Prev: A new theory suggests atmospheric answer to the continuing paradox of why early Earth wasn�t icy
Next: 9-11 Truth makes HUGE showing at Los Angeles Peace March as Iarndud Kook for War screeches in helpless rage
From: Archimedes Plutonium on 5 Jun 2010 14:35
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
contradictory?
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
Doppler radar misnomer.


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
radio turned on
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
radar waves were
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
gadgets.

--- 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 Plutonium
http://www.iw.net/~a_plutonium/
whole entire Universe is just one big atom
where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies
From: NoEinstein on 23 Jun 2010 09:41
On Jun 5, 2:35 pm, Archimedes Plutonium
<plutonium.archime...(a)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
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_frm/thread/8152ef3e...
Last Nails in Einstein's Coffin
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/browse_frm/thre...
Pop Quiz for Science Buffs!
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_frm/thread/43f6f316...
An Einstein Disproof for Dummies
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/f7a63...
Another look at Einstein
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_frm/thread/41670721...
Three Problems for Math and Science
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/bb07f30aab43c49c?hl=en
Matter from Thin Air
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/ee4fe3946dfc0c31/1f1872476bc6ca90?hl=en#1f1872476bc6ca90
Curing Einstein’s Disease
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/4ff9e866e0d87562/f5f848ad8aba67da?hl=en#f5f848ad8aba67da
Replicating NoEinstein’s Invalidation of M-M (at sci.math)
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.math/browse_thread/thread/d9f9852639d5d9e1/dcb2a1511b7b2603?hl=en&lnk=st&q=#dcb2a1511b7b2603
Cleaning Away Einstein’s Mishmash
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/5d847a9cb50de7f0/739aef0aee462d26?hl=en&lnk=st&q=#739aef0aee462d26
Dropping Einstein Like a Stone
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/989e16c59967db2b?hl=en#
Plotting the Curves of Coriolis, Einstein, and NoEinstein (is
Copyrighted.)
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/713f8a62f17f8274?hl=en#
Are Jews Destroying Objectivity in Science?
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/d4cbe8182fae7008/b93ba4268d0f33e0?hl=en&lnk=st&q=#b93ba4268d0f33e0
The Gravity of Masses Doesn’t Bend Light.
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/efb99ab95e498420/cd29d832240f404d?hl=en#cd29d832240f404d
KE = 1/2mv^2 is disproved in new falling object impact test.
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/51a85ff75de414c2?hl=en&q=
Light rays don’t travel on ballistic curves.
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/c3d7a4e9937ab73e/c7d941d2b2e80002?hl=en#c7d941d2b2e80002
A BLACK HOLE MYTH GETS BUSTED:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/a170212ca4c36218?hl=en#
SR Ignored the Significance of the = Sign
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/562477d4848ea45a/92bccf5550412817?hl=en#92bccf5550412817
Eleaticus confirms that SR has been destroyed!
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.math/browse_thread/thread/c3cdedf38e749bfd/0451e93207ee475a?hl=en#0451e93207ee475a
NoEinstein Finds Yet Another Reason Why SR Bites-the-Dust!
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/a3a12d4d732435f2/737ef57bf0ed3849?hl=en#737ef57bf0ed3849
NoEinstein Gives the History & Rationale for Disproving Einstein
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/81046d3d070cffe4/f1d7fbe994f569f7?hl=en#f1d7fbe994f569f7
There is no "pull" of gravity, only the PUSH of flowing ether!
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/a8c26d2eb535ab8/efdbea7b0272072f?hl=en&
PD has questions about science. Can any of you help?
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/4a2edad1c5c0a4c1/2d0e50d773ced1ad?hl=en&
Taking a Fresh Look at the Physics of Radiometers.
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/3ebe85495d1929b0/ba1163422440ffd9?hl=en#ba1163422440ffd9
A Proposed Gravity-Propelled Swing Experiment.
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/3052e7f7b228a800/aef3ee7dc59b6e2f?hl=en&q=gravity+swing
Shedding New Light on Comet Tails
http://groups.google.com/g/d8e7fef4/t/fbb6a213b8c465b3/.../187797453b40de4f?...

>
> 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
> contradictory?
> 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
> Doppler radar misnomer.
>
> 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
> radio turned on
> 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
> radar waves were
> 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
> gadgets.
>
> --- 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 -

 | 
Pages: 1
Prev: A new theory suggests atmospheric answer to the continuing paradox of why early Earth wasn�t icy
Next: 9-11 Truth makes HUGE showing at Los Angeles Peace March as Iarndud Kook for War screeches in helpless rage