Special Relativity proof Chapt9 Proof that Doppler shift is nonexistent in light-waves #46 Atom Totality theory 5th ed.
Archimedes Plutonium
feature is "regardless
of the state of motion of the source."
--- quoting ===
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_relativity
Special relativity (SR, also known as the special theory of relativity
or STR) is the physical theory of measurement in an inertial frame of
reference proposed in 1905 by Albert Einstein (after the considerable
and independent contributions of Hendrik Lorentz, Henri Poincaré[1]
and others) in the paper "On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies".[2]
It generalizes Galileo's principle of relativity—that all uniform
motion is relative, and that there is no absolute and well-defined
state of rest (no privileged reference frames)—from mechanics to all
the laws of physics, including both the laws of mechanics and of
electrodynamics, whatever they may be.[3] Special relativity
incorporates the principle that the speed of light is the same for all
inertial observers regardless of the state of motion of the source.[4]
This theory has a wide range of consequences which have been
experimentally verified,[5] including counter-intuitive ones such as
length contraction, time dilation and relativity of simultaneity,
contradicting the classical notion that the duration of the time
interval between two events is equal for all observers.
--- end quoting ---
There should have been a fourth counter-intuitive consequence listed
above, and not just
length contraction, time dilation, simultaneity. The fourth should
have been "nonexistent Doppler shift of light or any other EM
spectrum".
You know what started the ball rolling to gain Special Relativity and
its consequences was the search for the lumeniferous aether medium of
light waves. That was the Michelson experiment which proves that light
waves need no medium to propagate, done in 1887.
But all of Special Relativity can be summarized in one sentence, that
in the Maxwell Equations, a moving wire coil on a stationary magnet
creates a current, and a moving
magnet in a stationary wire coil creates a current. Special Relativity
is simply the fact that
those two are the same.
Now, are those two the same if Doppler redshift of light waves occurs
when the source is moving away from the observer? The Maxwell
Equations are Lorentz transformation invariant. If a Doppler redshift
occurs for light waves when the source speed in included, then the
Maxwell Equations are no longer Lorentz transformation invariant
because the speed of light is not a constant. If the source speed
changes the wavelength of light then
the speed of light is not a constant.
I do not know why or when or how the Doppler shift became accepted in
physics and astronomy. This is one of those things that Dirac or
DeBroglie should have and could have
easily picked out and said, "stop this, for light cannot have a
Doppler shift". John Bell
could have and should have also picked this out. But this is something
that slipped through the cracks of the 20th century. Why it slipped is
a wonder to us all, looking back. Perhaps because so many wanted a
Doppler shift of light to make astronomy easy. Making a science easy
is always sought for, even at the price of being totally in error with
the
conclusions brought forth from that nonexistent Doppler shift. Maybe
Dirac, DeBroglie and Bell all noticed the contradiction of a Doppler
shift of light with Special Relativity but did
not want to get into a fight. I do not know, but it would be
interesting for a sociology study
of physics as to why a Doppler shift of light survived so long as the
heart of astronomy?
Is it that astronomers go by so many oddball and ludricous assumptions
on a daily basis, that a Doppler light shift could easily pass the
nonrigorous astronomy community? Keep in mind that the physics
community was also bamboozled on the Doppler shift. Or is it that
scientist who have a highly developed sense of Logic are rare
scientists? This is what I am
beginning to lean on as the answer. That scientists are dime a dozen
who can repeat experiments or learn physics or math and parrot back
the answers to test questions, but a scientist who is borne with a
Logical mind and can sense if a theory has holes in it or where a
theory is contradictory, those type of scientists are so rare that
only a few are around in a millenium of time. And that normal science
builds up these silly contradictory
errors and has to wait for that logical-scientist to appear and
straighten out the science.
The obvious example is that Copernicus was that logical astronomer to
straighten out the
contradictory mess of a geocentric solar system. So to be a top
ranking scientist is not one who passes all tests with A's, and never
seems to have to study hard for tests, but rather a top ranking
scientist is one that can perceive where the contradictory loopholes
occur in astronomy and physics and can point them out.
