher wrote in message ...



snip, because those points have already been discussed


But you should realize that light is not sound, because
of the speed limit c.

*sigh* Obviously. That's why one uses Nu(o) = Nu sqrt((1-v/c)/(1+v/c)),
not Nu(o) = Nu / (1+v/c), if you didn't notice.



No, those who use Nu(o) = Nu sqrt((1-v/c)/(1+v/c)) because of time dilation,
forget that in an expanding universe,

*sigh* For the 100th time: The Doppler shift formula of SR and LET,
Nu(o) = Nu sqrt((1-v/c)/(1+v/c), is *not* used in cosmology.



GR is used, but is GR right?

If you have evidence that it isn't, feel free to present it.

I notice that you did not care to admit that your assertion above
(the SR formula is used in cosmology) was wrong


I just said, GR is used, but is GR right?



No time dilation factor
is needed in an expanding universe, because the light source and the
observer are simultaneously receding wrt each other.

Irrespective of a time dilation factor is needed or not, your
formula above is simply wrong. If you think otherwise, present
a derivation which is *not* based on "the distance changes, but let's
consider that it it constant anyway".



IOW, you are saying that Nu(o) = Nu / (1+v/c) sould be used when
the light source is receding from the observer.

NO.

I say that for real movements, one should use Nu(o) = Nu
sqrt((1-v/c)/(1+v/c)) (regardless if the source or the observer is
moving, since motion is relative!), and in cosmology, one should use
1+z = R(t0)/R(t) for the red shift (reminder: R is the curvature
radius of the universe).



Yes, with many assumptions, like Omega M, flat universe, etc...

Wrong. Omega_M and the flatness of the universe are *measured*,
not assumed.


They were measured, after being assumed. Or the assumptions were made
a posteriori in order to justify the observations.


With some of those *needed* (should I say ad hoc?) assumptions,
GR gets about the same results as those obtained with a stable
universe and a "deceleration" cH.

Which *still* makes no sense at all.


Use Ted Wright's calculator if you are not yet convinced.

For the 10th time: I don't care about Wright's calculator.
Compare the predictions of your formula against the actual data!!!!!


You don't care, because its results are the same as mine.
And your "actual" data are those of SNe, which are questionnable.



But I don't understand what you mean by "real" movements. Are
movements in cosmology not "real"?

*sigh* I already explained that several times. That the distance
of galaxies increases is, according to GR, not due to a movement
of the galaxies, but due to the space between them expanding.


You are saying that the increase is not real, but simply the result
of GRT application. I wholly agree with you.

snip


I show hereafter that the SR formula Nu(o) = Nu sqrt((1-v/c)/(1+v/c))
cannot be right.

Unfortunately for you, it had been *tested* and *found* to be right.


[snip]



Thus, 1+z = = lambda(o)/lambda = (c+v)/(c-v), and
z = 2v/(c-v) = 2 v/c / (1-v/c),

which is the same formula as the one obtained with no time dilation!

Nice for you.

And now explain how this situation, where light is *reflected*, is
relevant for cosmology.


Because those two identical results show that something must
be wrong in the derivation of the SR formula

No, not at all. Why on earth do you think so?


Nu(o) = Nu sqrt((1-v/c)/(1+v/c))

Let's apply the sound Doppler to light:

1) The light source is receding at v from light the receiver

Then Nu(o)/Nu = c/(c+v), which leads to z = v/c.

Such formula is nonsensical for light, because with it, z can never be
greater than 1.

That formula is not nonsensical for light because z can never be
greater than 1, but because it was derived using assumptions which
are not valid for light.


Anyhow, it gives wrong results for light.


Or galactic light can have much bigger redshifts than 1.

Huh?


Never heard of galaxies with redhifts 3 or more?


Let fS = c/(c+v)

2) The receiver is receding at v from the emitter

Then Nu(o)/Nu = (c-v)/c, which leads to z = (v/c)/(1-v/c)

This formula gives sensible results.

The ultimate test if a formula gives sensible results is by
comparing it with experiment. For light, the formula fails then.


No, look at Wright results.


The same formula can be obtained when the source is moving
by hypothetising a stable universe where light is subject at
every point of its trajectory to a negative acceleration cH.

