Doppler Tortures Einsteinians

[Pentcho Valev]

According to the following interpretations of the Doppler effect, for any waves, when the observer starts moving towards the wave source, the speed of the waves relative to the observer increases, in violation of Einstein's relativity:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bg7O4rtlwEE
"Doppler effect - when an observer moves towards a stationary source. ...the velocity of the wave relative to the observer is faster than that when it is still."

http://physics.ucsd.edu/students/courses/summer2011/session1/physics2c/Waves.pdf
"Doppler effect (...) Let u be speed of source or observer (...) Doppler Shift: Moving Observer. Shift in frequency only, wavelength does not change. Speed observed = v+u (...) Observed frequency shift f'=f(1±u/v)"

http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/315/Waveshtml/node41.html
"Thus, the moving observer sees a wave possessing the same wavelength (...) but a different frequency (...) to that seen by the stationary observer."

http://a-levelphysicstutor.com/wav-doppler.php
"vO is the velocity of an observer moving towards the source. This velocity is independent of the motion of the source. Hence, the velocity of waves relative to the observer is c + vO. (...) The motion of an observer does not alter the wavelength. The increase in frequency is a result of the observer encountering more wavelengths in a given time."

http://physics.bu.edu/~redner/211-sp06/class19/class19_doppler.html
"Let's say you, the observer, now move toward the source with velocity vO. You encounter more waves per unit time than you did before. Relative to you, the waves travel at a higher speed: v'=v+vO. The frequency of the waves you detect is higher, and is given by: f'=v'/λ=(v+vO)/λ."

Pentcho Valev

[JanPB]

On Wednesday, January 13, 2016 at 2:52:51 PM UTC-8, Pentcho Valev wrote:

[blah]

Make it "Einstein tortures Pentcho".

--
Jan

[Pentcho Valev]

The Albert Einstein Institute http://www.einstein-online.info/spotlights/doppler teaches that, when the light source starts moving towards the stationary observer (receiver), the distance between subsequent pulses emitted by the source DECREASES:

http://www.einstein-online.info/images/spotlights/doppler/doppler_static.gif (stationary source)

http://www.einstein-online.info/images/spotlights/doppler/doppler_source_blue.gif (moving source)

In contrast, when the observer starts moving towards the stationary source, the distance between subsequent pulses emitted by the source REMAINS UNCHANGED:

http://www.einstein-online.info/images/spotlights/doppler/doppler_static.gif (stationary observer)

http://www.einstein-online.info/images/spotlights/doppler/doppler_detector_blue.gif (moving observer)

Clearly the moving-observer scenario is fatal for Einstein's relativity. Since the distance between subsequent pulses REMAINS UNCHANGED, the frequency measured by the observer shifts (Doppler shift) because the speed of the pulses relative to the observer shifts, in violation of Einstein's relativity.

Pentcho Valev

[Gary Harnagel]

On Friday, January 15, 2016 at 7:56:18 AM UTC-7, Pentcho Valev wrote:
>
> [Regurgitations deleted]

>
> In contrast, when the observer starts moving towards the stationary source,
> the distance between subsequent pulses emitted by the source REMAINS
> UNCHANGED:

Not in the case of light and NOT in the frame of the observer.

> http://www.einstein-online.info/images/spotlights/doppler/doppler_static.gif (stationary observer)
>
> http://www.einstein-online.info/images/spotlights/doppler/doppler_detector_blue.gif (moving observer)
>
> Clearly the moving-observer scenario is fatal for Einstein's relativity.

Clearly, Puerile Prevaricating Pentcho proposes poppycock. The observer
is obviously in the frame of the source, not the observer. Therefore
Pentcho's perversions are refuted. Besides, actual MEASUREMENTS show
that wavelength is not an intrinsic function of the source and does
indeed depend upon the relative velocity between source and receiver.
Thus it is the speed of light that is invariant.

Gary

[nero]

..i think that Pentcho says very often rigth things and in the best way ..
Gary : can you rephrase 'the observer is obviously in the frame of source , not the observer ' .. thanks

[Gary Harnagel]

Name one :-)

> Gary : can you rephrase 'the observer is obviously in the frame of
> source , not the observer ' .. thanks

Look at the animation: Is the source moving? No, it's stationary.
This is the definition that the observer is in the frame of the source.
Pentcho is obfuscating the fact that the receiver is NOT in the frame
of the observer since it is seen to be moving.