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
is as
silly as thinking that the rainbow we see from rain is caused by a
Doppler shift.
Now how long would it take physicists to figure out that a Doppler
shift has
nothing to do with rainbows?
--- quoting Wikipedia on rainbow ---
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rainbow
In a so-called "primary rainbow" (the lowest, and also normally the
brightest rainbow) the arc of a rainbow shows red on the outer (or
upper) part of the arc, and violet on the inner section. This rainbow
is caused by light being refracted then reflected once in droplets of
water. In a double rainbow, a second arc may be seen above and outside
the primary arc, and has the order of its colours reversed (red faces
inward toward the other rainbow, in both rainbows). This second
rainbow is caused by light reflecting twice inside water droplets.
--- end quoting ---
Now it states that "refraction" is what causes rainbows, so it is
reasonable to think that refraction causes
the Cosmology galaxy redshift of light, not some Doppler effect. But
the reason I quoted the above is that
perhaps that information on rainbows gives us some sort of way-out
explanation of blue shift of galaxies.
Notice that the secondary rainbow is reverse order of color with blue
first, not red. So maybe, just maybe
the blueshifted galaxies involves some sort of reflection along with
refraction. As I stated earlier in a post, the science of optics is
not easy and that it has a lot of phenomenon of high complexity.
So to think that when we see light from distant galaxies as
redshifted, it makes perfect sense that the shift is due to a
refraction caused by the curvature of Space. The Hubble Law that the
redshift is directly proportional to distance is false, for the Hubble
law is based on the idea of a Doppler shift on light.
It is true that redshift is related to distance, because the further
away, the chances are that you are in far
greater bent space to give a refraction redshift. But relationship of
redshift to distance is not the linear
relationship of the Hubble law.
Archimedes Plutonium
physics community about the idea
that Doppler shift was never proven in Physics via valid physics
experiments as to whether
light can accommodate a Doppler shift, and whether physicists along
with astronomers are just
plain lazy and ignorant as to set-up experimental verification. In an
earlier post I asked
why is there a sociology phenomenon in physics where they want to
believe without experimental
proof that light is Doppler shifted, and the answer is quite easy to
understand. Every scientist
wants their science to be "simple and immediate gratification". No
scientist wants a science to
be difficult and complex. When we are hot we want air conditioning and
ice cream cones; we do not
want to struggle in the desert.
In the below repost, we see a representative of the physics community
that learns something and
then parrots back what had been drilled into them.
But the real physics question is since Michelson Experiment, implies
that light cannot be Doppler
shifted and since the Harvard Hua Experiment of "slowed light" we see
the slowed-light is not
Doppler shifted and from the observance of lightning bolt strikes we
never see Doppler shifted lightning
bolts.
So it is time for the physics and astronomy community to stop being
lazy and accept the fact that
Cosmology is not a simple linear Hubble Law but that redshift has
become complex and more difficult with refraction as its cause. To
stop being lazy and start to experimentally verify that light waves
cannot
be Doppler shifted and that folks like WG stop parroting
misinformation drilled into them while in
college.
--- begin reposting of older post ---
sci.physics, sci.astro, sci.math
May 3, 2:14 pm
Date: May 3, 2010 3:14 PM
Author: plutonium....@gmail.com
Subject: Re: Postscript: of Redshift Experiment became hugely more
complicated; ATOM TOTALITY
Androcles wrote:
> "WG" <wgilm...@I-zoom.net> wrote in message
> news:hrmum7$9jm$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
> "Androcles" <Headmas...@Hogwarts.physics_z> wrote in message
> news:tDCDn.23059$fQ1....@newsfe13.ams2...
> > "WG" <wgilm...@I-zoom.net> wrote in message
> > news:hrmrm7$rbu$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
> > [snip nonsense]
> > Arche you should really read up on redshift before you post and spew.
