geistkiesel
10-24-04, 10:39 AM
The non-relativistic Doppler shift, meaning when light motion is independent of the light source.
First, we visit a slight digression in measuring the relative velocity of some material objects.
Vn = 300 km/hr = 300/3600 km/sec = 10^3/12 m/sec, 83.3 meters/sec. Measured by a stationary observer.
It takes .1 sec for the frame to pass by, therefore the length of the frame is 10^3/12 x .1 = 100/12 meters = 8.3 meters.
The corresponding frequency for the one vehicle is 10.
Now the observer moves in the opposite direction at 8.33 meters /sec for a total relative motion of 91.6 meters/sec,
Now if we divide this combined relative velocity by the wavelength to get the new frequency 91.6/ 8.3 = 11.03/sec.
If we ignore the observer’s velocity and use only 83.3 m/sec we see the wavelength calculated from the frequency is, 7.55 meters, which is shorter from that measured earlier. Does this sound familiar? Taking the frequency and dividing into the neglected velocity we get 8.3 / 11.03 = .755 meters, which is the difference in the measured and calculated wavelength of the vehicle or 7.55 + .75 = 8.3
If we neglect the observer’s motion we get a shortening of the wavelength and an error in measurement.
Doppler measurements and the red shift.
So what is the difference in Doppler measurements? The red shift is not because the source is pinching the emitted photon. Remember the photon is moving independently with respect to the source and taking one photon at a time, how will the snail-paced frame ever catch up to the photon in order to squeeze it shorter?
Counting the number of full wavelength segments, or objects passing the plane of the observer's eye, is the measured frequency, but one must take the motion of the observer into account in counting the number/second observed. It makes not difference if the velocity is with respect to the light source, or with Ve = 0, the result is the same. The wavelength is constant when measured.
What is red shift, or any shift? Answer: A measure of the energy of the emitted photon by the time the photon arrives at the observer’s position.
If one insists on squeezing recedng, or approaching motion of the source, from this then there must be a relationship vis a vis the photon energy and the source energy, which can be analyzed in terms of an original wavelength determined by the energy, or oscillation of the source molecules, or whatever the light source happens to be.
This doesn't seem like a likely road to stellar motion does it? Only the current energy and any connection with the energy when the photons were emitted. I don't know what that is at the present time.
First, we visit a slight digression in measuring the relative velocity of some material objects.
Vn = 300 km/hr = 300/3600 km/sec = 10^3/12 m/sec, 83.3 meters/sec. Measured by a stationary observer.
It takes .1 sec for the frame to pass by, therefore the length of the frame is 10^3/12 x .1 = 100/12 meters = 8.3 meters.
The corresponding frequency for the one vehicle is 10.
Now the observer moves in the opposite direction at 8.33 meters /sec for a total relative motion of 91.6 meters/sec,
Now if we divide this combined relative velocity by the wavelength to get the new frequency 91.6/ 8.3 = 11.03/sec.
If we ignore the observer’s velocity and use only 83.3 m/sec we see the wavelength calculated from the frequency is, 7.55 meters, which is shorter from that measured earlier. Does this sound familiar? Taking the frequency and dividing into the neglected velocity we get 8.3 / 11.03 = .755 meters, which is the difference in the measured and calculated wavelength of the vehicle or 7.55 + .75 = 8.3
If we neglect the observer’s motion we get a shortening of the wavelength and an error in measurement.
Doppler measurements and the red shift.
So what is the difference in Doppler measurements? The red shift is not because the source is pinching the emitted photon. Remember the photon is moving independently with respect to the source and taking one photon at a time, how will the snail-paced frame ever catch up to the photon in order to squeeze it shorter?
Counting the number of full wavelength segments, or objects passing the plane of the observer's eye, is the measured frequency, but one must take the motion of the observer into account in counting the number/second observed. It makes not difference if the velocity is with respect to the light source, or with Ve = 0, the result is the same. The wavelength is constant when measured.
What is red shift, or any shift? Answer: A measure of the energy of the emitted photon by the time the photon arrives at the observer’s position.
If one insists on squeezing recedng, or approaching motion of the source, from this then there must be a relationship vis a vis the photon energy and the source energy, which can be analyzed in terms of an original wavelength determined by the energy, or oscillation of the source molecules, or whatever the light source happens to be.
This doesn't seem like a likely road to stellar motion does it? Only the current energy and any connection with the energy when the photons were emitted. I don't know what that is at the present time.