Naked Science Forum

On the Lighter Side => New Theories => Topic started by: Hal on 23/09/2019 09:22:07

Title: Was the light speed problem really solved by Einstein in 1905 ?
Post by: Hal on 23/09/2019 09:22:07
    Was the light speed problem really solved by Einstein in 1905 ?

I will try to invalidate the theory of relativity by presenting a compelling alternative theory. I hope that criticism of Einstein's theories will not be seen as offense.

I start by arguing that the failure of classical theories of light, ether theory and emission theory, wrongly led to the theory of relativity. One of the fallacious arguments usually presented in favor of relativity is the failure of classical theories and the lack of any competing alternative theory. The argument goes like: if classical theories fail and if no alternative explanation exists, then relativity must be a correct theory. Here I will present a compelling alternative explanation, thereby refuting this argument.   

Next I will directly present some of the profound results of the new theoretical framework. A comprehensive presentation of the new theory, which describes the intricate relations of the different features of the nature of light, can be found in my papers at the Vixra site. Listed below are some of them.

" Absolute/Relative Motion and the Speed of Light, Electromagnetism, Inertia and Universal Speed Limit c - an Alternative Interpretation and Theoretical Framework "

" A New Theoretical Framework of Absolute and Relative Motion, the Speed of Light, Electromagnetism and Gravity "

"  New Interpretation and Analysis of Michelson-Morley Experiment, Sagnac Effect, and Stellar Aberration by Apparent Source Theory "


   Einstein's "chasing a beam of light" thought experiment

Einstein correctly discovered his beautiful "chasing a beam of light" thought experiment, but gave it a wrong interpretation, i.e. the relativity of length and time. The new interpretation of constancy of light speed is as follows:
The phase velocity of light is always constant relative to the observer , irrespective of source or observer velocity, for uniform or accelerated motion. The group velocity of light behaves in a more conventional way: it is independent of source velocity, but varies with observer velocity. Einstein failed to make this distinction and this led to the special theory of relativity. 

The constancy of the phase velocity of light is a direct consequence of the non-existence of the ether. Physicists were led astray when they tried to 'explain' the constancy of the velocity of light, by proposing the relativity of length and relativity of simultaneity. The phenomenon of constancy of the (phase) velocity of light is to be just accepted because it does not have any explanation for the same reason that there is no explanation for light being a wave when there is no medium for its transmission. Physicists naturally sought to 'explain' the constancy of the speed of light because their thinking was always implicitly based on the ether. Einstein did not truly succeed in eliminating the ether, and Einstein himself never realized this. Few, if any, physicists realize this. The ether always haunted the thinking of the physicists.

Imagine a stationary light source emitting a light pulse and an observer moving directly away from the source at (or near ) the speed of light. The new interpretation of Einstein's thought experiment is that the group will be 'frozen' but the phases will still move past the observer at the speed of light c , relative to the observer.
For the phase velocity of light to be constant not only the frequency but also, unconventionally, the wavelength must change for a moving observer.
                           f λ = f ' λ ' = c
The change of wavelength for a moving observer is a unique, unconventional nature of light. This makes light distinct from classical waves, such as sound waves.

This should raise a question: then what is the Doppler effect law governing light that can satisfy the above condition ?  The classical Doppler effect law obviously fails to satisfy this condition.

Exponential Doppler Effect law of light

Searching for a function that can satisfy the above condition, I found a new mysterious formula governing the Doppler effect of light.
   f '  =  f  e V/c    and     λ '  =  λ e -V/c      ,  where e is Euler's constant
Now
        f ' λ ' = f  e V/c   λ e -V/c  =  f λ  =  c
satisfying the constant phase velocity. No conventional formulas containing terms like c Ī V can satisfy this condition.

Profoundly, the above formula not only satisfies the constant phase velocity condition, it can also explain the Ives-Stillwell experiment ! By applying Taylor expansion to the exponential function, we get exactly the same result as predicted by special relativity:   Δλ = Ĺ β2 λ 

The derivation can be found in my paper at Vixra:
"  Exponential Law of Doppler Effect of Light Ė an Explanation of Ives-Stilwell Experiment "

Moreover, the new formula is defined for all values of velocity V: 0 ≤ V ≤ ∞ , whereas the relativistic formula (and classical formulas) become undefined for V  ≥  c . Therefore, the existence of superluminal velocities (as already observed) by itself disproves the relativistic and classical formulas, implying the need for a new law of Doppler effect of light.

The Michelson- Morley experiment

Let us first see a possible explanation for the Michelson-Morley experiment, as a precursor to the ultimate theory called Apparent Source Theory. This is just to demonstrate that explanations exist that do not require us to invoke length contraction and time dilation.

Consider the following analogy. Consider a stationary observer A and a truck moving relative to A. Another observer B is on the truck, throwing balls towards observer A while the truck is moving relative to A. Suppose the truck ( and observer B ) moves towards observer A with velocity Vt . Suppose that the velocity of the truck is not constant. Let there be a requirement that observer B always adjusts the velocity of the balls relative to the truck ( Vbt ) so that the velocity of the ball relative to observer A will always be constant c , irrespective of the velocity of the truck. In this case, observer B should decrease the velocity of the balls relative to the truck in such a way that the velocity of the ball relative to observer A is always constant c. In the case of the truck moving away from the observer A, the velocity of the balls relative to the truck should be increased by the right amount.

