Transverse Doppler effect

[Anonymous No.14722329]

Modern physics tells us that there is no classical transverse Doppler effect, and that this "Lorentz contraction" is not a contraction of wavelength but a contraction of the fabric of "spacetime", which occurs only at "relativistic" speeds.

The greatest geniuses that our civilization has ever produced tell us that this is the case, so it must be true.

Discuss.

[Anonymous No.14722956]

>>14722329
Light moves the same speed for all f.o.r.

You can post this as many times as you want, but burden of proof is on you. Proving this would be equivalent to a non-null Michaelson-Morely experiment.

[Anonymous No.14722977]

>>14722956
>Proving this would be equivalent to a non-null Michaelson-Morely experiment.
What the picture proves is that you don't understand WHY the Michelson-Morley result was null. Do you understand that a phase shift reciprocal to the Lorentz factor on the vertical axis eliminates the need for a magical Lorentz contraction along the x-axis in the direction of motion?

No, of course not.

[Anonymous No.14723156]

>>14722329
Does your hypothesis make any novel, testable predictions?
If so, why haven't you tested them?

[Anonymous No.14723175]

>>14723156
>Does your hypothesis make any novel, testable predictions?
Yes. The one-way speed of light should be anisotropic, for example, and should vary sinusoidally with the Earth's sidereal rotation.
>If so, why haven't you tested them?
I don't have the money for atomic clocks and a 1.5 km optical cable, but fortunately someone already ran the experiment (see picrel). Looks like I'm right, what a surprise.

[Anonymous No.14723209]

Sup, you might remember that some time ago I found this paper[1] on the derivation of the Lorentz transformation from the Prandtl-Glauert transformation in aerodynamics.

Recently I found this simpler derivation[2], so here it is, cleaned it up a bit. Enjoy.

[1] https://www.researchgate.net/publication/324017960_Deriving_Special_Relativity_from_the_Theory_of_Subsonic_Compressible_Aerodynamics
[2] https://vixra.org/pdf/1306.0217v1.pdf

[Anonymous No.14723213]

This approach should be largely equivalent to yours with the Doppler effect (since it is an effect of compressibility), except coming from the other way.
You correctly apply the Doppler effect the the Michelson-Morley experiment, while this lets you derive special relativity in any compressible medium.
From this you should be able to derive the so called "relativistic longitudinal Doppler effect", which is just the redundant application of the Doppler effect to the transformed coordinates.

[Anonymous No.14723254]

>>14723209
>>14723213
Lovely, thanks :)

I'll give these a read.

My next area of focus is quantum mechanics. I'm currently working my way through Sommerfeld's Atomic Structure and Spectral Lines. Once I'm through with that I'm going to attempt to correct whatever mistakes it made by incorrectly applying Maxwell's equations and relativity. Fluids are very interesting though; there's almost certainly some insight that can be applied from fluid mechanics to connect gravity to quantum phenomena.

[Anonymous No.14723285]

>>14723209
>>14723213
I also recently updated my Michelson-Morley paper to include some discussion of the concept of optical distance as it was applied to the experiment, and an interesting principle that can be proved geometrically (picrel) that I call frequency invariance. Essentially, if you have a source and observer moving at the same velocity, the observer may observe a variety of different wavelengths from the source, but will always observe the same frequency as if the source were stationary, so you have [math]c'=f\lambda'[/math].

I used this equation earlier, but now it's properly justified.

[Anonymous No.14723301]

>>14723175
>The actual days of the data in figure 12 are not revealed in reference [13] so a detailed analysis of the DeWitte data is not possible.
>The definition of the sign convention for ∆t used by DeWitte is unclear.
>The declination of the velocity observed in this DeWitte experiment cannot be determined from the data as only three days of data are available.
>If all of DeWitte’s 178 days of data were available then a detailed analysis would be possible.
So no error bars on any of the data, none of the raw data is available for analysis because the guy refused to make it available, there's no indication of how ∆t was defined and measured, there's discussion of the sensitivity of the atomic clocks to pressure, humidity, and temperature but nothing with regards to the effects of temperature on the cable itself, and his self-published article is no longer available because the only place he ever stored a copy of it is on a webpage that was later bought out by a European cellular provider.

