Doppler Effect Of Gravitational Field

[exchemist]

I'm interested in focusing on your research area. After I finished the debate of Newtonian mechanics and special relativity. I think there will be results today. I've won.

I once worked in the research and development center of Motorola LTE. I believe I can give you some research energy.

No, you have not "won" anything. Janus and Halc have just pointed out where you have made mistakes in your algebra. Again.  Since you do not know what you are doing, it is not surprising you get silly answers. It is not SR's fault. 

 

P.S. But I see where you are going, now. You will bore the arse off everyone with more and more scenarios until they stop replying - and then claim "victory". You can obviously do that: Janus is a patient scientist, but even he will have his limit of endurance with someone determined not to learn. The the only person you will be fooling will be yourself, though. You won't have persuaded any other reader on the forum - we see people like this every month. 

Edited March 19, 2020 by exchemist

[ralfcis]

If by "double" value you mean an extra Y that is not expected, I've noticed this in the formula (ct')² = (ct)² - x². This formula is valid from the stationary perspective but not from the moving perspective. From the moving perspective the formula is  (ct'')² = (ct')² - (x/Y)². Use v=.6, t=5, t'=4, t''=3.2, Y=1.25 to check it out. The morons on the PSX would have no idea what I just said here.

Edited March 19, 2020 by ralfcis

[Vmedvil2]

If by "double" value you mean an extra Y that is not expected, I've noticed this in the formula (ct')² = (ct)² - x². This formula is valid from the stationary perspective but not from the moving perspective. From the moving perspective the formula is  (ct'')² = (ct')² - (x/Y)². Use v=.6, t=5, t'=4, t''=3.2, Y=1.25 to check it out.

No, that's not what I am talking about the other senior members will understand what I said.

[ralfcis]

There are senior members here? I'd like to meet them.

[Vmedvil2]

There are senior members here? I'd like to meet them.

Basically this ralfcis Minkowski 4-D spacetime coordinates should yield the same answer as the velocity addition formulas but you just proven that didn't which means there is a anomaly or "Double Value" in Special Relativity and I want to know why. Now, This is actually something that could really break special relativity...'

 

Edited March 19, 2020 by VictorMedvil

[ralfcis]

So it looks like this example occupies 2 space dimensions and its projection on the linear dimension cuts off some of v_B due to a trick of dividing by Y_A. I've never needed to consider more than 1 space dimension before. Maybe that guy Janus can explain further.

Edited March 19, 2020 by ralfcis

[Vmedvil2]

So it looks like this example occupies 2 space dimensions and its projection on the linear dimension cuts off some of v_B due to a trick of dividing by Y_A. I've never needed to consider more than 1 space dimension before. Maybe that guy Janus can explain further.

Well ya those velocity addition formulas are in polar coordinates but for some reason they didn't match up with Cartesian/Minkowski coordinates, and I don't understand why, there shouldn't be a anomaly between to (x,y,z) coordinates and (R,θ₁,θ₂) coordinates.

 

 

then polar coordinates should be the same as

 

Edited March 19, 2020 by VictorMedvil

[OceanBreeze]

 

But Victor, you don't understand. Victor, you're one of the cranks. Anyway here's something I don't understand. Instead of that big formula I used to solve the problem. I looked at that thread Tony provided on the sciforums and Janus has a different way of solving it. 

 

 Third scene We will look at it from the rest frame for A where you get:

0.9c

<--Earth-----------------A

|

|

|

\/ B

 

Since the Earth-B pair share a 0.9c to the left velocity, this pair is time dilated by a factor of 0.436 as measured by A. This includes the vertical speed of B with respect to the Earth. That means that B vertical speed component is 0.392c (which is why I drew the Earth-B line shorter than the Earth-A line.

Now we can just do vector velocity addition to get sqrt ((0.9c)^2+ (0.392c)^2) = 0.9817c

 

 He takes the perpendicular velocity (v_B) and divides it by the horizontal velocity's gamma (Y_A) and then uses pythagoras of the velocities v_B' and v_A to get the right answer from A's perspective. So he`s saying velocity A`s (v_A) perspective of velocity B (v_B) is v_B' = v_B /Y_A (velocity dilation formula). So w²= v_A² + v_B'² I've never seen that before but it looks like a way better method than the big formula method. I'm sure Victor will be claiming that's what he meant all along but then I'll ask him to prove it in a mathematical example using his formulas.

 

 

I usually avoid these denier-type of threads but I never know when a nugget will turn up and this is one of those times, thanks to Janus and thanks to Ralfcis for re-posting it here.

 

I’m not exactly sure how Janus derived this short-cut method, and it does look strange, but it seems to work just fine.

 

The strange part, from my perspective, is to assign a velocity to a vertical line (the VB component) with respect to a point (VA)

 

Once I accept that, everything makes sense, although I do not think this short-cut will work for all cases.

 

Einstein’s longer format does work for velocities at all angles but I suspect this Janus short-cut will only work for the 90 deg case. If that is true, I won’t be throwing out Einstein’s formula in favor of this.

