Aetherists and the doppler effect

[bernhard.rothenstein]

Is there somebody who knows the way in which aetgherists derive the formula that accounts for the optical Doppler effect?

 

[Aether]

Is there somebody who knows the way in which aetgherists derive the formula that accounts for the optical Doppler effect?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz-FitzGerald_contraction_hypothesis

 

[clj4]

Is there somebody who knows the way in which aetgherists derive the formula that accounts for the optical Doppler effect?

This is a very difficult question since you get a different answer depending on;

1. what flavor of "aetherist" you are considering (some of them produce incorrect results that are different from SR, very few of them produce correct results)
2. whether you are talking about the longitudinal or the transverse Doppler effect (which is specific to SR only and gives the "aetherists" fits)Why the question? if you answer this, we may be able to give you a better answer.

 

[bernhard.rothenstein]

This is a very difficult question since you get a different answer depending on;

1. what flavor of "aetherist" you are considering (some of them produce incorrect results that are different from SR, very few of them produce correct results)
2. whether you are talking about the longitudinal or the transverse Doppler effect (which is specific to SR only and gives the "aetherists" fits)


Why the question? if you answer this, we may be able to give you a better answer.

It is about the aetherits who believe in the existence of an "absolute" reference frame where the one way speed of light works whereas in all the other ones only the two way one works. I have in mind the "nonlongitudinal" Dopper effect.

 

[clj4]

It is about the aetherits who believe in the existence of an "absolute" reference frame where the one way speed of light works whereas in all the other ones only the two way one works. I have in mind the "nonlongitudinal" Dopper effect.

This is a very interesting question. The above statement helps eliminate the tons of kooks. It leave only the theory of Robertson-Mansouri-Sexl.
The above would object strongly to being called "aetherists", they are known
under the name of "test theorists".
Their theory predicts the same exact effects as SR. For every known manifestation. RMS theory is equivalent to SR.
Having said that, there are one way light speed experiments that refute the fundamental RMS hypothesis of light speed anisotropy.
Have a look at this thread:

https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=88636&page=8

 

[bernhard.rothenstein]

E=mcc and special relativity

has E=mcc something in common with special relativity?

 

[clj4]

has E=mcc something in common with special relativity?

http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/

last paragraph

 

[wisp]

Is there somebody who knows the way in which aetgherists derive the formula that accounts for the optical Doppler effect?

Try
http://www.kevin.harkess.btinternet.co.uk/wisp_ch_9/wisp_ch_9.html

 

[bernhard.rothenstein]

doppler in different theories

Try
http://www.kevin.harkess.btinternet.co.uk/wisp_ch_9/wisp_ch_9.html

thank you. as I expected, the theory the author proposes, leads in the case of the Doppler Effect to the same results as Einstein's theory does.

 

[Ich]

Different sign, he says.

 

[clj4]

Different sign, he says.

Correct:

"Wisp theory predicts a positive change in frequency, whereas special relativity predicts a negative change. Both predicted changes have the same magnitude and will therefore have the same effect on the absorber. The results of the experiment are therefore inconclusive."

The guy is completely ignorant of the Ives-Stilwell experiment.
He "fixed" most of his explanations to make it look like his theory is equivalent with SR. If he "fixed" all of them, then his theory becomes irrelevant. If he leaves some different (like TDE), his theory is plain wrong.

 

[wisp]

Correct:

"Wisp theory predicts a positive change in frequency, whereas special relativity predicts a negative change. Both predicted changes have the same magnitude and will therefore have the same effect on the absorber. The results of the experiment are therefore inconclusive."

The guy is completely ignorant of the Ives-Stilwell experiment.
He "fixed" most of his explanations to make it look like his theory is equivalent with SR. If he "fixed" all of them, then his theory becomes irrelevant. If he leaves some different (like TDE), his theory is plain wrong.

In the Ives-Stilwell experiment the motion of the high-speed ions relate to a case whereby the light’s source is traveling faster through the ether than the observer. And in this case the wisp theory results agree with SR (Observer is effectively stationary “<0.0015c” and source moving).

But if the motion of the observer through the ether were greater than the light’s source, then wisp theory predicts the transverse Doppler effect (TDE) would measure differently to SR - a change of similar magnitude but opposite in sign. And the Ives-Stilwell experiment clearly doesn’t test this.

 

[clj4]

But if the motion of the observer through the ether were greater than the light’s source, then wisp theory predicts the transverse Doppler effect (TDE) would measure differently to SR - a change of similar magnitude but opposite in sign. And the Ives-Stilwell experiment clearly doesn’t test this.

Ha,ha, ha

you forgot about the principle of relativity. There is only relative speed.

 

[ZapperZ]

wisp: I think we have been MORE than "generous" in allowing you to advertize your pet theory here in spite of our Guidelines against it, simply because the OP asked for it. I was hoping that someone (you?) would point to legitimate references rather than some personal website. Obviously, my hope was obviously unfounded.

Per our Guidelines, references such as this is not allowed. If you wish to continue, please submit your work to the IR forum. Pleaser refrain from this moment on in citing non-peer-reviewed articles such as this.

Zz.