MAGNITUDE, DOPPLER, MICHELSON-MORELEY AND EINSTEIN (WAVE 3)

MAGNITUDE, DOPPLER,
MICHELSON-MORELEY
AND EINSTEIN

.

OCEAN WAVES

We will start with observations of ocean waves. First of all, we can readily observe that the smaller the wave, the slower it is. It is actually possible to see that smaller waves ride on top of the big ones being over taken. The largest of all, Tsunami, can ride at speeds over 400km/h and deliver an incredible force and energy.

The observational evidence tells us that the lower the wave frequency, the greater the wave speed. But that is a bit of a gross rule. When we observe behavior of ocean waves as they are approaching a beach, we encounter few changes in them.

First of all, free ocean waves change direction relative to any beach, which is not dead square to the direction of the free ocean waves. The waves bend so, that they end up hitting the beach at more oblique angle than was their original direction.

Second, the wave amplitude grows while its wavelength shortens, but its frequency remains unchanged. Obviously. Otherwise, we would get fewer or more waves per hour on the beach than what comes from the ocean.

These two observations can be unified into a conclusion that free ocean waves slow down according to shore topology, namely the depth of the water near a beach. The bigger the waves, the farther from the beach they start to grow. Tsunami, which has relatively small amplitude, but a huge wavelength, will still grow quite far from the beach.

To find the causality of this fact, we have to consider the relative magnitude of a wave, rather than its wavelength or amplitude alone. We should understand that the greater the wave magnitude, the greater is its mass. The greater is its mass, the more water below the wave is being progressively displaced from under the wave “crest”. The more water gets displaced from under the wave, the more room (cross section of space) is needed to allow such displacement. The closer the bottom to the wave, the lesser is this cross section allowing the displacement.

There is (just about always) a greater depth behind a beach wave than in front of it. The water being displaced has a larger “opening” toward its rear, than it has toward its front. It also speeds toward the front, which tends to overtake the rate of acceleration of the displacement water in the direction of wave travel. So, the wave piles up, steep at the front and more gently sloping toward its rear. When the speed of the front displacement cannot keep up with the speed of the wave, the wave breaks over.

We can conclude that combination of speed and/or magnitude decides how much a wave will pile up at the beach, along with the gradient of the beach bottom. The lesser the beach bottom incline, the greater will a wave grow.

Free ocean wave wavelength can be given in lets say meters, but it can also be given in time as frequency, as long as it is gauged against the beach. The frequency may be also relative to lets say a low flying airplane. If the frequency is relative to the beach, we have a standard gage of measuring the wave frequency, therefore frequency convertible to wavelength. This frequency and wavelength (with amplitude) is further relevant to real quantities of the wave as such, its volume and mass in particular.

When the frequency is measured relative to the airplane, which itself is in relative motion to the beach, the measured frequency is the mathematical function of airplane vector relative to the beach. This frequency is irrelevant to behavior of free ocean waves and is not convertible to real (as measured in meters) wavelength of these waves. The wavelength would have to be measured with a log in meters.

This is passive and relative, Doppler shift, an illusion. It has no bearing on the wave properties.

Beach wave frequency equals free ocean frequency, but its wavelength and amplitude does not. In this case, the change in wavelength cannot be converted into frequency unless the changing speed of the wave relative to the beach is taken into account. This is active and real Doppler shift of wavelength, but not a shift of frequency. It has bearing on the relations of parameters of the waves.

RIVER WAVE

First river wave, which is of interest here, is the standing wave in front of an obstruction in a water flow, like a boulder sticking out of the flow. We can observe that this wave changes its wavelength according to the speed of the flow (assuming a constant boulder). The greater the speed of the flow, the shorter the wavelength and the higher the amplitude of the standing wave created by water piling up in front of the boulder.

This wave lacks the quantity of frequency (in time) relative to the boulder. Yet, it has frequency relative to the speed of water flow. The faster is the flow, the shorter is the wavelength and the higher is the amplitude of the wave(s). The frequency remains zero relative to the boulder, and it remains constant relative to the mean speed of water. This phenomenon is observable only within limits, as too great a flow will eventually swamp over the boulder becoming chaotic or become turbulent and chaotic.

This is again active and real Doppler shift and it has bearing on relations of wave parameters.

Second wave is a wave created by lets say wind, or a paddle, in the smooth water surface above rapids. As these waves progress down the river and enter an accelerating tongue of flow between two boulders, they stretch along this tongue. Their frequency remains constant relative to the boulders, their wavelength increases relative to the boulder and their amplitude decreases.

