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:

"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

[Sam Wormley]

Post by 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

No --

Post by Pentcho Valev
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doppler_effect
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relativistic_Doppler_effect

[jay moseley]

Sam Wormley wrote...

On 1/13/16 4:54 PM, Pentcho Valev wrote: > 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

No --> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doppler_effect > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relativistic_Doppler_effect

What do you mean no? Have you any evidence that shows that the speed doesnt
increase when the source moves towards the observor? No.
Ives Stillwell certainly doesnt contradict this assumption.

[Sam Wormley]

Have you any evidence that shows that the speed doesnt increase when
the source moves towards the observor?

Yup -- Every observation of speed of light show it to be c regardless
of the relative linear motion between source and observer. Every
observation.

[jay moseley]

Sam Wormley wrote...

On 1/16/16 8:25 AM, jay moseley wrote: > Have you any evidence that shows that the speed doesnt increase when > the source moves towards the observor?
yup -- Every observation of speed of light show it to be c regardless of the relative linear motion between source and observer. Every observation.

Total nonsense.
You cannot and you have not supplied a single example of an experiment that
proves that light is always at c, regardless of any relative motion between
source and observor. Despite repeated requests to supply such an experiment.
Your last attempt to cite Ives Stillwell was a failure on your part, and Neds, and
Albert . As I-S observations are consistent with the classical prediction
that lightspeed is dependent on relative speeds of observor and source.

[Sam Wormley]

Post by jay moseley
Sam Wormley wrote...

Every observation of speed of light show it to be c regardless of the relative linear motion between source and observer. Every observation.

.
Total nonsense.
You cannot and you have not supplied a single example of an experiment that
proves that light is always at c, regardless of any relative motion between
source and observor.

All you have to do, Jay, is SHOW ONE observation of the speed of
light that is NOT c for an inertial observer. Good luck.

[Sam Wormley]

Post by Sam Wormley

Post by jay moseley
Sam Wormley wrote...

Every observation of speed of light show it to be c regardless of the
relative linear motion between source and observer. Every observation.

.
Total nonsense.
You cannot and you have not supplied a single example of an experiment that
proves that light is always at c, regardless of any relative motion between
source and observor.

All you have to do, Jay, is SHOW ONE observation of the speed of
light that is NOT c for an inertial observer. Good luck.

[benj]

Post by Sam Wormley

Post by jay moseley
Sam Wormley wrote...

Every observation of speed of light show it to be c regardless of the
relative linear motion between source and observer. Every observation.

.
Total nonsense.
You cannot and you have not supplied a single example of an experiment that
proves that light is always at c, regardless of any relative motion between
source and observor.

All you have to do, Jay, is SHOW ONE observation of the speed of
light that is NOT c for an inertial observer. Good luck.

Sammy, MMX showed that there was no aether drift. Hence it's clear that
aether is dragged along with every object. Therefore when you try to
measure the speed of light it's always c because you are always
measuring the speed with respect to a medium at rest with respect to you
(aether) and that value is always c.

Hence to show what you ask, one must find a way to plow through the
aether. So far nobody has.
--
___ ___ ___ ___
/\ \ /\ \ /\__\ /\ \
/::\ \ /::\ \ /::| | \:\ \
/:/\:\ \ /:/\:\ \ /:|:| | ___ /::\__\
/::\~\:\__\ /::\~\:\ \ /:/|:| |__ /\ /:/\/__/
/:/\:\ \:|__| /:/\:\ \:\__\ /:/ |:| /\__\ \:\/:/ /
\:\~\:\/:/ / \:\~\:\ \/__/ \/__|:|/:/ / \::/ /
\:\ \::/ / \:\ \:\__\ |:/:/ / \/__/
\:\/:/ / \:\ \/__/ |::/ /
\::/__/ \:\__\ /:/ /
~~ \/__/ \/__/

[jay moseley]

Sam wrote...

On 1/16/16 11:24 AM, jay moseley wrote: > Sam Wormley wrote... >> Every observation of speed of light show it to be c regardless of the relative linear motion between source and observer. Every observation. >.

Total nonsense. > You cannot and you have not supplied a single example of an experiment that > proves that light is always at c, regardless of any relative motion between > source and observor.

All you have to do, Jay, is SHOW ONE observation of the speed of light that is NOT c for an inertial observer. Good luck.

Odd sort of argument. You are unable to show one observation where
c is the same for different observors in different frames. Why is it OK
for relativity to have no experimental verification but other models have to?
Sounds like a religion to me.
Anyways I do have experimental proof where light isnt at c.
Its called the Fizeau experiment. And in Ives Stillwell. Notice
in I-S, the center is offset. Proof of the classical prediction that
the forward moving source will shifted by a different amount
then the rearward source.

[Sam Wormley]

Why is it OK for relativity to have no experimental verification

Physics FAQ: What is the experimental basis of Special Relativity?

