Search All of the Math Forum:

Views expressed in these public forums are not endorsed by Drexel University or The Math Forum.

Topic: ever since 1842, the Doppler shift was assumed to exist for
lightwaves and never experimentally verified Chapt 8 #138; ATOM TOTALITY

Replies: 122   Last Post: Jul 10, 2010 2:38 PM

 Messages: [ Previous | Next ]
 NoEinstein Posts: 1,743 Registered: 1/26/08
Re: ever since 1842, the Doppler shift was assumed to exist for
lightwaves and never experimentally verified Chapt 8 #138; ATOM TOTALITY

Posted: Jun 23, 2010 9:41 AM

On Jun 5, 2:35 pm, Archimedes Plutonium
<plutonium.archime...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
Dear Archimedes Plutonium: First of all, light is composed of photons
(quanta), NOT waves. No medium is required for light to travel.
Light will also travel perfectly well through the ether, which is
concentrated near massive objects such as planets, stars and
galaxies. Second, All light is EMITTED at velocity 'c'. But the
actual velocity is V = 'c' + or - v. The small v represents the
velocity of the light source in the direction in question. Third,
most light is Doppler shifted all the time. But light from very far
away which has traveled through the ether, will have the Blue Shifted
light slowed down till it reaches velocity 'c'. Red shifted light is
speeded up 'approaching' velocity 'c', but is unlikely to reach such
velocity because the ether is less efficient in speeding up the slower
photons, or because the ether has more time (less ether churning) that
allows the slower photons to pass through with less interaction with
the ether. The smallest energy units of the ether, which I name
IOTAs, have a tangential velocity of 'c'. Fourth, For all practical
purposes, A. A. Michelson's Mt. Wilson, 22 mile long, out-and-back
light velocity determination is the definitive work in air, which
should not be questioned. All out-and-back light speed measurements
AVERAGE the red and the blue Doppler shifts to effectively take the
velocity of the source (the Earth) out of the equation. Michelson
didn't always understand WHY his experiments (such as M-M) did or did
not work, but he built things exceedingly well! ? NoEinstein ?

Where Angels Fear to Fall
Last Nails in Einstein's Coffin
Pop Quiz for Science Buffs!
An Einstein Disproof for Dummies
Another look at Einstein
Three Problems for Math and Science
Matter from Thin Air
Curing Einstein?s Disease
Replicating NoEinstein?s Invalidation of M-M (at sci.math)
Cleaning Away Einstein?s Mishmash
Dropping Einstein Like a Stone
Plotting the Curves of Coriolis, Einstein, and NoEinstein (is
Are Jews Destroying Objectivity in Science?
The Gravity of Masses Doesn?t Bend Light.
KE = 1/2mv^2 is disproved in new falling object impact test.
Light rays don?t travel on ballistic curves.
A BLACK HOLE MYTH GETS BUSTED:
SR Ignored the Significance of the = Sign
Eleaticus confirms that SR has been destroyed!
NoEinstein Finds Yet Another Reason Why SR Bites-the-Dust!
NoEinstein Gives the History & Rationale for Disproving Einstein
There is no "pull" of gravity, only the PUSH of flowing ether!
PD has questions about science. Can any of you help?
Taking a Fresh Look at the Physics of Radiometers.
A Proposed Gravity-Propelled Swing Experiment.
Shedding New Light on Comet Tails

>
> A reader has asked me to not go over 200 posts in a thread as that it
> is too difficult to retrieve the thread.
> So I will oblige.
>
> Also I had some typo errors of my previous post.
>
> --- repeating my post of last night to David and with a few typo
> errors such as the ommission of the word
> Doppler in some places ---
> Jun 5, 3:56 am
>
> - Hide quoted text -
>
>
>
>
>
> David Bernier wrote:

> > Imagine the police radar is at rest and emits sine waves with
> > crests one meter apart (a signal at about 300 Mega-Hertz).
> > Suppose a mirror is moving away at 10% of the speed of light from
> > the radar, in a radial (in-line with the signal) direction.
> > When a crest advances 1 meter, the mirror recedes by 0.1 meter.
> > The question is then what is the crest-to-crest separation
> > after reflection off the mirror?
> > This might involve special relativity, I'm not completely sure.
> > But think about planets orbiting about far away stars. It's often
> > said that as the earth-planet radial velocity varies as
> > the planet moves in its orbit, periodic variations in
> > spectral lines (wavelengths or frequencies) are measured,
> > interpreted as Doppler effects.  Don't you think
> > this is well established?
> > David Bernier