As the water molecules within the flow reorganize so, as to pass the narrow between the boulders at a “constant” volume but a higher speed, we can conclude that while wavelength of this wave remains constant to the bulk water flow (the water stretches along with the wave), its amplitude decreases and its frequency remains constant to the flow as well. To a degree, this wave stretching can be again seen as speed of displacement issue as in the beach wave pile up. It is reversed, because the acceleration of the flow between boulders facilitates the displacement in the direction of the wave travel.

This is active and real Doppler shift created by increased speed of the medium flow and it has a bearing on relation of wave parameters.

When we observe this same wave approaching one of the boulders though, we can see that their wavelength shortens again, their amplitude grows and their frequency remains. This is due to the slow down of the flow in front of the boulder again.

This is again active Doppler shift and it has a bearing on wave. It has a bearing on relationship of wave parameters.

It all boils down to the simple conclusion, that there is a relative Doppler shift and a real Doppler shift. While relative (contact less) observation of waves gives us relative results, the absolute observation gives us absolute results. As shown on the relative observation of wave frequency from an airplane, the observer has to have speed relative to beach coordinates and relative to water itself, in order to be able to observe the relative Doppler shift. Only then the wave amplitude in relative observation is irrelevant, being constant, and can be omitted, but so can be the wavelength and the energy of the waves and the airplane. The only variable in this case is the illusion of shifted frequency.

When the Doppler shift is observed from absolute coordinates (beach or boulder), its effect is real and carries changes to the wave quantitative relationship of wavelength and amplitude, both related to speed of the wave medium relative to our absolute coordinates, the frequency being constant. Mr. Einstein has erred quite grossly in his mathematico-logical conjectures. What he describes is an illusion and it is not described well, because his math, original or recycled, does not take the parameter of amplitude into account but it takes wavelength and energy into account.

STARLIGHT RED SHIFT

Here we have something really interesting. We are being taught that the universal red shift is a result of inflation of the universe, the Big Bang. We are told that as the distant star recedes from us, its wave and frequency is laid into space according to Doppler shift and while the light wavelength increases, the light frequency decreases. If the earth were chasing that star at the speed equal to that star, there would be no observable Doppler effect.

A question has to be asked, what is the space, which causes the Doppler shift. How come, the receding star light red shifts? How does the assumed light wave know that it is supposed to be shifted? It has no inertia, no mass and it has assumed constant speed. Constant relative to what? Total emptiness?

When we confront this teaching with Michelson-Moreley experimental setup, we can see that the flow of an assumed aether is equivalent to earth chasing the star at the same speed and direction. Then why would any one expect any interference from M&M setup? What gets blue shifted against the assumed flow gets red shifted back returning with the flow. What we can observe on the river waves tells us that even if there were aether flowing among the mirrors of M&M, the wave speed of light against and with the flow would average out to zero in that orientation and the Doppler shift back and forth would again average to zero.

This is what star red shift induced by motion is all about. The only wrench in the works is Mr. Einstein’s erroneous assumption of absolute and constant speed of light relative to curved nothing, independent of the speed of environment, M&M taken as a proof of this assumption. This assumption is contrary to all observational data. Mr. Hubble took over with his distance to red shift dependency and Mr. Hawking finished the jumble with expansion of the universe and constructed his castle in the air from it. The only rational part of the whole red shift problem is the distance to red shift ration, and even that is not quite dependable.

The water wave observations have taught us that the frequency of a wave changes in case of relative observation. But relative observation carries with it a condition of observer’s speed relative to the medium with respect to some absolute coordinates. A non-interactive relative observation has no impact on the properties of the observed phenomenon. This is a bit difficult with light, because light is the means of observation for us and we can hardly expect that we will not interfere with light, observing its properties. Therefore, any Doppler shift observation performed on light causes a real Doppler shift of photons and the properties of the light or photons will change with the speed of observation.

Slow down of light will cause decrease of wavelength of light, but not its frequency. Light interference is not caused by constant wavelength-frequency relationship, but by change in wavelength alone. If earth were to receive lesser frequency of light than what comes from lets say NZ7354 nebula, it would receive fewer waves per unit of time. This is why Mr. Einstein had to dilate time.

Wavelength and frequency of light is not in proportionate dependency when observed from non-interactive coordinates in motion and one cannot be derived from the other. Wavelength to frequency ratio is constant when the wave phenomenon is not interfered with, and when the observer observes from absolute reference point of real inertial frame of reference, meaning a strong gravitating body. This is not possible with the means of observation itself, i.e. light.