Doesn't the interpretation of red/blue spectrum shift violate contancy of speed of light?
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: Fresnel drag and Demjanov's formula
Next: Classical field electrodynamics showed incomplete, a revolution in classical physics
From: Androcles on 26 Feb 2010 14:05 "dlzc" <dlzc1(a)cox.net> wrote in message news:a6aa327a-27e1-4f52-a3c4-bc332b968799(a)k5g2000pra.googlegroups.com... Dear Dougie Excel: On Feb 26, 9:37 am, Dougie Excel <DouglasWilliamSm...(a)Yahoo.Com> wrote: > I need an explanation: > > It's well known that the fact that most > objects in the universe have a spectral > signature that is shifted to the 'blue' .... no 'red' ... > end of the spectrum is interpreted as > proof most objects are moving away from > us. And not so much proper motion, as a combined effect of "kinetic motion", expanding space, and different positions in gravity wells. > Usually this is analogized to the doppler > effect with regard to sound waves, where > the wavelengths of sound from a source > moving towards you are shorter than when > the source is moving away from you. Yes. If you were moving with the light in some magical way, there would be *no* frequency and infinite wavelength... not that this becomes at all helpful. > However, isn't the sound coming at you > from a source that is moving towards you > compressed into a shorter wavelength > because it is actually moving towards > you at a higher rate of speed (ie it's > moving towards you at the speed of sound > + the speed of the source)? This ignores the medium that brakes the "sound" to the local speed of the medium, not that this applies to light. > If this is the case, .... it isn't ... > I don't see how it could function with > regard to light - the rare 'red shift' > of a object moving towards .... away from ... > the earth would then be explained by light > being compressed .... rarefied ... > into a shorter .... longer ... > wavelength because it is moving at the > speed of light + .... - ... > the speed of the source; however, due to > relativity the light approaches us at the > same speed no matter of the relative speed > of the source, Relativity does not require this. Relativity relies on Maxwell's equations, that give a constant speed of light as a result. The second postulate is "redundant". > so wouldn't any red shift in fact reflect > not the object's movement relative to us > but rather than actual elemental make-up > of the object? No. What we measure in a signal has components: 1) of the emitting process, 2) at the speed the source was moving, 3) in the gravity well it was emitted in, 4) in the epoch of its emittance (size of Universe), 5) in the epoch of its detection, 6) in the gravity well it was detected, 7) in the speed of the detector 8) in the detection process #5-8 we can self-correlate, and we can use similarity to account for #1, and #3. We do a "drunkard's walk" to estimate #4, which leaves some handle for #2. We can ever only measure light speed to be c. We've tried lots of different ways: http://www.physics.adelaide.edu.au/~dkoks/Faq/Relativity/SR/experiments.html#Tests_of_Einsteins_two_postulates So, given that Maxwell was apparently right... what will you do to wrap your head around this? David A. Smith ===================================================== We can measure light speed to be c+v. We've tried lots of different ways: http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Algol/Algol.htm http://androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Orbit/Orbit.htm http://androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/PoR/PoR.htm http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Sagnac/Sagnac.htm So, given that you are a stupid ignorant bigot, Smiffy...what will you do to wrap your dumb head around this?
From: dlzc on 26 Feb 2010 15:22 Hello Androcles: On Feb 26, 12:05 pm, "Androcles" <Headmas...(a)Hogwarts.physics_u> wrote: .... > We can measure light speed to be c+v. > We've tried lots of different ways: > > http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Algol/Algol.htm > http://androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Orbit/Orbit.htm > http://androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/PoR/PoR.htm > http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Sagnac/Sagnac.htm I can't remember your excuse for why we cannot see high-z objects apparently through the Moon, even when the eclipsing edge is dark. At c+v, they should be visible for some seconds, but aren't. How did that go again, Androcles? Something about Maxwell's equations being wrong, or not in agreement with experiment in their domain of applicability... David A. Smith
From: Androcles on 26 Feb 2010 15:43 "dlzc" <dlzc1(a)cox.net> wrote in message news:3402d6fc-dbf7-4672-b50e-6a3359d5041d(a)f17g2000prh.googlegroups.com... Hello Androcles: On Feb 26, 12:05 pm, "Androcles" <Headmas...(a)Hogwarts.physics_u> wrote: .... > We can measure light speed to be c+v. > We've tried lots of different ways: > > http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Algol/Algol.htm > http://androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Orbit/Orbit.htm > http://androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/PoR/PoR.htm > http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Sagnac/Sagnac.htm I can't remember your excuse for why we cannot see high-z objects apparently through the Moon, even when the eclipsing edge is dark. At c+v, they should be visible for some seconds, but aren't. ================================================ At least attempt to prove it mathematically, you stupid liar. ================================================ How did that go again, Androcles? Something about Maxwell's equations being wrong, or not in agreement with experiment in their domain of applicability... David A. Smith =============================================== Maxwell was aetherialist, dumbfuck. He was dead 7 years before Michelson published MMX. Hiding behind the diffraction edge of a lunar crater isn't a good argument for proving a fractional loss in light speed, Smiffy, but believe whatever your senile bigotry demands, you are no scientist.
