Science Forums

# Doppler Effect Of Gravitational Field

## Recommended Posts

We have designed an experiment to prove that the speed of light can be greater than C. We will publish the whole process and principle of the experiment.

• Replies 152
• Created

#### Popular Posts

Time to move this to alternate theories.

I don't judge a thing in general as right or wrong. I will analyze and ask questions one by one, waiting for the other party to answer.OK, let's continue to discuss it in depth. I hope our discussion

I did notice your red stamp in this thread.   I didn't remove it. :)

#### Posted Images

We have designed an experiment to prove that the speed of light can be greater than C. We will publish the whole process and principle of the experiment.

You might want to read this http://physicsdetective.com/the-speed-of-light/

##### Share on other sites

Thanks very much.

I will use experiments to prove that the speed of light can exceed or be less than C, and I can calculate how much faster and how much slower it is.

##### Share on other sites

Why Morley Experiment Could Not Observe the Movement of Interference fringe

(You can download the attachment. There are picture descriptions in the PDF)

Let’s first look at a scene as below:

A vehicle drives on the road being covering with water. Does it indicate that surface water is necessary for vehicle driving? I believe that everyone would give the answer “no”, for vehicles would drive smoothly without surface water on road. Vehicle driving does not need water as the medium. In the contrary, water would affect the driving speed of vehicle. The driving speed of vehicle is assumed as V water. When V water=0, that is, the water is static against the ground, and the driving speed of vehicle against ground is V vehicle, then the driving speed of vehicle parallel to the flow direction is V vehicle + V water and the driving speed of vehicle in reverse against the flow direction is V vehicle - V water. Water flow affects the vehicle speed and the vehicle is seized by water.

If the direction of V water is not in parallel with V vehicle, then we only need to break V water into the velocity component Vx in parallel with the V vehicle direction and the velocity component Vy in reverse against the V vehicle direction. The logic is the same. For simplicity, let’s assume that V vehicle is in parallel with V water to make illustration.

There are two buoys of A and B on the water surface and the distance between A and B is L. They are static against water surface. The direction of water flow is from A to B. Now the vehicle needs to drive from A to B and then from B to A. We need to measure the duration time T.

First, let’s check the duration from A to B. the vehicle drives parallel to the water, with the speed being V vehicle + V water. As the buoy is static against water surface, it also moves along the same direction with the speed V water. Therefore, it takes the time of L/(V vehicle + V water – V water）= L/V vehicle.

Then, it comes to B to A. The vehicle drives against water, with the speed being V vehicle – V water. As the buoy is static against water surface, it also moves in the reverse direction with the speed V water. Therefore, it takes the time of L/(V vehicle - V water + V water）= L/V vehicle.

We can find that the duration from A to B and equals that from B to A. Such a duration has nothing to do with the V water, the speed of water against ground. This conclusion is also valid even if the direction of V water is not in parallel with that of the V vehicle.

If we take the water as the reference object to measure the speed of vehicle, speed = distance / time = L/ (L / V vehicle) = V vehicle. It can be regarded as that people in the vehicle driving in a constant speed measure the speed of toy vehicle. The measured speed of toy vehicle remains the same no matter what is the driving direction. However, if it takes the ground as the reference object, the speed of toy vehicle would vary with the moving direction. That is, speed would be different if the reference system is different.

The analysis above is made for the sake for light analysis. A beam of light transmits in the air. Does it indicate that air is necessary for light? The answer is no. The transmission of light does not need the medium of air. In the same way, the existence of air would affect the velocity of light transmission. The velocity of light moving parallel to the air is faster than that of light moving in reverse against the air. Light is seized by air.

Let’s compare the two scenarios above:

Vehicle……counterpart……light

Water……counterpart……air

Water moves against road……counterpart……air moves against space

Now let’s focus on light: (The velocity of light in the vacuum is C. It assumes that the air and ground are relatively static. For simplicity, let’s set the direct of light and the revolution speed of the Earth is V Earth. In the short period, we could regard the movement of the Earth as the uniform linear motion.