And how would that work?


I already explained this more than once.



And how, exactly, do you plan to derive this formula in that
case? I don't remember that you ever presented that calculation.


You easily forget things that are not in GR textbooks.


Notice that the reddening is then absolute, in the sense that
it is independent from observers.

Let fR = (c-v)/c

Now, the SR formula Nu(o) = Nu sqrt((1-v/c)/(1+v/c)), can be written

Nu(o) = Nu sqrt((c-v)/c) * c/(c+v)), or
Nu(o)/Nu = sqrt(fR * fS)

Nice.


The SR frequency ratio is simply the geometric mean of the frequency
ratio fR obtained when the receiver is receding and the frequency ratio
fS corresponding to the receding source!

Of the corresponding ratios obtained for *sound*.


Since fS is wrong for light, the SR formula must be wrong.

That's a *total* non sequitur.


Your reaction reveals once more that you are impervious to logic.

The SR formula Nu(o) = Nu sqrt((1-v/c)/(1+v/c)) can be written
Nu(o)/Nu = sqrt(fR * fS), where fR = (c-v)/c and fS = c/(c+v)

It can also be written
Nu(o) = sqrt(Nu(o)R * Nu(o)S), where

Nu(o) is the frequency observed by the receiver according to SR,
whether the source of light emitted at frequency Nu is moving or at rest
relatively to the receiver,

Nu(o)R is the frequency observed by the receiver when receding from the source
(according to the sound formula)
Nu(o)S is the frequency observed by the receiver when the source is receding
(also according to the sound formula, which gives in this case wrong results
for light)

As at least Nu(o)S is wrong for light, Nu(o) is logically wrong, IOW,
the *SR formula is wrong*.

If you disagree, you should explain why the form Nu(o) = sqrt(Nu(o)R * Nu(o)S)
is mathematically wrong, instead of simply maintaining that the SR formula
is right.


Notice also that no trace of a time dilation factor is to be found in
Nu(o)/Nu = sqrt(fR * fS).

Err, when you write it in a way which does not show the time dilation
factor directly, it's no wonder that the time dilation factor is
not found in the formula, don't you think?


I can write the SR formula in different ways. As one of those ways clearly
demonstrates that the formula is wrong, and ignores time dilation,
those who claim that it is nevertheless right, and that time dilation
is nevertheless present, are acting as crackpots or ignorants.


If a single SR formula is wrong,

*sigh* And you *still* ignore that this formula was *tested* and found
to be *right*.


The results of those tests are not necessarily incompatible, taking
into account the statistical errors, with the SR formula under the form
Nu(o) = sqrt(Nu(o)R * Nu(o)S). This doesn't mean that it is right.



[snip]

The problem with SR/GRists is that most of them swallow all
what they find in textbooks, and consider their findings as
gospel truth.

The problem with you is that you don't care about experimental
data and can't think logically.


Quite the contrary.



Bye,
Bjoern

Marcel Luttgens

Bjoern Feuerbacher wrote in message ...
Marcel Luttgens wrote:
Bjoern Feuerbacher wrote in message ...

Marcel Luttgens wrote:


[snip]

Like photons, material objects should also be subjected to such
*negative* acceleration, but this would be difficult to observe,
since all objects are gravitationally linked (for instance, a satellite
orbiting a planet),

Wrong. Not all objects are gravitationally linked. E.g. galaxies
which are distant from each other are not linked at all.



This is nonsensical, unless you can prove your assertion.

Well, depends on what exactly you meant by "gravitationally linked".
What *I* meant that for galaxies which are very distant from each
other, the increasing of the distance due to space expansion is much
greater than the gravitational force between them.

Poor escapism. You claimed that "galaxies which are distant from each
other are not linked at all."
Everybody on this NG will notice "at all".


and the "deceleration" effect would be masked by
the gravitational effects.

Well, didn't you say that the deceleration of the photons *is* due
to gravitation?



It would be very difficult to reveal, because it is very small compared
to the effects of gravity.

Is the deceleration of photons in your model due to gravity or not?

Make up your mind!


???
I always claimed that it is due to gravity. Did you already forget?
Beware of Alzheimer! Anyhow, quibbling for the sake of it is rather
fruitless.


