Mushroom
Puritan Board Doctor
No he doesn't, which is why it doesn't make any sense, but it makes the data fit. Just like wet sidewalks cause rain...I don't think Einstein says it is traveling at different speeds.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
No he doesn't, which is why it doesn't make any sense, but it makes the data fit. Just like wet sidewalks cause rain...I don't think Einstein says it is traveling at different speeds.
Thank you, that was very helpful. This might be the fellow to ask my own question of when I get the chance.lynnie said:My reply from Mr Martin Selbrede
I did not refer to the Doppler effect in the last several posts. That has nothing to do with the velocity of the wave or light you were asking about.I'm not sure you're understanding what I am asking, Logan, or perhaps I'm not understanding you. Doppler effects on EM radiation bouncing off of or being emitted from moving large objects such as an airplane don't seem to apply to the question. The differences are negligible when compared to 'c'. Doppler doesn't directly address speed, it deals with wavelength and frequency, as you noted earlier, and the measurements are not based on how long it takes for the beam to return, but frequency variation that will change with distance.
Which is why its important to note that the person at the back of fire engine creates his own, offsetting, Doppler effects to restore the sound waves to nearly their original frequency and wavelength. There is a medium through which they (fire engine and person) are traveling that causes the Doppler effect - the sound travels at a constant speed, but the medium affects f & w. So what might be the medium that causes Doppler effects in light?
But again, and maybe somebody else can help me here, is there a reliable experiment that can show that light emitted from a star hurtling at us at high speed will clock at the same speed as it enters our eyes as it would if standing on the surface of said star? And if it would, what would be it's speed as clocked while standing on an asteroid traveling away from us at half the speed of the star? If its all the same, then light is traveling in at least 3 different speeds, and in fact an innumerable variety of speeds as it passes through an innumerable variety of reference frames. Sorry, but that's just hogwash, and an example of Einstein et al trying to force their square peg into a round hole
The thing is though, I don't think Einstein says it is traveling at different speeds. He says it is traveling the same speed, and yet always clocks the same, even if one of the objects has velocity and one does not. Which goes against all physics for all other waves, as well as common sense.
Wait! You mean to say that a light beam traveling towards me, if I were traveling at the speed of light in the same direction, would have a net velocity of zero? So what if I were traveling say 50,000 mps less than the speed of light? Would said beam be traveling at net velocity 136k mps, or does that net zero thing only happen when I'm traveling at 'c'? Hmm... I think that has been the question all along. And now it seems more clouded than ever.That is correct Austin, but that is not a misunderstanding, that is a definition. In a hypothetical situation where the observer is moving at the same speed and same direction as the source, the light would never reach him (net velocity of zero). But that's never been the question.