🚀 go-pugleaf

rotchm wrote:
>On Aug 10, 3:14�am, Pentcho Valev <pva...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> If the observer suddenly starts moving towards the light source, the
>> frequency of light increases (Doppler effect). This has a SIMPLE
>> IMPLICATION: the wavecrests are now bumping more frequently into the
>> observer, that is, THE SPEED OF LIGHT RELATIVE TO THE OBSERVER HAS
>> INCREASED. "But this is fatal for Divine Albert's Divine Theory" - say
>> to themselves Einsteiniana's teachers and replace the SIMPLE
>> IMPLICATION with an IDIOTIC ONE:
><SNIP>
>
>
>
>If the observer suddenly starts moving towards the light source, he
>will observe the source to emit at a *lower* frequency

And how would you suggest he could do that?

>and he will
>observe the reception of the crest at a greater frequency. Confusing
>huh ?

I am not confused.

>
>Is the observer observing the frequency of the source or the frequency
>of the received signal?

Only the latter.

>
>And realize that there are two factors involved in the Doppler effect:
>Time dilation which changes the frequency of the source ( wrt
>observer)

Which we can ignore at modest speeds

> and the classical effect of the source "catching up" ( or
>receeding) to the wavecrest.

OK let us concentrate on that. Suppose you are 1 ly away from the 
source. Suppose the source changes its speed relative to you (source 
accelerates towards you). It is now (in your words) "catching up" the 
receding wavecrests so the distance between them will be shorter. 1 YEAR 
LATER you will detect a change in frequency.

Now suppose instead  it is you who accelerate towards the source 
changing your speed relative to the source. There is an immediate change 
in frequency. According to theory the speed at which the wave crests are 
travelling relative to you hasn't changed (second postulate) so the 
frequency change must be caused by a change in wavelength. The 
wavelength is determined by the speed at which light separates from the 
source. Using your description the source has to be "catching up" the 
wave crests to make the distance between them less. The problem is that 
when you change your speed the change in frequency is instantaneous 
which means that the change must have taken place 1 year ago in 
anticipation of your change in speed. This is clearly absurd.

As the change in frequency is instantaneous it can only be explained by 
a local change in your relationship with the light which left the source 
1 year ago not a change in the relationship between the source and the 
light leaving it.

Emission theory says that the speed of light is relative like other 
speeds and is c w.r.t the source so if you change your speed w.r.t the 
source you change your speed w.r.t the light wave. As Pentcho Valev 
wrote: "THE SPEED OF LIGHT RELATIVE TO THE OBSERVER HAS INCREASED".

Lorentz says that the "real speed" of light is c w.r.t the aether FoR so 
if you change your speed you change your speed w.r.t the aether and 
w.r.t the light wave. As Pentcho Valev wrote: "THE SPEED OF LIGHT 
RELATIVE TO THE OBSERVER HAS INCREASED".  Lorentz would no doubt claim 
that Doppler shift shows that the "real speed" has increased, (how else 
could you explain Doppler shift) but because you are measuring it with 
distorted instruments the computed speed does not increase.

SR - puts forward no specific hypothesis as it is only a principle 
theory - a mathematical model.


>of the received crests ( for an approaching observer/source) and the
>value is given by the relativistic formula for "Doppler effect":
>f_received = f_proper * s(1+b)/s(1-b).
>
>
>
>

-- 
John Kennaugh