Talk:False Doppler

message: This article was the subject of a second AfD in November, 2005.  The result was strong consensus keep after rewrite and nom. withdrawl. Xoloz 17:25, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: AfD result

message: I don't think it rises to the level of pseudoscience. All these articles by Eric Baird are just surreptitious attempts to smuggle some of his misunderstandings into Wikipedia. I just think it's a shame that crackpots like Erk are slowly but surely taking over Wikipedia. You have only to look at the volumes of crackpot nonsense he has just written (see below) in "defense" of his articles, to see how pointless it is to try to "reason" with such people. 
<TABLE cellpadding="2" border="0"><TR> <TD></TD><TD> Or … I answered your objections, in some depth, you don’t seem to be able to come up with a response, and now you are saying that you shouldn’t have to, because despite everything, I'm wrong anyway? Hmm. I subscribe to the idea that technical disputes over scientific accuracy can be resolved with documented facts, reason, and (where appropriate) mathematics. If you are saying that it's pointless using reason to deal with "people like me", then I'm sorry, but I think that of the two of us, its you that's sounding like the extremist.  
<P>
I've now explained to you that the contents of the page are not original research (rather, the research is so old that it's probably been largely forgotten by the current physics community), told you where to find these issues discussed in print (if you have access to a decent physics library), produced the trig working to support what I said (now deleted by someone) and produced mainstream quotes that seem to show that these calculations haven’t been taken into account in experimental tests of SR (quotes also now deleted by someone). I'm prepared to back up my position with sources, quotes, references and math.
<P>
All you seem to be able to do is to resort to name-calling and demanding that pages I've been involved with be deleted because you don’t like the author's background and suspect their motives. You don’t seem to be able to come up a consistent argument to support your position that material posted by me should be deleted except to say that I'm a particular sort of person who should be kept out of Wiki on principle. You start by saying that the content is obviously "idiotic" and has no historical basis, and then when it's pointed out to you that this is incorrect, you switch tack to some other objection. Your position seems to be fixed, and you don't seem to cede any ground when you appear to have got things wrong. You don't seem to be putting any faith in mathematical arguments if they support something that you have already taken a position against. In short you seem to me to be acting like a parody of the internet "physics crackpots" that you claim to despise so much. ErkDemon 04:09, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why Eric Baird's Articles Violate Wikipedia Policy 

message: rewritten by someone else: "This should not be confused with the transverse Doppler effect in special relativity, which occurs when the distance between the emitter and receiver is actually not changing, i.e., it is a truly transverse effect, due to time dilation. This is a uniquely relativistic effect, which has nothing to do with combined effects of classical Doppler and aberration discussed in this article."
No, that might be an understandable assumption to someone brought up with a standard SR syllabus, but its not really true when you look at the math. 
Special relativity lets us obtain the same final physical predictions regardless of which frame we treat lightspeed as being constant in, yes?
So, if we assume that lightspeed is fixed in the observer's frame, we say that there's no propagation redshift effect, and the visible trnasverse redshift is 100% due to the time dilation of the moving source. 
But it's also legitimate to assume that the speed of light is fixed in the emitter's frame. 
This gives us a stronger calculated aberration redshift effect of f'/f = 1 - vv/cc 
We then say that since the observer is now described as "moving", their clocks are time-dilated, and as a result they see everything to be blueshifted due to their relative motion and their reference clocks being slow.
Multiplying the two effects togrether then gives a final visible shift of 
(1 - vv/cc) *  1/SQRT[1- vv/cc] = SQRT[1 - vv/cc]
, in other words, a single Lorentz redshift, as before.
Under SR these two descriptions are indistinguishable and interchangeable, so, the same redshift that you normally calculate as being due to time dilation in one exercise is actually a stronger redshift due to aberration in the other (partly cancelled by a Lorentz blueshift). With a suitable backward use of a velocity-addition formula, you can even claim that lightspeed is fixed in an intemediate frame, and that the entire effect is a simple propagation effect due to aberration, with time dilation playing no part at all (observer and emitter both nominally moving at the same speeds, and nominally time-dilated by the same amount) - the SR magic still works. 
But in order to understand how these different explanations can coexist under SR, one really has to understand the aberration redshift effect, SR's ability to use multiple descriptions in different reference frames and obtain the same physical outcome with each description doesn't work without it.
So, a statement that the two calculations should not be confused, and that one has nothing to do with the other, is not borne out by the structure of special relativity. It's a brave bluff, but under SR, the two effects are deeply intertwined. ErkDemon 08:24, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  overlap with SR 