>
> All physical systems involve SR, since SR is nothing more than saying
> that
> the Maxwell Equations are invariant as per whether a magnet is moving
> or a
> wire loop is moving while the other is stationary.
>
> Let me answer you by asking you some questions. Doppler Effect
> discovered in
> 1842; Michelson Morley Experiment 1887; Special Relativity of
> Lorentz-
> Poincare
> 1900; Hubble Law of redshift of galaxies 1929.
>
> Questions, David:
> (1) Would there be any reason for any scientist to question whether
> lightwaves
> obeyed a Doppler shift? The actual history shows that noone bothered
> to
> question whether lightwaves must or must not have a Doppler Effect.
>
> Answer to (1) When the Michelson interferometer experiment arose,
> there should
> have been at least one physicist or mathematician to raise the
> question of whether
> we can assume the doppler effect exists for lightwaves. Because the
> Interferometer
> actually measures wavelengths. So beyond 1887, some people, a few
> should have
> no longer assumed or presumed that lightwaves obey a Doppler Effect
> and begin
> to experiment or look for Doppler effect on lightwaves. To my
> knowledge, noone
> did any such. Noone even raised the question, and all were asleep
> under the assumption.
>
> (2) Should anyone have questioned whether a Doppler Effect existed on
> lightwaves
> after Special Relativity was formulated by Lorentz, Poincare and
> later
> by Einstein?
> Answer (2) as David even mentions that SR comes into question with
> the
> Doppler
> Effect. But here again, apparently not a single person in physics nor
> mathematics
> raised the fundamental questions of whether SR can support a Doppler
> Effect
> on lightwaves?
>
> (3) So here comes 1929 with the Hubble Law and we can appreciate how
> totally
> immersed into the belief or misbelief of a Doppler Shift prevalent
> and
> pervasive.
> So the question is by 1929 and after, what chances were there that
> anyone in
> physics or mathematics was sober enough to ask the fundamental
> question:
> is Doppler (sic) lightwaves and Special Relativity compatible or
> Answer: By the time of the Hubble Law, only a lone wolf could ask for
> a objective
> research into whether Doppler Effect on lightwaves contradicted
> Special Relativity.
>
> Do you see the historical pattern, David? That a Doppler effect was
> so
> presumed,
> that noone from 1842 to 2010, had the objective commonsense to
> question
> the assumption of whether lightwaves can have a Doppler shift.
>
> Now, possibly a mathematician from 1842 to 2010 is more likely to
> call
> attention
> to the question of whether Doppler is compatible with SR. Since a
> mathematician
> often works with consistency and with contradictions. A physicist is
> unlikely to
> have suspected anything wrong. And a mathematician is more likely to
> spot where
> a scientist is "making an assumption" that needs valid evidence. From
> Christian
> Doppler in 1842, who was a mathematician, noone really stepped up and
> said
> "let us no longer assume lightwaves can be Doppler shifted, but let
> us
> show
> evidence that such is or is not the case." Noone did this. They were
> crushed
> under the avalanche of Hubble's law and then under the mountain of
> the
>
> Noteworthy, David, there has never been a eye witness case example to
> anything
> involving light and a Doppler shift. Unlike sound from a train to
> prove Doppler shift
> on Soundwaves, noone has seen a Doppler shift on lightwaves. And
> there
> is one
> case in particular that a Doppler Shift should occur but has not. And
> that case is
> the radio on the Space Station with the astronauts. Their radio is
> not
> Doppler shifted
> of any radio signal from ground. If their radio has no Doppler shift,
> then no Doppler
> shift on lightwaves exists. If the world has any Doppler shift, the
> in the Space Station listening to radio ground waves should have a
> Doppler shift.
> But they have no shift.
>
> And the Space Station is a similar experiment to the Michelson Morley
> experiment where
> the end result in both cases is a "null result". No Doppler shift in
> either the Space Station
> nor the Michelson interferometer.
>
> Final question David: How could so many be fooled into thinking their
> Doppler shifted? Answer: easily fooled since the speed of the object
> is begot whether
> a Doppler shift exists or does not exist when using the radar
>
> --- end quoting my previous post ---
>
> Basically what I want to direct the attention of the
> Physics and Math community is the attention to the
> fact that a Doppler Shift on lightwaves or EM spectrum
> is nonexistent and is easily proven by the fact that any car radio
> antennae is never Doppler shifted to radio waves, whether the car is
> in motion or not. And the
> Space Station of astronauts moving at large speeds compared to the
> puny car speeds has no Doppler shift
> on ground based radio waves.
>
> So if there is no Doppler shift on radio waves, no matter what the
> speed of source versus object, then
> why in the world would anyone believe Doppler Effect
> occurrs on any EM wave?
>
> Archimedes Plutoniumhttp://www.iw.net/~a_plutonium/
> whole entire Universe is just one big atom
> where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Date Subject Author
6/5/10 plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com
6/6/10 plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com
6/6/10 pete
6/6/10 ostap_bender_1900@hotmail.com
6/6/10 plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com
6/6/10 ostap_bender_1900@hotmail.com
6/6/10 Mike Dworetsky
6/6/10 David Bernier
6/6/10 Mike Dworetsky
6/6/10 plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com
6/7/10 plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com
6/7/10 plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com
6/6/10 plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com
