DOPPLER EFFECT, SPEED OF LIGHT AND EINSTEINIANA'S TEACHERS
Pentcho Valev
frequency of light increases (Doppler effect). This has a SIMPLE
IMPLICATION: the wavecrests are now bumping more frequently into the
observer, that is, THE SPEED OF LIGHT RELATIVE TO THE OBSERVER HAS
INCREASED. "But this is fatal for Divine Albert's Divine Theory" - say
to themselves Einsteiniana's teachers and replace the SIMPLE
IMPLICATION with an IDIOTIC ONE:
http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/teaching/HPS_0410/chapters/big_bang/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)."
Einsteiniana's teachers know quite well that the wavelength is
determined by the light source and cannot depend on the movements of
the observer. So Stephen Hawking has offered better camouflage: when
the light source, not the observer, starts moving, the wavelength
shift looks less idiotic:
http://www.amazon.com/Brief-History-Time-Stephen-Hawking/dp/0553380168
Stephen Hawking, "A Brief History of Time", Chapter 3:
"In the 1920s, when astronomers began to look at the spectra of stars
in other galaxies, they found something most peculiar: there were the
same characteristic sets of missing colors as for stars in our own
galaxy, but they were all shifted by the same relative amount toward
the red end of the spectrum. To understand the implications of this,
we must first understand the Doppler effect. As we have seen, visible
light consists of fluctuations, or waves, in the electromagnetic
field. The wavelength (or distance from one wave crest to the next) of
light is extremely small, ranging from four to seven ten-millionths of
a meter. The different wavelengths of light are what the human eye
sees as different colors, with the longest wavelengths appearing at
the red end of the spectrum and the shortest wavelengths at the blue
end. Now imagine a source of light at a constant distance from us,
such as a star, emitting waves of light at a constant wavelength.
Obviously the wavelength of the waves we receive will be the same as
the wavelength at which they are emitted (the gravitational field of
the galaxy will not be large enough to have a significant effect).
Suppose now that the source starts moving toward us. When the source
emits the next wave crest it will be nearer to us, so the distance
between wave crests will be smaller than when the star was stationary.
This means that the wavelength of the waves we receive is shorter than
when the star was stationary. Correspondingly, if the source is moving
away from us, the wavelength of the waves we receive will be longer.
In the case of light, therefore, means that stars moving away from us
will have their spectra shifted toward the red end of the spectrum
(red-shifted) and those moving toward us will have their spectra blue-
shifted."
Pentcho Valev
pva...@yahoo.com
ken...@erinet.com
> If the observer suddenly starts moving towards the light source, the
> frequency of light increases (Doppler effect). This has a SIMPLE
> IMPLICATION: the wavecrests are now bumping more frequently into the
> observer, that is, THE SPEED OF LIGHT RELATIVE TO THE OBSERVER HAS
> INCREASED.
This is correct if the universal wavelength of the source is used to
determine the speed of incoming light. However the SRians claims that
the incoming wavelength is measured to be shorter and thus the
increased in frequency with decreased wavelength will give c.
The SRians' claim is bogus. The correct interpretation: The incoming
light becomes a new light source in the grating's frame and the
grating defines a new wavelength for this new light source.
This new interpretation will eliminate the absurd interpretation that
a moving light source will change its wavelength the instant it passes
by an observer.
Ken Seto
>"But this is fatal for Divine Albert's Divine Theory" - say
> to themselves Einsteiniana's teachers and replace the SIMPLE
> IMPLICATION with an IDIOTIC ONE:
>
> http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/teaching/HPS_0410/chapters/big_bang/ind...
Androcles
<ken...@erinet.com> wrote in message
news:1c77bec3-9d8b-49f9...@z28g2000vbl.googlegroups.com...
On Aug 10, 3:14 am, Pentcho Valev <pva...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> If the observer suddenly starts moving towards the light source, the
> frequency of light increases (Doppler effect). This has a SIMPLE
> IMPLICATION: the wavecrests are now bumping more frequently into the
> observer, that is, THE SPEED OF LIGHT RELATIVE TO THE OBSERVER HAS
> INCREASED.
This is correct if the universal wavelength of the source is used to
determine the speed of incoming light. However the SRians claims that
the incoming wavelength is measured to be shorter and thus the
increased in frequency with decreased wavelength will give c.