Let’s place two signs of A and B on the ground. The direction from A to B is in line with the direction of the Earth speed V Earth. When the ground is static against point O in the space, the speed of light in the air is C0. Then when the light moves from A to B, the required time is L/(C0+V Earth -V Earth)=L/C0. When the light moves from B to A, the required time is L/(C0-V Earth + V Earth)=L/C0. Therefore, no matter what is the speed of the ground against point O in the space, it would not affect the duration that light moves A to B or from B to A. In a similar way, if the water surface is taken as the reference object, the vehicle speed would not change no matter what is the driving direction; the light takes the Earth as the reference and its speed would not change. Can we say that the existence of air is the fundamental reason for the phenomenon that Morley could not observe the movement of interference fringe of light?

The LIGO interferometer of the United States improves Morley Experiment. It places the experiment completely in the vacuum environment and the light would not be affected by the air any more. If the cause for the failure of Morley Experiment lies in air, LIGO should observe the movement of fringe, but it did not.

In accordance with our deduction just now, the duration for light moving from A to B should be L/(C-V earth) and that from B to A should be L/(C + V earth) by the classical physics, which shows that the required duration varies with V earth. Then it should be easy to find the fluctuation of fringe, but we could not. Does it further demonstrate the theory of Einstein that light speed would be constant no matter in which inertial reference system? Or is there other possibility? The greatest finding of LIGO is the discovery of gravitational wave. The weakest gravitational wave rises the fluctuation of interference fringe, that is, the gravitational wave affects light speed and leads to the changes of LIGO optical path difference in the horizontal direction and vertical direction. This finding is significant, which demonstrates that gravitational wave could affect light transmission.

If the weakest gravitational wave could rise the fluctuation of the LIGO interference fringe of light, how should we neglect the gravity’s influences on light? We raise the possibility that the light is affected by both the gravity and the air in the Earth. In this way, the Morley Experiment would not find the movement of interference fringe either in the air or in the vacuum environment. The vehicle is seized by the water flow. When the water surface serves as the reference object, the vehicle speed is constant; light is seized by gravity. When the ground serves as the reference object, the light speed is constant. When the ground serves as the reference object, the vehicle speed varies and the speed of water flow would be added. Is the light speed viable when the point O in space serves as the reference object? Would the movement speed of gravitational field of the Earth be added?

Eddington observed solar eclipse to verify general relativity. Such an observation demonstrates the correctness of general relativity and also proves that the light speed is affected by gravity as the light speed varies. Under the influence of gravity, the velocity component of light decreases in the original direction and that increases in the gravity direction. We could not measure whether there is any change of C’ near fixed star, but only find the changes of light direction. However, as light moves away from the fixed star, the measured light speed is still C. is it like the sound wave in the air? The sound speed in the plane would add with the speed of plane. However, when the sound travels out of the plane window, the sound speed returns to the speed in the air which is static against the ground. They are similar with each other.

Is the light speed really constant? Could Morley Experiment lead to the conclusion that light speed is constant under any inertial reference system?

##### Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Why Morley Experiment Could Not Observe the Movement of Interference fringe

(You can download the attachment. There are picture descriptions in the PDF)

Let’s first look at a scene as below:

A vehicle drives on the road being covering with water. Does it indicate that surface water is necessary for vehicle driving? I believe that everyone would give the answer “no”, for vehicles would drive smoothly without surface water on road. Vehicle driving does not need water as the medium. In the contrary, water would affect the driving speed of vehicle. The driving speed of vehicle is assumed as V water. When V water=0, that is, the water is static against the ground, and the driving speed of vehicle against ground is V vehicle, then the driving speed of vehicle parallel to the flow direction is V vehicle + V water and the driving speed of vehicle in reverse against the flow direction is V vehicle - V water. Water flow affects the vehicle speed and the vehicle is seized by water.

If the direction of V water is not in parallel with V vehicle, then we only need to break V water into the velocity component Vx in parallel with the V vehicle direction and the velocity component Vy in reverse against the V vehicle direction. The logic is the same. For simplicity, let’s assume that V vehicle is in parallel with V water to make illustration.

