I repost here my response to Peter's comment, originally posted at Mario de Souza's essay blog, as Peter has done on my essay's blog...

Peter,

I can only take offense to statements such as "Your comments don't make sense, I assume as based on misunderstandings." I will respond more rationally.

In relation to my comments (about the Bullet Cluster), they are entirely consistent with the referenced text, including the concluding statements:

"But the dark matter present has not interacted with the cluster gas except by gravity. The clear separation of dark matter and gas clouds is considered direct evidence that dark matter exists."

In fact, those statements conflict with your assertion that the gravitational lensing effects identified can easily be produced by the separated gas.

IMO, the established interpretation falsifies your thesis that the effects attributed to dark matter are actually the product of dense plasmas. This interpretation is confirmed in a recent research reported in the ApJ states in its abstract:

"Weak-lensing results for A1758N agree with previous weak-lensing results for clusters 1E0657-558 (Bullet cluster) and MACS J0025.4-1222, whose X-ray gas components were found to be largely separated from their clusters' gravitational potentials."

Ref.: B. Ragozzine et al. "WEAK-LENSING RESULTS FOR THE MERGING CLUSTER A1758." ApJ 744 94 (Jan 10 2012). doi:10.1088/0004-637X/744/2/94. arXiv:1111.4983v2.

The consensus explanation for the separation of colliding galaxy clusters' gaseous intracluster mediums (ICM) from their galaxies and (presumedly WIMP) dark matter (normally coincident with the ICM prior to collision) is that, when the relatively high velocity clusters meet, their effectively non-interacting sparse galaxies and (WIMP) dark matter proceed in the independent directions of their established momentum, while the disperse gaseous ICMs physically interact, producing "ram pressure" that largely absorbs their momentum.

The separation of lensing effects from the gaseous ICMs (but not their galaxies) seems to falsify your assertion that the lensing effects are produced by the gaseous ICMs. BTW, It does not preclude the possibility that the clusters' galactic masses have been systematically underestimated, and that their gravitational potential alone produces the weak lensing effects.

I'm aware that I do not have the expertise to fully evaluate Mario's thesis that the gaseous arms of spiral galaxies are produced from outflows of gas from the galactic center. That's why I've asked you to explain the data to me. However, you seem intent on merely dismissing any interpretation of observational data indicating that there are any outflows except the perpendicular polar jets produced by AGN. That, taken with your questionable assessment of other data convinces me that your evaluations cannot be relied upon.

I'm sorry that I had to bring up important observational evidence that conflicts with you own proposal. However, insulting me is not appropriate - even if you cannot respond appropriately.

Sincerely, Jim

    Edwin

    Much appreciated. I find it hard to comprehend that the simplest of ideas seems the most difficult for physicists to assimilate. As I've just posted to Georgina: That a pair of photons 'passing by' a lens which is moving towards the source have a different distance between them and speed to those (adjacent ones after) entering the lens medium and optical nerve. The massive implications still seem to be missed by those too indoctrinated with standard assumptions.

    To spell it out; This derives CSL for all observers from a quantum mechanism at the lens surface. This equals what Penrose termed the Holy Grail; The Unification of Physics.

    An ontology of frames emerges with the same hierchical structures as Logic (TFL) and PDL) and when it's applied elsewhere it's absolute power and completeness emerges, including in Cosmology. Yet it is still invisible to most. It's quite bemusing. I suppose, as the post below shows, we are only human, run by emotion and belief.

    Best wishes

    Peter

    • [deleted]

    • Post #179

    Hi Peter,

    I read your essay over the weekend and enjoyed it greatly. Julie and I are fighting the same corner with our essay, not only by insisting on the value of philosophy for arguments in physics, but also by using philosophy and ontology to reflect on the idea that space cannot 'really' be nothing. Of course our and your position goes the other way too, and discoveries in physics can have deep implications for philosophy. As you say in your sonnet, "Our physics needs ontology, philosophy needs nature."

    In our case we used the physical discoveries about the vacuum to redefine the notion of 'nothing', and by extrapolating from that were able to come up with our notion of "energeum" which fits the bill for a neutral monist stuff, which is something philosophers have been looking for for some time.

    The deep nature of energeum, and of space as a real medium as you have defended it to be, is going to be an interesting task to unravel. I believe that there is a good explanation for everything that exists or happens, and that there is no principled argument for why any of these explanations should be beyond the range of what science and philosophy working together can discover.

    Good luck in the competition!