Yessir, you've cracked the relativity hoax wide open, OP.

[Anonymous No.14723369]

>>14723301
The experiment was also replicated by Kolen and Torr.

[Anonymous No.14723397]

>>14723301
The anisotropy can be detected by the Fizeau experiment as well (picrel).

[Anonymous No.14723427]

>>14723301
You can also modify the Sagnac experiment to operate in an inertial frame, which disproves special relativity by demonstrating that the speed of light is observer-dependent.

[Anonymous No.14723451]

>>14723254
>My next area of focus is quantum mechanics.
I found a lot of stuff on quantum mechanics. While relativity seems to be mostly a wild goose chase to figure out it was just the Doppler effect and refraction all along, quantum mechanics is quite the rabbit hole. I'll ramble a bit just in case you'll find something useful.

I found an interesting paper[1] which suggests that the quantum force is due to a scalar electric field, similar to that found in the Monstein-Wesley experiment I believe, or the other one in EED. The paper is rather suspect to me (I don't like the references in the appendix) but I haven't had to chance to verify its contents for myself yet.
[1] http://www.qql.ch/m/02E_Ether_PSI.pdf

Speaking of which, here's a paper[rel] from Hively on gauge-free extended electrodynamics which claims to also have better experimental evidence for longitudinal waves than the MW experiment.

Quantum mechanics is linked to Brownian motion, diffusion, and drag.
Arbab, who has a lot of interesting stuff following Hively, links matter waves to drag[2]. He also talks about massive photons in there, you were interested in those, right?
[2] https://www.researchgate.net/publication/315582426_Extended_electrodynamics_and_its_consequences

I have so much stuff in my backlog it's becoming hard to keep track of all of it.

>>14723285
Keep up the good work.
Have you seen Alexander Unzicker's videos on variable speed of light? Despite being an Einstein worshipper, and even worse, a Machian, some of the ideas might be worth pondering over. This result vaguely reminded me of him, despite being completely unrelated.

[Anonymous No.14723461]

>>14723254
Fluid dynamics is incredibly rich, as you would expect. Indeed, if the aether turns out to be an compressible inviscid fluid, it has to be as rich as reality itself.

One interesting thought in the above direction which I haven't managed to transform in something concrete yet, is that in d'Alembert's "paradox", that an incompressible inviscid fluid exerts no drag on a moving body, the assumption of incompressibility is crucial, therefore when the compressibility of the aether should become relevant, we should expect a drag force to appear.
The biggest problem with Lorentz's aether was its incompressibility. An incompressible fluid cannot exist, as the condition of incompressibility is inconsistent with thermodynamics, as fluid pressure becomes a meaningless mathematical parameter that is decoupled from the actual, physical thermodynamic variable.
It's interesting to note that the Coulomb gauge, apparently widely used in quantum mechanics, represents exactly the incompressibility constraint: that the divergence of the magnetic potential, the velocity field of the aether, should be 0.

Within the Schroedinger equation, you can find Euler's fluid equations (Madelung's quantum hydrodynamics, de Broglie-Bohm).
Within the Navier-Stokes equations, you can find Maxwell's equations (Marmanis's turbulent hydrodynamic analogy, whose exact meaning is rather arcane).
Within the Dirac equation, you can find Maxwell's equations ([1] again and related seem to agree).
Within general relativity's equations, you can find the Navier-Stokes equations (stated without proof).

If aether is to be a fluid, gravity cannot be due to anything but changes in density and pressure, as Newton believed, as that explains both the gravitational force and lensing of light.
So I think those who consider gravity to be a leftover effect from electromagnetism aren't wrong, technically, since whatever electromagnetism is (linked to turbulence) has to have some effect on pressure and density.