> > A common misconception of amateurs is that they believe redshift
due to
> > Doppler effects means the object appears redder to the eye! This
is
> > incorrect. For a pure white light [continuous over the visible
spectrum
> > and
WG, I have offered an experiment that WG can easily repeat. So, let
us
see
if you have an iota of science in you to repeat my experiment or
whether
you are more of the same as just another nonscientist ad-hominer.
> > beyond], it will exhibit no change of color whatsoever when moving away or
> > towards the observer. Redshift and blueshift are generic terms
used to
> > describe which direction the entire spectrum is being shifted.
You need
> > markers, i.e. emission bands or absorption bands [if they are
associated
> > with the object, most aren't] in a characteristic spectrum in
order to
> > notice the shift.
> > There is reddening of light but that's due to scattering, a
different
> > topic.
> > I could give you an example of light being redshifted and appear
bluer to
> > the eye .... but ,,, ahh....
> > nevermind.
> > WG
> > ==============================================================
> > Our sun isn't pure white, it is a yellow star. If the blue end of
the
> > spectrum is absent or diminished and the light is doppler red-
shifted then
> > the star will appear red. So while I accept your premise, I do
not accept
> > your assumption.
> This is correct in this instance.
> There are no pure white radiators in nature I suspect , if there
was we
> could never detect shifts without markers, but all spectrums are
different
> and a radiator that emits heavily in the ultraviolet and shorter
end of the
> spectrum and emits little in the yellow would appear bluer to the
eye when
> redshifted.
> =======================================================
> Yes, of course a hotter (UV) star would appear blue when
redshifted,
> but can we apply that to a galaxy? Without examining the spectra of
each
> and every one, in detail, looking for absorption lines of specific
elements,
> it takes a leap of faith to agree with Hubble's hypothesis based on
the
> images from the telescope named after him.
> I see more blue than I do red in this image and I'm not about to
believe
> that entire galaxies are UV emitters that are flying away from me,
> especially
> when the face-on galaxy appears white (no shift).
> http://www.stsci.edu/ftp/science/hdf/DetailWF4.gif
> Lowell wanted to believe in canals on Mars so he found canals on
Mars.
> Those who want to believe in an expanding universe will find
enough
> red-shifted galaxies to convince themselves, but they'll ignore any
that
> are blue-shifted and fail to convince me.
Well, good on you, Androcles, for we now have an experiment that puts
the Hubble law to a test and whether the Hubble Law can survive that
test
or whether the test destroys
the Hubble Law and its fallacy of conclusions. An experiment that
every
High School student can try out and force their local college
professor of astronomy a
better understanding of redshifts.
Let me summarize what the Experiment unfolded last night.
(1) I took my fiberglass greenhouse panel along the road.
The panel measures 127 cm by 34 cm and about a thickness of 1 to 1.5
millimeters. It was a part of the greenhouse type of shed bought at
Lowe's lumber
yard and the greenhouse was manufactured in Canada. I have some
other
fiberglass
I bought at Menard's and some of it is clear and some blue tinted
and
will try them
in the future to see if they redshift also.
(2) Anyway, I first tried the panel on the street lights of white,
yet
stationary. And they
were not redshifted but rather were white, with maybe a tiny tint of
green and blue
from the stationary street light. I tilted the panel to see if there
was any significant
change of the appearance of the street light and there was none to
note.
(3) Then I reached the side of the highway of SD 50 that goes from
Yankton to
Vermillion. And I first observed a line of oncoming white lights at
about 5 km distance
from me. All of these vehicles with white headlights were
redshifted.
A big glaring
red blotch for their white headlights. They remained
redshifted until they were about approx 500 meters from me and then
they resumed
a white light appearance.
(4) Next I waited until there were no white lights oncoming to
observe
the red taillights
of vehicles in the opposite direction. The red taillight appeared
very
red in the
fiberglass panel, and about approx 3 km away from me, the red
taillight disappeared
from view in the panel but as I removed the panel I could see the
red
taillight with
my naked eye. So I figure that the "redshifting effect" caused by
the
fiberglass
had cancelled the redlight of the taillight at that specific
distance
of 3km.
