Prev: Is the Doppler Effect contradictory to Special Relativity and confined only to sound waves? Chapt 8 #124; ATOM TOTALITY
Next: What has Selena Gomez and Materials Science Engineering got in common?
From: Archimedes Plutonium on 2 Jun 2010 14:39


Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
(snipped)
>
> --- quoting Wikipedia on Doppler ---
>
> Christian Johann Doppler (29 November 1803 – 17 March 1853) was an
> Austrian mathematician and physicist. He is most famous for what is
> now called the Doppler effect, which is the apparent change in
> frequency and wavelength of a wave as perceived by an observer moving
> relative to the wave's source.
> --- end quoting ---
>
> Let me warn the reader, that I am not certain that the Doppler Effect
> for light-waves
> contradicts Special Relativity. I am exploring that question. In order
> to explore something
> fully, one has to "believe it is the case" until one can not defend
> the position any
> longer. So I have to pretend to believe that the Doppler Effect on
> light-waves is
> bogus because it contradicts Special Relativity.
>

To be a good scientist, you have to do this type of arguing once in
awhile,
where you defend a position that you normally would not defend. It is
what
scientists call, being objective. And in my 17 years of posting on
the
sci newsgroups, I have rarely found anyone objective enough for me.
One
of the huge faults that I find in most scientists of my generation, is
that
they are far too subjective to my taste of being a good scientist.

So here I am being objective, for I am carrying the weight of the
proposition
that the Doppler Effect is a fake physics when applied to lightwaves.

Not all of the Doppler Effect is fake. The Doppler Effect is true for
sound waves, but false for lightwaves. That is what I am exploring,
and to explore it fully I have to defend it until I cannot defend it
any
more, or else, I have proven it to be true.


> Now the Doppler effect was discovered in 1842, more than 50 years
> before Special
> Relativity, so one can quickly understand that a culture of bogus
> understanding
> would have accrued. If the Doppler Effect had been discovered around
> the time of
> the Mossbauer Effect 1957 (sic), then possibly, many would have raised
> the question
> of whether the Doppler Effect contradicts or is in violation of the
> Special Relativity.
>
> Questions and red-flags would have gone up on the Doppler Effect for
> Special
> Relativity, especially with the example given of where someone is
> riding in a
> rocket and observing an oncoming lightwave and thinking that the speed
> of the
> rocket added to the speed of light is the resultant vector speed. But
> no matter
> how fast the rocket is going, even if it was going 1/2c that the
> resultant vector
> speed is still c. So that is Special Relativity, and would that not
> also say that
> the Doppler Effect is bogus and contradictory to Special Relativity?
>

Okay, here is the nitty gritty, and pile on some other slang. I try to
stay away from slang words such as "okay" or "nitty gritty". But in
this
exploration, I feel it comes down to this punch boxing corner (more
slang).

If Special Relativity tells us that the speed vector of the rocket at
1/2c with oncoming lightwave at c is still a resultant speed of c,
yet that Doppler would have a 3/2 blueshift of the same situation.
Special Relativity would not allow for a resultant speed vector of
3/2c,
but that Doppler would say that the blueshift be 3/2.

Now can Doppler effect be the Lorentz contraction as the blueshift? I
would
retort that such cannot be the case since the opposite direction of
the
rocket and lightwave yields a redshift and in Special Relativity,
there is
only length contraction, not expansion.

So, if the Doppler Effect were true for lightwaves, would it not imply
there is an absolute frame of reference? What the astronomers of Juric
and
Jarrett are mapping of the galaxies as an absolute frame of reference
with
their sole dependence on the Doppler redshift of galaxies?
By gosh and by golly (more slang),
it appears as though the Doppler Effect does contradict Special
Relativity.

Archimedes Plutonium
http://www.iw.net/~a_plutonium/
whole entire Universe is just one big atom
where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies
 | 
Pages: 1
Prev: Is the Doppler Effect contradictory to Special Relativity and confined only to sound waves? Chapt 8 #124; ATOM TOTALITY
Next: What has Selena Gomez and Materials Science Engineering got in common?