                                     ( see figure in the attached pdf )

By observing the balls coming from the truck, an observer deduces that the velocity of the balls relative to the truck is c - V in the forward direction and c + V in the backward direction.

When the truck is moving towards stationary observer A:

velocity of light relative to observer A  =  (c - Vabs) + Vabs  = c

When the truck is moving away from stationary observer A:

velocity of light relative to observer A  =  (c + Vabs) - Vabs  = c


Thus, the velocity of the balls relative to observer A is always constant c independent of the velocity of the truck, analogous to the speed of light being constant c relative to an observer at absolute rest, independent of source velocity.

It is now easy to see the null result of the Michelson-Morley experiment ( MMX ) by the modified emission theory above. Modified emission theory is just conventional emission theory in which the velocity of light relative to the source depends on the absolute velocity of the source. In the case of the Michelson-Morley experiment, therefore, any change of the speed of light relative to the light source will not cause a fringe shift because both the longitudinal and transverse beams will be affected ( delayed or advanced ) by equal amount. Note that we have not made any reference to the ether in the above theory.

The above theory is just an attempt to present the ultimate theory ( Apparent Source Theory ) in an intuitive way. It is fundamentally not correct.

Apparent Source Theory

Now we will see the trick of nature that has eluded physicists for centuries.
Consider the Michelson-Morley experiment shown below. 

                        ( see figure in the attached pdf )

Apparent Source Theory is formulated as follows.
The effect of absolute motion for co-moving light source and observer/detector is to create an apparent change in position ( distance and direction ) of the source relative to ( as seen by ) the observer/detector. The apparent change in position of the light source is determined by the source-observer direct distance and the magnitude and direction of absolute velocity.

The easiest way to understand Apparent Source Theory is to ask a simple question: what is the effect of actually/physically changing the light source position of the Michelson-Morley interferometer (instead of setting it in absolute motion) on the interference fringes ? For example, what is the effect of actually moving the light source slightly backwards (to the left), as shown above, on the interference fringes ? Obviously, there will not be any fringe shift because, intuitively, both the longitudinal and transverse light beams will be affected ( delayed ) identically. There will not be any fringe shift also if the source is slightly moved forward (to the right ) because both light beams will be advanced equally. There will be a small fringe shift for other positions of the source, for example if the source is moved upwards or downwards.

The new interpretation is that an apparent change of source position (caused by absolute motion ) will not create any significant fringe shift ( no fringe shift or a small fringe shift ) for the same reason that an actual/physical change of source position will not create any significant fringe shift. This explains the 'null' result of the Michelson-Morley experiment. This is the subtle nature of light that completely eluded physicists for centuries.

The procedure of analysis of the Michelson-Morley experiment is :
1. Replace the real source by an apparent source
2. Analyze the experiment by assuming that light is emitted from the apparent source position, not from the real source position.

The real source is replaced by an apparent source in order to account for absolute velocity. Once this is done, the experiment is analyzed by assuming that light is emitted from the apparent source and by using elementary geometrical optics. Once we replace the real source with an apparent source, we can assume emission theory, i.e. the speed of light is constant relative to the apparent source.

Apparent Source Theory can be seen as a seamless fusion of ether theory and emission theory.

Relation between constancy of phase velocity and Apparent Source Theory

The constancy of the phase velocity of light ( and Exponential Doppler Effect theory ) governs the wavelength, frequency and phase velocity of light. Apparent Source Theory governs the phase delay and group delay of light.

Some of the profound findings of the new theory

- The ether does not exist but absolute motion does exist. Physicists wrongly concluded that absolute motion didn't exist when they failed to detect the ether. The Michelson-Morley experiment (MMX) was designed to detect the ether and was capable to detect the ether, if the ether existed. The MMX is flawed in that it was designed to detect the non-existent ether. The Michelson-Morley experiment is not fully capable to detect absolute motion. Absolute motion is not motion relative to the ether. Absolute motion is motion relative to all matter in the universe.

- The reference frame concept is wrong and should be eliminated from physics as a paradigm. The true natures of light and electromagnetism always elude the third 'observer' ( the reference frame ). The new definition of observer is the object ( particle, atom or device ) directly sensing or detecting light, electromagnetic and gravitational phenomena.
See my paper at Vixra:
   " The Irrelevance of Abstract Reference Frames in Physics "

- One of the profound, unexpected findings concerns the phenomenon of stellar aberration. The current, universal understanding is that a telescope needs to be tilted forward in the direction of observer's velocity in order to see the stars. Apparent Source Theory predicts that the telescope should be tilted backwards, not forwards !

