DOPPLER EFFECT REFUTES SPECIAL RELATIVITY

When it comes to rigorous deduction, even relativists (implicitly)
admit that the motion of the observer cannot alter the wavelength of
the light wave:

http://members.home.nl/fg.marcelis/reldop.pdf
The observer O receives a light wave from the source S. The wavelength
of the emitted wave is Ls. (...) Let Ts be the time in which one
wavelength is emitted as measured by a clock that is moving along with
S. (...) Now let's suppose that the source is at rest and the observer
is moving with velocity v in the direction of the source. Let To be
the time in which the observer passes one wavelength, as measured by a
clock that is moving along with the observer. In the time To the
observer travels a distance v*To to the left and the light wave
travels a distance Ls-v*To to the right. The light's distance is also
equal to c*To.

So Ls - v*To = c*To.

Or c*Ts = c*To + v*To.

The observed period in case of a moving observer is

To = Ts(c/(c+v))
__________________________________________
[end of quotation]

The last result, combined with the formula

(frequency) = (speed of the light wave)/(wavelength)

entails that the observer measures the frequency to be Fo=Fs(1+v/c)
and the speed of the light wave to be c'=c+v.

Pentcho Valev

http://www-cosmosaf.iap.fr/RELATIVIT...20Thibault.htm
Thibault Damour: "Or, en relativité restreinte, les fréquences
mesurées par deux observateurs en mouvement relatif sont différentes
(effet Doppler-Fizeau). Pour une vitesse relative faible, l'effet (f'-
f)/f est égal à v/c."

C'est-à-dire, si pour un observateur stationnaire la fréquence mesurée
est f et la vitesse de la lumière c, et qu'il se met en mouvement vers
la source lumineuse à une vitesse v, la nouvelle fréquence qu'il
mesurera sera f'=f(1+v/c) et la vitesse de la lumière par rapport à
lui deviendra c'=c+v. C'est une prédiction de la théorie de l'émission
de Newton qui contredit la relativité restreinte.

Pentcho Valev

http://rockpile.phys.virginia.edu/mod04/mod34.pdf
Paul Fendley: "Now let's see what this does to the frequency of the
light. We know that even without special relativity, observers moving
at different velocities measure different frequencies. (This is the
reason the pitch of an ambulance changes as it passes you it doesn't
change if you're on the ambulance). This is called the Doppler shift,
and for small relative velocity v it is easy to show that the
frequency shifts from f to f(1+v/c) (it goes up heading toward you,
down away from you). There are relativistic corrections, but these are
negligible here."

By taking into account the formula:

(frequency) = (speed of light)/(wavelength)

one concludes that the speed of light (relative to the observer)
shifts from c to c+v.

Pentcho Valev

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."

By combining f'=f(1+Vo/Vwave) with the formula:

(frequency) = (speed of the light wave)/(wavelength)

one concludes that the speed of light (relative to the observer)
varies with the speed of the observer, Vo, in accordance with the
equation c'=c+Vo.

Pentcho Valev

On Dec 27, 12:00*pm, Pentcho Valev wrote:
When it comes to rigorous deduction, even relativists (implicitly)
admit that the motion of the observer cannot alter the wavelength of
the light wave:

http://members.home.nl/fg.marcelis/reldop.pdf
The observer O receives a light wave from the source S. The wavelength
of the emitted wave is Ls. (...) Let Ts be the time in which one
wavelength is emitted as measured by a clock that is moving along with
S. (...) Now let's suppose that the source is at rest and the observer
is moving with velocity v in the direction of the source. Let To be
the time in which the observer passes one wavelength, as measured by a
clock that is moving along with the observer. In the time To the
observer travels a distance v*To to the left and the light wave
travels a distance Ls-v*To to the right. The light's distance is also
equal to c*To.

So Ls - v*To = c*To.

Or c*Ts = c*To + v*To.

The observed period in case of a moving observer is

To = Ts(c/(c+v))
__________________________________________
[end of quotation]

The last result, combined with the formula

(frequency) = (speed of the light wave)/(wavelength)

entails that the observer measures the frequency to be Fo=Fs(1+v/c)
and the speed of the light wave to be c'=c+v.

Pentcho Valev


Since there's still no objective proof that individual photons even
travel, and only those leading or trailing wave-ends seem to count as
denoting its frequency (because individual amplitudes mean absolutely
nothing, especially when its amplitude represents only a quantum
string 2D like existence that represents an energy transfer of zero
volume), is perhaps why there's some ongoing confusion and poorly
contrived interpretations about photons and their apparent velocity
limit.

Quantum transpondering seems more likely, but I’ve been there and done
that version for a good decade with no takers brave enough to
withstand the mainstream gauntlet of naysay flack, perhaps because it
might suggest an aether/ether quantum string like dimension, and
that’s just too dark and scary to think about.

A quantum transponder that’s acting as a aether FIFO photon node might
actually help to explain a great many things of our universe that
supposedly has no tired photons regardless of their vast distance from
the originating source, because a transponder photon never has to lose
amplitude.

How about a frequency modulated photon? (seems doable, especially if
gravity affects the fabric of space)

http://translate.google.com/#
Brad Guth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth, BradGuth, BG / “Guth Usenet”

When the observer starts moving towards the wave source with speed v,
both relativists and antirelativists admit that, for ANY wave, the
frequency shift he measures obeys the equation f'=f(1+v/c), where f
and c are, respectively, the frequency and the speed of the wave the
stationary observer measures. The only sane scenario allowing a
rigorous derivation of the equation, for ANY wave, is:

"The motion of the observer cannot change the wavelength; the
increased frequency is due to an increased speed of the wave relative
to the observer":

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."

Einsteiniana's priests (implicitly) admit that the above scenario is
the only sane one for e.g. sound or water waves but automatically
shift to insanity when it comes to light waves:

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)."

Still Einsteiniana's priests are unable to derive the equation
f'=f(1+v/c) based on their schizophrenic wavelength-varies-with-speed-
of-observer scenario so silence is their usual reaction - John
Norton's revelation is perhaps the only one on Internet. However
Einsteiniana's zombies are not silent and fiercely teach the
wavelength-varies-with-speed-of-observer wisdom all over the world.

Pentcho Valev

Note again that scientists have no other way to derive the correct
formula for the Doppler frequency shift (moving observer), F'=F(1+V/
c), than to admit that the motion of the observer CANNOT alter the
wavelength and that the velocity of the wave (relative to the
observer) VARIES with the velocity of the observer:

http://web.ntnu.edu.tw/~fangyuhlo/shares/GP/15SS.pdf
Fang-Yuh Lo, Department of Physics, National Taiwan Normal University:
* What happens when the observer of a wave itself is in motion as
well?
* observer moves toward source : frequency becomes higher
* observer moves away from source : frequency becomes lower
* how much higher (lower)?
* wavelength does not change
* change in velocity

Vnew = Vwave ± Vobs

Lwave*Fnew = Vwave �± Vobs

Fnew = ((Vwave �± Vobs)/Vwave)F
______________________________________
[end of quotation]

Pentcho Valev

"Pentcho Valev" wrote in message
...
Note again that scientists have no other way to derive the correct
formula for the Doppler frequency shift (moving observer), F'=F(1+V/
c), than to admit that the motion of the observer CANNOT alter the
wavelength and that the velocity of the wave (relative to the
observer) VARIES with the velocity of the observer:

=========================================
You are being ridiculous, wavelength is relative.
LOOK!
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonde...e/Relative.gif