>>13080651Still spamming this nonsense I see.
>https://vixra.org/abs/2103.0149Your derivation of the transverse Doppler effect is wrong. This is because you chose a silly definition for the angle theta, which would be fine if you didn't forget this later. theta=pi/2 is not the transverse effect, because of your definition of theta.
The text defines theta=L S_1 S_2 O, where S_1 is the source and O is the observer. The text wrongly states that theta=pi/2 is the transverse effect, but this is wrong. When the light is emitted by S_1 it's velocity (v) is not perpendicular to the line of sight. So what you get is just the regular old longitudinal Doppler effect with an angle.
Can only derive the transverse Doppler effect when the velocity is perpendicular to the line of sight, so it isn't getting closer or further away. This means that r_s and r_o are equal, and from your own substitutions after equation 11 it's obvious that this means the two wavelengths must be equal. So no, there is no transverse Doppler effect classically, when you do it correctly. This does not solve the Michelson and Morley Experiment.
I would strongly advise looking at textbooks before wasting your time writing papers like this. Making sure you understand the standard derivation is essential to picking up mistakes like this. Deriving the Doppler effect is high school level physics.
There's lots of other nonsense claims in their too, like the references to Arp's work. Arp's claims about lensed quasars are strongly rejected by the data, because those quasars (with apparent separations of tens of thousands of lightyears) are synchronised from our perspective to within a few days. That is impossible if they are distinct objects with no idea where the Earth is. But it's a verified prediction of the gravitational lensing model, where these images are just slightly delayed versions of the same object.