[Anonymous No.14723522]

>>14722977
I read your paper. Where does the phase shift come from?

[Anonymous No.14723524]

>>14723451
Thanks, these look interesting. SLW's are a rabbit hole I'm probably not going to go down for a while but I have Wesley's books so I'm planning to get there eventually.
>relativity seems to be mostly a wild goose chase to figure out it was just the Doppler effect and refraction all along
Yeah, when the physics community catches up it's going to turn out there's not actually much interesting physics going on in many of these "relativistic" experiments that turn out to be explained by simple optical principles rather than deep connections between space/time. Doppler shift plays an important role in electrodynamics though; I strongly suspect that Weber's force can be derived by applying a correction for Doppler shift to the Coulomb potential, but I'm not completely sure of the details.
>Have you seen Alexander Unzicker's videos on variable speed of light?
VSL is interesting, but ultimately Unzicker stops short of concluding that it's possible for photons to travel *faster* than light, which is necessary for Le Sage gravity to operate (and to explain Hubble's constant).
>Despite being an Einstein worshipper
Sadly, he seems fixated on relativity as the solution to problems in particle physics and refuses to question assumptions beyond a certain historical point.
>and even worse, a Machian
Assis appears to be a Machian as well; there might be something worthwhile in those ideas but whether or not there is any philosophical meaning to the concept of motion in a universe with a single particle, there is a stationary aether frame so for practical purposes we can assume all motion to be relative to this frame.

[Anonymous No.14723555]

>>14723522
Have you read the latest version? See section 4.

[Anonymous No.14724385]

>>14723175
That experiment is basically pic rel?
There already exists atomic clocks and kilometers of optical cables: The internet, and it's everywhere

[Anonymous No.14724436]

>>14724385
Here's the paper. The experimental setup actually involved two clusters of cesium atomic clocks, and two buried coaxial cables connecting the clusters 1.5 km apart. Temperature, pressure, humidity, and magnetic induction effects were all considered and accounted for in conducting the experiment.

[Anonymous No.14724447]

Shut the fuck up Nathan. You've been proven wrong so many times over the past few months. Your persistence is evidence of your increasingly debilitating schizophrenia. Get help. Get medicated.

[Anonymous No.14724489]

Its true. Relativity theory is just a basic misunderstanding of wave travelling mechanics.

[Anonymous No.14724511]

>>14724436
>Temperature, pressure, humidity, and magnetic induction effects were all considered and accounted for in conducting the experiment.
According to your paper - for the clocks, yes, but there is no mention of accounting for these effects for the cables themselves. How deep were the cables buried? Were they isolated or joined by other cables and utilities? Are there measurements of the temperature, pressure, humidity, induction, etc. for the cables?

Changes in propagation times from temperature shifts in modern coax cables can be in excess of ~1 ns/km/C. I don't know how much worse it was in cables from 30 years ago.

[Anonymous No.14724531]

>>14724511
They were getting variations of 28 ns peak to peak over 1.5 km, so that seems pretty large comparatively to be a measurement error.

The paper doesn't say how deep they were buried, but generally temperatures are pretty steady underground. Also, more importantly, there were two coaxial cables laying in parallel with signals traveling in opposite directions. Any changes to the cables would presumably affect both cables equally, and therefore cancel out.

That said, while I personally find the experiment convincing, it would be nice to have a replication.

[Anonymous No.14724545]

>>14724511
Also worth mentioning, 1 nanosecond at the speed of light corresponds to roughly 1 foot, which gives you an idea of just how much distance the phase was varying. It seems highly implausible to me that any temperature-induced change would cause the cable to expand or contract 28 feet over a 24-hour period.

[Anonymous No.14724650]

>>14724447
How has he been proven wrong by you failing at basic algebra?

[Anonymous No.14724705]

>>14724436
What these 150km/s speed deviations actually mean? That can't be actual speed of light?