 

But it is clever.

[OceanBreeze]

No, you have not "won" anything. Janus and Halc have just pointed out where you have made mistakes in your algebra. Again.  Since you do not know what you are doing, it is not surprising you get silly answers. It is not SR's fault. 

 

P.S. But I see where you are going, now. You will bore the arse off everyone with more and more scenarios until they stop replying - and then claim "victory". You can obviously do that: Janus is a patient scientist, but even he will have his limit of endurance with someone determined not to learn. The the only person you will be fooling will be yourself, though. You won't have persuaded any other reader on the forum - we see people like this every month. 

 

That is just one of the hallmarks of the true crank; when they go around saying they have "won" an argument with Einstein!

 

I have no patience for this sort of thing.Sometimes even a blind squirrel can find a chestnut, so I read the thread but I'm not interested in joining in.

[ralfcis]

Let's check if it works for a 45 degree v_B . I assume the vector of w will be 45 degrees to v_A. I see no justification for this assumption but let's check it out against the longform equation.

 

So w² = .9² -.392² = .6563

so w=.81c

 

Oops should have seen the angle can't be 45 if one of the sides is .392 and the other is .9.

 

The longform is w = sqrt (u²+v²+2uv cos@ - (vu sin@/c)²) / (1+vu cos@/c²)

 

w= sqrt(.9²+.9² + 2*.9*.9 cos45 - (.9*.9 sin45)²) /(1+.9*.9cos45)

 

cos45=sin45=.707

 

w=sqrt( 1.62 + 1.145 - .328)/ 1.5727 =.9926c which is definitely the wrong answer. The longform answer is too high. I can't see my mistake.

 

It could be the sign of v_B so let's try again.

 

w=sqrt( 1.62 - 1.145 - .328)/ .4273 = .8973c which is a better answer but doesn't match .81c. So my assumption of 45 degrees to v_{A was wrong.} I need to geometrically figure out the correct angle and am all out of caring. Maybe Janus has done this example for Tony.

Edited March 19, 2020 by ralfcis

[ralfcis]

So, Popeye, you won't take me on because I'm a denier? My math is granite, no, diamond, it's that rock solid, not soft like BS but no one wants to take the trouble to understand it.

[OceanBreeze]

Let's check if it works for a 45 degree v_B . I assume the vector of w will be 45 degrees to v_A. I see no justification for this assumption but let's check it out against the longform equation.

 

So w² = .9² -.392² = .6563

so w=.81c

 

Oops should have seen the angle can't be 45 if one of the sides is .392 and the other is .9.

 

The longform is w = sqrt (u²+v²+2uv cos@ - (vu sin@/c)²) / (1+vu cos@/c²)

 

w= sqrt(.9²+.9² + 2*.9*.9 cos45 - (.9*.9 sin45)²) /(1+.9*.9cos45)

 

cos45=sin45=.707

 

w=sqrt( 1.62 + 1.145 - .328)/ 1.5727 =.9926c which is definitely the wrong answer. The longform answer is too high. I can't see my mistake.

 

It could be the sign of v_B so let's try again.

 

w=sqrt( 1.62 - 1.145 - .328)/ .4273 = .8973c which is a better answer but doesn't match .81c. So my assumption of 45 degrees to v_{A was wrong.} I need to geometrically figure out the correct angle and am all out of caring. Maybe Janus has done this example for Tony.

 

I get .9493c using Einstein

and I'm convinced that Janus derived his shortcut only for the 90 deg case

[OceanBreeze]

So, Popeye, you won't take me on because I'm a denier? My math is granite, no, diamond, it's that rock solid, not soft like BS but no one wants to take the trouble to understand it.

 

I'm not sure you are a denier. I'm not sure what you are trying to do. I don't want to interfere with a genius at work.

[ralfcis]

Arithmetic is not my forte but did you make one of the velocities negative? It doesn't seem like it could apply to anything besides 90 degrees but why would anyone develop a method that only solves one rare example? I think I just don't fully understand how to use his method.

 

Here's what I'm trying to do. All perspective realities are illusions of perspective. Einstein says they're all equally real.  I base relativity on a single proper time and space reality that is accessible through the Loedel perspective which is the half speed perspective. So for .6c, it's 1/3c. Then I show how relativity is explained from that basis as opposed to how Einstein explains it. Einstein is limited to clocks re-uniting in the twin paradox to determine permanent time difference between them, I am not. I can also show how the time difference unfurls in real time. He cannot. I don't use length contraction, he must use it. I say time dilation is not reciprocal time really slowing,( a paradox) but can be explained, just like length contraction, using relativity of simultaneity. He claims his clock sync method doesn't affect the results but it certainly does if you use it to measure 1 way speed of light so I count instead on the universal accuracy of atomic clocks. Minkowski diagrams are a kludge to make a single lightline common to all perspectives, I have no x-axis rotation. The idea that time is just a 4th dimension of space rather than a separate overriding dimension makes no sense to me.  I don't think there's a single thing in his relativity that I wouldn't correct.

