This is rather like seeing someone who doesn’t understand French undertake a literary analysis of À la recherche du temps perdu and expect to be taken seriously.
I am not saying that there is, but I am saying that if time dilation is relative to the frame in which the photon is released (as an observer in that frame would insist) then there should be a time dilation of relative to that frame.
So let’s go to the example of an observer that is being violently shaken with instantaneous relativistic velocity, lets assume the shaking is side to side.
The practicality of such velocity is not important since it is theoretically possible and if instruments were sensitive enough even low velocity would would be ok.
So if we vibrate a clock and an antenna together, with the clock measuring the period of the electrical pulses, we expect to see the vibrated clock to be running slow, so if we watch (from the non-shaken lab) and see the electrons in the antenna to keep frequency with the photon as we expect, then the frequency detected in the time dilated frame would have to be different (higher) since less clock time would pass between pulses.
So since the argument everyone is making is that time dilation does not change the perceived frequency of a photon, then another scenario arises…
If the clock finds the same period between electrical pulses, then in the lab we would have to observe that the electrical charges on the antenna are not keeping time with the passage of the photon as we see it! Since we see the clock running slow.
Imagine seeing the electromagnetic wave and noticing that the antenna is disregarding your Lab frame observation of the wave!
The antenna would be totally out of sync with the photons (EM wave quanta) that is seen externally.
This comes back to my point that SR can only work if different inertial frames see different photons/electromagnetic waves at the same time and location.
A clock can’t run slow, but still count the frequency of an unaffected thing (a photon) to be the same unless it is directly seeing a different reality in the same space and time.
The same is true of photon velocity.
All SR zealots can do it use personal attacks and faith based arguments.
If the above is too hard to understand, let’s fall back on the simpler case.
Time dilation and length contraction can make the speed of light be measured as C for orthogonal motion (classic light clock), and for round trip with an aligned light clock.
But SR has no means to attempt to explain how the one way speed can be found to be the same for both light you are heading into (adding velocity) and away from (subtracting velocity).
It is just taken on faith by repeating the mantra, that light speed is C, light speed its C…
Sigh. Yet another crackpot declaring that “arguments I’m not smart enough to understand” are the same thing as “faith-based arguments”. This is how we get the ridiculous notion that evolutionary theory requires faith.
No, light speed is C has been observed. SR builds on that and makes predictions for the world. Those predictions have in turn been found correct in experiments and observations.
Trinopus failed to understand that the argument I was making, that if a clock slows, then if something the clock measures (frequency) in not effected by the slowing influence, then the clock must find the frequency of the unaffected thing to appear to increase.
The clock can no longer measure enough time between a cycle of the frequency.
And while the argument could be that this does not occur, then you end up with 2 observers in the same location (almost) at the same time but in different frames of motion detecting different EM fields.
Can you clarify what you mean by this?
When has the one way speed of light under a wide range of velocities been found to be C? Even 2 way speed of light measurements regularly find the value to differ from C.
It builds of an impossible and absurd assumption.
An assumption it only tries to explain partially and leaves the rest up to faith.
An assumption with contradictory and poor experimental evidence.
They have turned out to be often incorrect and often kinda lose but still not quite correct.
The claims of success are a result of confirmation bias.
There is a relativistic correction to the Doppler effect. The transverse Doppler effect (red-shifting of light emitted when the emitter is at it’s point of closest approach to the receiver from the receiver’s pov and thus instantaneously neither moving away from or towards the receiver), which does not occur in non-relativistic physics can be attributed to time dilation.
If we had an observer who oscillated around a point that is a fixed distance from the emitter in the emitter’s frame; they would see the light alternately red-shifted and blue-shifted, but with a net blue-shift effect. The exact details depend on the exact details of the oscillation.
Are you thinking of something like an antenna sending out radio frequency photons, mythoughts?
In that case, I can see why you could wonder if there are problems for SR in there, but I’d be willing to bet good money you’d be wrong. The way to examine it is to have someone who actually understands SR to do the necessary math, or mathless explanation if one is possible.
I should add to my last post for at least some types of oscillatory motion and probably the types the OP had in mind. Circular motion of course is a type of oscillation, but when the emitter is in the centre of the circle the receiver going around the circle will always see the emitted light blue-shifted. I believe however this is the limiting case.