Bye,
Bjoern

Marcel Luttgens

"George Dishman" wrote in message ...
"Marcel Luttgens" wrote in message
om...
...
I show hereafter that the SR formula Nu(o) = Nu sqrt((1-v/c)/(1+v/c))
cannot be right. ...

Really, let's see.

Let's apply the sound Doppler to light:

Remember those words Marcel, we will return to
them later.

1) The light source is receding at v from light the receiver

The equation you give is specifically for a moving
source and an observer at rest in the medium:

Then Nu(o)/Nu = c/(c+v), which leads to z = v/c.

Such formula is nonsensical for light, because with it, z can
never be greater than 1. ...

True, so you have proved that the sound formula
alone is not correct for light. We all know that.
Now let's do it properly. You said you were using
LET and you are using a formula that is applicable
to waves in a medium but you have omitted the time
dilation which LET requires. The equation you gave
is for a moving source so the source frequency will
be further reduced by the time dilation factor:

Nu(o)/Nu = [c/(c+v)] * [sqrt(1-(v/c)^2)]

O.K., but this was not my point, which was showing that SR formula
is wrong. OTOH, mutual time dilations cannot be observed. If LET
claims the contrary, it is as wrong as SR.


Note that c^2-v^2 = (c-v)*(c+v) so this can be written:

Nu(o)/Nu = [ c/(c+v) ] * [ sqrt((c-v)(c+v)/c^2) ]

which obviously simplifies to:

Nu(o)/Nu = sqrt((c-v)/(c+v))


Wonderful, you got the same formula as SR, ignoring -like LET/SR- that
in an expanding universe, the source and the receiver are both symmetrically
moving relatively to each other.


.. Or galactic light can have much bigger redshifts
than 1.

Let fS = c/(c+v)

2) The receiver is receding at v from the emitter

The equation you give next is specifically for a moving
observer and a source at rest in the medium:

Then Nu(o)/Nu = (c-v)/c ...

Again you omit the time dilation. In this case
the source is not moving through the medium so
is not affected, but the observer is. Since his
clocks run slow, he will measure the frequency
to be higher than it really is so we have to
_divide_ by the usual factor, not multiply:

Nu(o)/Nu = [ (c-v)/c ] / [ sqrt((c-v)(c+v)/c^2) ]

which again simplifies to:

Nu(o)/Nu = sqrt((c-v)/(c+v))

This formula gives sensible results.

This formula, when your errors are corrected, gives
exactly the same result as the first.

Again, I purposefully omitted time dilation. I just wanted -and succeded-
to show that the SR formula is wrong. Notice -once more- that time dilation
cannot be observed in an expanding universe, because the speed of the
source is identical to the speed of the receiver.


The same formula can be obtained when the source is moving
by hypothetising a stable universe where light is subject at
every point of its trajectory to a negative acceleration cH.
Notice that the reddening is then absolute, in the sense that
it is independent from observers.

Let fR = (c-v)/c

Now, the SR formula Nu(o) = Nu sqrt((1-v/c)/(1+v/c)), can be written

Nu(o) = Nu sqrt((c-v)/c) * c/(c+v)), or
Nu(o)/Nu = sqrt(fR * fS)

or it can be written:

Nu(o)/Nu = sqrt((c-v)/(c+v))

which is exactly the same as your formulae once
your omission of time dilation has been corrected.
This is as expected because LET and SR give
identical predictions and what you would have
discovered for yourself if you had taken the hint
I gave in the last two posts.


The SR formula automatically leads to Nu(o)/Nu = sqrt(fR * fS).
As fS is wrong, the SR formula is obviously wrong.


The SR frequency ratio is simply the geometric mean of the frequency
ratio fR obtained when the receiver is receding and the frequency ratio
fS corresponding to the receding source!

Since fS is wrong for light, the SR formula must be wrong.

No, you are forgetting that _your_ "fS" is the
formula for sound, not light. Good try but no
coconut.


It is exactly what I said. The SR formula is in fact based on the
formula for sound, which is wrong for light.

Notice also that no trace of a time dilation factor is to be found in
Nu(o)/Nu = sqrt(fR * fS).

If a single SR formula is wrong, the whole theory is wrong, and
GR, from which SR can be derived, is logically also wrong.