The SRians' claim is bogus. The correct interpretation: The incoming
light becomes a new light source in the grating's frame and the
grating defines a new wavelength for this new light source.
This new interpretation will eliminate the absurd interpretation that
a moving light source will change its wavelength the instant it passes
by an observer.
Ken Seto
This is correct if the universal FREQUENCY of the source is used to
determine the speed of incoming light. However the ectoplasmists
claim that the incoming frequency is measured to be different and thus the
decrease in wavelength with decreased speed will give greater time.
The ectoplasmists claim is bogus and they are fucking idiots.
rotchm
> frequency of light increases (Doppler effect). This has a SIMPLE
> IMPLICATION: the wavecrests are now bumping more frequently into the
> observer, that is, THE SPEED OF LIGHT RELATIVE TO THE OBSERVER HAS
> INCREASED. "But this is fatal for Divine Albert's Divine Theory" - say
> to themselves Einsteiniana's teachers and replace the SIMPLE
> IMPLICATION with an IDIOTIC ONE:
If the observer suddenly starts moving towards the light source, he
will observe the source to emit at a *lower* frequency and he will
observe the reception of the crest at a greater frequency. Confusing
huh ?
Is the observer observing the frequency of the source or the frequency
of the received signal?
And realize that there are two factors involved in the Doppler effect:
Time dilation which changes the frequency of the source ( wrt
observer) and the classical effect of the source "catching up" ( or
receeding) to the wavecrest. The first tends to reduce the received
frequency of the crests and the latter tends to increase the received
frequency of the crests. The net effect is an increased in the freq.
of the received crests ( for an approaching observer/source) and the
value is given by the relativistic formula for "Doppler effect":
f_received = f_proper * s(1+b)/s(1-b).
Sam Wormley
> On Aug 10, 3:14 am, Pentcho Valev <pva...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> If the observer suddenly starts moving towards the light source, the
>> frequency of light increases (Doppler effect). This has a SIMPLE
>> IMPLICATION: the wavecrests are now bumping more frequently into the
>> observer, that is, THE SPEED OF LIGHT RELATIVE TO THE OBSERVER HAS
>> INCREASED. "But this is fatal for Divine Albert's Divine Theory" - say
>> to themselves Einsteiniana's teachers and replace the SIMPLE
>> IMPLICATION with an IDIOTIC ONE:
> <SNIP>
>
>
>
> If the observer suddenly starts moving towards the light source, he
> will observe the source to emit at a *lower* frequency and he will
> observe the reception of the crest at a greater frequency. Confusing
> huh ?
λ/λo = sqrt [(c+v)/(c-v)]
The mathematics of the phenomenon often clarifies a concept, as you
have done toward the end of your posting. I often refer people to
online references such as these, as they go into greater depth.
See: http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/DopplerEffect.html (3)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relativistic_Doppler_effect
Uncle Al
>
> If the observer suddenly starts moving towards the light source, the
> frequency of light increases (Doppler effect). This has a SIMPLE
> IMPLICATION: the wavecrests are now bumping more frequently into the
> observer, that is, THE SPEED OF LIGHT RELATIVE TO THE OBSERVER HAS
> INCREASED.
idiot
Given any achievable velocities V1 and V2 and any finite lightspeed,
Lorentz invariance requires the bound on the relative velocities of V1
and V2 as viewed by any inertial observer in 1 or 2 cannot exceed
(V1 + V2)/[1 +(V1)(V2)/c^2]
This is transformation of velocities parallel to the direction of
motion. For velocities at an arbitrary angle theta,
u_parallel = (u'_parallel + v)/(1+(v dot u')/c^2)
u_perp = u'_perp/(gamma_v(1+(v dot u')/c^2))
idiot
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/lajos.htm#a2
Juan R.