(5) So in summary, stationary white lights are white lights in the
panel. Oncoming
moving white headlights are redshifted in the panel from 5 km out to
about 500 meters
distance from the panel. Red taillights of opposite moving vehicles
remain red until
about a distance of 3km away where they vanished completely.
What I conclude from this experiment is that the Cosmos has some
intrinsic Opaqueness
that makes almost everything appear redshifted. That the Hubble's
Law
is mostly wrong and deceiving of the true nature of the Universe. An
intrinsic opaqueness of the
Cosmos would cause almost all galaxies to appear to be moving away
from us
yet the experiment of fiberglass panel clearly shows the vehicles
moving directly
at us, and leaving astronomers drawing a false conclusion that the
Universe was expanding, when in fact it is mostly just a balanced
overall galactic motions, just as some vehicles are
moving to Yankton whereas an equal number over time are moving away
from Yankton. Whereas Hubble and his followers would draw the
conclusion that all vehicles are moving
towards Yankton except those at 500 meters or less.
Now I do not know how this Opaqueness translates into geometry. Does
it mean that
the Opaqueness is a direct result of the Curvature of the Cosmos? It
surely means that
Hubble's Law is wrong and that the redshift is caused by some
intrinsic feature of the Cosmos.
--- end reposting of older post ---
Now I think that if my memory is correct that Halliday and Resnick
discussed the Doppler shift effect on light and how they squared-away
the
confusion of how can it be consistent with Special Relativity? If
my memory is correct, what I think Halliday & Resnick argued, was
that a redshift was with the wavelength and that it was not the speed
involved of the source. So what think, if memory is correct, that the
physics community is under a "delusion" that by a change in wavelength
that they do not violate Special Relativity with a Doppler effect on
light.
But of course that is nonsense, for wavelength and frequency and speed
are
all connected, so that if you imagine light being Doppler shifted,
means you
violate Special Relativity. I have to check tonight to see what
actually
Halliday and Resnick do to get out of their dilemma of a Doppler shift
on
light.
As I said above and earlier, all scientists are tempted by science to
have
a simple route to truth, rather than a tortuous complex science to
figure
out the truth. And Cosmology only began in the 20th century with
advanced
telescopes. So to imagine that a science Cosmology borne in the 1920s
and by
1990 thinking that they found and solved the key features of the
entire
Cosmos would be like saying that when the Ancient Greeks started
physics
that they had found the key features of physics, is the same sort of
hubris
and fake science.
A better evaluation of Cosmology that started in the 1920s was that
they are
going to have several theories that are fake theories of Cosmology
before
the true theory breaks through.
1treePetrifiedForestLane
you could have thought about it for an extra day, and
reduced it to a couple of paragraphs.
Edwin Hubble did not believe in the Doppler interpretation
of his empirical "law" of redshifts, probably more
-- as you suggest --
due to the proerpties of space, and it is certainly interesting
to see if & where rainbow-like effects are created
in the cosmos.
anyway, I'm sure that most of the problems were resolved
in the Alfven cosmology, or "Beyond Einsteinmania."
> read more »...
thus:
<http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/7c/
Atmospheric_Transm...>
Archimedes Plutonium
>
> But of course that is nonsense, for wavelength and frequency and speed
> are
> all connected, so that if you imagine light being Doppler shifted,
> means you
> violate Special Relativity. I have to check tonight to see what
> actually
> Halliday and Resnick do to get out of their dilemma of a Doppler shift
> on
> light.
>
As promised I looked up how Halliday & Resnick handled themselves on
the
issue that Special Relativity forbids light to have a Doppler effect.