But you didn't show that, you said "Let's apply the
sound Doppler to light" and then showed that was
wrong. Well congratulations, but we all know that.

You don't seem to realize that the *SR* formula uses in fact the
sound Doppler for light. This should be enough to claim that it is
automatically wrong.


The problem with SR/GRists is that most of them swallow all
what they find in textbooks, and consider their findings as
gospel truth.

The problem with cranks is that they think they
can pick any old equation from a textbook and
use it anywhere. The lessons here are that you
cannot apply the formula for sound to light, and
you cannot use bits of LET but ignore other
factors.

This is exactly what I showed: the SR formula is based on the sound
Doppler. And the cranks are those who don't realize this.


George

Marcel Luttgens

In message , Bjoern Feuerbacher
writes
Marcel Luttgens wrote:
Bjoern Feuerbacher wrote in
message ...

Marcel Luttgens wrote:


[snip]

Like photons, material objects should also be subjected to such
*negative* acceleration, but this would be difficult to observe,
since all objects are gravitationally linked (for instance, a satellite
orbiting a planet),

Wrong. Not all objects are gravitationally linked. E.g. galaxies
which are distant from each other are not linked at all.

This is nonsensical, unless you can prove your assertion.

Well, depends on what exactly you meant by "gravitationally linked".
What *I* meant that for galaxies which are very distant from each
other, the increasing of the distance due to space expansion is much
greater than the gravitational force between them.


Does their distance matter? Presumably galaxies moving with relative
velocity greater than their own escape "velocity" aren't linked. Or
"bound", because all galaxies feel mutual gravitational attraction to
some extent.
--
What have they got to hide? Release the ESA Beagle 2 report.
Remove spam and invalid from address to reply.

"Marcel Luttgens" wrote in message
om...
"George Dishman" wrote in message
...
"Marcel Luttgens" wrote in message
om...
...
I show hereafter that the SR formula Nu(o) = Nu sqrt((1-v/c)/(1+v/c))
cannot be right. ...

Really, let's see.

Let's apply the sound Doppler to light:

Remember those words Marcel, we will return to
them later.

1) The light source is receding at v from light the receiver

The equation you give is specifically for a moving
source and an observer at rest in the medium:

Then Nu(o)/Nu = c/(c+v), which leads to z = v/c.

Such formula is nonsensical for light, because with it, z can
never be greater than 1. ...

True, so you have proved that the sound formula
alone is not correct for light. We all know that.
Now let's do it properly. You said you were using
LET and you are using a formula that is applicable
to waves in a medium but you have omitted the time
dilation which LET requires. The equation you gave
is for a moving source so the source frequency will
be further reduced by the time dilation factor:

Nu(o)/Nu = [c/(c+v)] * [sqrt(1-(v/c)^2)]

O.K., but this was not my point, which was showing that SR formula
is wrong. OTOH, mutual time dilations cannot be observed. If LET
claims the contrary, it is as wrong as SR.

Don't you know what LET says? You really should open a
textbook sometime.

Note that c^2-v^2 = (c-v)*(c+v) so this can be written:

Nu(o)/Nu = [ c/(c+v) ] * [ sqrt((c-v)(c+v)/c^2) ]

which obviously simplifies to:

Nu(o)/Nu = sqrt((c-v)/(c+v))


Wonderful, you got the same formula as SR, ignoring -like LET/SR- that
in an expanding universe, the source and the receiver are both symmetrically
moving relatively to each other.

No, I didn't get the formula, you did. You see, you
used c/(c+v) which is only valid if the source is
moving through the medium and therefore subject to
time dilation while the observer is at rest in the
medium hence experiences no time dilation. The
situation is NOT symmetrical only because YOU
decided that.

.. Or galactic light can have much bigger redshifts
than 1.

Let fS = c/(c+v)

2) The receiver is receding at v from the emitter

The equation you give next is specifically for a moving
observer and a source at rest in the medium:

Then Nu(o)/Nu = (c-v)/c ...