    Regards and thanks,

    David

    David

    Thanks, the rise of maths over philosophy has had no success in fundamental advancement. I think it's an essential tool that must be improved, but no more than that. Also, and this has been missed, both must learn more from the rules and structure of logic.

    I propose an inertial frame is precisely equivalent to a proposition. It truth propositional logic (TPL) Propositions are discrete but hierarchical, so may be compound and 'nested'. Each compound proposition must be resolved within itself, then with respect to it's neighbour. It has no relevance to anything 'once removed'. i.e. OIt is REAL and LOCAL, with boundaries. Dynamic (Modal) logic follows that and applies it to kinetics ('interleafing'). Frames are then mutually exclusive, but as small as each electron (if in motion in it's LOCAL background).

    Steve Sycamore just posted a JJ Thompson quote;

    "... the super-dispersive property is due to the presence of the electron, in other words that the electron provides its own ether."

    I see no conflict with energeum, as the electrons are condensed from it's energy to implement change. The key is in the 'motion', which as a concept must be relative, i.e. change (between 1 and 0?). Does that fit OK with you?

    Peter

    Jim

    I'm now at a loss to understand your comments. Data must be consistently explained, as, when it's not, no support is given to theory. I tried to help, as asked, by identifying where the belief that radial disc outflows existed came from. It seemed you or Mario may have misinterpreted 'radial distribution' and/or 'velocity dispersion' as implying such motion so I explained their meanings. I'm quite flumoxed by your reaction and misinterpretation of my own comments, including that ALL matter interacts with em waves, but dispersion varies.

    It seems a problem with receptiveness to wide speculative theory in cosmology is a tendency among non astronomers to cite such views as 'evidence' of fact, when of course it is not. Only the data gives evidence. The PRJ's at least allow a certain standard to be relied on for credible citation, even if they do mainly promote the ruling paradigm.

    You've decided not to avail yourself of either data or most PRJ papers. That's fine, but it's not then reasonable for you to then accuse me of being wrong and insulting when I point out that the data itself does not accord with the theory. That is honest science!

    If you wish for an astronomers advice on facts, he should give you the best facts available. The problems come with interpretation, which I agree may be quite rotten to the core. But if the data does not fit your theory it can't be the data assumed wrong without rigorous alternative explanation. Right or wrong that's how it works. I'd assumed you didn't want your thesis to just be dismissed by astronomers. I really don't feel I can offer any more.

    Peter

    Perter,

    Thanks so much for another lecture, but it seems you are still ignoring the evidence provided by the separation of gravitational potential and x-ray emitting gasses in galaxy cluster mergers. Again, the consensus interpretation among professional astrophysicists seems to be that this provides clear evidence of dark matter's existence since the lensing effect attributed to it cannot be produced by the ICM.

    Also, please be aware that we have not been discussing the thesis in my essay at all - we've been discussing the thesis of Mario's essay. I think that Mario's thesis is valid and provides support for my thesis, but I already had supporting references in my essay for models producing observed spiral galaxy rotational characteristics without dark matter or modified gravity.

    I'd be more than happy to discuss the thesis of my essay any time you wish, but we have not been addressing astronomers' invalid expectations for spiral galaxy rotation that led to the erroneous requirement for galactic dark matter.

    Back to your thesis, I urge you to very carefully consider the evidence provided by the separation of gravitational potential and x-ray emitting gasses in observations of galaxy cluster collisions.

    Sincerely, Jim

    • [deleted]

    • Post #183

    Jim

    If someone resists accessing actual evidence but proposes something contrary that's fine, but that's called speculation not science and I'm sure you can judge how its veracity is viewed.

    You now 'urge me to consider' evidence assuming I have not done so for both that and far better evidence very closely for some years. You assumption is incorrect. But I also still don't agree your characterisation (last para). I'll do my best again to explain, as long as you don't call it 'lecturing'!

    When galaxies and clusters collide, let's say the 'fine structure' (whatever) surrounds them is disturbed. This is invariably found as more dense CO and molecular gas towards the barycentre and a more diffuse electron based plasma (when detectable) towards the outer halo (or IGM/ICM). (They overlap because one begets the other!) Now I'm sorry, but if you've studied as much data and research as I have over the years you will find a clear pattern, consistent with the following description (and I'm not just spouting any mainstream 'dark matter' theories).