[Anonymous No.14724747]

>>14724436
Speed of earth around sun: 30km/s
Speed of sun around milky way: 225km/s
Their experiment deviations make perfect sense

[Anonymous No.14724755]

>>14724531
>>14724545
Changes in propagation time in coax cables due to temperature changes are less as a result of adding length via thermal expansion and more a result in changes to the refractive properties of the cable insulator. For a *modern* 1.5 km cable you're talking about changes of a couple ns/°C difference. Even a temperature swing of a dozen degrees could theoretically account for the ~0.37% peak-to-peak variation described in the paper. And that's for a cable made in 2021 - I can't even find estimates for propagation variance in cables from the 90s, they could be way worse. Heating from diurnal changes in temperature is one source of heating, heating from other electrical lines if these cables weren't alone in these clusters could be another, etc.

Maybe there's something to these results, but there's way to much hinky shit and bad reporting to accept them without skepticism.

[Anonymous No.14725920]

>>14724755
It's good to be skeptical. It's also possible the results were simply fabricated; we don't know, which is why replication is important. However, there are a couple of factors that lead me to believe that there is more going on than a temperature swing:

1) The cables were buried, so diurnal temperature variation should have been minimized.

2) Both cables should have been affected by any changes equally.

3) The temperature change to account for a 28 ns difference would correspond to roughly 65 degrees Fahrenheit (my estimate), which sounds too high even if the cables weren't buried (see attached pic).

4) Soil temperatures lag behind day temperatures, so the shift should have been detectable if diurnal temperature changes were the cause.

5) The cycles matched sidereal days rather than 24-hour cycles.

6) The results for absolute motion matched D.C. Miller's results in magnitude and direction, and neither result matched the velocity of the cosmic background radiation, which is important (CMB is an artifact caused by Earth's oceans, Pierre Robitaille has a video series about this).

[Anonymous No.14726261]

>>14724489
>Mentioning Tesla in any way ever

[Anonymous No.14726267]

>>14725920
>CMB is an artifact caused by Earth's oceans
Excuse me?

[Anonymous No.14726278]

>>14726267

[Anonymous No.14726283]

>>14726267
He also has a 23-video playlist if you're curious: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p8lKQMEYYLw&list=PLnU8XK0C8oTDaiwe8Us_YNl4Kjmt8ceRD

[Anonymous No.14726291]

>>14726267
He also has a 23-video playlist if you're interested:
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLnU8XK0C8oTDaiwe8Us_YNl4Kjmt8ceRD

[Anonymous No.14726637]

>>14726261
at least Tesla did real physics with real scientific methods.

[Anonymous No.14726711]

>>14726637
>at least Tesla did real physics with real scientific methods
>be Tesla
>be experimenting with wireless transmission at Colorado Springs
>no matter what you do you can't seem to transmit significant power over more than a few meters
>go to the pub to eat the free peanuts
>overhear Mrs. Taylor talking about how something spooked the horses last night
>overhear Mr. Paddington mention he gave himself a shock on a brass doorknob
>OF COURSE! YOU'VE BEEN ELECTROCUTING HORSES AND TOWNSPEOPLE WITH YOUR EXPERIMENTS FROM TENS OF MILES AWAY! THAT IS THE ONLY POSSIBLE EXPLANATION OF THESE EVENTS!
>LITTLE TIMMY! HERE'S A SHINY PENNY! RUN AND FETCH MR. MALLORY THE NEWSPAPER MAN! I'VE GOT THE STORY OF THE CENTURY TO TELL HIM!

[Anonymous No.14727616]

>>14723285
I just had the occasion to read the updated paper.
It's a pretty nice result. Intuitively it makes sense, since relative distance stays the same so the frequency cannot change, but since the relative speed of light appears slower, the only thing that can change is the wavelength. This replaces the proof by appealing to the energy, right?

A couple of suggestions: you could add a sentence or two describing figures 6 and 7 (especially 7) describing what the grey and red circles mean, so that you don't have to extract it from the text; and equation 32 works for θ = ±π/2, since the transverse directions are the same, so you might as well add the ± sign to θ.