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html

Physics FAQ | Tests of Einstein's two Postulates

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html#Tests_of_Einsteins_two_postulates

The validity of science requires ideas to be testable, falsifiable.
All you have to do, Jay, is SHOW ONE observation of the speed of
light that is NOT c for an inertial observer. Good luck.

[jay moseley]

Sam wrote...

On 1/16/16 1:28 PM, jay moseley wrote: > Why is it OK for relativity to have no experimental verification

Physics FAQ: What is the experimental basis of Special Relativity? > http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/ physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html

Physics FAQ | Tests of Einstein's two Postulates > http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/ physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html#Tests_of_Einsteins_two_postulates >

Baez site is a joke. Flat earth creationist nonsense. None of his "tests
of relativity" actually test for relativity.

The validity of science requires ideas to be testable, falsifiable.

Then it looks like like SR isnt testable and is falsifiable ( fizeau, Ives Stillwell).
Classical theory on the other hand is testable ( I-S , Fizeau) and cannot be
falsified by any experiment to date.

[Sam Wormley]

Post by jay moseley
Sam wrote...

On 1/16/16 1:28 PM, jay moseley wrote: > Why is it OK for relativity to have no experimental verification

Physics FAQ: What is the experimental basis of Special Relativity? > http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/ physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html

Physics FAQ | Tests of Einstein's two Postulates > http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/ physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html#Tests_of_Einsteins_two_postulates >

Baez site is a joke. Flat earth creationist nonsense. None of his "tests
of relativity" actually test for relativity.

The validity of science requires ideas to be testable, falsifiable.

Then it looks like like SR isnt testable and is falsifiable ( fizeau, Ives Stillwell).
Classical theory on the other hand is testable ( I-S , Fizeau) and cannot be
falsified by any experiment to date.

It's interesting that you find the Physics FAQs to be a joke,
especially with references to the original research.

The bottom line is that there has NEVER been an observation that
contradicts a prediction of special or general relativity. NOT one.
They remain fruitful tools of physics.


Tests of general relativity
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tests_of_general_relativity

Tests of special relativity
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tests_of_special_relativity
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_dilation_of_moving_particles

[jay moseley]

Sam wrote...

It's interesting that you find the Physics FAQs to be a joke, especially with references to the original research.
The bottom line is that there has NEVER been an observation that contradicts a prediction of special or general relativity. NOT one. They remain fruitful tools >of physics.

Thats what they said about the flat earth model too. And look where it got them.

Tests of general relativity https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tests_of_general_relativity
tests of special relativity https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tests_of_special_relativity https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_dilation_of_moving_particles

None of the experiments in those urls test for or definitively prove invariance.
Proof of this is your inabilty to name a single example.

[benj]

Post by Sam Wormley

Why is it OK for relativity to have no experimental verification

Physics FAQ: What is the experimental basis of Special Relativity?

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html

Physics FAQ | Tests of Einstein's two Postulates

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html#Tests_of_Einsteins_two_postulates

The validity of science requires ideas to be testable, falsifiable.
All you have to do, Jay, is SHOW ONE observation of the speed of
light that is NOT c for an inertial observer. Good luck.

Clearly the red shift shows that the light crests are further apart due
to the velocity of the observer. Now what do you say?
--
___ ___ ___ ___
/\ \ /\ \ /\__\ /\ \
/::\ \ /::\ \ /::| | \:\ \
/:/\:\ \ /:/\:\ \ /:|:| | ___ /::\__\
/::\~\:\__\ /::\~\:\ \ /:/|:| |__ /\ /:/\/__/
/:/\:\ \:|__| /:/\:\ \:\__\ /:/ |:| /\__\ \:\/:/ /
\:\~\:\/:/ / \:\~\:\ \/__/ \/__|:|/:/ / \::/ /
\:\ \::/ / \:\ \:\__\ |:/:/ / \/__/
\:\/:/ / \:\ \/__/ |::/ /
\_:/__/ \:\__\ /:/ /
\/__/ \/__/

[Sam Wormley]

Post by jay moseley
You cannot and you have not supplied a single example of an experiment that
proves that light is always at c, regardless of any relative motion between
source and observor.

All you have to do, Jay, is SHOW ONE observation of the speed of
light that is NOT c for an inertial observer. Good luck.


Why is the speed of light the fastest speed? Why is light so special?

Post by jay moseley
http://www.askamathematician.com/2010/08/q-why-is-the-speed-of-light-the-fastest-speed-why-is-light-so-special/
Physicist: The best way to think about it is; there is a speed (C)
that is the fastest speed and, by the way, light goes that fast.
There’s nothing special about light, it’s just a useful way of
describing C (“the speed of light”). Photons are just another podunk
massless particle, whipping around the universe as fast as fast can
be.
Historically, the derivation of the strange properties of C
(relativity) relies on a pretty straight forward piece of Einsteinian
logic, based in part on an understanding of light.
1) All the laws of physics work the same, whether you’re moving or
not. There is no experiment that can tell you whether or not you’re
moving.
2) Light is an electromagnetic wave, and the velocity of these waves
can be derived from Maxwell’s laws.
3) Maxwell’s laws, like all physical laws, are independent of how
fast you’re moving. So the speed of light must also be independent of
how fast you’re moving.
4) So, there exists a speed (the speed that light travels at) that is
the same to everyone, no matter how fast they themselves are moving.
Holy crap! There’s your special relativity!