- The same law governs the Michelson-Morley experiment and the phenomenon of stellar aberration: apparent change of light source position relative to an absolutely moving observer ! See my paper at Vixra:
" A new insight explains both the Michelson-Morley experiment and stellar aberration- Apparent change of light source position relative to an absolutely moving observer "

- Dual natures of light, electromagnetism and gravity. The speed of electrostatic and gravitational fields has dual nature: infinite and finite ( light speed c ) ! Static fields act as if they are both transmitted at the speed of light c and instantaneously. Light acts as if it travels both in straight line and in curved path ! For absolutely co-moving light source and observer, light follows  curved path if we assume it as coming from the real source, whereas light always follows straight path if we assume it as coming from the apparent source. For co-moving charge (mass) and observer, the electric (gravitational) lines of force follow a curved path if we consider the real charge (mass), whereas the electric (gravitational ) lines of force always follow a straight path if we consider the apparent charge (mass).

- Light is not only a local phenomenon, but also a non-local phenomenon. Light is a dual phenomenon: local and non-local! All the confusion in physics during the last century is rooted in considering light like ordinary, local phenomena. The Michelson-Morley experiment was conceived and designed based on such a fallacious view. The special theory of relativity is a mistake built on previous mistakes. If the scientists had not considered light like ordinary local phenomena ( by considering light as an ether wave ), there would have been no need to speculate ' length contraction and time dilation ' .
 
- The group velocity of light can be seen both as constant and variable. For co-moving light source and observer, for example, the group velocity of light is always constant c if we assume that light is emitted from the apparent source position. If we assume that light is emitted from the real/physical source position, the group velocity of light will be variable.

- Unlike classical fields and waves, there is no mixing of absolute and relative motion effects in the case of light and electromagnetism. This is why no absolute motion effect has been observed in the Ives-Stilwell experiments. Einstein's magnet conductor argument against the existence of absolute motion is wrong because magnetism is a relative motion effect, not an absolute motion effect. Weber's electrodynamics is the ultimate law governing electromagnetism, rather than Maxwell's.

- Light speed limit exists, but it is not universal.                                                                                                                     1. It applies only to physical objects that have mass. Electrostatic and gravitational fields can be transmitted instantaneously.
2. Even for physical bodies, it applies only locally. A physical body cannot move at superluminal velocities relative to local matter in the universe, but it can move superluminally relative to distant matter in the universe. We know that superluminal galaxies have already been observed.

- The cosmic microwave background radiation may be just Doppler shifted light from receding galaxies.
 
- Gravity is a difference between electrostatic attraction and repulsion forces. In fact, this idea was first proposed by Michael Faraday. Apparent Source Theory has independently also led to the same conclusion. Gravity is a net electrostatic force and inertia is a net 'magnetic' force.

Proposed time of flight light speed anisotropy experiment

Despite the null result of the Michelson-Morley experiment, absolute motion has already been detected in several experiments such as the Silvertooth, the CMBR anisotropy and the Marinov experiments. Many of the 'ether' drift experiments used interference method because of the difficulty of measuring extremely small differences in time of flight and because of the problem of clock-synchronization ( this problem does not exist in the new theory).

Here I will propose a novel light speed anisotropy experiment that is based on the time of flight method. The experiment consists of two light transponders, say transponder A and transponder B, each fixed to the two ends of a rigid rod. Each light transponder consists of a light detector unit and a light emitter unit. The light detector, upon detecting a light pulse, triggers the light emitter, which emits a short light pulse.

Suppose that, initially, transponder A is somehow triggered to emit a short light pulse. This pulse is detected by the detector of transponder B, which triggers the emitter of transponder B, which in turn emits a light pulse, which will be detected by the detector of A, which triggers the emitter of A, which emits a light pulse, and so on. The process can continue indefinitely. An electronic counter counts the pulses emitted.

Suppose that the rod is aligned with the direction of absolute velocity of the Earth. Because of light speed anisotropy, light will take more time, say, from A to B than from B to A. The novel feature of this experiment is that it accumulates the extremely small time of flight differences, over several minutes or hours. The number of pulses counted in a given period of time will depend on the orientation of the rod with respect to the direction of Earth's absolute velocity. By using this effect, the direction and magnitude of Earth's absolute velocity can be determined, theoretically, with any desired accuracy.

Conventional time of flight experiments use spatially separated light emitter and light detector. A single pulse is emitted by the emitter and detected by the detector. Because of the extremely small time of flight involved, it is difficult to detect light speed anisotropy by using this method using a single pulse. The new method circumvents this and any clock synchronization problem by using a continuous exchange of a short light pulse between spatially separated transponders, thereby accumulating (integrating ) the small differences in time of flight of light in two directions. 

A detailed description of the experiment is found in my paper at Vixra:   
" Proposal for a new light speed anisotropy experiment based on time of flight method by continuous exchange of a short light pulse between two light transponders "

Summary:
Two components of a new theoretical framework have been presented:
1. Constant phase velocity and variable group velocity of light. Exponential Doppler Effect law of light
2. Apparent Source Theory
The new theoretical framework can be seen as a seamless fusion of classical and modern theories: ether theory, emission theory and constancy of the speed of light. Apparently contradicting natures co-exist in the phenomena of light, electromagnetism and gravitation. In effect, special relativity and all associated concepts such as Lorentz transformation, time dilation, length contraction ideas have been invalidated.
 With respect to Apparent Source Theory, we have seen only the case of inertial motion. Extension of this special case to the general case of accelerating observers, such as in the Sagnac effect,  has been a daunting task that took several years to complete.


