Natural Science Forum / Physics / Relativity / June 2006

Quoting ~ page 13:
http://redshift.vif.com/JournalFiles/V12NO1PDF/V12N1HAM.PDF
<< (SRT) explains the Doppler shift for light as being caused by the
motion of the light source relative to the observer: the blue/red shift
is
caused by a change in space/ time due to that motion. So the Doppler
principle in (SRT) is intrinsically kinematic, described through
Maxwell's theory and (LT), but the lacking the intrinsic structure of
light. >>

Light doesn't have a structure.
http://nobelprize.org/physics/articles/ekspong/index.html

Light's emitters and absorbers *do* have a structure.
http://www.conformity.com/0102reflectionsfig3.gif
http://www.conformity.com/0102reflections.html

Simply observe the effect the *real* structures have
on nearfield wave impedance and the frequency/wavelength
converversions will work out correctly along the path without
conflict with observer dependent or constancy of speed
of light.
"Retarded potential"
http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/em/lectures/node50.html

Sue...

Nizar Hamdan has a lot of "sleigh of hands" like the one you are
quoting all published in fringe journals like Apeiron and Galilean
Electrdynamics. The trick is to find out where he cheats in his
"derivations" . Eithe way, he is not a relativity denier, he is just a
"twister"

This is a bunch of disconnected garbage. Lorentz is not a force., etc.

 Here's my comment:
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Doppler/Doppler.htm

Androcles

mluttgens@wanadoo.fr, still clueless:

 That's pretty funny, marcel. According to your so-called derivation,
if one assumes that c is a constant in every frame, cleverly chooses
an arbitrary multiplicative favtor of u/c^2 and then assumes special
relativity so that ``The scalar constant [\gamma] can be fixed by
applying relativity theory...,'' one can obtain the same result otained
using the lorentz transforms. Why, imagine that! I never would have
guessed that was possible.

 Just one question. Why all the legerdemain? I mean, it seems like
a great deal of wasted effort to spend 15 pages deriving something
which requires assumimg special relativity plus additional several
more assumptions when you can derive the result in much more ovious
way in less than 1 page assuming only special relativity. What ever
gave you the idea that the lorentz transforms weren't involved? Precisely
what did you think the assumption that `c' is a constant means, or
the assumption of ``relativity theory,'' means? Just because the author
didn't seem to realize the connection, doesn't mean you have to
believe everything you read, just because it suits your preconceptions.

 The fact that it was published in apeiron ought to be a dead
give away. The people who publish in apeiron do so because they
can't publish those articles in journal that performs sanity checks
on submitted articles.