It was not a pretty picture reading Halliday & Resnick, PHYSICS, part
2,
extended version, 1986, pages 929 through 932. Just moments after
describing
the Ives-Stilwell Experiment of 1938, we expect there to be some
justification
of thinking that light waves can have a Doppler shift effect, but the
Ives-Stilwell
experiment supports Special Relativity, and Halliday and Resnick never
provide
any justification for a Doppler effect on light. They immediately go
into a
endorsement of Hubble's Law by saying: "The Doppler effect for light
finds many
applications in astronomy, . ."
Now earlier on page 929, perhaps is the justification by Halliday and
Resnick for they
remark that the frequency and wavelength can change but not the speed.
So perhaps, what
the justification by Halliday and Resnick is that the speed stays the
same and both the
wavelength and frequency change. But is that not refraction then?
So what it boils down to is that we have now three experiments all
pointing to a Nonexistent
Doppler effect on light:
(a) Michelson Experiment
(b) Ives-Stilwell Experiment
(c) Harvard's Hua slowed-light experiment
So, to date, the world of physics has never had a experiment that
confirms light capable of
being Doppler shifted, but three experiments that says light is never
Doppler shifted.
Because if you want to argue like Halliday and Resnick that as the
wavelength changes, that the
frequency changes, then the motion of the source is not what has
changed the frequency, but rather
light must be refracted to change both wavelength and frequency
simultaneously to maintain constant
speed.
So the flaw in the logic of Halliday and Resnick is that they blame
the change in frequency to the
motion of the source, but the true change in frequency is due to
refraction causing frequency with
wavelength change.
I have some other Halliday and Resnick texts and will look to see if
they repeat that error.
Mind you, it is an innocent mistake, but a mistake that overturns much
of what was thought true in
Cosmology.
Archimedes Plutonium
Fundamentals of Physics, pages 433 to 434.
Again they repeat basically the justification that since speed can be
kept the same by changing both wavelength
and frequency, does Halliday and Resnick feel that light can possess a
Doppler shift effect.
Alright, so, here I think I pinpointed the flaw in logic by Halliday
and Resnick and the entire physics community on this subject -- Can
lightwaves be Doppler affected?
According to Halliday and Resnick they can by means of the frequency
changing to accommodate the change in wavelength.
And here is an experiment to prove them wrong.
Experiment to show that you cannot have a Doppler effect with a
Refraction effect. What we do is set up the Ives-Stilwell experiment
to contain both refraction with supposed Doppler effect. That means we
will have two
frequency adjustments along with two wavelength adjustments. Of course
we can visualize the end results that such an experiment ends up with
only one wavelength adjustment to one frequency adjustment, and that a
Doppler effect is nonexistent.
We could validate the experiment by noting all cases of Refraction in
the laboratory, that all those cases
follow the theory to exacting precision, but if the world has a
Doppler effect on light simultaneous to a
refraction effect, that we would have noticed our Refraction testing
was off by a factor of 2X since it did not incorporate a Doppler
effect.
So what I am saying is that the world has only one shifting effect on
light-refraction and not a second shifter of a Doppler effect.
Archimedes Plutonium
Alright I was able to find the exact TV show of "slowed light" that I
had
seen some years back on NOVA. It was red light and reading some of the
articles, there is a lot of refraction involved.
But I am undeterred for I sense that a additional experiment can be
arranged
to where we have both a test of Doppler shift and of refraction on
slowed-light.
The outcome, I predict is that there is *no Doppler shift possible*.
Archimedes Plutonium
<plutonium.archime...@gmail.com> wrote:
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EK6HxdUQm5s
>
> Alright I was able to find the exact TV show of "slowed light" that I
> had
> seen some years back on NOVA. It was red light and reading some of the
> articles, there is a lot of refraction involved.
>
> But I am undeterred for I sense that a additional experiment can be
> arranged
> to where we have both a test of Doppler shift and of refraction on
> slowed-light.
>
> The outcome, I predict is that there is *no Doppler shift possible*.
Alright, I see the Hau experiment still falsifying the existence of a
Doppler shift effect, since the light going into the BEC is the same
wavelength as the light coming out of the BEC and during its travel in
the BEC is the same wavelength throughout the journey.
