🚀 go-pugleaf

Pentcho Valev 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.

That is a logical conclusion.

> "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:
>
>http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/teaching/HPS_0410/chapters/big_bang/index.html
>John Norton: "Here's a light wave and an observer. If the observer
>were to hurry towards the source of the light, the observer would now
>pass wavecrests more frequently than the resting observer. That would
>mean that moving observer would find the frequency of the light to
>have increased (AND CORRESPONDINGLY FOR THE WAVELENGTH - THE DISTANCE
>BETWEEN CRESTS - TO HAVE DECREASED)."

Perhaps you would like to add to your collection the views of the grate 
Tom Roberts.

Me: If I am 1 ly away from a source of light and I change my speed the
observed frequency immediately changes. Accepted theory says that the
speed of the light arriving has not changed and is still c. If the
speed has not changed and the frequency has then there must be a
different wavelength.

Tom: Correct so far.

Me : The wavelength is a function of the speed of separation of the 
light at the source 1 ly away.

Tom: This is grotesquely wrong.

Me  It is absolutely right.

Tom: Nonsense. The "speed of separation of the light at the source" is 
c, a single value.

Me: Only in the FoR of the source.

Tom: If wavelength were indeed a function of the speed of separation 
from the source, then all light would necessarily have a single 
wavelength -- it doesn't.
Your basic error is saying "the wavelength", implicitly thinking it is a 
property of the light; it isn't. It requires an instrument to measure 
the wavelength of light, and the value obtained depends on properties of 
the instrument (e.g. its velocity wrt the source of the light).

Me: How can the RELATIVE velocity of the source affect my ruler or the 
clock of my frequency counter?

Tom did not respond.

>
>Einsteiniana's teachers know quite well that the wavelength is
>determined by the light source and cannot depend on the movements of
>the observer. So Stephen Hawking has offered better camouflage: when
>the light source, not the observer, starts moving, the wavelength
>shift looks less idiotic:

>
>http://www.amazon.com/Brief-History-Time-Stephen-Hawking/dp/0553380168
>Stephen Hawking, "A Brief History of Time", Chapter 3:
>"In the 1920s, when astronomers began to look at the spectra of stars
>in other galaxies, they found something most peculiar: there were the
>same characteristic sets of missing colors as for stars in our own
>galaxy, but they were all shifted by the same relative amount toward
>the red end of the spectrum. To understand the implications of this,
>we must first understand the Doppler effect. As we have seen, visible
>light consists of fluctuations, or waves, in the electromagnetic
>field. The wavelength (or distance from one wave crest to the next) of
>light is extremely small, ranging from four to seven ten-millionths of
>a meter. The different wavelengths of light are what the human eye
>sees as different colors, with the longest wavelengths appearing at
>the red end of the spectrum and the shortest wavelengths at the blue
>end. Now imagine a source of light at a constant distance from us,
>such as a star, emitting waves of light at a constant wavelength.
>Obviously the wavelength of the waves we receive will be the same as
>the wavelength at which they are emitted (the gravitational field of
>the galaxy will not be large enough to have a significant effect).
>Suppose now that the source starts moving toward us. When the source
>emits the next wave crest it will be nearer to us, so the distance
>between wave crests will be smaller than when the star was stationary.
>This means that the wavelength of the waves we receive is shorter than
>when the star was stationary. Correspondingly, if the source is moving
>away from us, the wavelength of the waves we receive will be longer.
>In the case of light, therefore, means that stars moving away from us
>will have their spectra shifted toward the red end of the spectrum
>(red-shifted) and those moving toward us will have their spectra blue-
>shifted."
>
>Pentcho Valev
>pvalev@yahoo.com

-- 
John Kennaugh