From: dlzc on 26 Feb 2010 16:56 Hello Androcles: On Feb 26, 1:43 pm, "Androcles" <Headmas...(a)Hogwarts.physics_u> wrote: > "dlzc" <dl...(a)cox.net> wrote in message > > news:3402d6fc-dbf7-4672-b50e-6a3359d5041d(a)f17g2000prh.googlegroups.com... > On Feb 26, 12:05 pm, "Androcles" <Headmas...(a)Hogwarts.physics_u> > wrote: > ... > >> > We can measure light speed to be c+v. >> > We've tried lots of different ways: > > http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Algol/Algol.htm > http://androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Orbit/Orbit.htm > http://androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/PoR/PoR.htm > http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Sagnac/Sagnac.htm > > I can't remember your excuse for why we cannot > see high-z objects apparently through the Moon, > even when the eclipsing edge is dark. At c+v, > they should be visible for some seconds, but > aren't. > > ================================================ > At least attempt to prove it mathematically, > you stupid liar. Do your work for you? Hardly. You wish to disprove Maxwell and current physics. Its not my claim to disprove. I know OWLS cannot be measured. > ================================================ > > How did that go again, Androcles? Something > about Maxwell's equations being wrong, or not > in agreement with experiment in their domain of > applicability... > =============================================== > Maxwell was aetherialist, dumbfuck. He was > dead 7 years before Michelson published MMX. > Hiding behind the diffraction edge of a > lunar crater isn't a good argument for proving > a fractional loss in light speed, Smiffy, but > believe whatever your senile bigotry demands, > you are no scientist. Let's see... hmmm so the fact that the CMBR is blocked by objects, including the Moon, and it is redshifted by more than 1000... http://blogs.nature.com/news/blog/2010/01/ .... down to "Antarctica 2010: Hunting for galaxy clusters" 1000 * 1.3 seconds * 1.02 km/sec. Looks like we'd see the CMBR in addition to the "CMBR shadow" with a very large offset. Note that the CMBR is black body and the Moon is not, so the signal is detectable. So lame insults, and a requirement for others to do your work for you was your response before. Yes, that is what I rememebered... David A. Smith
From: harald on 26 Feb 2010 18:11
On Feb 26, 5:37 pm, Dougie Excel <DouglasWilliamSm...(a)Yahoo.Com> wrote: > I need an explanation: > > It's well known that the fact that most objects in the universe have a > spectral signature that is shifted to the 'blue' end of the spectrum To the red... > is interpreted as proof most objects are moving away from us. That's one of the interpretations... > Usually > this is analogized to the doppler effect with regard to sound waves, > where the wavelengths of sound from a source moving towards you are > shorter than when the source is moving away from you. Yes. Light is modeled as a wave in relativity theory. > However, isn't the sound coming at you from a source that is moving > towards you compressed into a shorter wavelength because it is > actually moving towards you at a higher rate of speed (ie it's moving > towards you at the speed of sound + the speed of the source)? NO. The frequency change happens directly at the source. The sound travels towards you at the speed of sound relative to the air. If there is no wind so that you are at rest relative to the air, the sound travels towards you also at the speed of sound. Harald > If this is the case, I don't see how it could function with regard to > light - the rare 'red shift' of a object moving towards the earth > would then be explained by light being compressed into a shorter > wavelength because it is moving at the speed of light + the speed of > the source; however, due to relativity the light approaches us at the > same speed no matter of the relative speed of the source, so wouldn't > any red shift in fact reflect not the object's movement relative to us > but rather than actual elemental make-up of the object? > > = Doug |