I see no reason that this experiment cannot be replicated using a blue
light
entering the BEC, traveling in the BEC and coming out the BEC all
maintaining the
same wavelength throughout.
Now I wonder if we can repeat the experiment and place some prism
refractors in
the path and whether we change the wavelength and by how much.
In other words, the Hau experiment is our best chance of proving that
the Doppler
effect on light is nonexistent.
Archimedes Plutonium
<plutonium.archime...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Oct 11, 4:28 am, Archimedes Plutonium
>
> <plutonium.archime...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EK6HxdUQm5s
>
Now in that Youtube clip by NOVA of the Hau experiment, she discusses
how the information
of the light wave going into the BEC is the same information that
comes out of the
BEC.
Now I ask a question at that phenomenon. Could a light wave that was
Doppler shifted, could
it have the same information as it leaves the BEC as it had before
entering the BEC? I suspect not,
because if we did a refraction experiment, the leaving beam has to go
through another prism
to restore its white light.
So it is not looking good for the Doppler shift effect, not good at
all.
Archimedes Plutonium
<plutonium.archime...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Oct 11, 4:40 am, Archimedes Plutonium
>
> <plutonium.archime...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Oct 11, 4:28 am, Archimedes Plutonium
>
> > <plutonium.archime...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EK6HxdUQm5s
>
> Now in that Youtube clip by NOVA of the Hau experiment, she discusses
> how the information
> of the light wave going into the BEC is the same information that
> comes out of the
> BEC.
>
> Now I ask a question at that phenomenon. Could a light wave that was
> Doppler shifted, could
> it have the same information as it leaves the BEC as it had before
> entering the BEC? I suspect not,
> because if we did a refraction experiment, the leaving beam has to go
> through another prism
> to restore its white light.
>
> So it is not looking good for the Doppler shift effect, not good at
> all.
>
Now in the TV program by NOVA, which I believe was on the topic of
cold temperatures
where this Hau experiment appeared:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EK6HxdUQm5s
In that TV program the light rays were red colored and that was just a
graphic, but
the theory behind the statement made by Hau, saying she believes no
information is
lost when the ray comes out of the BEC and resumes full light speed,
not the slowed-light.
So here is a challenge to the notion that light can be Doppler
shifted. If light can
be Doppler shifted then the light emerging out of Hau's experiment
cannot have the
information that it contained before entering the BEC. But if light is
only affected
by the refraction in the Hau experiment, then it can emerge with the
full information
it entered the BEC and departed the BEC.
This reminds me of the physics experiment where you double refract
light such that
in the end you have the same light ray, although diminished in
intensity.
In the Hau experiment the light ray is slowed but emerges with full
information and
diminished intensity. If a Doppler effect existed, then the light in
the Hau experiment
would not emerge with full information and that some information is
destroyed in the
effect of Doppler.
What information would be destroyed? Well, I do not know at the
moment. As I said, Optics
is complex and difficult and you have to be working in that field
everyday of your life
to be skilled with it. So what would be destroyed if light is Doppler
shifted?
The final end conclusions are obvious, that the world of physics has
refraction of light
but *no Doppler shift effect on light exists*.
1treePetrifiedForestLane
of the medium; air is generally considered to have an index
of one, although it is obviously just close to that.
1treePetrifiedForestLane
there is no particular vacuum, anywhere in "space."
Archimedes Plutonium
the time
to emphasize what was achieved. We make the bad assumption that the
reader follows
the same logic as the author. So whenever I reach these important
conclusions
I try to make a separate post to emphasize what was accomplished.
Let me repeat that accomplishment: that if a Doppler shift effect
exists, as
believed by Halliday & Resnick and the entire physics and astronomy
and cosmology
communities adamantly insist exists, then we should have experiments
showing us
a combination effect of adding Doppler shift to refraction, or where
we have double the
redshift or double the blueshift of a cancellation of the Doppler
shift versus the
refraction.