[Pentcho Valev]

http://astro.berkeley.edu/~mwhite/darkmatter/dopplershift.html
Professor Martin White, UC Berkeley: "...the sound waves have a fixed wavelength (distance between two crests or two troughs) only if you're not moving relative to the source of the sound. If you are moving away from the source (or equivalently it is receding from you) then each crest will take a little longer to reach you, and so you'll perceive a longer wavelength. Similarly if you're approaching the source, then you'll be meeting each crest a little earlier, and so you'll perceive a shorter wavelength. (...) The same principle applies for light as well as for sound. In detail the amount of shift depends a little differently on the speed, since we have to do the calculation in the context of special relativity. But in general it's just the same: if you're approaching a light source you see shorter wavelengths (a blue-shift), while if you're moving away you see longer wavelengths (a red-shift)."

http://physics.bu.edu/~redner/211-sp06/class19/class19_doppler.html
Professor Sidney Redner: "The Doppler effect is the shift in frequency of a wave that occurs when the wave source, or the detector of the wave, is moving. Applications of the Doppler effect range from medical tests using ultrasound to radar detectors and astronomy (with electromagnetic waves). (...) We will focus on sound waves in describing the Doppler effect, but it works for other waves too. (...) Let's say you, the observer, now move toward the source with velocity vO. You encounter more waves per unit time than you did before. Relative to you, the waves travel at a higher speed: v'=v+vO. The frequency of the waves you detect is higher, and is given by: f'=v'/λ=(v+vO)/λ."

Who is lying? Prof. White, who claims that the wavelength varies with the speed of the observer (which implies that the speed of the waves relative to the observer remains constant), or prof. Redner, who insists that it is the speed of the waves relative to the observer that varies (not the wavelength)? If prof. White is the liar, Einstein's relativity is doomed.

Pentcho Valev

[Gary Harnagel]

On Friday, January 15, 2016 at 5:01:03 PM UTC-7, Pentcho Valev wrote:
>
> Who is lying?

Prevaricating Pentcho is lying, of course. And he is doomed to continue
to be the laughing stock of this group.

Gary

[Paul B. Andersen]

On 15.01.2016 20:46, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> . . . the observer is in the frame of the source.

I would strongly advice you to stop using this imprecise wording.

You mean to say:
The observer is stationary in the rest frame of the source.
or (not so good, but just passable):
The observer is stationary in the source-frame (frame of the source).

You "are in" in any conceivable frame of reference you can think of.
You will be moving in most of them.

--
Paul

https://paulba.no/

[Gary Harnagel]

Thanks, Paul. I will try to be more precise in the future (no guarantees
though :-)

Gary

[nero]

..i name one :) ...'when the observer starts towards the waves source , the speed of the waves relative to the observer increase '...
:) of course , the waves are going in the same way and speed like before , but relatively to that observer , its increase ...

:) it is almost amusing , for me ,simple man Almost Stupid ...
: in the first moment you , Brave Knigth that can ride the waves when you want , are in the source waves and i and Pentcho are in the receiving point and observing ..
: in the second moment , you are jumping up a wave and i decide to come towards the source ...
i think :):) to meet you a little before than Pentcho ..with E permission??

[Gary Harnagel]

On Saturday, January 16, 2016 at 8:14:35 AM UTC-7, nero wrote:
>
> Il giorno venerdì 15 gennaio 2016 20:46:35 UTC+1, Gary Harnagel ha scritto:
> >
> > On Friday, January 15, 2016 at 10:51:21 AM UTC-7, nero wrote:
> > >
> > > ..i think that Pentcho says very often rigth things and in the best way ..
> >
> > Name one :-)
>

> 'when the observer starts towards the waves source , the speed of the
> waves relative to the observer increase '

This is true for sound and other phenomena where there is a palpable
medium, but it is completely false for light ... and the discussion
is about light.

[Carmine Portacio]

Pentcho Valev wrote:

> http://astro.berkeley.edu/~mwhite/darkmatter/dopplershift.html
> Professor Martin White, UC Berkeley: "...the sound waves have a fixed
> wavelength (distance between two crests or two troughs) only if you're
> not moving relative to the source of the sound. If you are moving away
> from the source (or equivalently it is receding from you) then each
> crest will take a little longer to reach you, and so you'll perceive a
> longer wavelength. Similarly if you're approaching the source, then
> you'll be meeting each crest a little earlier, and so you'll perceive a
> shorter wavelength. (...) The same principle applies for light as well
> as for sound.