Again you omit the time dilation. In this case
the source is not moving through the medium so
is not affected, but the observer is. Since his
clocks run slow, he will measure the frequency
to be higher than it really is so we have to
_divide_ by the usual factor, not multiply:

Nu(o)/Nu = [ (c-v)/c ] / [ sqrt((c-v)(c+v)/c^2) ]

which again simplifies to:

Nu(o)/Nu = sqrt((c-v)/(c+v))

This formula gives sensible results.

This formula, when your errors are corrected, gives
exactly the same result as the first.

Again, I purposefully omitted time dilation. I just wanted -and succeded-
to show that the SR formula is wrong.

Sorry, SR includes time dilation so by omitting it
you are no longer showing anything about it, you
invalidated the proof.

Notice -once more- that time dilation
cannot be observed in an expanding universe, because the speed of the
source is identical to the speed of the receiver.

Wrong, your method is LET, not SR and in LET the time
dilation of each (source and observer) depends on its
speed relative to the _medium_, not the other. Again
you really should open that textbook before playing
with things you don't understand.

The same formula can be obtained when the source is moving
by hypothetising a stable universe where light is subject at
every point of its trajectory to a negative acceleration cH.
Notice that the reddening is then absolute, in the sense that
it is independent from observers.

Let fR = (c-v)/c

Now, the SR formula Nu(o) = Nu sqrt((1-v/c)/(1+v/c)), can be written

Nu(o) = Nu sqrt((c-v)/c) * c/(c+v)), or
Nu(o)/Nu = sqrt(fR * fS)

or it can be written:

Nu(o)/Nu = sqrt((c-v)/(c+v))

which is exactly the same as your formulae once
your omission of time dilation has been corrected.
This is as expected because LET and SR give
identical predictions and what you would have
discovered for yourself if you had taken the hint
I gave in the last two posts.


The SR formula automatically leads to Nu(o)/Nu = sqrt(fR * fS).
As fS is wrong, the SR formula is obviously wrong.

If the correct formula is sqrt(fR * fS), then obviously
fS would be wrong because it is different. If you had
showed that fS was correct, then SR would be wrong, but
you showed fS was wrong - you got your logic the wrong
way round as well.

The SR frequency ratio is simply the geometric mean of the frequency
ratio fR obtained when the receiver is receding and the frequency ratio
fS corresponding to the receding source!

Since fS is wrong for light, the SR formula must be wrong.

No, you are forgetting that _your_ "fS" is the
formula for sound, not light. Good try but no
coconut.


It is exactly what I said. The SR formula is in fact based on the
formula for sound, which is wrong for light.

SR is actually based purely on geometry, you haven't
addressed it at all. What you tried to use was LET
but since you used a sound formula which is not
symmetric, the time dilation doesn't cancel and your
whole analysis is wrong from there on.

Notice also that no trace of a time dilation factor is to be found in
Nu(o)/Nu = sqrt(fR * fS).

If a single SR formula is wrong, the whole theory is wrong, and
GR, from which SR can be derived, is logically also wrong.

But you didn't show that, you said "Let's apply the
sound Doppler to light" and then showed that was
wrong. Well congratulations, but we all know that.

You don't seem to realize that the *SR* formula uses in fact the
sound Doppler for light. This should be enough to claim that it is
automatically wrong.

It doesn't, using the LET philosophy it can be broken
down into two parts, that due to motion through the
wavefronts and that due to time dilation. When you
omitted the time dilation in a non-symmetric situation,
you invalidated your argument.

The problem with SR/GRists is that most of them swallow all
what they find in textbooks, and consider their findings as
gospel truth.

The problem with cranks is that they think they
can pick any old equation from a textbook and
use it anywhere. The lessons here are that you
cannot apply the formula for sound to light, and
you cannot use bits of LET but ignore other
factors.

This is exactly what I showed: the SR formula is based on the sound
Doppler.

It is common knowledge that you can get an equivalent
to SR (LET) by applying time dilation to the general
wave-based Doppler formula.

And the cranks are those who don't realize this.

As I said, "pick any old equation from a textbook
and use it anywhere". What you did is just pick any
sound formula you fancied without considering its
limitations. The one you used is _only_ valid if the
observer is _not_ moving in the medium and the source
is. That means the situation is not symmetrical so
you cannot cancel out the time dilation term on the
source. Even if you had got it right, the proof that
fS is wrong doesn't prove SR wrong because you
already demonstrated that SR doesn't use fS, it
uses sqrt (fS*fR) so your argument fails on two
counts.