There are two buoys of A and B on the water surface and the distance between A and B is L. They are static against water surface. The direction of water flow is from A to B. Now the vehicle needs to drive from A to B and then from B to A. We need to measure the duration time T.

First, let’s check the duration from A to B. the vehicle drives parallel to the water, with the speed being V vehicle + V water. As the buoy is static against water surface, it also moves along the same direction with the speed V water. Therefore, it takes the time of L/(V vehicle + V water – V water）= L/V vehicle.

Then, it comes to B to A. The vehicle drives against water, with the speed being V vehicle – V water. As the buoy is static against water surface, it also moves in the reverse direction with the speed V water. Therefore, it takes the time of L/(V vehicle - V water + V water）= L/V vehicle.

We can find that the duration from A to B and equals that from B to A. Such a duration has nothing to do with the V water, the speed of water against ground. This conclusion is also valid even if the direction of V water is not in parallel with that of the V vehicle.

If we take the water as the reference object to measure the speed of vehicle, speed = distance / time = L/ (L / V vehicle) = V vehicle. It can be regarded as that people in the vehicle driving in a constant speed measure the speed of toy vehicle. The measured speed of toy vehicle remains the same no matter what is the driving direction. However, if it takes the ground as the reference object, the speed of toy vehicle would vary with the moving direction. That is, speed would be different if the reference system is different.

The analysis above is made for the sake for light analysis. A beam of light transmits in the air. Does it indicate that air is necessary for light? The answer is no. The transmission of light does not need the medium of air. In the same way, the existence of air would affect the velocity of light transmission. The velocity of light moving parallel to the air is faster than that of light moving in reverse against the air. Light is seized by air.

Let’s compare the two scenarios above:

Vehicle……counterpart……light

Water……counterpart……air

Water moves against road……counterpart……air moves against space

Now let’s focus on light: (The velocity of light in the vacuum is C. It assumes that the air and ground are relatively static. For simplicity, let’s set the direct of light and the revolution speed of the Earth is V Earth. In the short period, we could regard the movement of the Earth as the uniform linear motion.

Let’s place two signs of A and B on the ground. The direction from A to B is in line with the direction of the Earth speed V Earth. When the ground is static against point O in the space, the speed of light in the air is C0. Then when the light moves from A to B, the required time is L/(C0+V Earth -V Earth)=L/C0. When the light moves from B to A, the required time is L/(C0-V Earth + V Earth)=L/C0. Therefore, no matter what is the speed of the ground against point O in the space, it would not affect the duration that light moves A to B or from B to A. In a similar way, if the water surface is taken as the reference object, the vehicle speed would not change no matter what is the driving direction; the light takes the Earth as the reference and its speed would not change. Can we say that the existence of air is the fundamental reason for the phenomenon that Morley could not observe the movement of interference fringe of light?

The LIGO interferometer of the United States improves Morley Experiment. It places the experiment completely in the vacuum environment and the light would not be affected by the air any more. If the cause for the failure of Morley Experiment lies in air, LIGO should observe the movement of fringe, but it did not.

In accordance with our deduction just now, the duration for light moving from A to B should be L/(C-V earth) and that from B to A should be L/(C + V earth) by the classical physics, which shows that the required duration varies with V earth. Then it should be easy to find the fluctuation of fringe, but we could not. Does it further demonstrate the theory of Einstein that light speed would be constant no matter in which inertial reference system? Or is there other possibility? The greatest finding of LIGO is the discovery of gravitational wave. The weakest gravitational wave rises the fluctuation of interference fringe, that is, the gravitational wave affects light speed and leads to the changes of LIGO optical path difference in the horizontal direction and vertical direction. This finding is significant, which demonstrates that gravitational wave could affect light transmission.

If the weakest gravitational wave could rise the fluctuation of the LIGO interference fringe of light, how should we neglect the gravity’s influences on light? We raise the possibility that the light is affected by both the gravity and the air in the Earth. In this way, the Morley Experiment would not find the movement of interference fringe either in the air or in the vacuum environment. The vehicle is seized by the water flow. When the water surface serves as the reference object, the vehicle speed is constant; light is seized by gravity. When the ground serves as the reference object, the light speed is constant. When the ground serves as the reference object, the vehicle speed varies and the speed of water flow would be added. Is the light speed viable when the point O in space serves as the reference object? Would the movement speed of gravitational field of the Earth be added?