> If the observer suddenly starts moving towards the light source, the
> frequency of light increases (Doppler effect). This has a SIMPLE
> IMPLICATION: the wavecrests are now bumping more frequently into the
> observer, that is, THE SPEED OF LIGHT RELATIVE TO THE OBSERVER HAS
> INCREASED. "But this is fatal for Divine Albert's Divine Theory" - say
> to themselves Einsteiniana's teachers and replace the SIMPLE IMPLICATION
> with an IDIOTIC ONE:
You were corrected about a hundred of times before.
ken...@erinet.com
> On Aug 10, 3:14 am, Pentcho Valev <pva...@yahoo.com> wrote:> If the observer suddenly starts moving towards the light source, the
> > frequency of light increases (Doppler effect). This has a SIMPLE
> > IMPLICATION: the wavecrests are now bumping more frequently into the
> > observer, that is, THE SPEED OF LIGHT RELATIVE TO THE OBSERVER HAS
> > INCREASED. "But this is fatal for Divine Albert's Divine Theory" - say
> > to themselves Einsteiniana's teachers and replace the SIMPLE
> > IMPLICATION with an IDIOTIC ONE:
>
> <SNIP>
>
> If the observer suddenly starts moving towards the light source, he
> will observe the source to emit at a *lower* frequency and he will
> observe the reception of the crest at a greater frequency. Confusing
> huh ?
No he will observe the source emits at a higher frequency and receive
the crestss at a greater frequency.
Ken Seto
rotchm
> > If the observer suddenly starts moving towards the light source, he
> > will observe the source to emit at a *lower* frequency and he will
> > observe the reception of the crest at a greater frequency. Confusing
> > huh ?
>
> No he will observe the source emits at a higher frequency and receive
> the crestss at a greater frequency.
>
> Ken Seto
No, he will observe the source emits at a LOWER frequency, as I sated.
Ken, you are the only one who says otherwise... What does that tell
ya?
eric gisse
[...]
I have an idea.
Why don't you spam sci.physics and sci.physics.relativity with nonsense with
easily filtered titles like the other write only posters?
ken...@erinet.com
> > > If the observer suddenly starts moving towards the light source, he
> > > will observe the source to emit at a *lower* frequency and he will
> > > observe the reception of the crest at a greater frequency. Confusing
> > > huh ?
>
> > No he will observe the source emits at a higher frequency and receive
> > the crestss at a greater frequency.
>
> > Ken Seto
>
> No, he will observe the source emits at a LOWER frequency, as I sated.
What you said is based on the assumption that the observed clock's
second has a longer duration than the observer's clock second. But SR
also said that from the observed clock's point of view the observer's
clock second has a longer duration than its clock second and thus it
is emitting a higher frequency.
Ken Seto
Sam Wormley
>
> What you said is based on the assumption that the observed clock's
> second has a longer duration than the observer's clock second. But SR
> also said that from the observed clock's point of view the observer's
> clock second has a longer duration than its clock second and thus it
> is emitting a higher frequency.
There you go again... frame hopping! Pick one or the other, because
you can't have both perspectives simultaneously.
John Kennaugh
>On Aug 10, 3:14�am, Pentcho Valev <pva...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> If the observer suddenly starts moving towards the light source, the
>> frequency of light increases (Doppler effect). This has a SIMPLE
>> IMPLICATION: the wavecrests are now bumping more frequently into the
>> observer, that is, THE SPEED OF LIGHT RELATIVE TO THE OBSERVER HAS
>> INCREASED. "But this is fatal for Divine Albert's Divine Theory" - say
>> to themselves Einsteiniana's teachers and replace the SIMPLE
>> IMPLICATION with an IDIOTIC ONE:
><SNIP>
>
>
>
>If the observer suddenly starts moving towards the light source, he
>will observe the source to emit at a *lower* frequency
And how would you suggest he could do that?
>and he will
>observe the reception of the crest at a greater frequency. Confusing
>huh ?
I am not confused.
>
>Is the observer observing the frequency of the source or the frequency
>of the received signal?
Only the latter.
>
>And realize that there are two factors involved in the Doppler effect:
>Time dilation which changes the frequency of the source ( wrt
>observer)
Which we can ignore at modest speeds
> and the classical effect of the source "catching up" ( or
>receeding) to the wavecrest.
OK let us concentrate on that. Suppose you are 1 ly away from the
source. Suppose the source changes its speed relative to you (source
accelerates towards you). It is now (in your words) "catching up" the
receding wavecrests so the distance between them will be shorter. 1 YEAR
LATER you will detect a change in frequency.
Now suppose instead it is you who accelerate towards the source
changing your speed relative to the source. There is an immediate change
in frequency. According to theory the speed at which the wave crests are
travelling relative to you hasn't changed (second postulate) so the
frequency change must be caused by a change in wavelength. The
wavelength is determined by the speed at which light separates from the
source. Using your description the source has to be "catching up" the
wave crests to make the distance between them less. The problem is that
when you change your speed the change in frequency is instantaneous
which means that the change must have taken place 1 year ago in
anticipation of your change in speed. This is clearly absurd.