    The molecular gas clouds are only concentrated in different parts of space to the plasma because they 'started' in different parts of space so are affected differently. Now the lensing found does not 'JUST' correlate with the visible molecular gas, at WHATEVER wavelength it scatters light (normally investigated at multiple frequencies). All the condensed matter there is assumed to have gravitational potential according to it's mass just like it does in our back yard. The change in motions of the visible matter correlates with this basis and provides an approximation of density of the NON visible 'clouds'. These are normally thus considered as 'dark matter', either as some exotic new particles or not. I propose not, because the densities are consistent with electron densities found locally (The Kingsley Figure 2 I referred you to, and the international standard ionospheric model at up to 10^14 particles/cm^-3 at shocks).

    Now there is also other evidence, quite complex, but lensing is the main and largely independent second 'check'. It quite simply does not correlate with the visible gas, at least 'alone'. But now we get into interpretation'. Mainstream uses 'curved space-time' to estimate galaxy mass, but gets anomalously high masses. More and more (inconsistent with relativity) use my method of diffraction by matter for lensing (as smaller lenses) which is more consistent with the REAL data (Sauron, Atlas 3D etc).

    The lensing then simply implies spatial distribution and density. Most of mainstream just call it 'dark matter density', but that just means it's not visible and includes a broad church of options. Plasma 'scatters' far better directionally than gas (that's what 'self focussing' means). So that's why the gas visible at X ray has no effect on lensing, which is indeed a proof of the plasma thesis. (Unless you really believe the nearby galaxy cluster 'bends' a pure vacuum - as current mainstream expects us to, but that gas does not).

    Now I've tried other models which don't work, and tried for some time to falsify (NOT verify!) this, but failed. Yet I still have an open mind.

    Now none of this has much to do with my essay, which just exposes the underlying quantum mechanism the 'particle' based lensing implies, and more than a handful of other anomalies. But you did ask.

    I'm sorry if your beliefs and Mario's thesis are different, that's fine let them be if you prefer, and as I recall I have no problem with any other parts, but I don't believe in hiding from inconvenient scientific truths, and hope you're the same.

    Peter

    Peter,

    We're now discussing my claim that the separation of lensing effects and x-ray emitting intracluster media falsifies your assertion that the effects attributed to dark matter can be attributed to plasmas. Please do Mario the favor of excluding remarks about him from this discussion, as he has made no such claims and in fact I've had no discussions with Mario about this claim of mine. He has nothing to do with this discussion - this is just between you and me.

    Secondly, as I have provided several sources that conclude that the separation of lensing effects from x-ray emitting gases in high velocity galaxy collisions provides evidence for the existence of enormous masses of not just 'non-visible' matter but effectively non-interacting non-baryonic, weakly interacting massive particles (WIMPs). Please see Chandra posting. This is not just 'little old me' making this claim, it seems to be the consensus "mainstream" astrophysical community.

    As I understand, 'undisturbed' galaxy cluster morphology can be generalized as tending towards a spherical distribution of mass centered around a common center of mass, generally coincident with the geometric center of the cluster. There the gaseous intracluster medium is densest and hottest, emitting high energy x-rays. There is also often an enormous galaxy located near the center of mass.

    The consensus interpretation of collided galaxy clusters, as I understand, is that the disperse gasses comprised of baryonic particles physically interact upon collision, absorbing their momentum slowing their forward motion.

    It is thought that the colliding clusters' sparse galaxies do not physically interact - their momentum allows each group of galaxies to continue their established relative motion until gravitation eventually slows their progress.

    The gravitational lensing effects of collided galaxy clusters are typically coincident with the location of the two separated groups of galaxies. However, since the collective mass estimated for the galaxies is thought to be insufficient to produce the identified weak gravitational lensing effects, it is presumed that enormous amounts of dark matter coincident with the galaxies is contributing most of the mass necessary to produce the identified gravitational lensing effects.

    It is crucial to understand that the inferred dark matter could only be coincident with the two groups of non-interacting galaxies if the dark matter was also non-interacting. The only interaction that could have occurred between the two groups of galaxies and any possible dark matter was gravitational.

    The principal requirement for the inferred dark matter is that it could only have gravitationally interacted with any of the clusters' mass upon collision. As I understand, the p[articles of colliding plasma clouds would physically interact much like the hot gases in the intracluster medium - their forward progress could not have continued such that they would located coincidentally with the sparse, non-interacting galaxies.

    If you can explain how ionized gas or plasma particles within the two colliding galaxy clusters could have avoided all physical interaction with other disperse particles, allowing their momentum to carry them along with the clusters' galaxies, I'd be very happy to try to understand.