If you want to be able to cancel the time dilation
terms, you can do it but you have to use the more
general sound formula:

Nu(o)/Nu = (c-vo)/(c+vs)

where vo is the observer speed and vs is the source
speed. Now if you make vs = vo = v' then the time
dilation terms will cancel and you can ignore them.

Nu(o)/Nu = (c-v')/(c+v')

You can find v' from vs by considering the formula
for addition of speeds in SR and LET, you'll find
it in most textbooks on the subject.

George

Marcel Luttgens wrote:
Bjoern Feuerbacher wrote in message ...

Marcel Luttgens wrote:

Bjoern Feuerbacher wrote in message ...


Marcel Luttgens wrote:


[snip]


Like photons, material objects should also be subjected to such
*negative* acceleration, but this would be difficult to observe,
since all objects are gravitationally linked (for instance, a satellite
orbiting a planet),

Wrong. Not all objects are gravitationally linked. E.g. galaxies
which are distant from each other are not linked at all.



This is nonsensical, unless you can prove your assertion.

Well, depends on what exactly you meant by "gravitationally linked".
What *I* meant that for galaxies which are very distant from each
other, the increasing of the distance due to space expansion is much
greater than the gravitational force between them.


Poor escapism.

No, not at all. I meant exactly what I explained here.


You claimed that "galaxies which are distant from each
other are not linked at all."
Everybody on this NG will notice "at all".

Poor choice of words. BFD.


and the "deceleration" effect would be masked by
the gravitational effects.

Well, didn't you say that the deceleration of the photons *is* due
to gravitation?



It would be very difficult to reveal, because it is very small compared
to the effects of gravity.

Is the deceleration of photons in your model due to gravity or not?

Make up your mind!



???
I always claimed that it is due to gravity.

Err, above you said that "the deceleration effect would be masked
by the gravitational effects". That implies that the deceleration
is *not* caused by gravity. Granted, that was about the deceleration
of matter, not about photons - but isn't both caused by exactly the
same effects in your model?


Did you already forget?

No. But apparently *you* forgot what you said just a few lines above.


Beware of Alzheimer! Anyhow, quibbling for the sake of it is rather
fruitless.

I am in no way quibbling. I'm simply trying to make you state your
model once an for all in clear, non-contradictory terms.



Bye,
Bjoern

Marcel Luttgens wrote:
Bjoern Feuerbacher wrote in message ...

Marcel Luttgens wrote:

Bjoern Feuerbacher wrote in message ...


Marcel Luttgens wrote:


Bjoern Feuerbacher wrote in message ...



snip, because those points have already been discussed


But you should realize that light is not sound, because
of the speed limit c.

*sigh* Obviously. That's why one uses Nu(o) = Nu sqrt((1-v/c)/(1+v/c)),
not Nu(o) = Nu / (1+v/c), if you didn't notice.



No, those who use Nu(o) = Nu sqrt((1-v/c)/(1+v/c)) because of time dilation,
forget that in an expanding universe,

*sigh* For the 100th time: The Doppler shift formula of SR and LET,
Nu(o) = Nu sqrt((1-v/c)/(1+v/c), is *not* used in cosmology.



GR is used, but is GR right?

If you have evidence that it isn't, feel free to present it.

I notice that you did not care to admit that your assertion above
(the SR formula is used in cosmology) was wrong



I just said, GR is used, but is GR right?

Yes, I noticed that. And I responded with:
If you have evidence that it isn't, feel free to present it.

And I notice that you did not care to present evidence for that.




[snip]


I say that for real movements, one should use Nu(o) = Nu
sqrt((1-v/c)/(1+v/c)) (regardless if the source or the observer is
moving, since motion is relative!), and in cosmology, one should use
1+z = R(t0)/R(t) for the red shift (reminder: R is the curvature
radius of the universe).



Yes, with many assumptions, like Omega M, flat universe, etc...

Wrong. Omega_M and the flatness of the universe are *measured*,
not assumed.



They were measured, after being assumed.

Complete utter nonsense.


Or the assumptions were made
a posteriori in order to justify the observations.

