The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Marginally no consensus at worst, not redirecting or merging as no consensus so keep. HappyCamper 20:59, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This article should be deleted because it is "original research" with no verifiable sources. Is it a crackpot pseudo-scientific article. 63.24.48.221 21:06, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Question How does this relate to the Transverse Doppler Effect which is an accepted effect? Dlyons493 21:37, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Answer There's no direct relation. The thing called "false doppler" in this article is not really false at all. It's a genuine classical Doppler shift resulting from the fact that the receiver is moving away from the transmitter. The article seems to be trying to say that this can be regarded as a false TRANSVERSE Doppler effect, because even though the receiver is moving away from the transmitter, he is receiving the signal from a direction that is, in terms of his own system of reference, perpendicular (i.e., transverse) to his direction of motion, due to the effect of aberration. But it's silly and incorrect to call this "false Doppler", and it would be only slightly less silly to call it "false transverse Doppler". It is simply the classical Doppler effect combined with the classical aberration effect. At most, this warrants a sentence or two in an article on aberration. Wikipedia is not the place to be making up new terminology, especially incorrect terminology like "false Doppler", and claiming that it is historical. I know of no reputable reference for the term "false Doppler" to describe this.63.24.114.48 19:47, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Not crackpot, as the article sorts itself into Category:History of physics and states in some theories, preceding special relativity. But some doubts about the usefullness of a separate articles concentrating on calculations. Keep or Merge. We have Emission theory which already states Emission theory generates many "classic" SR results like E=mc² and transverse redshifts. --Pjacobi 21:39, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Referring to the Wiki article on emission theory is not very helpful, because it was largely written by the same well-known pseudo-science crackpot (Erk) who contributed the article on False Doppler. Also, the fact that it is classified as History of Physics doesn't exempt it from Wikipedia policy. The point is not whether Erk's ideas about science or history or anything else are right or wrong. The point is that Wikipedia is not the appropriate place for Erk's ideas (or yours or mine). Wikipedia articles are required to be verifiable from reputable published sources. If someone can find a reputable reference for "False Doppler", then it should be added to the article. If no one can find such a reference, then the article should be deleted.63.24.118.187 01:15, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Whereas I have my problem with Classical Hawking radiation and Aether and general relativity, I'd consider Emission theory and even False Doppler to be the better ones of Erks contribution. Emission theory is an important step in the history of physics, and going into the dusty areas of your preferred physics libary will give plenty of discussions of it. Also you don't want to consider http://aether.lbl.gov/ being a crackpot's website, and you can find eduacational discussions of emission theory there, see http://aether.lbl.gov/www/classes/p139/homework/one.ps --Pjacobi 11:08, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There seems to be some confusion in the above comment. The subject of this proposal for deletion is not "Emission Theory", it is "False Doppler". Emission Theory is an actual subject in the history of science. False Doppler is not. Arguments in support of an article on Emission Theory are not relevant to a discussion of whether the article on False Doppler should be deleted.63.24.51.19 15:12, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not stupid, at least not that stupid. But I sure can formulate more precise: Merge to Emission theory or rename to Doppler effect in emission theory, or even better rename to Ritz' Emission theory and merge some stuff from Emission theory into Ritz' Emission theory. --Pjacobi 22:24, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Seems reasonable. Presumably an article on emission theory will contain the expression for Doppler shift as a function of angle, and will note that this angle depends on the frame of reference, so the facts will automatically be covered.63.24.96.146 22:42, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as per 63.24.118.187. -- Kjkolb 06:01, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. As Pjacobi wrote, this fits in History of Physics.Count Iblis 12:58, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It fits in the history of physics only if it is actually a factual description of something from the history of physics... which it isn't. There is no such thing as "false doppler" in the history of physics. Check any reference on the history of physics, optics, accoustics, electrodynamics, you name it. You will find no references to "false doppler". Do a google search on "false doppler" and the only hits (other than these Wiki pages contributed by Erk, aka Eric Baird) are for things like false doppler indications of stormy weather, which have nothing to do with this subject. Also, if you glance at the "example" calculation of false doppler in this article, you will see that it's utter nonsense. But that's irrelevant, because the question is not whether the article is true, the question is whether it's verifiable from a reputable source. It isn't. So it should be deleted.

So far, the only "keep" votes for this article have been by people who cited as their reason that it is classified as history, and those people have declined to address the fact that the article is on a completely fictitious subject that was fabricated by a lunatic fringe pseudo-science crackpot and is not verifiable in any reputable published reference, and therefore has no place in Wikipedia, regardless of whether it is in the History of Science category or any other category. History articles are not exempt from the content policies of Wikipedia.63.24.51.19 15:04, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Uses science to back it up. Dudtz 9/29/05 7:14 PM EST

What science? where? linas 16:48, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. I tried but couldn't figure this one out. There is such a thing as a transverse doppler effect, its easy enough to google. However, this page fails to distinguish between the relativistic and the non-relativistic form. Also, the references/quotes at the back of the article look very authoritative, but again, its not clear just what they are referring to. Given the un-googlability of the term "false doppler", it does sound like a neologism to me. I don't know whether to vote for "keep" and suggest that someone should convert this to a bona-fide article on transverse doppler, or to "delete" because the article is beyond repair. linas 16:48, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.