6 views

Skip to first unread message

Feb 5, 2020, 7:21:22 AM2/5/20

to

There are numerous experimental tests that purport to confirm Special

Relativity theory and/or refute what the testers and their reviewers

call emission theory, but those examining doppler shift all seem to

depend on the assumption that emission theory predicts wavelength

constancy even when source and observer are in relative motion.

That assumption is pretty thin. Any theory predicting so is falsified

by the very existence of doppler shift in light. There's no ground for

denying that; therefore no such theory is viable, and there's no reason

to bother with disproving it. Or even mentoning it, in my view.

The opposite assumption however, that emission theory predicts variable

wavelength when source and observer are in relative motion, is much more

interesting; the accepted definitions of frequency and wavelength wrt

streams of particles are intuitiuvely correct and are clearly congruent

with their waveform equivalents[1], but unlike SR with its FoR magic,

a potentially viable emission theory must account for the effect of

relative motion between the source and the observer explicitly. The

frequency definition does that, but the wavelength definition does not.

What the observer experiences is not the objective wavelength, it is

instead the change in distance between source and observer while one

wavelength passes; in other words, the wavelength experienced is the

objective wavelength changed inversely as the speed. It is given by

a quantity which as far as I can tell has never been mooted before:

Apparent Wavelength[2]:

the quotient of the emission speed and the measured frequency.

Given f = f[0] * (c + v) / c, that gives

lambda = c / (f[0] * (c + v) / c)

= c * (c / (f[0] * (c + v))

= c / f[0] * (c / (c + v))

= lambda[0] * c / (c + v)

In other words, a considered emission theory must necessarily define a

wavelength doppler shift factor of c / (c + v), which is the inverse of

the speed shift and the frequency shift. The conventional assumption

turns out to be false.

Doppler shift tests that purport to falsify emission theory are therefore

invalidly and incorrectly interpreted. Their results should be reexamined,

specifically to determine whether within the bounds of experimental error

they are actually consistent with the predictions of just one of SR and

emission theory.

As well, the teaching should be amended, and the hidden variable revealed.

========

[1] Frequency : the rate at which particles reach a given point in space;

: the rate at which wave peaks reach a given point in space;

Wavelength: the distance between particles in the direction of movement,

: the radial distance between wave peaks.

[2] The predicted wavelength measurement. It too has a waveform equivalent:

the quotient of the propagation speed and the measured frequency.

Relativity theory and/or refute what the testers and their reviewers

call emission theory, but those examining doppler shift all seem to

depend on the assumption that emission theory predicts wavelength

constancy even when source and observer are in relative motion.

That assumption is pretty thin. Any theory predicting so is falsified

by the very existence of doppler shift in light. There's no ground for

denying that; therefore no such theory is viable, and there's no reason

to bother with disproving it. Or even mentoning it, in my view.

The opposite assumption however, that emission theory predicts variable

wavelength when source and observer are in relative motion, is much more

interesting; the accepted definitions of frequency and wavelength wrt

streams of particles are intuitiuvely correct and are clearly congruent

with their waveform equivalents[1], but unlike SR with its FoR magic,

a potentially viable emission theory must account for the effect of

relative motion between the source and the observer explicitly. The

frequency definition does that, but the wavelength definition does not.

What the observer experiences is not the objective wavelength, it is

instead the change in distance between source and observer while one

wavelength passes; in other words, the wavelength experienced is the

objective wavelength changed inversely as the speed. It is given by

a quantity which as far as I can tell has never been mooted before:

Apparent Wavelength[2]:

the quotient of the emission speed and the measured frequency.

Given f = f[0] * (c + v) / c, that gives

lambda = c / (f[0] * (c + v) / c)

= c * (c / (f[0] * (c + v))

= c / f[0] * (c / (c + v))

= lambda[0] * c / (c + v)

In other words, a considered emission theory must necessarily define a

wavelength doppler shift factor of c / (c + v), which is the inverse of

the speed shift and the frequency shift. The conventional assumption

turns out to be false.

Doppler shift tests that purport to falsify emission theory are therefore

invalidly and incorrectly interpreted. Their results should be reexamined,

specifically to determine whether within the bounds of experimental error

they are actually consistent with the predictions of just one of SR and

emission theory.

As well, the teaching should be amended, and the hidden variable revealed.

========

[1] Frequency : the rate at which particles reach a given point in space;

: the rate at which wave peaks reach a given point in space;

Wavelength: the distance between particles in the direction of movement,

: the radial distance between wave peaks.

[2] The predicted wavelength measurement. It too has a waveform equivalent:

the quotient of the propagation speed and the measured frequency.

Feb 5, 2020, 8:29:10 AM2/5/20

to

[This followup replaces a poorly worded fourth paragraph in the

original. My apologies for the bungle.]

There are numerous experimental tests that purport to confirm Special

Relativity theory and/or refute what the testers and their reviewers

call emission theory, but those examining doppler shift all seem to

depend on the assumption that emission theory predicts wavelength

constancy even when source and observer are in relative motion.

That assumption is pretty thin. Any theory predicting so is falsified

by the very existence of doppler shift in light. There's no ground for

denying that; therefore no such theory is viable, and there's no reason

to bother with disproving it. Or even mentoning it, in my view.

The opposite assumption however, that emission theory predicts variable

wavelength when source and observer are in relative motion, is much more

interesting; the accepted definitions of frequency and wavelength wrt

streams of particles are intuitiuvely correct and are clearly congruent

with their waveform equivalents[1], but unlike SR with its FoR magic,

a potentially viable emission theory must account for the effect of

relative motion between the source and the observer explicitly. The

frequency definition does that, but the wavelength definition does not.

What the observer experiences is the objective wavelength altered by

original. My apologies for the bungle.]

There are numerous experimental tests that purport to confirm Special

Relativity theory and/or refute what the testers and their reviewers

call emission theory, but those examining doppler shift all seem to

depend on the assumption that emission theory predicts wavelength

constancy even when source and observer are in relative motion.

That assumption is pretty thin. Any theory predicting so is falsified

by the very existence of doppler shift in light. There's no ground for

denying that; therefore no such theory is viable, and there's no reason

to bother with disproving it. Or even mentoning it, in my view.

The opposite assumption however, that emission theory predicts variable

wavelength when source and observer are in relative motion, is much more

interesting; the accepted definitions of frequency and wavelength wrt

streams of particles are intuitiuvely correct and are clearly congruent

with their waveform equivalents[1], but unlike SR with its FoR magic,

a potentially viable emission theory must account for the effect of

relative motion between the source and the observer explicitly. The

frequency definition does that, but the wavelength definition does not.

the change in distance between source and observer while one wavelength

passes; in other words, changed inversely as the speed. It is given by
Reply all

Reply to author

Forward

0 new messages

Search

Clear search

Close search

Google apps

Main menu