Complete utter nonsense.


Support your assertions, for a change!



[snip]


Use Ted Wright's calculator if you are not yet convinced.

For the 10th time: I don't care about Wright's calculator.
Compare the predictions of your formula against the actual data!!!!!



You don't care, because its results are the same as mine.

I have asked you several times now where exactly I can find that
calculator. I don't want to search his entire site for it! So,
would you please finally provide a link?

And his results are *not* the same as yours. As I already pointed out,
there are deviations on the order of 10%!


And your "actual" data are those of SNe, which are questionnable.

They are not questionable at all. They are accepted as reliable
by the majority of astronomers. Only crackpots like Jensen (after
looking closely at his paper, I think now that he really is a crackpot
- e.g. he relies on scatter plots as evidence, and presented something
which was actually predicted by the Lambda CDM model as evidence against
it, i.e. he does not even understand what he attacks!) think that
these data are questionable.



But I don't understand what you mean by "real" movements. Are
movements in cosmology not "real"?

*sigh* I already explained that several times. That the distance
of galaxies increases is, according to GR, not due to a movement
of the galaxies, but due to the space between them expanding.



You are saying that the increase is not real,

Wrong, I am *not* saying that. Try some reading comprehension!



but simply the result of GRT application. I wholly agree with you.

You wholly agree only with the silly strawman of my actual
argument which you created here. Not with me.



I show hereafter that the SR formula Nu(o) = Nu sqrt((1-v/c)/(1+v/c))
cannot be right.

Unfortunately for you, it had been *tested* and *found* to be right.

I notice that you choose to ignore that.



Thus, 1+z = = lambda(o)/lambda = (c+v)/(c-v), and
z = 2v/(c-v) = 2 v/c / (1-v/c),

which is the same formula as the one obtained with no time dilation!

Nice for you.

And now explain how this situation, where light is *reflected*, is
relevant for cosmology.


Because those two identical results show that something must
be wrong in the derivation of the SR formula

No, not at all. Why on earth do you think so?

Care to explain?


Nu(o) = Nu sqrt((1-v/c)/(1+v/c))

Let's apply the sound Doppler to light:

1) The light source is receding at v from light the receiver

Then Nu(o)/Nu = c/(c+v), which leads to z = v/c.

Such formula is nonsensical for light, because with it, z can never be
greater than 1.

That formula is not nonsensical for light because z can never be
greater than 1, but because it was derived using assumptions which
are not valid for light.



Anyhow, it gives wrong results for light.

Nice that we agree at least on that.

Now you only have to admit that when one talks about the Doppler shift
of light, one has to use Nu(o) = Nu sqrt((1-v/c)/(1+v/c)).

Again: this formula was *tested*. And it is not only valid in SR,
but also in LET, so you have no excuse for not using it.



Or galactic light can have much bigger redshifts than 1.

Huh?



Never heard of galaxies with redhifts 3 or more?

Yes. But you said above that the formula Nu(o)/Nu = c/(c+v) is
nonsensical because with it, [conclusion 1], or galactic light can have
much bigger redshifts than 1. Read again what you actually wrote. Pay
special attention to the "Or". If you replace that with an "And",
your argument becomes sensible. But it makes no sense with the "Or"!


Let fS = c/(c+v)

2) The receiver is receding at v from the emitter

Then Nu(o)/Nu = (c-v)/c, which leads to z = (v/c)/(1-v/c)

This formula gives sensible results.

The ultimate test if a formula gives sensible results is by
comparing it with experiment. For light, the formula fails then.



No,

You think that the ultimate test if a formula gives sensible
results is *not* by comparing it with experiment?

Say, what little clue do you have of science?


look at Wright results.

If you would finally tell me where exactly on his (big) website
I can find them...



The same formula can be obtained when the source is moving
by hypothetising a stable universe where light is subject at
every point of its trajectory to a negative acceleration cH.

And how would that work?



I already explained this more than once.

And I pointed out already more than once that your so-called
explanations make no sense at all.



And how, exactly, do you plan to derive this formula in that
case? I don't remember that you ever presented that calculation.



You easily forget things that are not in GR textbooks.

Well, why don't you simply tell me where you presented that
derivation?


Notice that the reddening is then absolute, in the sense that
it is independent from observers.