    Sincerely, Jim

    Peter,

    We're now discussing my claim that the separation of lensing effects and x-ray emitting intracluster media falsifies your assertion that the effects attributed to dark matter can be attributed to plasmas. Please do Mario the favor of excluding remarks about him from this discussion, as he has made no such claims and in fact I've had no discussions with Mario about this claim of mine. He has nothing to do with this discussion - this is just between you and me.

    Secondly, as I have provided several sources that conclude that the separation of lensing effects from x-ray emitting gases in high velocity galaxy collisions provides evidence for the existence of enormous masses of not just 'non-visible' matter but effectively non-interacting non-baryonic, weakly interacting massive particles (WIMPs). Please see Chandra posting. This is not just 'little old me' making this claim, it seems to be the consensus "mainstream" astrophysical community.

    As I understand, 'undisturbed' galaxy cluster morphology can be generalized as tending towards a spherical distribution of mass centered around a common center of mass, generally coincident with the geometric center of the cluster. There the gaseous intracluster medium is densest and hottest, emitting high energy x-rays. There is also often an enormous galaxy located near the center of mass.

    The consensus interpretation of collided galaxy clusters, as I understand, is that the disperse gasses comprised of baryonic particles physically interact upon collision, absorbing their momentum slowing their forward motion.

    It is thought that the colliding clusters' sparse galaxies do not physically interact - their momentum allows each group of galaxies to continue their established relative motion until gravitation eventually slows their progress.

    The gravitational lensing effects of collided galaxy clusters are typically coincident with the location of the two separated groups of galaxies. However, since the collective mass estimated for the galaxies is thought to be insufficient to produce the identified weak gravitational lensing effects, it is presumed that enormous amounts of dark matter coincident with the galaxies is contributing most of the mass necessary to produce the identified gravitational lensing effects.

    It is crucial to understand that the inferred dark matter could only be coincident with the two groups of non-interacting galaxies if the dark matter was also non-interacting. The only interaction that could have occurred between the two groups of galaxies and any possible dark matter was gravitational.

    The principal requirement for the inferred dark matter is that it could only have gravitationally interacted with any of the clusters' mass upon collision. As I understand, the p[articles of colliding plasma clouds would physically interact much like the hot gases in the intracluster medium - their forward progress could not have continued such that they would located coincidentally with the sparse, non-interacting galaxies.

    If you can explain how ionized gas or plasma particles within the two colliding galaxy clusters could have avoided all physical interaction with other disperse particles, allowing their momentum to carry them along with the clusters' galaxies, I'd be very happy to try to understand.

    Sincerely, Jim

      Jim

      Than was rather dense with assumptions with which I disagree, and also read like more of a 'Lecture' than my reply! A most fundamental one made is that dark matter 'can't be baryonic' or interact. This is certainly often suggested but far from proven, and there's ample evidence of gravitational interaction (also with and of galaxies themselves when close enough to do so). If we start from different assumptions we can't fail to end up with different conclusions.

      (Your comment in para 2 seems to suggest you agree with high densities of non-baryonic 'dark matter', but perhaps you could clarify).

      As you seem resistant to investigating n-body systems semi-analytical modelling of evolving gravitational effects (consistent with my thesis and most patterns found) I've tried to find some good quality non speculative papers on arXiv. there are precious few. However, one of the top teams in the field, led by Kevin Pimbblet, have logged some MNRAS papers there. One much cited work is here; http://arxiv.org/pdf/1104.0711v2.pdf

      Please do read it all through carefully, (you'll notice it presents maximum data and findings but draws no conclusions where uncertainties remain) then perhaps we'll be able to communicate properly on more solid foundations rather than simply state different beliefs. You'll note the comments about Xray detection and electron densities, which are consistent with most data and PRJ papers, if not with a number of other theories, some of which you cite. Both are valid, but overall weight of (real) evidence does lean heavily towards ions. I should add that ions here while referred mainly as free electrons include the other fundamental particles including positrons, as found happily annihilating away recently in the ionosphere!

      Do revert once you've read the paper.

      Peter

      Peter,

      There was NO assumption that dark matter cannot interact - that was established by the evidence - the location of the identified lens effects relative to the point of collision and the non-interacting galaxies (I'm specifically referring to the Bullet Cluster here). Again, this is not just my interpretation but, as best I can determine, the consensus interpretation of the astrophysics community. Whatever produced the lens effects could not have physically interacted with any other material during the collision.