Eddington observed solar eclipse to verify general relativity. Such an observation demonstrates the correctness of general relativity and also proves that the light speed is affected by gravity as the light speed varies. Under the influence of gravity, the velocity component of light decreases in the original direction and that increases in the gravity direction. We could not measure whether there is any change of C’ near fixed star, but only find the changes of light direction. However, as light moves away from the fixed star, the measured light speed is still C. is it like the sound wave in the air? The sound speed in the plane would add with the speed of plane. However, when the sound travels out of the plane window, the sound speed returns to the speed in the air which is static against the ground. They are similar with each other.

Is the light speed really constant? Could Morley Experiment lead to the conclusion that light speed is constant under any inertial reference system?

The mass energy equation (E=m*c*c) does not need relativity as the basis. Using classical Newtonian mechanics to derive the mass energy equation.

1.It is assumed that it takes time t0 for a substance with mass m to accelerate from v=0 to v=C, and then it is assumed that this process is a process of uniform acceleration.

The displacement S=C*t0/2

W=F*S=m*a*S=m*a*C*t0/2=m*C*a*t0/2 =m*C*C/2

2.But in fact, it's not accelerating evenly, but like this: (Unable to upload picture)The acceleration is very large.

3.The displacement can be approximately s = C * t0.

4.The acceleration is nonlinear, which is a function of time t.

W=F*S = m*a(t)*S=m*a(t)*C*t0=m*C*a(t)*t0

5.The cumulative effect of acceleration on time is the final velocity C, a(t) * t0 = C.

6.Therefore:W=F*S = m*C*a(t)*t0 = m*C*C.

Science is rigorous. It is based on the logical analysis and mathematical derivation of scientific experiments. We use the classical Newtonian physics theory to analyze the Morley experiment and derive the mass energy equation. We don't need the assumption that the speed of light is constant, and we have proved that the assumption is wrong.

Now let's analyze Eddington observation.

There are two reasons that can lead to the bending of the object's moving path, one is the effect of the force, resulting in the speed in the vertical direction, the other is the refraction caused by the inhomogeneous medium or field, resulting in the bending of the path. Then the bending of light is probably caused by the latter. The sun is surrounded by a circle of gravitational field, the stronger the gravitational field is. When the light passes through the gravitational field of the sun, the light bends like refraction due to the inhomogeneity of the gravitational field. The bending of this path is different from the bending caused by the direct action of gravity. So it is not suitable to calculate the bending angle of light with the classical theory of flat throw.

In this paper, we have analyzed that no matter sun moves in the same or opposite direction or at a certain angle, the speed of light relative to sun will not change. In the calculation of the theory of flat throw, because there is an acceleration process under the pull of gravity at the beginning, before the acceleration caused by gravity becomes negative, the light will be more far away from the sun, less affected by gravity, so the deflection angle of light will be smaller. This is the reason why the deflection angle of light calculated by the classical theory of flat throw is too small. There is nothing wrong with Newtonian mechanics, but it was not used correctly that time.

If you want the complete article, please email me [email protected]

Hello, Tony Yuan

Unfortunately, for your theory there are many other proves of special and general relativity than just the experiment you have suggested disproves the theory, the differences in the air pressure would be very negligible for that experiment along with the other acting forces well within standard error meaning that the experiment was valid for the situation being measured. I have indeed preformed this experiment in a physics course and I happen to know as 20 other students did this experiment that it was repeatable and valid. Sorry but I disagree with your conclusion and the points that you made.