As the change in frequency is instantaneous it can only be explained by
a local change in your relationship with the light which left the source
1 year ago not a change in the relationship between the source and the
light leaving it.
Emission theory says that the speed of light is relative like other
speeds and is c w.r.t the source so if you change your speed w.r.t the
source you change your speed w.r.t the light wave. As Pentcho Valev
wrote: "THE SPEED OF LIGHT RELATIVE TO THE OBSERVER HAS INCREASED".
Lorentz says that the "real speed" of light is c w.r.t the aether FoR so
if you change your speed you change your speed w.r.t the aether and
w.r.t the light wave. As Pentcho Valev wrote: "THE SPEED OF LIGHT
RELATIVE TO THE OBSERVER HAS INCREASED". Lorentz would no doubt claim
that Doppler shift shows that the "real speed" has increased, (how else
could you explain Doppler shift) but because you are measuring it with
distorted instruments the computed speed does not increase.
SR - puts forward no specific hypothesis as it is only a principle
theory - a mathematical model.
>of the received crests ( for an approaching observer/source) and the
>value is given by the relativistic formula for "Doppler effect":
>f_received = f_proper * s(1+b)/s(1-b).
>
>
>
>
--
John Kennaugh
John Kennaugh
>If the observer suddenly starts moving towards the light source, the
>frequency of light increases (Doppler effect). This has a SIMPLE
>IMPLICATION: the wavecrests are now bumping more frequently into the
>observer, that is, THE SPEED OF LIGHT RELATIVE TO THE OBSERVER HAS
>INCREASED.
That is a logical conclusion.
> "But this is fatal for Divine Albert's Divine Theory" - say
>to themselves Einsteiniana's teachers and replace the SIMPLE
>IMPLICATION with an IDIOTIC ONE:
>
>http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/teaching/HPS_0410/chapters/big_bang/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)."
Perhaps you would like to add to your collection the views of the grate
Tom Roberts.
Me: If I am 1 ly away from a source of light and I change my speed the
observed frequency immediately changes. Accepted theory says that the
speed of the light arriving has not changed and is still c. If the
speed has not changed and the frequency has then there must be a
different wavelength.
Tom: Correct so far.
Me : The wavelength is a function of the speed of separation of the
light at the source 1 ly away.
Tom: This is grotesquely wrong.
Me It is absolutely right.
Tom: Nonsense. The "speed of separation of the light at the source" is
c, a single value.
Me: Only in the FoR of the source.
Tom: If wavelength were indeed a function of the speed of separation
from the source, then all light would necessarily have a single
wavelength -- it doesn't.
Your basic error is saying "the wavelength", implicitly thinking it is a
property of the light; it isn't. It requires an instrument to measure
the wavelength of light, and the value obtained depends on properties of
the instrument (e.g. its velocity wrt the source of the light).
Me: How can the RELATIVE velocity of the source affect my ruler or the
clock of my frequency counter?
Tom did not respond.
--
John Kennaugh
Pentcho Valev
healthy intuition, know that the Doppler effect is due to variation of
the seed of light in accordance with the equation c'=c+v given by
Newton's emission theory of light:
http://www.examiner.com/x-17078-Lafayette-Political-Buzz-Examiner~y2009m8d18-Bending-Physics-colored-stars-and-Einsteins-face-of-God-------------Part-one-of-two
"Just like sound changes pitch as it travels toward and away from a
point, Einstein knew that light traveling toward you was seen as a
different color than traveling away, and THE MORE DRAMATIC THE SHIFT
IN COLOR THE FASTER IT TRAVELED."