Let fR = (c-v)/c

Now, the SR formula Nu(o) = Nu sqrt((1-v/c)/(1+v/c)), can be written

Nu(o) = Nu sqrt((c-v)/c) * c/(c+v)), or
Nu(o)/Nu = sqrt(fR * fS)

Nice.



The SR frequency ratio is simply the geometric mean of the frequency
ratio fR obtained when the receiver is receding and the frequency ratio
fS corresponding to the receding source!

Of the corresponding ratios obtained for *sound*.



Since fS is wrong for light, the SR formula must be wrong.

That's a *total* non sequitur.



Your reaction reveals once more that you are impervious to logic.

No. Your reasining above reveals that *you* have no clue of logic.

That the SR frequency ratio can be written as the geometric mean of
formulas which are only valid for sound, but not for light, shows
in no way that the SR formula is not valid for light!!! How on earth
did you arrive at that absolutely nonsensical conclusion?


The SR formula Nu(o) = Nu sqrt((1-v/c)/(1+v/c)) can be written
Nu(o)/Nu = sqrt(fR * fS), where fR = (c-v)/c and fS = c/(c+v)

It can also be written
Nu(o) = sqrt(Nu(o)R * Nu(o)S), where

Nu(o) is the frequency observed by the receiver according to SR,
whether the source of light emitted at frequency Nu is moving or at rest
relatively to the receiver,

Nu(o)R is the frequency observed by the receiver when receding from the source
(according to the sound formula)
Nu(o)S is the frequency observed by the receiver when the source is receding
(also according to the sound formula, which gives in this case wrong results
for light)

Complete agreement so far.



As at least Nu(o)S is wrong for light, Nu(o) is logically wrong,

And exactly here, you make a huge jump in logic!!!

From "a formula can be written as the ratio of two other formulas,
which are *not* valid", it does *******NOT******* follow that the
formula *itself* is not valid!!!!!!!!


IOW, the *SR formula is wrong*.

Then why does it agree with experimental tests? You conveniently
ignore that.



If you disagree, you should explain why the form Nu(o) = sqrt(Nu(o)R * Nu(o)S)
is mathematically wrong,

It isn't wrong. It is right. But your conclusion from the fact that one
can write it like that makes no sense at all.


instead of simply maintaining that the SR formula is right.

It agrees with *experimental tests*. You conveniently ignore that.



Notice also that no trace of a time dilation factor is to be found in
Nu(o)/Nu = sqrt(fR * fS).

Err, when you write it in a way which does not show the time dilation
factor directly, it's no wonder that the time dilation factor is
not found in the formula, don't you think?



I can write the SR formula in different ways.

Yes, obviously.


As one of those ways clearly
demonstrates that the formula is wrong,

It doesn't. Try learning some basic logic.


and ignores time dilation,

If the time dilation factor is not clearly visible in one of
several possible writing of a formula, that does not prove at all
that time dilation plays no role for the effect of that formula.

Yes, you have really problems with basic logic and math.


those who claim that it is nevertheless right, and that time dilation
is nevertheless present, are acting as crackpots or ignorants.

It agrees with *experimental tests*. You conveniently ignore that.



If a single SR formula is wrong,

*sigh* And you *still* ignore that this formula was *tested* and found
to be *right*.



The results of those tests are not necessarily incompatible, taking
into account the statistical errors, with the SR formula under the form
Nu(o) = sqrt(Nu(o)R * Nu(o)S).

Err, *obviously* the results are not incompatible with
Nu(o) = sqrt(Nu(o)R * Nu(o)S),
since that formula is mathematically *equivalent* to
Nu(o) = Nu sqrt((1-v/c)/(1+v/c)),
as you yourself proved!!!

Say, how dumb *are* you?????


This doesn't mean that it is right.

That the experimental results agree with a formula of SR does
not imply that that formula is right? Yes, you are *really* a brain-dead
idiot, who has not the faintest clue of science.



The problem with SR/GRists is that most of them swallow all
what they find in textbooks, and consider their findings as
gospel truth.

The problem with you is that you don't care about experimental
data and can't think logically.



Quite the contrary.

You demonstrated both things nicely above.


Bye,
Bjoern