Re: The reasons why SR is an aether theory

Joe Fischer wrote: 
On Fri, John Kennaugh aetherist/anti-aetherist wrote:

How is Doppler shift explained in terms of SR? It goes like this

                    A                       S
                    B-->v

Observers A and B. A stationary w.r.t the source. B moving at v towards
the source. For A (in A's FoR) light leaves the source at c relative to
the source (as that is c relative to A). For B light leaves the source
at c-v relative to the source (as that is c relative to B). Doppler
shift is caused by the 'fact' that the same light leaves the same source
at two different speeds to go to A and B respectively through the same
physical space.


        Are you too dense to understand that if there are
galaxies moving away from us at .7 c, and the "speed"
of light was dependent on relative motion, we would
receive the light from those distant galaxies somewhere
in the fm television frequency?

If you are going to make a fool of yourself by not thinking it through it is not a good idea to start by calling the other fellow 'dense'.
If you assume a galaxy is travelling away from you at 0.7c then the relativistic Doppler equation says that the frequency will be 0.42 times the transmitted frequency. As visible light has a frequency of around 0.5 x 10^15 that would reduce it to the hot end of infra red 0.2 x 10^15
It is called 'red shift'.

        Light is received at the same speed it was emitted
at,


                     A                       S
               v<--- B


If light were received at the same speed it was emitted at there would be no mechanism to produce Doppler shift. Relativity says that in B's FoR light leaves the source at c+v relative to the source. The wavelength is therefore L = (c+v)/f. When this is received by B it is travelling at c so f' = c/L = fc/(c+v)= f/(1+v/c).
If you take into account Time dilation
f' = F Sqr(1-vv/cc)/(1+v/c)
if v = 0.7c f'/F = Sqr(1-0.49)/1.7 = 0.42 as I said above

and we see that light as light, not with wavelength
shifted, but just with spectral lines shifted.

That really is a dumb statement. If you were to observe light from a galaxy travelling away from you at 0.7c then the light you would observe may look normal but has been shifted from ultraviolet to visible and all the spectral lines with it. You know it has been shifted because the lines act as markers and tell you what frequency it was before it all shifted. You really do have some basic gaps in your education.

Is that a believable explanation? Not to me. One of the reasons I reject
relativity is it makes no sense at the physical level so I agree with
you that as A and B measure different frequencies their speed relative
to the light must be different.


       I don't doubt for a minute that you might agree
with him.      There is a reason for that.

Where I perhaps differ from you is that I think that the ether is a
silly idea

Bingo! 

Oh! Don't you think the ether is a silly idea?


and therefore so is Enstein/Lorrentz's ether theories. 

        I have never seen anybody so brainwashed (or
have such a perverted view of reality) to think that
Einstein never said the aether is not needed.

        Do I really have to quote from Volume 1 of the
Collected Papers (covering the period from birth to
the equivalent of  high school) were he wrote at
least two or more letters saying he was thinking
of ways to eliminate the concept of the ether and
that it is not needed?

I am still waiting for *any* quote at all from you substantiating your constant assertions. What he may have thought about as a school boy is neither here nor there. In the end he went for the source independent option and tried to draw a distinction between the concept of the ether which he needed to give him source independence, and the assumption that an ether necessarily implies a frame of reference stationary w.r.t it.
which is what everyone, Lorentz included, had assumed.

If the
speed of light is not a property of the ether it must be a property of
the source. i.e. light is source dependent.



         Light is always emitted at c, so obviously all sources
emit light at c.

SR says light is only emitted at c in the FoR of the source. In the frame of reference of an observer moving relative to the source it leaves the source at c-v (or c+v depending on direction) relative to the source:

"But the ray moves relatively to the initial point of k, when measured in the stationary system, with the velocity c-v...." original AE 1905 paper.