When you try to explain nonsense - its not surprising that no one understands you.
Come back when you actually understand what SR and GR are, and can do the math - then, and only then, will you be able to argue your points from a position of understanding - and be able to explain them in a way that others can accept or debate on an equal footing.
You simply do not possess the tools to ‘prove’ your nonsense at this point in time.
Asympotically, it seems that you are agreeing with my original assertion that everyone else disputed, that there is a change in the perceived frequency of light based on time dilation, a relativistic effect.
This being the case, my original argument would stand, that this transverse Doppler (that isn’t really Doppler as distances aren’t changing but relativistic time dilation) would cause the frequency of light to be shifted.
And as such while this component may be buried under other effects, it still exists and exerts a presence relative to the frame the photon was emitted from.
If a photon was detected from various frames, if this transverse Doppler shift went to zero even as the others change, it would produce an observable effect on a chart produced from the different observations.
In other words, transverse Doppler can expose the frame of the light by it’s magnitude growing and dropping to zero at other frequencies.
Nonsense. Cite for regular differing light speed in modern high accuracy methods.
Preferred reference frames is the absurd assumption. And dismissing something as “impossible” is no way of gaining knowledge.
No, it’s explained fully. You just fail to understand it.
Who are your sources for this? You’re aware that there’s no requirement of actually being knowledgeable before you’re allowed to have webpages right? So far in this thread it appears that you’re taking every kook on the internet who agrees with you to be an undiscovered physics sage.
This is simply false.
This discussion has been occasionally interesting so far, but with this post you show that you’re just way too deluded to interact with further.
I used RF since it seems reasonable to propose that the Lab frame observer could ‘see’ the influence the photon has on the antenna, something that is much harder to imagine with optical frequency light.
The gist of it though is that if the clock runs slow and if the frequency of the received wave is seen to keep synch with the clock, then the photon being observed must differ from the one the Lab frame can see, as it sees the clock running slow.
I agree with you in so far that you must take into account time dilation when describing the Doppler effect in relativity. However again I’m not sure what you’re trying to say, if your trying to say that this means light has a frame in SR you are not correct.
Against my better judgment, I decided to reread this thread and noticed:
(Bolding mine.) I did exactly that in post #187, before you went on a rant about how you don’t need math or physics to explain reality. Even if you (incorrectly) don’t believe it to match reality, SR is perfectly capable of explaining how the speed of light remains constant in any inertial frame. Again, that is the entire point of SR: it starts with the assumption that the speed of light is constant in every moving frame, then uses that to derive the corresponding transformations between frames. Velocities don’t add in SR as they do in non-relativistic physics.
There’s nothing wrong with not being familiar with SR or not having the background to understand it. But you’re summarily dismissing it despite not knowing anything about it, and then insisting that you don’t need to know anything about it in order to understand it. As I showed earlier, and as every other person on this nine-page thread has tried to explain you, SR predicts that the speed of light is independent of the velocity (both speed and direction) of a (sub-c) inertial frame. I did the computation above, and you’re welcome to do it yourself. You’re not even trying to show that SR is wrong anymore; you don’t even know enough about what the theory predicts in order to argue against it.
Go read a book on SR, follow the OpenCourseware link I posted earlier or any of the other online courses in the thread, and then come back with a better understanding of the subject. There’s no magic to learning physics, but you do have to make an effort. Instead, you’ve just been proposing incorrect thought-experiment after incorrect thought-experiemnt without any specifics, computation, predictions, or counter arguments.
To echo Itself, that the speed of light is constant for inertial observers, regardless of direction is a fundamental postulate of special relativity. The a proof is simply a derivation of the Lorentz transformation from the postulates of special relativity.
Ok, so I did not expect you to agree with the latter.
But since you agree with the former, let’s see if we can agree on what that is saying.
If 2 objects have a relative velocity and both emit blue light, then time dilation will cause each to see the other’s blue light as red (shifted) light due to SR’s time dilation.
And this is called transverse Doppler, because it occurs without any change in distance between the 2 observers, because they are passing and not approaching/receding.
Additionally this effect would be influencing the frequency of light shifted by non-relativistic Doppler effect also, just under the blue/red shifting effect caused by it’s non-relativistic cousin. But if you tried to calculate the blur/red shift without considering it, you would find you get the wrong answer.
Asympotically fat, would you generally agree with the above?