Below is the *correct* method to calculate c+-v for classical theory. In the original paper below Ives Stillwell incorrectly calculated the offset for classical theory to erroneously conclude no offse for classical theory. A mistake later aped by Einstein himself and continues till this day to be incorrectly cited by relativists the world over. I wonder, did Ives Stillwell make a mistake or did they deliberately falsify classical theories predictions in a desperate attempt to bolster the pseudoscientific theory called SR?
H.E. Ives and G.R. Stilwell, “An Experimental Study of the Rate of a Moving Atomic Clock 2", JOSA 31 pg 369–374 (1941).
Note that in the 1941 paper on the title page 369 is the quote..."the H2 particles give a shift of 0.11 A as against the previous maximum of .0.047A
The papers do not actually supply v for the source but the online wiki page for Ives Stillwell gives 0.005c for the experiment.
The rest wavelength is 4861A=frequency of 6.1673 ^14 hz.
Using the following formula Classical theory predicts the following offset:
(c/{(1+v/c) x f}+ c/{(1-v/c) x f})/2.
1.005c X f =f1 (forward) =6.1981365 = 4836.808A
0.995c X f. =f2( rearward) = 6.1364635 = 4885.419A
Average is therefore 4861.11A
Offset predicted for classical is 0.11 A
As observed in the 1941 paper
The above formula also gives the correct velocity for the source. Contrary to that
assumed using the assumed mass of the H2 ions. Which themselves are assumed using
relativistic calculations. And not valid in any classical model. It must be noted here that
the only measurements made in this experiment are the offsets observed. No masses or
velocities are observed. Only inferred using assumptions.
Therefore the classical method of deriving v is the only correct method for directly
calculating v.