Yes, but in addition to that, Light is shifting its speed in order to
remain Constant wrt whomever is the Observer. Sound waves does not do that.

Good post. Hereby we may safely conclude that according to Relativity,
Light has a mind of it's own. Inexplicably, Light knows how fast an
independent Observer moves, in order to keep its own speed constant wrt to
him. This is just wonderful. Splendid.

[Tom Roberts]

On 1/16/16 1/16/16 9:14 AM, nero wrote:
> when the observer starts towards the waves source , the speed of the waves
> relative to the observer increase

Sure, for WAVES in some physical medium. But light is NOT a wave in any physical
medium, and indeed is not a wave at all; this does not apply to light.


Tom Roberts

[Carmine Portacio]

WHat else is not light as, nor wave nor particle. What do we have left
back to give light something to be. Don't come to me with your Amplitudes
of Probabilities, because those are archaic description of something to be
as. Ie an Amplitude of SOMETHING and Probability of SOMETHING else. Please
recap your Relativity. There is no reason for why not to recap.

[kenseto]

Sure it applies to light and light is a wave.

[nero]

..perhaps we are saying the same thing in different way ..if i go towards the waves (including sound and light) , of course , i can say that in many different ways ..
1) i go towards the waves and so i read their information before ..
2) i go towards the waves and so i feel an higther radiation'pressure ..
3) i go towards the waves and so i count an higther number of waves (Doppler effect)..
4) i go towards the waves and so the waves , relatively to me , have an higther speed ( but , of course , its have the same speed relatively to the source and : the light speed is 300 000 kms relatively to ECI ( or gravitational field or fixed stars ..that is little complicate to explain)).. which way do you prefer ? or have you an other way to propose ?

[Gary Harnagel]

On Sunday, January 17, 2016 at 9:05:55 AM UTC-7, nero wrote:
>
> ..perhaps we are saying the same thing in different way ..if i go towards
> the waves (including sound and light) , of course , i can say that in
> many different ways ..
> 1) i go towards the waves and so i read their information before ..
> 2) i go towards the waves and so i feel an higther radiation'pressure ..
> 3) i go towards the waves and so i count an higther number of waves
> (Doppler effect)..
> 4) i go towards the waves and so the waves , relatively to me , have an
> higther speed ( but , of course , its have the same speed relatively to
> the source and : the light speed is 300 000 kms relatively to ECI ( or
> gravitational field or fixed stars ..that is little complicate to
> explain)).. which way do you prefer ? or have you an other way to
> propose ?

4) is dead wrong for light. The speed an observer will measure for light
is always the same, regardless of his relative speed wrt the source.

Gary

[nero]

5 and more )
A) the young Einstein asked to himself : if i depart at 300 000 kms from a source'waves ,what i see ? and he answered : i see not waves but a continuous signal... because i am departing at 300 000 kms ,like the waves front speed ...
B) then you can imagine yourself stopped and receiving a front'wave : you see the waves ,up and down , that are travelling at 300 000 kms against you ..
C) then you can imagine yourself going at 300 000 kms towards the source'wave ...
an exterior observer sees you , in the case C) , receiving double frequency than in case B) , double pressure ' radiation , and probable informations before than in B)..
there is something bad or wrong in the exterior reliefments ?
again Mr E made half path ..like in the topic 'The goat of Dingle ' ..now this is my opinion ..

[Gary Harnagel]