Sincerely,

Edit: Which the experimental error max or acceptable error for any physics experiment is ±5% from the value being measured, those different forces acting upon the experiment would be less than that thus the experiment is valid, the experiments take in account things like that in physics.
Edited by VictorMedvil
##### Share on other sites

Hello, Tony Yuan

Unfortunately, for your theory there are many other proves of special and general relativity than just the experiment you have suggested disproves the theory, the differences in the air pressure would be very negligible for that experiment along with the other acting forces well within standard error meaning that the experiment was valid for the situation being measured. I have indeed preformed this experiment in a physics course and I happen to know as 20 other students did this experiment that it was repeatable and valid. Sorry but I disagree with your conclusion and the points that you made.

Sincerely,

Edit: Which the experimental error max or acceptable error for any physics experiment is ±5% from the value being measured, those different forces acting upon the experiment would be less than that thus the experiment is valid, the experiments take in account things like that in physics.

Well, on earth, whether we are in the air or in the vacuum experimental environment, we can't observe the interference fringes through the Morley experiment. I think it's gravity that holds light. The speed of light to the earth is always the same.

LIGO experiment is a good proof. The weak gravitational waves can be observed by LIGO, which is enough to show how much the gravitational field affects the light.

So I think it's the gravitational field of the earth that holds the light, which causes the speed of light measured on earth is a constant. This is the fundamental reason why the morley experiment can not observe the movement of interference fringes.

##### Share on other sites

Well, on earth, whether we are in the air or in the vacuum experimental environment, we can't observe the interference fringes through the Morley experiment. I think it's gravity that holds light. The speed of light to the earth is always the same.

LIGO experiment is a good proof. The weak gravitational waves can be observed by LIGO, which is enough to show how much the gravitational field affects the light.

So I think it's the gravitational field of the earth that holds the light, which causes the speed of light measured on earth is a constant. This is the fundamental reason why the morley experiment can not observe the movement of interference fringes.

well, I am here to tell you that is wrong due to the weakness of gravity that is impossible for the gravity of the earth to make any meaningful action on light.

##### Share on other sites

well, I am here to tell you that is wrong due to the weakness of gravity that is impossible for the gravity of the earth to make any meaningful action on light.

So why can LIGO observe gravitational waves?

##### Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

&amp;nbsp;

well, I am here to tell you that is wrong due to the weakness of gravity that is impossible for the gravity of the earth to make any meaningful action on light.

&amp;nbsp;

The effect of gravity on the bending of light was also observed by edinton observation.

General relativity is only a scientific mathematical model. Classical Newtonian mechanics can also be used to build a gravitational field model to describe the bending of light.

In the past, the bending angle of classical physical calculation was not correct because of the incorrect calculation method. I have a detailed analysis in the article.

There are two reasons that can lead to the bending of the object's moving path, one is the effect of the force, resulting in the speed in the vertical direction, the other is the refraction caused by the inhomogeneous medium or field, resulting in the bending of the path. Then the bending of light is probably caused by the latter. The sun is surrounded by a circle of gravitational field, the stronger the gravitational field is. When the light passes through the gravitational field of the sun, the light bends like refraction due to the inhomogeneity of the gravitational field. The bending of this path is different from the bending caused by the direct action of gravity. So it is not suitable to calculate the bending angle of light with the classical theory of flat throw.

In this paper, we have analyzed that no matter sun moves in the same or opposite direction or at a certain angle, the speed of light relative to sun will not change. In the calculation of the theory of flat throw, because there is an acceleration process under the pull of gravity at the beginning, before the acceleration caused by gravity becomes negative, the light will be more far away from the sun, less affected by gravity, so the deflection angle of light will be smaller. This is the reason why the deflection angle of light calculated by the classical theory of flat throw is too small. There is nothing wrong with Newtonian mechanics, but it was not used correctly that time.

We must note that the light on the Earth is very close to the Earth. So we can't think that gravity is too small to ignore the effect on light.

Edited by TonyYuan2020
##### Share on other sites

I've uploaded the pdf  “Why Morley Experiment Could Not Observe the Movement of Interference fringe5.0.pdf".

##### Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

I read your article, and we have the same point of view. We believe that our efforts can change the wrong view of special relativity.

http://www.scienceforums.com/topic/36528-questions-to-special-relativity/  We believe that supporters of special relativity will not be able to answer the questions raised here.