Edited March 19, 2020 by ralfcis

[TonyYuan2020]

Arithmetic is not my forte but did you make one of the velocities negative? It doesn't seem like it could apply to anything besides 90 degrees but why would anyone develop a method that only solves one rare example? I think I just don't fully understand how to use his method.

 

Here's what I'm trying to do. All perspective realities are illusions of perspective. Einstein says they're all equally real.  I base relativity on a single proper time and space reality that is accessible through the Loedel perspective which is the half speed perspective. So for .6c, it's 1/3c. Then I show how relativity is explained from that basis as opposed to how Einstein explains it. Einstein is limited to clocks re-uniting in the twin paradox to determine permanent time difference between them, I am not. I can also show how the time difference unfurls in real time. He cannot. I don't use length contraction, he must use it. I say time dilation is not reciprocal time really slowing,( a paradox) but can be explained, just like length contraction, using relativity of simultaneity. He claims his clock sync method doesn't affect the results but it certainly does if you use it to measure 1 way speed of light so I count instead on the universal accuracy of atomic clocks. Minkowski diagrams are a kludge to make a single lightline common to all perspectives, I have no x-axis rotation. The idea that time is just a 4th dimension of space rather than a separate overriding dimension makes no sense to me.  I don't think there's a single thing in his relativity that I wouldn't correct.

x = -v

Your scene is: x = (u+w)/(1+uw/c^2) = 0.862c ==> w=(x-u)/(1-ux/c^2)

E---------------------->A-------------------->B-------------------->E

.........u=0.2C...........................w=0.8C....................x=0.86C;

The combination of these three data (0.2, 0.8, 0.86) according to the formula must be right.

 

My scene is :w=(u+x)/(1+ux/c^21)=0.8C

B---------------------->E--------------------->A--------------------->B

................x=0.714C...................u=0.2C.....................w=0.8C

The combination of these three data (0.714, 0.2, 0.8C according to the formula must be right.

That's why we're different: (x-u)/(1-ux/c^2) != (u+x)/(1+ux/c^21).

Why does this happen? The reason for this difference is that my scene has changed the position of the earth.

Janus's : Earth......A...........B

mine: B..........Earth........A

So we only know the relative velocity between A,B and we don't know the position of the earth, we can't calculate the relative velocity to the earth. Even they're very close.

 

I give up looking for breakthroughs in the formula of special relativity. Those are mathematics, there will be no flaws. We focus on the bending of the light.

Edited March 20, 2020 by TonyYuan2020

[TonyYuan2020]

I'm not sure you are a denier. I'm not sure what you are trying to do. I don't want to interfere with a genius at work.

Janus said:

For light path to be significantly bent, it has to pass very near the star and and not "far away". The equation is:

Angle of deflection = 4GM/rc^2

where M is the mass of the object and r is the distance the light passes from its center. The angle is in radians.

With our own Sun a light ray just skimming it surface is deflected by just 1.7 arc-seconds (~ 1/2100 of a degree)

A ray just skimming the surface of the Earth would be deflected by just 0.0006 arc-seconds ( less than 1/6,000,000 of a degree).

So while the gravity of a mass can deflect light, this effect is just too insignificant to account for the effect you are trying to posit.

It like trying to say that it was the collision with a bumble bee during its flight which caused a plane to be 10 min late arriving at the airport. While that collision would have had a very small brief effect on the plane's speed, It would have come nowhere close to producing enough of an effect to make the plane 10 min late.

It's not enough to say "A can effect B, therefore A can cause C", unless you can show that the effect that A has on B is significant enough to produce result C.

 

Not only that, but you can't just jump from " gravity bends light paths" to " Earth's gravity drags light with it" because one does lead to the other.

 

My answer:

Light deflected by just 0.0006 arc-seconds =1.6*10^-7 degree. (I don't know how fast it is here. I would appreciate it if anyone could tell me.)

The earth's revolution degree: 360/365*24*60*60 = 1.1415*10^- 5 degree/s.

If the time of light passing through the earth is 0.01 seconds, about 3000 km,the angle of rotation of the earth is 1.1415*10^- 7 degree. It can't be ignored!

 

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.

https://photos.app.goo.gl/1kPbdLVXdxm2qqVD6

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.

Your data supports the idea that light is trapped by gravity.

The rotation of the earth does not affect the strength of the gravitational field, so we should consider the rotation of the earth around the sun.

 

I give up looking for breakthroughs in the formula of special relativity. Those are mathematics, there will be no flaws. We focus on the bending of the light.

Edited March 20, 2020 by TonyYuan2020

[TonyYuan2020]

A race between Newton and Einstein, who will win?
https://photos.google.com/photo/AF1QipPiogT4OFvz8gAvi-LHHCWNFKLEQUk6IGdGcgEw

 

The formula w = (u + x) / (1 + ux / C^2) looks ok

The formula t '= t * sqrt (1-v^2 / C^2) looks ok

But together, it's wrong.