So far, no experiments or any observations of Nature have ever
revealed any combinations
of a Doppler with refraction. The Michelson Experiment revealed no
shift of either
Doppler or refraction, as well as the Ives-Stilwell Experiment, as
well as the Hau
Experiment on slow-light. Nature's lightning bolt strikes have never
revealed any shift
whether Doppler or refraction, however, rainbows do reveal a
refraction shift.
So if you want to continue to believe that Nature has both a
Refraction and a Doppler shift
of light waves, then you have to explain why never has any experiment
or observation seen
combinations of those two shifts? Why does Nature display Refraction
without a doubt, but
never refraction plus Doppler or Refraction minus Doppler? The answer
obviously is that
Refraction exists but a Doppler is nonexistent.
Archimedes Plutonium
--- quoting Wikipedia on Hubble Law ---
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hubble_law
Hubble's law is the name for the astronomical observation in physical
cosmology first made by American astronomer Edwin Hubble, that: (1)
all objects observed in deep space (interstellar space) are found to
have a doppler shift observable relative velocity to Earth, and to
each other; and (2) that this doppler-shift-measured velocity, of
various galaxies receding from the Earth, is proportional to their
distance from the Earth and all other interstellar bodies. In effect,
the space-time volume of the observable universe is expanding and
Hubble's law is the direct physical observation of this process.[1]
The law was first derived from the General Relativity equations by
Georges Lemaître in 1927.[2]
--- end quoting ---
Now I think, later in life, Hubble himself recanted or recalled his
law. And that is the sign of a logical person who accepts a false idea
and over the years, his mind mulls and mulls over it and then realizes
the law was all a mistake. But the rest of the physics, astronomy and
cosmology community went to sleep on the issue
and they did so because out of sheer laziness. How much easier is
astronomy when you accept the Hubble Law
even when it is false. It is a scientific cope-out. A cope-out of
biology is to accept the Bible rendition
of how life was formed. A cope-out of astronomy and cosmology is to
accept the Hubble Law.
But notice that Refraction is a physics law that is everywhere and how
much easier it is to say that the redshift of galaxies is not due to
relative motion, but due to the curvature of space.
So in the Atom Totality theory, redshift is simply a curvature of
space phenomenon. In the Big Bang theory,
the science of Optics has become twice as complex with having both a
Doppler shift on all light and having a
refraction shift on all light in combinations thereof. If you accept
the Doppler, then you have to unravel every shift pattern and tell us
how much was contributed by Doppler and how much by refraction of
Space due to
curvature.
On the other hand, if you accept that no experiment has revealed any
evidence of a Doppler shift and so the Doppler is a science fiction
for light waves (we do have Doppler for sound waves). Then all these
problems are
solved.
I asked the question earlier, why would a science community of
physics, astronomy, cosmology ever accept a
fictional Doppler shift on light, and the answer is very clear, for
when one thinks of himself/herself as a
scientist and sees a "simpleton explanation" that of the Hubble Law
that says distance is that of redshift, then the lazy person loves to
glum on that law, rather than be in the true world of science that has
laws
far more complex than the Hubble law and thus far more truthful. The
Sociology explanation for why even Hubble
renounced his Law, yet everyone else in astronomy and cosmology kept
the Hubble Law is that scientist are lazy
and rather keep a fake law that is easy to work with, than to seek out
the truth.
1treePetrifiedForestLane
maybe Doppler wouldn't have, either.
as for refraction, it *always* occurs, because
even regions of space have some index of refraction
that is not *in vacuo*. however,
this is hard to interpret with the use of "photons"
as "little rocks of light," although
the ray-tracing can be used for one ray
of the wavefront (cf. Huyghens).
how can there not be a Doppler effect,
when a source of light is moving away
or toward your cones in your eyes?
(teh cones are "log-spiral antennae" .-)
Archimedes Plutonium
Doppler
redshift is a fiction and that redshift is a refraction phenomenon.
