Is the Earth stationary, or does it revolve around the sun?

Red shift and blue shift are frequency shift. It is not additive velocities to that of light. A frequency shift of light does not mean the light is traveling any slower or faster. Only that its waves are stretched out or compressed.

RMT

 
I was actually reading that as a "dopler effect". Wasn't that visible for the light beam only in very fast speeds?
Click to expand...
At extremely high speeds there is an additional time dilation for the inertial body that has accelerated to that speed. So light emitted from such a body would have a time dilation component plus a velocity component to factor out in order to get the correct speed of light when transforming between your reference frame and the high speed reference frame.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Red shift and blue shift are frequency shift. It is not additive velocities to that of light. A frequency shift of light does not mean the light is traveling any slower or faster. Only that its waves are stretched out or compressed.
RMT
Click to expand...
So, can the light shift be applied for the Michelson - Morley experiment? Has their devise been used for another purpose,for example to detect the movement of a speeding car?

 
Last edited by a moderator:
seivtcho

RainmanTime is misdirecting you with his statements. The difference in the velocity or time dilation between different reference frames is the direct cause of Doppler shift.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
At extremely high speeds there is an additional time dilation for the inertial body that has accelerated to that speed. So light emitted from such a body would have a time dilation component plus a velocity component to factor out in order to get the correct speed of light when transforming between your reference frame and the high speed reference frame.
Click to expand...
I think, that you both - RainmanTime and you, Einstein, are right. I have red, that the red shifts and the blue shifts have been used to prove, that the universe is expanding. The results of the experiment, however, sounds me strange. Why it has not detected shifts? Is it because the detecting device does not move relative to the light source? I mean, that shifts are exampled with the change of the sound of a moving train, that hears someone on the ground, while the train passes. But if you are on the train, you will move with its speed and will not hear a dopler shifted sound. Is it the same with this experiment?

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I think, that you both - RainmanTime and you, Einstein, are right. I have red, that the red shifts and the blue shifts have been used to prove, that the universe is expanding. The results of the experiment, however, sounds me strange. Why it has not detected shifts? Is it because the detecting device does not move relative to the light source? I mean, that shifts are exampled with the change of the sound of a moving train, that hears someone on the ground, while the train passes. But if you are on the train, you will move with its speed and will not hear a dopler shifted sound. Is it the same with this experiment?
Click to expand...
I think you are starting to understand.
The Michelson-Morley experiment was used to create a Doppler shift in the path of one of the light beams. Because one of the beams of light was expected to change. The experiment was originally created to detect the ether. A popular theory at the time. But no ether was ever detected. Then they used the experiment to measure the rotation of the earth. That was puzzling too. Because no rotation was measured. The experiment was suggesting that the earth was sitting dead still in space. Now the experimental results are undeniable facts.

But does it really mean that the universe is revolving around the earth? That is what this debate is all about. My stance is that the data is correct. But the interpretation is not. And further data gathering needs to be done. For instance: If we did the Michelson-Morley experiment on Mars, would we get the same results over there too?

 
Last edited by a moderator:
How about trying to detect the movement of a car with it?
Click to expand...
Yes, the experiment has evolved since Michelson and Morley created it. Now the experiment is done in labs across the nation with high precision using lasers. And the concept was used to develop the Laser Gyro. I believe the Laser Gyro is used in military helicopters to help hover the helicopter autonomously. So in answer to your question if you put one in a car, it would detect the movement of the car.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Tell me more about this device? Where is the source and where is the sensor? Are they traveling both, or the sensor is static relative to the light sourse?

 
So how do you interpret the data?
Click to expand...
I do favor the idea that the earth creates its own electromagnetic reference frame that rotates with the earth. This reference frame appears to be separate and distinct from the dimensional length reference frame that we use to visibly describe the apparent rotation of the earth. Two different reference frames coexisting in the same space? This does seem like evidence for the presence of extra dimensions. Each type of reference frame behaves according to its own rules.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I do favor the idea that the earth creates its own electromagnetic reference frame that rotates with the earth. This reference frame appears to be separate and distinct from the dimensional length reference frame that we use to visibly describe the apparent rotation of the earth. Two different reference frames coexisting in the same space? This does seem like evidence for the presence of extra dimensions. Each type of reference frame behaves according to its own rules.
Click to expand...
This kinda sounds like a "theory". I thought you didn't believe in them? :)

 
Last edited by a moderator:
This kinda sounds like a "theory". I thought you didn't believe in them? :)
Click to expand...
I don't believe in theories. We can assemble the existing facts together to form a picture of our reality. The facts should have a voice all their own.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
"...favor(ing) the idea..." has little to do with facts.
Click to expand...
True. The reference frames are a fact. The idea of extra dimensions would be the theory. I'm all in favor of gathering more facts, instead of promulgating a preferred idea.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Einstein;

I do like you and you and I can agree on some theories being "less than" valid. I have always had an issue with "theoretical" physics and cosmology. Theoretical physics... what a job. Use an understanding of "known" physics and "make stuff up" that no one could possibly ever prove... nor disprove. Cosmology... guess how far away stuff in space, that can't be measured, is from the earth... a relatively insignificant vantage point. This topic allows me to disclose that view.

I personally have no problem with the earth being at the center of the universe. Since the "center" of the universe is indeterminable, any point is as good as any other. ?

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Back
Top