Title: Re: Was the light speed problem really solved by Einstein in 1905 ?
Post by: Kryptid on 23/09/2019 19:42:20
Therefore, the existence of superluminal velocities (as already observed) by itself disproves the relativistic and classical formulas

When was a form of superluminal velocity inconsistent with relativity ever reliably observed?
Title: Re: Was the light speed problem really solved by Einstein in 1905 ?
Post by: Bored chemist on 23/09/2019 19:54:53
absolute motion has already been detected in several experiments such as the Silvertooth
Nope
https://www.forbes.com/sites/briankoberlein/2018/04/06/the-tale-of-a-1986-experiment-that-proved-einstein-wrong/#2c60c5ba3ed3

Title: Re: Was the light speed problem really solved by Einstein in 1905 ?
Post by: Hayseed on 24/09/2019 11:19:37
"Was the light speed problem really solved by Einstein in 1905 ?"

No.  The speed of light is only a problem for those who don't understand EM.  Which is everybody.


EM emission is instantaneous.  Problem solved........with no need to change a clock anywhere.

An instantaneous emission period is why the speed never changes.......can you follow that understanding?

It's simple, like all of nature.
Title: Re: Was the light speed problem really solved by Einstein in 1905 ?
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 24/09/2019 15:50:35
EM emission is instantaneous. 
The Mars rovers have shown otherwise.
Title: Re: Was the light speed problem really solved by Einstein in 1905 ?
Post by: Hal on 26/09/2019 10:48:24
absolute motion has already been detected in several experiments such as the Silvertooth
Nope

Silvertooth did his original experiment in 1986 and repeated it in 1992. In both experiments he obtained 378 Km/s towards Leo, in agreement with CMBR speed. How can temperature explain this ? How likely is it for temperature to affect the experiment so that it agrees with the CMBR, twice ?
Title: Re: Was the light speed problem really solved by Einstein in 1905 ?
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 07/10/2019 11:02:42
Some arguments to defend relativity theory invoke the working of GPS. But I found that a GPS expert doesn't agree with that.

https://www.gps.gov/governance/advisory/members/hatch/
Title: Re: Was the light speed problem really solved by Einstein in 1905 ?
Post by: Hayseed on 07/10/2019 11:21:19
All GPS needs is the lengths of 3 or more intersecting lines.  Surveyors use length.
Title: Re: Was the light speed problem really solved by Einstein in 1905 ?
Post by: Bored chemist on 07/10/2019 11:43:29
Some arguments to defend relativity theory invoke the working of GPS. But I found that a GPS expert doesn't agree with that.

https://www.gps.gov/governance/advisory/members/hatch/
Find us a transcript.
Title: Re: Was the light speed problem really solved by Einstein in 1905 ?
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 08/10/2019 09:58:05
Find us a transcript.
I can't find the transcript for that particular video. But I can find his paper related to GPS and relativity.
http://www.tuks.nl/pdf/Reference_Material/Ronald_Hatch/Hatch-Relativity_and_GPS-II_1995.pdf
Title: Re: Was the light speed problem really solved by Einstein in 1905 ?
Post by: Hayseed on 08/10/2019 10:39:28
Maybe this might help.
http://www.alternativephysics.org/book/GPSmythology.htm
Title: Re: Was the light speed problem really solved by Einstein in 1905 ?
Post by: Halc on 08/10/2019 12:41:43
Some arguments to defend relativity theory invoke the working of GPS. But I found that a GPS expert doesn't agree with that.
I did not watch the video, but I'm commenting on what I see on the screen.

Top title says acceleration causes Doppler effects.  It doesn't.   Rate of change of distance (different than speed) causes Doppler effects.  How much do the makers of this video know if they don't know the difference?

Next line:  Frequency does not change when falling.  This seems completely wrong.  If I have a clock high up and reasonably stationary, it will run at some base rate.  As it falls, it picks up speed (slowing it due to its motion) and it falls deeper into the gravity well, which slows it even further. If I view that clock from above, the Doppler effect makes it yet slower again.  Doppler effect is relative to the viewing angle.  Relativistic effects are not.

Page says effects are NOT EQUIVALENT.  I agree with that, but they say it in caps like it's in contention.

Other comments discuss the actual implementation of GPS like modulation of signals and such, and lacking knowledge of actual implementation of the GPS system, I'm not qualified to comment.

Title: Re: Was the light speed problem really solved by Einstein in 1905 ?
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 09/10/2019 10:16:05
Top title says acceleration causes Doppler effects.  It doesn't.   Rate of change of distance (different than speed) causes Doppler effects.  How much do the makers of this video know if they don't know the difference?
It doesn't say that acceleration causes Doppler effects. Instead, it says Doppler frequency changes.
A source with constant "rate of distance change" produces shifted frequency due to Doppler effect, but the received frequency itself is constant (not changing with time). Acceleration makes the rate itself continuously changing, hence the received frequency also changes accordingly.