      The disperse x-ray emitting gas from the two galaxies did interact, that is why they remain near the point of collision - unlike the non-interacting galaxies and whatever produced the lensing effects.

      I asked one thing of you - to explain how disperse ionized gas or plasma particles could have proceeded far beyond the point of collision, as did the galaxies. You have not complied. Instead you dismiss the compelling visual evidence that the lensing source (including the clusters' galaxies) did not interact during the collision.

      That the lens effects remain coincident to the galaxies following collision indicates that the galaxies almost certainly contribute to the identified weak gravitational lens effects. No dark matter would be necessary if there were some systematic error in the estimation of collective galactic mass, but I am not capable of identifying any such error, so I cannot make that claim. The alternative is that weakly interactive massive particles are present contributing to the lensing effect also produced by the clusters' galaxies.

      There is no need to complicate this analysis - as established by consensus, the location of the lens separate from any gaseous matter is clear evidence that the identified weak gravitational lensing effects could not have been produced by any disperse gaseous material, including molecular gas, atomic gas, nucleons or electrons, since disperse particles within the two colliding galaxy clusters would have interacted as did the x-ray emitting gas.

      The onus is on you to disprove the consensus interpretation that the separation of lensing effects from gaseous galaxy cluster intracluster media precludes their contributing to the identified weak gravitational lensing effects.

      Jim

      Jim

      What you 'determine' as the 'consensus of the astrophysics community' is most certainly not. I already pointed out that was 'cherry picking' from the full gamut of theories available, which is simply not what astronomers do.

      I'm sorry but if you don't wish to look at the full evidence, and maintain a 'partisan' not balanced view, there is no more to discuss and your proposal is unlikely to be taken seriously by the 'astrophysics community'. I have serious research to do and can now afford no more time on this.

      Peter

      • [deleted]

      • Post #189

      Peter,

      When the observer starts moving TOWARDS the light source with speed v, the frequency he measures shifts from f=c/L to f'=(c+v)/L. When the observer starts moving AWAY FROM the light source with speed v, the frequency he measures shifts from f=c/L to f'=(c-v)/L. Can you justify these frequency shifts based on your light-changed-speed-on-arrival theory? You write in your essay:

      "If light travels at a speed of distance d divided by time t (d/t = km/sec) then how can it be found always at c (~300,000km/sec) by all moving observers? A simple answer would be that light changed speed on arrival. Light would then travel at c= d/t through a background medium, but change to local c when meeting an observer."

      Pentcho Valev

        Peter,

        This discussion is about your proposal - I'm suggesting to you why the astrophysics community will receive your proposal, that the effects most generally attributed to dark matter (WIMPs) are instead caused by ionized gas or plasmas, with a great deal of skepticism. Feel free to ignore my advice about your proposal.

        Jim

        • [deleted]

        • Post #191

        Peter,

        You wrote: "In the Doppler shift case, due to motion (in non-zero time) it is distance that changes. So shifts in f are found because effective L [L is wavelength] changes on interaction with a detector."

        When the observer starts moving TOWARDS the light source with speed v, the frequency he measures shifts from f=c/L to f'=(c+v)/L. Is this frequency shift due to a change in the wavelength? If yes, start from the wavelength change and derive the frequency shift. If not, the frequency shift is due to a speed of light shift: relative to the observer, the speed of light shifts from c to c'=c+v.

        When the observer starts moving AWAY FROM the light source with speed v, the frequency he measures shifts from f=c/L to f'=(c-v)/L. Is this frequency shift due to a change in the wavelength? If yes, start from the wavelength change and derive the frequency shift. If not, the frequency shift is due to a speed of light shift: relative to the observer, the speed of light shifts from c to c'=c-v.

        Pentcho Valev

        Pentcho

        Yes, but different for each observer case. Case 1 is for an observer remaining at rest in the APPROACH frame as the new medium passes him by (he can thus only see the passage of light waves (or lets use a string of pulses) via scattering from the particles of other medium). ANSWER; He sees apparent c+v. But remember nothing anywhere is REALLY breaching c, he's just an Einsteinian so fooled by the sequence of fairy lights in the other medium each lit up in turn by each pulse and scattering light at c. So ALL light really does c (modified by any n value

          Hello Peter, hope this finds you well. Inspired by you, I have taken to encouraging essay writers to read and rate their fellow contest contributors' work.

          This is group message to you and the writers of some 80 contest essays that I have already read, rated and probably commented on.

