Re: If lightspeed were constant to all frames
- From: "Spaceman" <spaceman@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 21 Aug 2008 12:00:06 -0400
harry wrote:
"Spaceman" <spaceman@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:o7SdnX033ZELuDHVnZ2dnUVZ_q7inZ2d@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
harry wrote:
"Spaceman" <spaceman@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:88adnb7nlNaAKTXVnZ2dnUVZ_uednZ2d@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
If lightspeed were constant to all frames of reference
1 second of light would be 1 second of light no matter
if you were moving towards the lightsource, or away,
but of course Doppler effect does indeed occur
from the "shorter" or "longer" time the light is seen
and the 1 second of light is not one second of light
to all frames and doppler effect occurs to such that
is not 1 second of light.
So very simply,
If lightspeed was 186,000 miles per second to all frames
and it truly was not "relative" instead, Doppler effect would
never occur to lightwaves.
:)
--
James M Driscoll Jr
Creator of the Clock Malfunction Theory
Spaceman
Now try the same for sound:
"If soundspeed was 340m/s in air and it truly was not "relative",
Doppler effect would never occur to soundwaves."
Do you think that makes sense? I don't think so. Just listen to a
train passing by while it blows its horn.
Actually it does fit it perfectally.
The relative speed of the train and you, create the doppler effect.
Indeed. Note that for the amount of Doppler effect, also the relative
speed between the wave and the medium play a role in the case of
sound. At low speeds that makes for a small difference, but without
time dilation the same difference would be observed with light.
Time dilation is a clock malfuntion.
Science does not use "multiple standards of time".
just like the relative speed of you and the source can do the same.
If you have no "relative speed" then you have no actual doppler
effect occuring.
That is exact. A Doppler effect occurs when the source and detector
are in relative motion.
Correct, so the relative speed of the waves can not be c to all
because no doppler could occur if such were true.
so if sound is 340m/s to all frames it would never be a relative
speed capable of producing a different "viewed" wavelength
and frequency.
You confuse "frame" with "emitter" and "detector" (a common mistake,
caused by sloppy presentations).
No I do not confuse them at all.
They are what they are.
The emitter is one frame, the detector is another, and the waves
are yet another.
As I indicated above (and even you
yourself), in all frames there is a Doppler effect when the emitter
and the detector have a relative speed. The Doppler effect occurs for
sound as well as for light, no matter the chosen frame. Note that in
SRT the chosen frame assumes the role of the EM wave medium for
Doppler calculations.
As words can be less clear than calculations in this kind of complex
issues (you are dealing with three relative speeds!), it's better if
you give a calculation example to demonstrate what you claim, so that
the error can be pinpointed more precisely.
The error is thinking that wavelength*frequency = the relative speed.
and that is incorrect.
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: If lightspeed were constant to all frames
- From: harry
- Re: If lightspeed were constant to all frames
- References:
- If lightspeed were constant to all frames
- From: Spaceman
- Re: If lightspeed were constant to all frames
- From: Spaceman
- If lightspeed were constant to all frames
- Prev by Date: Re: Are *observed* SR effects real?
- Next by Date: Re: Einstein: Get Rid of Fields and Just Have Particles
- Previous by thread: Re: If lightspeed were constant to all frames
- Next by thread: Re: If lightspeed were constant to all frames
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