Based on the information in the "Official U.S. government information about the Global Positioning System (GPS) and related topics" website, I think he knows a lot. https://www.gps.gov/governance/advisory/members/hatch/
Quote
Ron Hatch is an expert in the use of GPS for precision farming, as well as other high precision applications. He is now a private consultant, having retired from John Deere, where he was formerly the Director of Navigation Systems Engineering and a Principal and co-founder of NavCom Technology, Inc., a John Deere company. NavCom provides a commercially operated differential GPS augmentation service to the agriculture industry and other high accuracy users.

Throughout his more than 50 year career in satellite navigation systems with Johns Hopkins Applied Physics Laboratory and companies such as Boeing and Magnavox, Hatch has been noted for his innovative algorithm design for Satellite Navigation Systems. He has consulted for a number of companies and government agencies developing dual-frequency carrier-phase algorithms for landing aircraft, multipath mitigation techniques, carrier phase measurements for real time differential navigation at the centimeter level, algorithms and specifications for Local Area Augmentation System, high-performance GPS and communication receivers, and Kinematic DGPS. In addition to the Hatch-Filter Technique, Hatch has obtained numerous patents and written many technical papers involving innovative techniques for navigation and surveying using the TRANSIT and GPS navigation satellites.  He has also authored "Escape From Einstein" and has published multiple papers in which he challenges current relativity theory.

In 1994, Hatch received the Johannes Kepler Award from the Institute of Navigation (ION) for sustained and significant contributions to satellite navigation. In 2000 he received the Thomas L. Thurlow Award and was elected a Fellow of the ION.  He has also served the ION as both the Chair of the Satellite Division and as President.
Title: Re: Was the light speed problem really solved by Einstein in 1905 ?
Post by: Halc on 09/10/2019 14:20:00
Top title says acceleration causes Doppler effects.  It doesn't.   Rate of change of distance (different than speed) causes Doppler effects.  How much do the makers of this video know if they don't know the difference?
It doesn't say that acceleration causes Doppler effects. Instead, it says Doppler frequency changes.
Same diff.  The effect is a frequency change or frequency shift.
Quote
A source with constant "rate of distance change" produces shifted frequency due to Doppler effect, but the received frequency itself is constant (not changing with time).
Yes
Quote
Acceleration makes the rate itself continuously changing, hence the received frequency also changes accordingly.
Acceleration doesn't do that.  I can accelerate an object without changing the rate of distance change, and I can change the rate of distance change without acceleration.  Just think of a siren passing you by.  The sound frequency drops as it passes, all without acceleration of the passing vehicle.

Quote
Based on the information in the "Official U.S. government information about the Global Positioning System (GPS) and related topics" website, I think he knows a lot. https://www.gps.gov/governance/advisory/members/hatch/
Quote
Ron Hatch is an expert in the use of GPS for precision farming, as well as other high precision applications. He is now a private consultant, having retired from John Deere, where he was formerly the Director of Navigation Systems Engineering and a Principal and co-founder of NavCom Technology, Inc., a John Deere company. NavCom provides a commercially operated differential GPS augmentation service to the agriculture industry and other high accuracy users.

Throughout his more than 50 year career in satellite navigation systems with Johns Hopkins Applied Physics Laboratory and companies such as Boeing and Magnavox, Hatch has been noted for his innovative algorithm design for Satellite Navigation Systems. He has consulted for a number of companies and government agencies developing dual-frequency carrier-phase algorithms for landing aircraft, multipath mitigation techniques, carrier phase measurements for real time differential navigation at the centimeter level, algorithms and specifications for Local Area Augmentation System, high-performance GPS and communication receivers, and Kinematic DGPS. In addition to the Hatch-Filter Technique, Hatch has obtained numerous patents and written many technical papers involving innovative techniques for navigation and surveying using the TRANSIT and GPS navigation satellites.
...
In 1994, Hatch received the Johannes Kepler Award from the Institute of Navigation (ION) for sustained and significant contributions to satellite navigation. In 2000 he received the Thomas L. Thurlow Award and was elected a Fellow of the ION.  He has also served the ION as both the Chair of the Satellite Division and as President.
Argument from authority fallacy.  How does quoting this guy's credentials make the statement in that slide correct?

Quote
He has also authored "Escape From Einstein" and has published multiple papers in which he challenges current relativity theory.
Sounds like another denier. People publishing such papers tend to be well versed in twisting the facts. Look at all the people making similar claims in New Theories section. Oh wait, you're one of them.
Title: Re: Was the light speed problem really solved by Einstein in 1905 ?
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 10/10/2019 08:34:10
Same diff.  The effect is a frequency change or frequency shift.
Don't you think that acceleration causes changing Doppler frequency shift?

Argument from authority fallacy.  How does quoting this guy's credentials make the statement in that slide correct?
You are the one who questioned his credential in previous post. Don't you remember?