Einsteiniana's teachers are fatally damaged by lifelong exercise of
doublethink so they sincerely believe that "if the observer were to
hurry towards the source of the light", the speed of light relative to
the observer would remain unchanged but the wavelength (which had been
determined by the light source before the observer started hurrying)
would change in accordance with the observer's movements:
http://www.liferesearchuniversal.com/1984-17.html#seventeen
George Orwell: "It need hardly be said that the subtlest practitioners
of doublethink are those who invented doublethink and know that it is
a vast system of mental cheating. In our society, those who have the
best knowledge of what is happening are also those who are furthest
from seeing the world as it is. In general, the greater the
understanding, the greater the delusion ; the more intelligent, the
less sane."
http://www.liferesearchuniversal.com/1984-17.html#seventeen
George Orwell: "Doublethink means the power of holding two
contradictory beliefs in one's mind simultaneously, and accepting both
of them. The Party intellectual knows in which direction his memories
must be altered; he therefore knows that he is playing tricks with
reality; but by the exercise of doublethink he also satisfies himself
that reality is not violated. The process has to be conscious, or it
would not be carried out with sufficient precision, but it also has to
be unconscious, or it would bring with it a feeling of falsity and
hence of guilt. Doublethink lies at the very heart of Ingsoc, since
the essential act of the Party is to use conscious deception while
retaining the firmness of purpose that goes with complete honesty. To
tell deliberate lies while genuinely believing in them, to forget any
fact that has become inconvenient, and then, when it becomes necessary
again, to draw it back from oblivion for just so long as it is needed,
to deny the existence of objective reality and all the while to take
account of the reality which one denies - all this is indispensably
necessary. Even in using the word doublethink it is necessary to
exercise doublethink. For by using the word one admits that one is
tampering with reality; by a fresh act of doublethink one erases this
knowledge ; and so on indefinitely, with the lie always one leap ahead
of the truth."
Pentcho Valev
pva...@yahoo.com
On Aug 10 Pentcho Valev wrote:
> If the observer suddenly starts moving towards the light source, the
> frequency of light increases (Doppler effect). This has a SIMPLE
> IMPLICATION: the wavecrests are now bumping more frequently into the
> observer, that is, THE SPEED OF LIGHT RELATIVE TO THE OBSERVER HAS
> INCREASED. "But this is fatal for Divine Albert's Divine Theory" - say
> to themselves Einsteiniana's teachers and replace the SIMPLE
> IMPLICATION with an IDIOTIC ONE:
>
> http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/teaching/HPS_0410/chapters/big_bang/index.html
Darwin123
> frequency of light increases (Doppler effect). This has a SIMPLE
> IMPLICATION: the wavecrests are now bumping more frequently into the
> observer, that is, THE SPEED OF LIGHT RELATIVE TO THE OBSERVER HAS
> INCREASED. "But this is fatal for Divine Albert's Divine Theory" - say
> to themselves Einsteiniana's teachers and replace the SIMPLE
> IMPLICATION with an IDIOTIC ONE:
>
Mathal
> If the observer suddenly starts moving towards the light source, the
> frequency of light increases (Doppler effect). This has a SIMPLE
> IMPLICATION: the wavecrests are now bumping more frequently into the
> observer, that is, THE SPEED OF LIGHT RELATIVE TO THE OBSERVER HAS
> INCREASED. "But this is fatal for Divine Albert's Divine Theory" - say
> to themselves Einsteiniana's teachers and replace the SIMPLE
> IMPLICATION with an IDIOTIC ONE:
>
Bottom line- photons have a wavelength which varies with the
relative velocity of the receiver WRT the sender of the photon. It
is anthopomorphic thinking to suggest that a photon has a frequency.
We -the anthro's, began reciving radio signals from radio stations
by turning a dial which brushed along a long coil of wire shortening
or lengthening the active length of the coil in the circuit. The
shorter the length the higher the frequency and the longer the coil
length the lower the frequency of the circuit. The
radio station amplifies it's analagous cicuit and broadcasts it out
to the radio receivers. As long as the receiver is tuned to the same
frequency photons will be absorbed into the circuit and amplified
and translated into sound.
An electron doesn't send out a wave of light ,it sends out discreet
photons of a particular wavelength. Electrons in a radio circuit are
sending a particular wavelength of light. -I'm talking pre-FM radio,
and yes fortunately radio stations are not entirely discreet or
reception would require more fidelity than we are capable of.
Generally this is how it works.
The only way we can capture photons of a particular wavelength is
to have circuits with a frequency analagous to this wavelength. If
you stop thinking of discreet photons having a frequency you will
have a better chance of understanding what a photon is. Back to the
radio -at a radio station's frequency -it is the frequency of the
photons received that varies both the volume and frequency of the
sound the radio produces.
Mathal