Could we derive relativistic Doppler Effect for sound wave?

vacuum-mechanics

Everyone know that only light wave could create relativistic Doppler Effect, and this because it was told that light wave required no physical medium for its propagation (how could it be something like that!). Any way, if it is so and if we could prove that actually light wave indeed propagates via some kind of physical medium, then it means that we could found relativistic Doppler Effect for sound wave, right? Here in the paper “Completed Einstein special theory of relativity”, we will show that sound wave or any kind of wave could create relativistic Doppler Effect. Please see detail in “Completed Einstein special theory of relativity” now present in www.vacuum-mechanics.com .

Guille · 10-03-2005, 12:24 PM

Vacuum-mechanics,

maybe yes and maybe no.

What makes me think it could be so, is that maybe not only em spectrum, or sound are waves, but that all forms of energy are waves themselves. heat, sound, KE, PE, EPE, light...

And so, all the kinds of energy waves could make the doppler effect.

dleviwing · 10-03-2005, 01:47 PM

VM;
I know of no method that sound waves can acquire the velocity needed to be influenced by relativistic properties.

Doppler effect is not the only phenomena that results in a wavelength shift. The expansion of the universe also causes EM waves to become longer. (Red shifted)

Personally I have become quite certain that there is a medium for EM radiation. It seems that its behavior and influence are already incorporated in the mathematics and thus is said that it is not needed.
Best regards;
Dave

Guille · 10-03-2005, 03:05 PM

You two talk about the "fluid" of EM.

What do you mean by "medium" of the EM? Isn't it just dimensions?

dleviwing · 10-03-2005, 07:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by <<>>

What do you mean by "medium" of the EM? Isn't it just dimensions?

Guille;
The medium is the entity (ether, vacuum energy, quantum foam, etc); the dimensions are the measured properties (electromagnetic wave properties).

Remember "Dimensions and Entities" thread; you need to ask the questions as to what is and what is measured.

vacuum-mechanics · 10-05-2005, 03:53 AM

Dear GUILLE and friends,

Thanks for so many interesting comments from friends to the topic “Could we derive relativistic Doppler Effect for sound wave?”, actually it is a consequence of the mentioned article “Completed Einstein special theory of relativity”. And let I answer to GUILLE first post (1543) as follow.

-According to my concept there are only two type of physical entities; energy (in the form of the mechanism of vacuum medium) and matters (which are composing of electron proton and neutron). The appearance of the first type is gravity, all electromagnetic phenomena and all kinds of what we now understood as energy. The second type is all kind of matters; solid, liquid and gas. So you are right (according to my concept) if your answer is “yes’! - That is all kind of energy does have relativistic Doppler Effect, and all fluid substances too. And you are also right if your answer is “no” – that is all kind of solids has no relativistic Doppler Effect. Is it OK?

Sincerely yours,

Nimt Th.

Guille · 10-08-2005, 09:59 AM

vacuum mechanics,

I understand by your post that you believe that matter is dependant on energy. Is this interpretation correct or a fallacy?

vacuum-mechanics · 10-10-2005, 12:53 AM

Dear GUILLE and friends,

-Actually in my concept matter is only the appearance of the condensed of”vacuum medium” the new form of energy which is existed to maintain the fabric structure of the universe! (That is no blank vacuum space in the universe; there is something which I called it vacuum medium.)

- What a question you asked me? I don’t know is it correct or fallacy? What I do know is, it is the most concepts that follow “the cause and effect principle” (as I know). If anyone who know the better one, please tell me (I really want to know).

- By the way in Buddhism we accept the concept of “cause and effect”. There is not such thing that occurs without cause!

Sincerely yours,

Nimit Th.

Guille · 10-10-2005, 02:36 AM

vacuum mechanics,

I think you have a strong misunderstanding with the physics of relativity. It's not that much of a problem, I've come to many, many whcih have the same misinterpretation. This error which I refer to, is that you make matter and energy interchageable, believing that this is what E=mc^2 states. But no. The m in the equation is for mass. This means that mass is a form of energy. But matter isn't. Matter has energy, and thus, it has mass.

By the way, I come and post in this thread without a cause of it.

vacuum-mechanics · 10-10-2005, 10:58 AM

Dear GUILLE and friends,

-You have the right to say that I am wrong, but what the judgment is depend on who have a better reason (which could be understandable) for his idea.

- In E=mc², yes m is mass, but mass of what? And you said that it mean that mass is a form of energy, so do I. But could you have any explanation why E=mc² in the conventional physics of relativity beside the mathematical formula? For my concept, there is an explanation how it is. Please see detail how an electron (which is a part of the constitution of matter) comes from vacuum medium energy in the article (Completed Maxwell electromagnetic field theory) in the topic “Electron – a tiny black hole”.

-By the way, the cause that you post the thread is that you want to have the discussion, isn’t it?

Sincerely yours,

Nimit Th.