Some text books are confusing in that they describe light leaving a source from the PoV of the source's FoR and then describing it arriving at the observer from the PoV of the observers FoR. This violates the first rule of relativity maths - don't change FoR half way through a description or you end up with nonsense. SR is quite specific. The speed of light is c relative to the *observer observing it* not c relative to everything in moving in the observers FoR. Obviously if in the observers FoR it is moving at c relative to the observer it cannot also be moving at c relative to something which is also moving relative to the observer.

         And light is always measured at c (in a vacuum, and
perhaps neglecting effects of gravity).
         While this may not make sense to a Newtonian/
Euclidean, it sure seems to be a factual observation.

If your statement relates to the speed as measure between a source and observer stationary w.r.t each other over a two way path you are quite correct. Many experiments show that. The implication that this holds even if there is relative motion between the two is an assumption based upon an assumption that the speed of light is independent of the source, based on a belief that the speed is controlled by the ether so cannot be effected by the speed of the source.

There is no convincing evidence that the speed of light from a moving source is c although it is perfectly possible you have been led to believe differently. Unlike you I don't take everything I am told at face value.


Time will tell. I expect to
see a major collapse of physics in the next couple of decades and I
expect future generation to refer to the last century as the 'daft era
of physics'


         The "daft era" has just begun, as evident in newsgroups,
the news media, in liberal government policies, and in everyday
gossip and rumor mills.

         The new Medicare Prescription plan (Plan D) is
causing turmoil, delay, and denial of medicine to people
who need it.
         Even the "right wing" Bush apparently thought
it would be a good idea to follow the lead of the some
of the socialist governments to "help" the needy, and
everybody is suffering.

         My doctor is young, but she isn't even blond,
but when I told her I was having a lot of pain from
DISH (Diffuse Idiopathic Skeletal Hyperostosis),
she said, "there isn't any such thing as DISH desease,
it is DISC desease".
         It has become impossible in the US to get any
odd jobs done, the pill and abortions have cause the
most severe manpower shortage ever seen.
        The only increase in jobs has to come from
immigration as the number of people  reaching
retirement age is equal to the number reaching
age 21.
        There are many other things going on that
is causing hardship and strife, and mother nature
has not been helping.
        There is very little going on that is rational,
but the physics of nature does not change, it is
only the perversions of confused and biased
minds that distort reality and seems to be causing
more confusion and harm than ever before, and
attempts to rewrite history according to personal
or political views  are everyehere.

       Do I really need to quote from Einstein's
papers?     There is no ether, and none is needed,
now there is Earth, Fire, Water and the Periodic Table
of Chemical Elements.

and Dark matter, and dark energy, and strings, and a universe which requires 10 or 26 dimensions to make the maths work, and wormholes in space and virtual particles which can pop in and out of existence so quickly that the laws of physics don't notice and space which is bent. Compared to that people who believe in the ether seem to me relatively sane and I think the ether is a daft idea. Get real - physics is off the rails anyone but a physicist can see that.

--
John Kennaugh
The problem with maths is that a awesomely impressive equation may be
decribing an incredibly silly idea.
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Time is the paper on which the pen of the aether writes.
    ... > motion, of course!] ... It is THAT force that must propagate through the observer and his clock ... >> In special relativity, the speed of light is postulated to be constant ... >> speeds distances and time intervals. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Electron-positron annihilation
    ... as would be expected by both relativity and ballistic theory. ... the source whether there is an observer or not. ... It is even more absurd if one tries to deny the existence of the ether. ... A and B coincide it means that it set out at different speeds arrived at ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Electron-positron annihilation
    ... as would be expected by both relativity and ballistic theory. ... the source whether there is an observer or not. ... It is even more absurd if one tries to deny the existence of the ether. ... A and B coincide it means that it set out at different speeds arrived at ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: I am Trying To Learn Relativity
    ... If an observer is moving relative to the coordinate ... The closing speeds of c+v and c-v were calculated, ... This is an axiom of Relativity. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: "The Impossibility of Measuring the Velocity of Light"
    ... it but the speed of the observer would. ... with relativity it supports relativity while in fact the simplest ... "3.3 Tests of Light Speed from Moving Sources". ... to say "they travel in all possible directions at all possible speeds, ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)