6/7/10 Mike Dworetsky
6/7/10 plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com
6/7/10 Mike Dworetsky
6/8/10 plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com
6/8/10 plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com
6/8/10 plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com
6/8/10 plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com
6/8/10 plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com
6/8/10 Porky Pig Jr
6/9/10 plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com
6/10/10 plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com
6/10/10 Mike Dworetsky
6/10/10 plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com
6/10/10 Mike Dworetsky
6/10/10 plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com
6/11/10 plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com
6/11/10 plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com
6/12/10 plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com
6/13/10 plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com
6/13/10 plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com
6/13/10 plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com
6/13/10 bert
6/14/10 plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com
6/14/10 Porky Pig Jr
6/14/10 plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com
6/14/10 plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com
6/15/10 plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com
6/15/10 plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com
6/6/10 Porky Pig Jr
6/7/10 bjacoby@iwaynet.net
6/7/10 Androcles
6/7/10 ostap_bender_1900@hotmail.com
6/7/10 ostap_bender_1900@hotmail.com
6/7/10 Brian Q. Hutchings
6/15/10 plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com
6/15/10 plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com
6/15/10 plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com
6/15/10 plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com
6/15/10 plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com
6/16/10 plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com
6/16/10 Porky Pig Jr
6/17/10 plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com
6/17/10 bert
6/17/10 plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com
6/18/10 plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com
6/19/10 Owen Jacobson
6/19/10 Androcles
6/19/10 plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com
6/22/10 plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com
6/22/10 plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com
6/22/10 Frederick Williams
6/22/10 Owen Jacobson
6/22/10 Androcles
6/22/10 David R Tribble
6/22/10 Androcles
6/23/10 David R Tribble
6/23/10 Androcles
6/28/10 Mitchell Jones
6/22/10 Uncle Al
6/22/10 David R Tribble
6/23/10 plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com
6/23/10 plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com
6/23/10 plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com
6/23/10 plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com
6/23/10 plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com
6/24/10 plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com
6/24/10 plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com
6/25/10 plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com
6/25/10 plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com
6/25/10 plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com
6/25/10 plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com
6/26/10 plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com
6/26/10 plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com
6/26/10 Cassidy Furlong
6/27/10 plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com
6/27/10 plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com
6/27/10 plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com
6/28/10 plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com
6/28/10 Brian Q. Hutchings
6/29/10 plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com
6/29/10 plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com
6/29/10 plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com
6/29/10 plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com
7/1/10 plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com
7/1/10 plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com
7/1/10 plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com
7/2/10 plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com
7/8/10 plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com
7/8/10 plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com
7/8/10 plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com
7/10/10 plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com
7/10/10 plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com
6/19/10 Owen Jacobson
6/19/10 Androcles
6/19/10 plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com
6/19/10 plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com
6/20/10 plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com
6/20/10 plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com
6/20/10 plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com
6/21/10 plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com
6/21/10 plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com
6/21/10 plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com
6/21/10 plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com
6/21/10 plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com
6/22/10 plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com
6/18/10 plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com
6/18/10 plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com
6/18/10 plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com
6/22/10 plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com
6/23/10 NoEinstein