Acceleration doesn't do that.  I can accelerate an object without changing the rate of distance change, and I can change the rate of distance change without acceleration.  Just think of a siren passing you by.  The sound frequency drops as it passes, all without acceleration of the passing vehicle.
Source movement doesn't produce frequency shift only in a very special case where the distance to the observer doesn't change. For satelite case, it's only happens at the center of the earth, which is not a practical place to put an observer.
Sounds like another denier. People publishing such papers tend to be well versed in twisting the facts. Look at all the people making similar claims in New Theories section. Oh wait, you're one of them.
Show me one of my claim that you are talking about.
Title: Re: Was the light speed problem really solved by Einstein in 1905 ?
Post by: Colin2B on 10/10/2019 08:50:48
Some arguments to defend relativity theory invoke the working of GPS. But I found that a GPS expert doesn't agree with that.
An expert clockmaker doesnít need to know the details of astrophysics to build a very accurate clock. There are a lot of people working on GPS systems who donít know the detail of relativity; the corrections were worked out by physicists before the project began - using relativity.
Hatch believed he had found a flaw in the equivalence principle and developed his own theory of gravity and relativity. Unlike most new theorists here he included a falsifiable test, his theory predicted that gravitational waves donít exist and hence would never be detected. The only people now interested in his ideas are the relativity deniers, who donít understand what he was writing anyway.
Title: Re: Was the light speed problem really solved by Einstein in 1905 ?
Post by: Halc on 10/10/2019 12:53:01
Don't you think that acceleration causes changing Doppler frequency shift?
I said that in post 11 yes.  I can give an example:  Take a light (and a thing that emits a continuous tone) and put it on a string so it faces up the string and spin the thing about yourself. The tension on the string represents acceleration. The light frequency and tone will not change no matter how hard you spin it. The acceleration has no effect.
Doppler effect also depends on the point of view.  Relativistic dilation depends only on the frame of reference.

Quote
Quote from: Halc
Argument from authority fallacy.  How does quoting this guy's credentials make the statement in that slide correct?
You are the one who questioned his credential in previous post. Don't you remember?
I did not. I have no idea who the guy is other than what you told me, so I have no reason to question those credentials. I was only commenting on the incorrect statements I saw on that slide.
Evan just above seems to know the history of the person and is aware of how his ideas have been falsified, but I see nothing in his post that denies the credentials you gave. My statement above just says that a list of credentials doesn't make what he says correct, despite your implication otherwise.

Quote
Quote from: Halc
Acceleration doesn't do that.  I can accelerate an object without changing the rate of distance change, and I can change the rate of distance change without acceleration.  Just think of a siren passing you by.  The sound frequency drops as it passes, all without acceleration of the passing vehicle.
Source movement doesn't produce frequency shift only in a very special case where the distance to the observer doesn't change. For satelite case, it's only happens at the center of the earth, which is not a practical place to put an observer.
I didn't say source movement caused it, and neither does acceleration. I said it is caused by the rate of distance change from source to observer.

Quote
Quote from: Halc
Sounds like another denier. People publishing such papers tend to be well versed in twisting the facts. Look at all the people making similar claims in New Theories section. Oh wait, you're one of them.
Show me one of my claim that you are talking about.
I seemed to have based that statement only on your selection of video's to post, so I take it back. My apologies.
Title: Re: Was the light speed problem really solved by Einstein in 1905 ?
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 10/10/2019 13:35:25
I did not. I have no idea who the guy is other than what you told me, so I have no reason to question those credentials. I was only commenting on the incorrect statements I saw on that slide.
Evan just above seems to know the history of the person and is aware of how his ideas have been falsified, but I see nothing in his post that denies the credentials you gave. My statement above just says that a list of credentials doesn't make what he says correct, despite your implication otherwise.
It was Collin2b.

I didn't say source movement caused it, and neither does acceleration. I said it is caused by the rate of distance change from source to observer.
In satellite case with observer not at earth center, any source movement will produce Doppler frequency shift. Any acceleration will produce change of position, which in turn change the distance, hence change of received frequency. We can say that the cause and effect relationship is indirect.
I seemed to have based that statement only on your selection of video's to post, so I take it back. My apologies.
Apology accepted.
Title: Re: Was the light speed problem really solved by Einstein in 1905 ?
Post by: Halc on 10/10/2019 14:07:39
In satellite case with observer not at earth center, any source movement will produce Doppler frequency shift.
Not true of a geosync satellite, but I know what you mean and I agree.  GPS for instance needs to take Doppler into account, but because the distance to them is changing, not because they're moving or accelerating.

