At 7:42 AM 2/4/5, Merlyn wrote: >True, the traditional doppler shift is a change in frequency, brought >about by the retardation of the signal due to travel time.
This is not correct. The Doppler shift is independent of travel time. It is only dependent on the transmission medium speed and the relative speeds of the source and observer. Two observers at wildly different distances but moving in the same reference frame observe the same frequency. Two observers right next to each other, but having a relative velocity, observe differing frequencies. This is true of both the mundane Doppler shift in an ordinary medium and the relativisitic Doppler shift in the vacuum. >Thus I apply the same basic terminology to the change in field gradient >caused by the retardation of the signal due to travel time. > >I have never been able to agree with relativity, there is no physical >mechanism which would cause the speed of light to be constant in all >directions in all inertial reference frames. >Of course, I don't believe in photons either. I think the quantization of >light is more an artifact of the measuring system than an actual quality >of light. While it is fun to try to dream up alternative theories, science is not a religion. Beliefs are not the aribters of scientific facts. Experiment is the only arbiter. To establish an alternative theory it is essential to establish that it agrees with all known experiments and additionally that it works in some situation where other theories do not. Meanwhile, relativity works wonders at the engineering level. Whether it is ultimately right or wrong is immaterial at the engineering level, where it always seems to work and thus has great utility. Regards, Horace Heffner