On Tuesday, January 19, 2016 at 3:29:39 AM UTC-7, nero wrote:
>
> Il giorno domenica 17 gennaio 2016 17:39:24 UTC+1, Gary Harnagel ha scritto:
> > On Sunday, January 17, 2016 at 9:05:55 AM UTC-7, nero wrote:
> > >
> > > ..perhaps we are saying the same thing in different way ..if i go towards
> > > the waves (including sound and light) , of course , i can say that in
> > > many different ways ..
> > > 1) i go towards the waves and so i read their information before ..
> > > 2) i go towards the waves and so i feel an higther radiation'pressure ..
> > > 3) i go towards the waves and so i count an higther number of waves
> > > (Doppler effect)..
> > > 4) i go towards the waves and so the waves , relatively to me , have an
> > > higther speed ( but , of course , its have the same speed relatively to
> > > the source and : the light speed is 300 000 kms relatively to ECI ( or
> > > gravitational field or fixed stars ..that is little complicate to
> > > explain)).. which way do you prefer ? or have you an other way to
> > > propose ?
> >
> >
> > 4) is dead wrong for light. The speed an observer will measure for light
> > is always the same, regardless of his relative speed wrt the source.
> >
> > Gary
>
> 5 and more )
> A) the young Einstein asked to himself : if i depart at 300 000 kms from
> a source'waves ,what i see ? and he answered : i see not waves but a
> continuous signal... because i am departing at 300 000 kms ,like the
> waves front speed ...

This was before he derived special relativity, after which he realized that
such a scenario was not possible.

> B) then you can imagine yourself stopped and receiving a front'wave :
> you see the waves ,up and down , that are travelling at 300 000 kms
> against you ..
> C) then you can imagine yourself going at 300 000 kms towards the
> source'wave ...
> an exterior observer sees you , in the case C) , receiving double
> frequency than in case B) , double pressure ' radiation , and probable
> informations before than in B)..

You're talking about closing speed, which is NOT what the moving observer
sees.

> there is something bad or wrong in the exterior reliefments ?
> again Mr E made half path ..like in the topic 'The goat of Dingle '
> ..now this is my opinion ..

"People with opinions just go around bothering each other." -- Buddha

"You are not entitled to your opinion. You are entitled to your informed
opinion. No one is entitled to be ignorant." -- Harlan Ellison

"By denying scientific principles, one may maintain any paradox."
-- Galileo Galilei

[Tom Roberts]

Nope. Observationally false. There are LOTS of quantum phenomena of light that
cannot be explained by any wave theory.

Light s NOT a wave. It is not a bunch of particles, either. It is composed of
quantum objects, and to understand what that means requires considerably more
study than a casual interest in physics, or sitting in your armchair and
FANTASIZING.

BTW Doppler does not "torture Einsteinians". The actual
experiments on Doppler shifts are fully consistent with SR,
including some that are inconsistent with a simple shift
linear in speed. It is Valev who is tortured. And kenseto.


Tom Roberts

[Maciej Woźniak]

Użytkownik "Tom Roberts" napisał w wiadomości grup
dyskusyjnych:gpidnT5_rKVjwwPL...@giganews.com...

> Sure it applies to light and light is a wave.

|Nope. Observationally false. There are LOTS of quantum phenomena of light
that
|cannot be explained by any wave theory.

And a heavier-than-air plane can never fly.
It's obvious.

[nero]

..i like sincerly when you say something to me , also if it seems against ..
like you , and Budda , and Galileo and me, everyone MUST have the rigth to testify himself ...
like Einstein , when testifying himself , was going against Newton and the scientific world ..
the probability that i am rigth , seems almost zero ..ok ..like E in the first moment , and many others in this group ..
i did not know that E changed idea about the story of going at 300 000 kms looking the front'wave ..
perhaps he changed idea also about the story of the topic 'The goat of Dingle '..
in the introduction of the theory of relativity , E wrote '' If we take right the resultats of M and M exp and Oetvos , we can procede to ..' , but M and M had a wrong resultat and E did not noted ...
and then , i think that we speak too strongly around old questions

[Gary Harnagel]

But if your opinion goes against scientific principles, it is your duty
to justify it. Otherwise, it is just a baseless assertion.

> the probability that i am rigth , seems almost zero ..ok ..like E in the
> first moment , and many others in this group ..

Einstein used a conundrum is the understanding of e/m to launch a new
theory. IOW, he justified his new approach.

> i did not know that E changed idea about the story of going at 300 000
> kms looking the front'wave ..
> perhaps he changed idea also about the story of the topic 'The goat of
> Dingle '..
> in the introduction of the theory of relativity , E wrote '' If we take
> right the resultats of M and M exp and Oetvos , we can procede to ..'

> but M and M had a wrong resultat and E did not noted ...

Your use of "wrong" is wrong. EVERY experiment turns out right, even though
the experimenter doesn't think so. The MMX is consistent with SR.

> and then , i think that we speak too strongly around old questions

Yes, we should move on. Unfortunately, there are many who just can't seem
to do that.