Quote
Any acceleration will produce change of position, which in turn change the distance
The geosync satellites both move and accelerate, and yes, that indeed produces a change of position.  Yet the distance to them does not change, so no Doppler effect.
Title: Re: Was the light speed problem really solved by Einstein in 1905 ?
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 11/10/2019 05:16:23
The geosync satellites both move and accelerate, and yes, that indeed produces a change of position.  Yet the distance to them does not change, so no Doppler effect.
I agree.
For wave propagation in medium, Doppler effect can still occur even without change of distance between source and observer, if they move through the medium.
Title: Re: Was the light speed problem really solved by Einstein in 1905 ?
Post by: Halc on 11/10/2019 12:25:49
For wave propagation in medium, Doppler effect can still occur even without change of distance between source and observer, if they move through the medium.
You have an example of that with light?  I can do it with sound, but sound doesn't obey Galilean relativity:
Imagine a pair of supersonic jets always staying 1 km apart, but one circling the other.  The sound travels only one-way from the lead jet to the rear one.  As it moves from directly behind to the shock wave of the leading jet, the tone will change.
I suppose that sort of thing could be done by shining light through a high refractive index material moving fast, but unclear how one would shine light into such material.
Title: Re: Was the light speed problem really solved by Einstein in 1905 ?
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 14/10/2019 05:00:33
You have an example of that with light? 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fizeau_experiment
Title: Re: Was the light speed problem really solved by Einstein in 1905 ?
Post by: Halc on 14/10/2019 14:09:25
You have an example of that with light?
...
I suppose that sort of thing could be done by shining light through a high refractive index material moving fast
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fizeau_experiment
OK, he's using water here.

There is still no Doppler effect in that picture.  Both output beams shine with the same frequency as it would if the source was observed directly without the intervening apparatus.  All it does is a phase shift on both sides.
Title: Re: Was the light speed problem really solved by Einstein in 1905 ?
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 15/10/2019 04:54:03
OK, he's using water here.

There is still no Doppler effect in that picture.  Both output beams shine with the same frequency as it would if the source was observed directly without the intervening apparatus.  All it does is a phase shift on both sides.
Quote
The Doppler effect (or the Doppler shift) is the change in frequency or wavelength of a wave in relation to an observer who is moving relative to the wave source. It is named after the Austrian physicist Christian Doppler, who described the phenomenon in 1842.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doppler_effect
From the definition above, Doppler effect can happen if wavelength changes even if the frequency stays the same, which means that the propagation speed also changes accordingly.
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/30/Fizeau_experiment_schematic.svg/300px-Fizeau_experiment_schematic.svg.png)
From the diagram, at the right end of water column, water velocity at light direction is 0, hence the Doppler effect is canceled at that points, and the light frequency and wavelength of the top light becomes the same as the bottom light as they come out of water before observed. But the Doppler effect has occured along the top and bottom horizontal columns by changing propagation speed, frequency, and wavelength, which generate changes in interference pattern at the detector. Hence the changes of each individual parameters can't be directly measured, but either frequency or wavelength must have been changed, thus Doppler effect must have happened.
Title: Re: Was the light speed problem really solved by Einstein in 1905 ?
Post by: Halc on 15/10/2019 12:19:56
From the diagram, at the right end of water column, water velocity at light direction is 0, hence the Doppler effect is canceled at that points, and the light frequency and wavelength of the top light becomes the same as the bottom light as they come out of water before observed. But the Doppler effect has occured along the top and bottom horizontal columns by changing propagation speed, frequency, and wavelength, which generate changes in interference pattern at the detector. Hence the changes of each individual parameters can't be directly measured, but either frequency or wavelength must have been changed, thus Doppler effect must have happened.
I agree that the wavelength is shorter in the water, but it would even if it wasn't moving.  This is due to a changed speed of light in a non-vacuum, not a change in frequency.
So if the observer looks at one beam or the other (or observes from within the water) he'll find them all at the exact same frequency.  All the device does is a phase shift, not a frequency change.  The only way to change the frequency is to move the light source (depicted by a little sun in the picture) or move the observer.
Title: Re: Was the light speed problem really solved by Einstein in 1905 ?
Post by: Halc on 15/10/2019 12:45:43
Quote from: wiki
The Doppler effect (or the Doppler shift) is the change in frequency or wavelength of a wave in relation to an observer who is moving relative to the wave source. It is named after the Austrian physicist Christian Doppler, who described the phenomenon in 1842.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doppler_effect
From the definition above, Doppler effect can happen if wavelength changes even if the frequency stays the same, which means that the propagation speed also changes accordingly.
I agree that the definition above says that, but it is wikipedia, and I think they mean frequency change and associated wavelength change and not the case of wavelength change associated only with refraction and not frequency change.  I'm saying wiki is wrong here.

From oxford dictionary (top of list if you google "what is doppler effect"):
"[physics:] an increase (or decrease) in the frequency of sound, light, or other waves as the source and observer move toward (or away from) each other. The effect causes the sudden change in pitch noticeable in a passing siren, as well as the redshift seen by astronomers."

Britanica:  "Doppler effect, the apparent difference between the frequency at which sound or light waves leave a source and that at which they reach an observer, caused by relative motion of the observer and the wave source."

webster:
"a change in the frequency with which waves (as of sound or light) from a given source reach an observer when the source and the observer are in motion with respect to each other so that the frequency increases or decreases according to the speed at which the distance is decreasing or increasing"

http://physics.bu.edu/~duffy/py105/Doppler.html
"The Doppler effect describes the shift in the frequency of a wave sound when the wave source and/or the receiver is moving."