1. Is B1 still reaching Planet X after 4.35 seconds?

2.If the Earth passes for 10 seconds, How many seconds have passed on spaceship B1? How many seconds have passed on         spaceship B3?

Edited by TonyYuan2020
##### Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

I read your article, and we have the same point of view. We believe that our efforts can change the wrong view of special relativity.

http://www.scienceforums.com/topic/36528-questions-to-special-relativity/  We believe that supporters of special relativity will not be able to answer the questions raised here.

1. Is B1 still reaching Planet X after 4.35 seconds?

2.If the Earth passes for 10 seconds, How many seconds have passed on spaceship B1? How many seconds have passed on         spaceship B3?

1. Yes

2. B1 = 4.35 seconds , B3 = 4.35 seconds since they are traveling at the same velocity.

Now shut up crank, no more questions, if you have anymore questions ask them on https://www.physicsforums.com/ , if they ban you it means I was right and you're a crank.

Edited by VictorMedvil
##### Share on other sites

1. Yes

2. B1 = 4.35 seconds , B3 = 4.35 seconds since they are traveling at the same velocity.

Now shut up crank, no more questions, if you have anymore questions ask them on https://www.physicsforums.com/ , if they ban you it means I was right and you're a crank.

OK, now that you have given the answer, I'll publish the result.

If, as discussed earlier, there are photons. Then there are the following situations:

1. If the photons are on the earth, the spaceship B3 has a slower time than the earth.

2. When photons are on the spacecraft B3, the earth's time is slower than the spacecraft .

3. If photons are on the line between the earth and B3, then the speed of the earth relative to photons is faster, the spacecraft relative to photons is still, and the earth is slower than the B3.

4. If photons are in other places, the speed of B1 relative photons will be faster than that of earth, and the time on spaceship B1 will be slower.

If you don't use photons as a reference, then the earth uses spacecraft as a reference. There is a relative speed between them, and the time on earth is slower. In the same way, the spaceship takes the earth as a reference, and the time on the spaceship is slower. The conclusion is still very contradictory.

So who is slowing down? Special relativity is more like the theory of self contradiction. Newton's classical physics is the right theory.

##### Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

OK, now that you have given the answer, I'll publish the result.

If, as discussed earlier, there are photons. Then there are the following situations:

1. If the photons are on the earth, the spaceship B3 has a slower time than the earth.

2. When photons are on the spacecraft B3, the earth's time is slower than the spacecraft .

3. If photons are on the line between the earth and B3, then the speed of the earth relative to photons is faster, the spacecraft relative to photons is still, and the earth is slower than the B3.

4. If photons are in other places, the speed of B1 relative photons will be faster than that of earth, and the time on spaceship B1 will be slower.

If you don't use photons as a reference, then the earth uses spacecraft as a reference. There is a relative speed between them, and the time on earth is slower. In the same way, the spaceship takes the earth as a reference, and the time on the spaceship is slower. The conclusion is still very contradictory.

So who is slowing down? Special relativity is more like the theory of self contradiction. Newton's classical physics is the right theory.

No, No Special relativity is correct however like I said no more questions take it to (https://www.physicsforums.com/) forums, they will straighten you out.

Edited by VictorMedvil
##### Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

No, No Special relativity is correct however like I said no more questions take it to (https://www.physicsforums.com/) forums, they will straighten you out.

Well, truth can stand all kinds of arguments.

I will ask special relativity questions in physics forums, just as I do here, to prove the correctness of Newton's classical physics and the error of special relativity. Physics will return to classical physics.

My friend, if no supporter of special relativity can provide reasonable proof to support the correctness of this theory, let's let special relativity end in 2020.

Edited by TonyYuan2020
##### Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Well, truth can stand all kinds of arguments.

I will ask special relativity questions in physics forums, just as I do here, to prove the correctness of Newton's classical physics and the error of special relativity. Physics will return to classical physics.

My friend, if no supporter of special relativity can provide reasonable proof to support the correctness of this theory, let's let special relativity end in 2020.

Good luck with that, the physics forums is like a meat grinder.

Edited by VictorMedvil

## Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.