[jay moseley]

Sam wrote about..

maxwells laws.

Obviously maxwell got it wrong if one infers from them that light
speed is constant for all observors.
He also got it wrong about light being an electric and magnetic field.
Thats total unobserved nonsense.
And he got it wrong vis a vis observed redshift. I dont
think his equations are consistent with the observation that
the frequency of light decays proportional to distance.
His model has light as a rigid wave travelling through space.
Disproved by observation.

[Sam Wormley]

Post by jay moseley
Obviously maxwell got it wrong

Obviously Maxwell got it right.

Post by jay moseley
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maxwell%27s_equations
Maxwell's equations are a set of partial differential equations that,
together with the Lorentz force law, form the foundation of classical
electrodynamics, classical optics, and electric circuits. These
fields in turn underlie modern electrical and communications
technologies. Maxwell's equations describe how electric and magnetic
fields are generated and altered by each other and by charges and
currents. They are named after the physicist and mathematician James
Clerk Maxwell, who published an early form of those equations between
1861 and 1862.

[jay moseley]

Sam wrote..

Obviously Maxwell got it right. > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maxwell%27s_equations

If Maxwell got it right then why do none of the "tests of relativity" confirm
the assumption derived from his equations, that light is c for all frames?
And why dont his equations predict the observed decay of frequency
of light over distance
Didnt you just say that any good theory has to be testable?
Maxwells' failed that test.

Maxwell's equations are a set of partial differential equations that, > together with the Lorentz force law, form the foundation of classical > electrodynamics, classical optics, and electric circuits. These > fields in turn underlie modern electrical and communications > technologies. Maxwell's equations describe how electric and magnetic > fields are generated and altered by each other and by charges and > currents. They are named after the physicist and mathematician >james > Clerk Maxwell, who published an early form of those equations between > 1861 and 1862.

[Sam Wormley]

Post by jay moseley
If Maxwell got it right then why do none of the "tests of relativity" confirm
the assumption derived from his equations

Maxwell's equation don't make predictions that relativity does.

Relativity didn't replace Maxwell's equations.

Post by jay moseley
http://cse.secs.oakland.edu/haskell/Special%20Relativity%20and%20Maxwells%20Equations.pdf

[jay moseley]

Heres a few tests that Maxwell and/ or Relativity failed..

Cosmological redshift, galactic rotation curves, explanation
of most of the mass of the universe, gammaraybursts, fast radio bursts,
quasar lightcurves, ...

I suppose in your world Sam, failure is a sign if great success.

[Sam Wormley]

Post by jay moseley
Heres a few tests that Maxwell and/ or Relativity failed..
Cosmological redshift...

GR does indeed predict cosmological redshift, Jay. What I don't
understand is why you disparage well tested and used tools of
physics.

Certainly you are untutored in physics, but why claim physics wrong
you don't care to learn about... in a physics newsgroup no less.
Why?

[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:

Loading Image... (stationary source)

Loading Image... (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)

Loading Image... (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

[Sam Wormley]

Post by 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.

It matters not which is considered moving or stationary. It is the
relative velocity between source and observer that determines the
change in frequency/wavelength or the ∆x or ∆t between pulses.

Moreover, all the electromagnetic pulses propagate at the speed of
light for all inertial observers.

Post by Pentcho Valev
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doppler_effect
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relativistic_Doppler_effect

[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

[Carmine Portacio]

Post by 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.

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.

[Sam Wormley]

No Pentcho --

Why is the speed of light the fastest speed? Why is light so special?

http://www.askamathematician.com/2010/08/q-why-is-the-speed-of-light-the-fastest-speed-why-is-light-so-special/
Physicist: The best way to think about it is; there is a speed (C)
that is the fastest speed and, by the way, light goes that fast.
There’s nothing special about light, it’s just a useful way of
describing C (“the speed of light”). Photons are just another podunk
massless particle, whipping around the universe as fast as fast can
be.
Historically, the derivation of the strange properties of C
(relativity) relies on a pretty straight forward piece of Einsteinian
logic, based in part on an understanding of light.
1) All the laws of physics work the same, whether you’re moving or
not. There is no experiment that can tell you whether or not you’re
moving.
2) Light is an electromagnetic wave, and the velocity of these waves
can be derived from Maxwell’s laws.
3) Maxwell’s laws, like all physical laws, are independent of how
fast you’re moving. So the speed of light must also be independent of
how fast you’re moving.
4) So, there exists a speed (the speed that light travels at) that is
the same to everyone, no matter how fast they themselves are moving.
Holy crap! There’s your special relativity!

[Carmine Portacio]

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.

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.