The section on optical distance reads much clearer now, since it explains better what the actual problem was.

[Anonymous No.14727839]

>>14725920
Why not just use radio at this point? It's only 1.5km

[Anonymous No.14727867]

>>14726637
>Tesla did real physics

[Anonymous No.14728048]

>>14722956
IIRC Michaelson Morley recorded 8km/s of drift and Dayton Miller measured 10km/s.

Why orbital velocity gets rounded down to zero is beyond me

[Anonymous No.14728055]

>>14726637
Tesla was genius he left us no useful tools to replicate his work.
All the good math from that era came from Steinmetz and Heaviside.

[Anonymous No.14728168]

>>14728048
How long does it take for light to travel 10 km?

Equivalents of the experiment don't use astronomical measurements anyways. Those would need to be explained also.

[Anonymous No.14728261]

>>14728168
>How long does it take for light to travel 10 km?
The speed of any transverse EM wave is determined by the dielectric permittivity and magnetic permeability of that region of space.
Those two values are considered constants in empty space, though there have been some small variations over the years.

[Anonymous No.14728275]

>>14727839
That's actually an interesting thought. It might be difficult picking up 5 MHz with a radio, and there might be some challenges in picking up/measuring deviations of higher frequencies, and also questions about the path the light takes when it's not being received from a line of sight, but still, maybe there's a cheap experiment that could be done using a radio + atomic clocks.

[Anonymous No.14728309]

>>14727616
>This replaces the proof by appealing to the energy, right?
Yes. You could still appeal to energy, since you shouldn't be able to receive more energy just by moving along at a constant velocity with a source (this would be equivalent to observing different energies in different inertial frames), but I think the geometric argument improves understanding.

>A couple of suggestions: you could add a sentence or two describing figures 6 and 7 (especially 7)
Yes, originally these figures had their own sections with some corresponding derivations, but I decided that they weren't within the scope of a paper on the Michelson-Morley experiment, so I cut it back. At some point I think a paper just on the Doppler effect is warranted; I can include those results + a discussion of phase shifts and angles for moving reflectors. Eventually it should be incorporated into a theory of absorption/emission that can explain hyperfine structure and quantum effects. The end game of optics is a theory of atomic structure.

>The section on optical distance reads much clearer now, since it explains better what the actual problem was.
Thanks. It's taken me a long time to clarify the ideas for myself as well. There's a lot more to the MM experiment than meets the eye.

[Anonymous No.14728319]

>>14728048
>Why orbital velocity gets rounded down to zero is beyond me
There's a subtle effect at play; the refractive index of air is slightly larger than the index of a vacuum, so despite the fact that the experiment produces a very precise null result in a vacuum, absolute motion can actually be detected as a second-order effect when the experiment is conducted in air. These second-order deviations can then be converted to their true velocities corresponding to absolute motion.

[Anonymous No.14728494]

>>14728319
The fact that you can explain away the variation 100yrs later does not directly invalidate the recorded results.
Unless the experiment were faithfully repeated the null conclusion is just speculation.

[Anonymous No.14728539]

>>14728494
I'm saying that the original experiments *did* detect the absolute motion they set out to detect, so in fact their results can't technically be considered null. They're only considered null because without a proper analysis, the measured deviations appear too small to be anything other than experimental error, which is why the results of Michelson-Morley and D.C. Miller were dismissed.

[DoctorGreen !DRgReeNusk No.14728608]

There is no universal proof for the universal statement that Light travels at the same speed. Why is everyone in this thread pretending to be omniscience? you are local at best

[Anonymous No.14728617]

>>14728539
Dayton Miller had a better setup overall and did much better long-term experiments, did they ever do analysis on his stuff as well?

[Anonymous No.14728812]

>>14728617
Reg Cahill has a paper with some analysis (attached).

[Anonymous No.14728834]

>>14728617
Actually, this paper appears more complete.