/sci/ - Science & Math

>>15033720
So, the position you're taking is that no transverse Doppler effect exists? That's obviously wrong, as anyone can see from figure 12. There is clearly a wavelength contraction along the transverse axis. So, the question is, how much does the wavelength contract compared to the stationary case? Well, that's easy to calculate, just draw a triangle.

Figure 12 is NOT being used to compute an average over a range of motion. The figure illustrates a snapshot in time, where the source is at S', and the calculation takes place on that snapshot in time.

Now, for a moving interferometer, if you are in the same frame as the moving interferometer (the lab frame, with S' stationary) you will observe the waves from the source at S' to spread out in exactly the same fashion as illustrated over time, so the amount of contraction measured in each direction will be steady, not changing.

If your claim that [math]\lambda=\lambda'[/math] were true, then Doppler shift would not exist at all. You wouldn't hear a passing train's horn change pitch from high to low. So that claim is empirically false.

>This has been pointed out to the author before, he doesn't care.
Yes. You were ignored because you're wrong.

>>14985694

>>14984046
>Why does time dilate?
It doesn't.
>Why does the speed of light have to be the same in all reference frames?
It isn't.

Is the science settled?