If we take nearby galaxies and we take distant galaxies, we should be
able to
see an effect of where we have a blueshift in the middle of the view
but where
we see redshift to the left and right of the middle-view. Now we can
also have
a weaker version of a highly redshift to the left and right but a
weaker redshift
in the middle. If Doppler shift was true, then we should not have such
a pattern.
Imagine a big log where we can walk down the log because the curvature
is a straight
line.
a log picture
___________________________
b
a -------------------- c
________________________d
In that picture the log has curvature down the sides of the -----
middle of the log as
shown by the dashed line ------.
Now as we look at the spectrum of light as observer "a" at galaxies
b,c,d
that c will have a blueshift because it is in the straightline of the
log and not refracted,
whereas we look at "b,d" will be redshifted since they are in a
curvature of that
log. Or, also, remember that a pattern of lesser redshift rightwards
or leftwards. If Doppler
shift was true then b,c,d should have the same redshift and no pattern
emerging.
So if the Cosmos redshift is all due to refraction due to curvature of
Space, and if
the curvature is not a Spherical Cosmos but rather a Elliptical such
as a lobe of 5f6 or log shaped
Cosmos then there should be many examples where we see galaxies that
are blueshifted and to the
right and left we see other galaxies of nearly the same distance that
are redshifted. Or, a pattern
of different shifts for the same distance. But we have to be careful
since "distance" is assumed
to be the redshift, when in fact we need distance from other means.
And we should see this effect on single galaxies that if we look at
the center it is more
blueshift than to the sides which are redshifted more.
Now I do not know what the information is in the literature about
whether the above scenario
has been observed or not.
Archimedes Plutonium
I remember reading something in the literature, not too long ago about
a discovery
of a galaxy which was redshifted in the opposite direction of the arms
of the spiral
for which none had ever been seen before. I am hoping I can run across
that report
again.
Archimedes Plutonium
is that physics voted, but never experimented as to whether a Doppler
Shift exists or does not exist, and the justification that physics
gave
throughout the 20th century and into the 21st century was a
justification
that can be seen in Halliday & Resnick texts of 1988 where they say
that
the speed of light remains the same but the wavelength is altered
which
is acceptable because the frequency is then altered. The trouble with
that
Halliday and Resnick justification is that it is the very same
explanation
of "Refraction". In refraction, the wavelength is altered because
there is
a accompanying altering of the frequency.
In the Hau Experiment, light is slowed down by refraction has it
enters the
BEC and then emerges out of the BEC.
So the physics community, if it continues to accept the justification
of
Halliday and Resnick have to explain **combinations of Doppler shifted
light
with refraction shifted light**. For Halliday and Resnick and the
believers
of Doppler shift, whenever they see a galaxy of a redshift, must tell
us what
proportion of that redshift was Doppler redshift and how much was due
to
refraction redshift.
What defeats Halliday and Resnick justification is that of
combinations of
Doppler effect with refraction, and to date, never there was any
experiment
that indicates a Doppler shift. All experiments to date, the Michelson
Experiment,
the Ives-Stilwell Experiment the Hau Experiment, all have explained
themselves
with only refraction. Refraction alone explains every redshift, ever
seen.
So if Halliday and Resnick and the rest of the Doppler shift
believers, still want
to believe in the Doppler effect, then they must show a experiment
that cannot be
explained by Refraction alone.
Every galaxy to date, is explained by a redshift caused by the
curvature of Space
making a refraction.
In the Hau Experiment, no Doppler shift exists, for which refraction
does not explain.
1treePetrifiedForestLane
whether anyone else in Universe could configure,
what ever it is you mean, today.
anyway, above, I should have said that
a ray is assumed to be a single *normal*
or perpendicular to teh wavefront, "cf. Huyghens --
what ever 'cf.' is supposed to mean."
> ___________________________
> b
>
> a -------------------- c
>
> ________________________d
> And we should see this effect on single galaxies that if we look at