          This year I feel proud that the following old and new online friends have accepted my suggestion that they submit their ideas to this contest. Please feel free to read, comment on and rate these essays (including mine) if you have not already done so, thanks:

          Why We Still Don't Have Quantum Nucleodynamics by Norman D. Cook a summary of his Springer book on the subject.

          A Challenge to Quantized Absorption by Experiment and Theory by Eric Stanley Reiter Very important experiments based on Planck's loading theory, proving that Einstein's idea that the photon is a particle is wrong.

          An Artist's Modest Proposal by Kenneth Snelson The world-famous inventor of Tensegrity applies his ideas of structure to de Broglie's atom.

          Notes on Relativity by Edward Hoerdt Questioning how the Michelson-Morely experiment is analyzed in the context of Special Relativity

          Vladimir Tamari's essay Fix Physics! Is Physics like a badly-designed building? A humorous illustrate take. Plus: Seven foundational questions suggest a new beginning.

          Thank you and good luck.

          Vladimir

          Peter

          Yours is the only essay exposing new underlying physical reality. I've just read it again, and there was far more detail embedded than I recalled from the first read. It's a bit of a brain teaser folowing the implications of 'evolving interaction' as you put it, but an eye opener. I'm very please mine is compatible and describes the 'frame boundary' physics. I particularly like you 'fluid dynalic coupling' (or 'magnetohydro'-dynamic..) analogy.

          I think you desereve to win by far. Quite brilliant thinking.

          Very best of luck in the final results. Let's hope you find an intelligent and open minded judge who can see it.

          Peter

            Richard,

            Very Kind. Yes I agree its a major advance, of physics if not of understanding (quite yet). It is quite difficult to assimilate the mechanism, particularly as evolving kinetics are involved, and as it is indeed an unfamiliar concept. You flatter, but you too found one of the key mechanisms, which I think opened the door in our mind to the whole picture. For most that door is still shut, and they can't be blamed for that. I confirm the helical or twin vortex toroid soliton wave/perticle you describe is also straight out of the top drawer and consistent with my 'Discrete Field' model (DFM) as well as others here. I assume that was you above by the way, with similar 'cut'n paste' issues to those we're all having. I'm taking Brendan's advice and mainly writing elsewhere and pasting in when done (says he writing this reply straight in!)

            The subject of this competition was ideal for finding new physics to rid us of the confusion, but it seems we all have to dig deeper still to extract the hidden assumptions. Many thanks for your support. Last year I called the essay '2020 Vision' as a double entendre stating that I estimated it would take until 2020 before the way out of the mess I present is actually fully understood and starts affecting things. I always was an optimist!

            Best wishes

            Peter

            Pentcho,

            Yes I can show delta lambda, but you must drop those assumptions to see it. The above post crossed in cybersapace with yours of 15.32, and got cut in half! So first I'll complete that, with Case 2, then reply separately to the 15.32 post.

            In case 1 of an observer fixed in the APPROACH frame you'll have seen once a pulse enters the new lump of medium moving past him, he is allowed to see APPARENT c+v because nothing actually breaches c (If you find anything doing so let me know).

            CASE 2. Is an observer accelerating into the new medium rest frame (or comparing notes after the event with the one in the approach frame). In the case with the new medium moving AWAY from the source; At rest in that medium he obviously (?) finds the wave peaks further apart. Now just freeze frame and step backwards in your mind and think a bit. We know VERY WELL that all high frequency waves are short, and all low frequency waves are long for any given speed, and we also know JUST AS WELL that wavelength changes with frequency in Doppler shifts, because ALL experimental evidence finds precisely that when dealing with emitters and with media. Many have assumed, as have you, a 'simpler' condition for a receiver where the wave is absorbed. I will show you it is however the SAME condition, because the lens medium comes BEFORE the processor (brain) NOT in the same place or after it.

            The lens medium is n=1.38, and the waves or signal pulses pass through this and along the optic nerve BEFORE they can be timed and frequency calculated. The brain tester is the entirely separate shift due to relative n. But if we set the two refractive indices the same the net delta lambda due to relative V is exposed. It looses it's hiding place and comes to light (to the intelligent mind).

            The calculation is a little complex due to the motion of the refractive plane during the two peaks (or pulses) meeting it. So it needs f - c/L with the change in L modified by vt and a z or gamma factor, because this is a 'Doppler LT'. Enough for now as there's a lot of new thinking to absorb, but I'll give you an analogy for delta L giving delta f in answer to your 15.32 post.

            Best wishes

            Peter