message: ===Merge to "Doppler effect"? Nooooo! At least, not yet. === 
I would suggest that if anyone is thinking of merging all the existing Doppler articles together that they hold off on making that decision until all of the articles in question are mature and thorough and have had all their NPOV disputes thrashed out. Otherwise, imagine what a nightmare of disagreements and edit wars we might get in the merged article! Once all the individual articles have been expanded and polished, you might still want to consider merging them, but if the individual articles have been expanded sufficiently by then, and have lots of references each, then perhaps a merged article would be too big and clumsy, and perhaps at that point, the "Doppler effects" category might do a better job of letting people find the specific information that they want more easily. Part of the joy of hypertext is the ability to cut through rigid hierarchical structures and instead have a series of multipurpose articles that can be organised and arranged according to multiple schemes simultaneously (a single article can be in several overlapping categories at once). That way, someone working on medical Doppler applications and reading a piece on Doppler bloodflow measurement can follow a link to the appropriate equations or principles without finding themselves looking at a page that contains masses of information about special relativity and cosmology: Likewise, with separate articles organised via categories, a special relativity student can look at the "special relativity" category and pick out articles on relativistic Doppler and transverse Doppler without wading through a monster article full of material about acoustics and the precise sound-reflecting properties of red blood cells, when all they want to do is look up a couple of SR equations. 
If one is a specialist, it is tempting to decide that a large subject ought to be ordered in a particular way, according to the priorities in one's own research field: A cosmologist might want a merged Doppler page to stress Hubble shift, while a medical technician might consider cosmology to be a useless subject and cite statistics to show that most recent research papers on Doppler effects have been about bloodflow, which actually saves lives (unlike cosmology), another physicist might think that its obvious that transverse Doppler effects and the relativistic Doppler equation ought to be given pride of place, and so on. Smaller specialist articles branching off from one central article makes things more flexible, avoids POV ordering disputes, and also encourages people to add more detail and references to the individual specialist pages. 
===Merge to "Transverse Doppler"?===
Having said all that, with this article, I agree that there's a definite "issue" about what on earth to refer to the effect as, and since it seems that significant numbers of people have missed the original article's point, perhaps some sort of detailed discussion about the different meanings of "transverse" used in comparative theory is in order to make it intelligible to a larger number of people. And a discussion of "transverseness under SR" probably belongs on the "transverse Doppler" page, along with the quotes about transverse effects that have already been deleted by someone from this article. 
So I tell you what I'll do: Instead of rewriting this page and repairing all the dodgy edits (and there have been some real clunkers!), and renaming it, I'll merge the core of these arguments into the "transverse Doppler" page. <BR>
But not yet: The transverse Doppler page needs enlarging first, otherwise these arguments will take up a disproportionate amount of that article, and I'd be accused of "hijacking" the transverse Doppler page for my own supposedly-evil ends and turning into a "vehicle" for something. :(  When people are determined to see ulterior motives and bad intent, they tend to do so no matter what one does. :(
And it seems that not everyone here is yet satisfied that the pre-SR lab-transverse redshift result is correct, so perhaps I should wait until we've at least thrashed out a consensus on the mathematical validity of the thing here, before moving the argument to the Transverse Doppler page. Hopefully that won't take long. We don't have to agree about the significance of the result, just that it's right. Then we'll have a nice clean TD discussion page, with a link back to here for the pre-SR theory discusions. 
For anyone wondering why I didn’t just append these arguments to the "transverse Doppler" page to begin with, well, there wasn't one, and if I'd written a transverse Doppler article that was just about this pre-SR effect, then I think people would have been justified in being upset. If I'd added information that some would see as not supporting SR to an existing "Doppler effect" page which didn’t yet even mention any SR effects, that could have been argued as making the Doppler article unbalanced. So after writing this page, I wrote a small "transverse Doppler" stub, then waited for someone else to come along and enlarge it, so that the piece on this side of mainstream theory wouldn’t be written by just me. But it didn't grow much. So I guess I'll have to grudgingly enlarge it myself, and then merge the core of this article into it, as some sort of postscript about the comparable physical predictions of pre-SR theories. 
So, at this current time, I guess that's the plan. To leave this badly-mangled page "parked" here, uncorrected, until the "transverse Doppler" page has grown large enough to accept it as a small add-on rather than as a dominant section. ErkDemon 06:37, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  ==To merge or not to merge, that is the question== 