Pretty much every place except wiki says it's a frequency shift and does not consider a wavelength change without frequency change to be an example of Doppler effect.
Title: Re: Was the light speed problem really solved by Einstein in 1905 ?
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 16/10/2019 04:40:25
Quote from: wiki
The Doppler effect (or the Doppler shift) is the change in frequency or wavelength of a wave in relation to an observer who is moving relative to the wave source. It is named after the Austrian physicist Christian Doppler, who described the phenomenon in 1842.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doppler_effect
From the definition above, Doppler effect can happen if wavelength changes even if the frequency stays the same, which means that the propagation speed also changes accordingly.
I agree that the definition above says that, but it is wikipedia, and I think they mean frequency change and associated wavelength change and not the case of wavelength change associated only with refraction and not frequency change.  I'm saying wiki is wrong here.

From oxford dictionary (top of list if you google "what is doppler effect"):
"[physics:] an increase (or decrease) in the frequency of sound, light, or other waves as the source and observer move toward (or away from) each other. The effect causes the sudden change in pitch noticeable in a passing siren, as well as the redshift seen by astronomers."

Britanica:  "Doppler effect, the apparent difference between the frequency at which sound or light waves leave a source and that at which they reach an observer, caused by relative motion of the observer and the wave source."

webster:
"a change in the frequency with which waves (as of sound or light) from a given source reach an observer when the source and the observer are in motion with respect to each other so that the frequency increases or decreases according to the speed at which the distance is decreasing or increasing"

http://physics.bu.edu/~duffy/py105/Doppler.html
"The Doppler effect describes the shift in the frequency of a wave sound when the wave source and/or the receiver is moving."

Pretty much every place except wiki says it's a frequency shift and does not consider a wavelength change without frequency change to be an example of Doppler effect.
You are correct. In order to get frequency change, we have to change the number of waves in transit between source and observer, such as when distance between source and observer changes. This can also be done by accelerating medium.
Title: Re: Was the light speed problem really solved by Einstein in 1905 ?
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 18/10/2019 04:18:22
You are correct. In order to get frequency change, we have to change the number of waves in transit between source and observer, such as when distance between source and observer changes. This can also be done by accelerating medium.
It makes me wonder if both source and observer accelerate uniformly. Does the light received by observer have the same frequency as the light emitted by the source? How much is the difference?
Title: Re: Was the light speed problem really solved by Einstein in 1905 ?
Post by: Halc on 18/10/2019 12:27:27
It makes me wonder if both source and observer accelerate uniformly. Does the light received by observer have the same frequency as the light emitted by the source? How much is the difference?
The proper distance between them changes if one is in front of the other, but not side-by-side.  So no redshift in the latter case.
In the former case, the lead ship will outdistance the trailing one in the frame of either ship, so there will be a small Doppler effect as the proper distance between them grows.
If, on the other hand, the two observers are in the same ship but opposite ends, the proper distance between the two would be fixed and the acceleration of each would not be the same and the one in front would see a red-shifted light from the rear and a blue shift looking the other way.  This is a pure relativistic effect and not Doppler.
Title: Re: Was the light speed problem really solved by Einstein in 1905 ?
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 21/10/2019 03:28:48
It makes me wonder if both source and observer accelerate uniformly. Does the light received by observer have the same frequency as the light emitted by the source? How much is the difference?
The proper distance between them changes if one is in front of the other, but not side-by-side.  So no redshift in the latter case.
In the former case, the lead ship will outdistance the trailing one in the frame of either ship, so there will be a small Doppler effect as the proper distance between them grows.
If, on the other hand, the two observers are in the same ship but opposite ends, the proper distance between the two would be fixed and the acceleration of each would not be the same and the one in front would see a red-shifted light from the rear and a blue shift looking the other way.  This is a pure relativistic effect and not Doppler.
If they accelerate uniformly, their distance should not change.

In special relativity, lengths only contracts while time only dilates when an inertial system is observed by other inertial systems moving at constant velocity relative to the observed one. So I assume you are talking about general relativity there.
Title: Re: Was the light speed problem really solved by Einstein in 1905 ?
Post by: Halc on 21/10/2019 05:29:19
It makes me wonder if both source and observer accelerate uniformly. Does the light received by observer have the same frequency as the light emitted by the source? How much is the difference?
The proper distance between them changes if one is in front of the other, but not side-by-side.  So no redshift in the latter case.
In the former case, the lead ship will outdistance the trailing one in the frame of either ship, so there will be a small Doppler effect as the proper distance between them grows.
If, on the other hand, the two observers are in the same ship but opposite ends, the proper distance between the two would be fixed and the acceleration of each would not be the same and the one in front would see a red-shifted light from the rear and a blue shift looking the other way.  This is a pure relativistic effect and not Doppler.
If they accelerate uniformly, their distance should not change.
True, but their proper distance will change, so one observing the other will potentially observe a shifted light.  It is arguably a Doppler shift because the proper distance between source and observer is constantly changing.  Accoring to an inertial observer, the distance between the two identically accelerating things does not change, but the frequency at which the light is emitted does change.

Quote
In special relativity, lengths only contracts while time only dilates when an inertial system is observed by other inertial systems moving at constant velocity relative to the observed one. So I assume you are talking about general relativity there.
Pretty much just SR, since no gravity is involved in my statements above. SR is not just about inertial systems. One can always integrate inertial solutions to derive solutions for accelerating systems.