Measuring The Relative Velocity Of Light

[Ingvar Astrand]

Ingvar Astrand's answer to geistkiesel:

Does it not seem more rational that the frequency will increase rather than the wavelength decrease? Red shift is an incease in the frequency in doppler measurements, not a shortening of wavelength.

No redshift implies increasing wavelengths and decreasing frequencies.
The frequencies of the wave-units that the moving observer meet increase (he meets the wave-units faster) and he sees longer waves that appears shorter to him. So the light-spectrum he sees have - depending on his eyes' invariant frequency-reaction - longer wave-lengths in the reality (relative to the space or the observer in rest).

The complicated Doppler-formulas do hardly explain what really happens.

An observer that moves forwards relative to the radiation from a source have his eyes' optical (light) frequency spectrum invariant but the wavelengths appears as shorter to him [the eye's invariable frequency = (c+observer’s velocity)/wavelength]. The wavelengths of the light spectrum that appear as (is) normal for the moving observer's eyes are wavelengths that relative to the space in rest are longer.

The apparent wavelengths are the variable parameter that is changed proportionally with the observer's velocity depending on his eyes' inherent invariable light-frequency-reaction. If he travels at c+10% of c, the wave-units he sees (appears to him) as normal are the true wavelengths that are 10% longer. And the observer in rest sees the same wavelength’s spectrum as it is, proportional to his velocity that is 0 – that is: the laboratory-relation between frequencies and wavelengths

Let me refer to your example: First: frequency = velocity / wavelength
Let us calculate a specific yellow color of 6000 A (Angstrom) or 6 x 10^-7 m.

An observer in rest sees this yellow color's (laboratory-)frequency at (3 x 10^8m/s) / (6 x 10^-7 m/n) = 5 x 10^14 n/s (Hz)

Independent of his velocity this yellow color to him always has the frequency: 5 x 10^14 n/s (Hz).

If an observer moves at c+10% of c, his yellow color's wavelength is: (3.3 x 10^8m/s) / (5 x 10^14 n/s) = 6.6 x 10^-7 m (6600 A).

My derivation of the real theory of relativity is: symmetric, understandable, calculateable, and no crazy dilation of space or time. Now you need neither Lorentz' unintelligible equation nor Doppler's hardly explainable formulation.

I have presented my wholw "unified theory of physics" with this transition calculation (translation formulation) in proceedings at conferences in Kazan State University in Russia 2003, and with NPA and AAAS in Denver 2004.
In August you can read my whole theory at: http://www.theuniphysics.info

But till then, take a look at my Denver-abstracts and see the great range of the unified theory of physics.

 

[geistkiesel]

Realist conundrum in wavelength modification during doppler measurement.

I understand your post. It seems to me arbitrary, which doesn't make it erroneous, that an intrinsic characteristic of the light, i.e. the wavelength would change, lengthen, and the frequency would be the determining factor? Do you see my "realist" conundrum?

How does the wavelength get modified during measurement anyway?

 

[ram1024]

If an observer moves at c+10% of c, his yellow color's wavelength is: (3.3 x 10^8m/s) / (5 x 10^14 n/s) = 6.6 x 10^-7 m (6600 A)

nah he's saying the color that the observer WOULD perceive as being "yellow" would be modified versus standard Earth measurements because to get that frequency he'd have to subtract his own velocity.

but the eyeball doesn't subtract velocity on its own, so on paper yellow is 6.6x10^7 m to him at that speed

 

[russ_watters]

the thing is, greater frequency, but shorter wavelength doesn't mean anything to someone with time dilation and length contraction. in their units they can't detect redshift.

Have you actually done the math or do you just assume that it works out that way?

 

[ram1024]

no i haven't, I'm not an SR person. from what i GATHER, you guys can't detect redshift as we define it, only doppler redshift from motion of the stellar bodies.

why don't YOU tell ME :D

 

[geistkiesel]

You should try to extend your knowlegde then.
I searched for Repetitions of the MMX
http://www.weburbia.demon.co.uk/physics/experiments.html
I searched for the last one in the list (1979)
http://fangio.magnet.fsu.edu/~vlad/pr100/100yrs/html/chap/fs2_07053.htm
See, it "has been repeated with quite the care since Miller". (4000-fold improvement).
Also, still, anyone can repeat the experiment. Instant nobel prize. not.

Your 4000 fold improvement number is questionable. The authors there mentioned MM and Joos, and ignored Miller who did approx. 200,000 MM type experiopments with the known results. Miller questioned Joos' experimental technique. The authors also assume a relativity scenario carrying through the experiment ( as far as I can tell). Personally I think the 79 paper is scientific junk.

Yes and this type of device is very sensitive to any movement so you can't just rotate it without effecting the results. Plus there are every kinds of effects from the environment including non uniform gravity. That's why the non-zero results have to be considered carefully.



Please see:
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=null
"Of no consequence" "Amounting to nothing"

Note that in the above 1979 paper, there is of course some measured random data, but the result is interpreted as null by the experimenters because it is not meaninful compared to estimated values and considering experimental errors.

the 79 paper authors mentioned some data not considered. They also used diagnositc data in their results. You should read it a tad closer.
I give them a J for junk grade.

Th3e definition is always a matter of choice. What is null to wespe may be of monumnetal importance to someone else. Un;less the "null" or of no importance is quantified it is usless to me.

Not very interesting because it doesn't say anything new. As I said before, sure, if the results are confirmed, the theory would be invalid. What we are discussing is the confirmation part.


I don't understand you either. I don't think you comprehend what you read and you just quote parts taken from somewhere without any grasp. I already knew you have a problem understanding what relative speed is, but this is just too much...

I understand enough for me. Whether it is enough for you is not a concern of mine. I know what relative speed is. The only problem you have with that is it contradicts your SR store bought vesion of physics.

 

[wespe]

Personally I think the 79 paper is scientific junk.

Go repeat the experiment yourself and tell me your results. Until then, I will have to ignore you. Anyway, if I don't like your results, I will call them junk. So easy. Bye, Geistkiesel.

 

[Chronos]

Amazing. This thread has indisputably proven SRT is wrong. Incomprehension clearly propogates much faster than 'c'.

 

[Ingvar Astrand]

I understand your post. It seems to me arbitrary, which doesn't make it erroneous, that an intrinsic characteristic of the light, i.e. the wavelength would change, lengthen, and the frequency would be the determining factor? Do you see my "realist" conundrum?

How does the wavelength get modified during measurement anyway?

Thank you for your question that help me to make my explanation better.

The frequency is relativisticly dependent on the velocity and wavelength according to this realistic and well-proven formula
<frequency = velocity / wavelength >.

Consequently - an observer that moves towards a radiating source (a galaxy) meet the wave-units faster and the frequency increase proportionally to the observer’s velocity.

But the observer's eyes don't follow the specific waves away out from the visible spectrum. His color-spectrum (= the eye’s frequency-spectrum reaction) is invariant which implies that his eyes see the longer waves that move faster and increase in frequency as apparently shorter and the color-spectrum he sees moves proportionally to longer waves when he moves towards the source – and vice versa in the other direction.

Is this clear enough?
Maybe I need more training and more unawaited questions.