message: Having said all that, with this article, I agree that there's a definite "issue" about what on earth to refer to the effect as, and since it seems that significant numbers of people have missed the original article's point, perhaps some sort of detailed discussion about the different meanings of "transverse" used in comparative theory is in order to make it intelligible to a larger number of people. And a discussion of "transverseness under SR" probably belongs on the "transverse Doppler" page, along with the quotes about transverse effects that have already been deleted by someone from this article. 
So I tell you what I'll do: Instead of rewriting this page and repairing all the dodgy edits (and there have been some real clunkers!), and renaming it, I'll merge the core of these arguments into the "transverse Doppler" page. <BR>
But not yet: The transverse Doppler page needs enlarging first, otherwise these arguments will take up a disproportionate amount of that article, and I'd be accused of "hijacking" the transverse Doppler page for my own supposedly-evil ends and turning into a "vehicle" for something. :(  When people are determined to see ulterior motives and bad intent, they tend to do so no matter what one does. :(
And it seems that not everyone here is yet satisfied that the pre-SR lab-transverse redshift result is correct, so perhaps I should wait until we've at least thrashed out a consensus on the mathematical validity of the thing here, before moving the argument to the Transverse Doppler page. Hopefully that won't take long. We don't have to agree about the significance of the result, just that it's right. Then we'll have a nice clean TD discussion page, with a link back to here for the pre-SR theory discusions. 
For anyone wondering why I didn’t just append these arguments to the "transverse Doppler" page to begin with, well, there wasn't one, and if I'd written a transverse Doppler article that was just about this pre-SR effect, then I think people would have been justified in being upset. If I'd added information that some would see as not supporting SR to an existing "Doppler effect" page which didn’t yet even mention any SR effects, that could have been argued as making the Doppler article unbalanced. So after writing this page, I wrote a small "transverse Doppler" stub, then waited for someone else to come along and enlarge it, so that the piece on this side of mainstream theory wouldn’t be written by just me. But it didn't grow much. So I guess I'll have to grudgingly enlarge it myself, and then merge the core of this article into it, as some sort of postscript about the comparable physical predictions of pre-SR theories. 
So, at this current time, I guess that's the plan. To leave this badly-mangled page "parked" here, uncorrected, until the "transverse Doppler" page has grown large enough to accept it as a small add-on rather than as a dominant section. ErkDemon 06:37, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge to "Transverse Doppler"?

message: Shouldn't the term "special relativity" be instead 'spatial relativity'?  A Doppler Effect as compared to a False Doppler Effect involves the effects of space placement upon light emisions as measured.  [As somewhat of a down-to-earth analogy, there are roasted fowl and then there is the alarming 'spatch-cocked' contrivance]  11/25/2005  19:16, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  terminology