What theory? Which Albert? Einstein explained the photo electric effect (the work function etc.) and Brownian* motion with precise math - no Doppler needed in either. * first strong proof that matter is made of atoms. Ancient Greeks postulated that as parts of statues, where frequently touched, wore away with no particles that could be seen removed. PS If not just spamming, as I suspect from some of your other posts, you need to learn how to ask question more precisely. (There is no reward for high post count.)
What do u mean? How is so? I see what u are talking about when mentioning the Greeks that they proposed the atom
Sorry for spamming but James r who I asked to reopen post said no no no and said just I should write other threads any how go on its important to understand Alberts theory I believe its important to include it with my theory
Albert Brooks' theory was that he would not have a decent chance of career success while in the shadow of a historical figure with the same name.
If you are asking whether Relativity can be explained without Doppler shift, then the answer is yes. In fact, pretty much any basic explanation of Relativity factors out any Doppler shift component because it just adds an extra complication. Time dilation only relies on the relative speed between frames. So for example, suppose there are two clocks, each moving at 0.8 c relative to you. One moves away from you and the other towards you. The time dilation for both will be 0.6, and they both run 6/10 as fast as your clock. However, if we include Doppler shift to determine what you actually see with your eyes, then the direction the clocks are moving does matter and you see the clock coming towards you as running 3 times faster and the clock moving away as moving 1/3 as fast as your own. The reason the Doppler shift corrected answer differs from the time dilation answer is that Doppler shift is an artifact of the changing distance between the clocks. when the a clock is moving away from you, with each sec the distance the light from it has to travel to get to you increases and the more time it takes for the light to make the trip and you see the ticks of the clock arriving further apart. If it is moving towards you, the distance is decreasing and you see the pulses closer together. This happens separate of any relativistic effects and even if there were no relativistic effects you would get a Doppler shift. On the other hand neither are relativistic effects dependent on Doppler shift. If you waited until clock coming towards you arrives at your position and were to check its clock rate at the moment it is at its closest and is neither moving away or towards you, you would find that its clock rate would be 0.6, the same as time dilation. The answer of 1/3 and 3 times given for what you visually see is the result of the combination of both relativistic and Doppler effects. Since any explanation of Relativity focuses on the relativistic effects, these explanations generally ignore the Doppler effect factor ( which can always be reintroduced later once the purely relativistic effects are strongly grasped).
Thank you, Janus. Most descriptions of Special Relativity in no way depend on the Doppler effect -- that is the Doppler effect is not an axiom of Special Relativity. However, the relativistic Doppler effect is a theorem based on the axioms of Special Relativity, no matter how they are expressed, so the Doppler effect, being an elementary deduction from principles of geometry of space AND time, is always going to be a consequence of fundamental theories of about space and time. To explain Special Relativity without discussing the Doppler effect is possible -- it's called short-changing the student. Sort of like teaching geometry without triangles and circles being mentioned.
