Strange

The Google translation looks perfect. The problem is your understanding, not the translation. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relativistic_Doppler_effect#Transverse_Doppler_effect

Please show how you would calculate the altitude of a geostationary satellite using this model.

But the source is NOT moving with respect to the receiver. There is NO movement. The velocity is ZERO Therefore, there is NO Doppler effect. Ale źródło nie jest w ruchu w stosunku do odbiornika. Nie ma ruchu . Prędkość jest równa zero Dlatego też, nie ma efektu Dopplera .

Then you should be able to provide some evidence of the radiation associated with polar jets - which are extremely visible. (The fact that the one you claim is not visible is good evidence that it doesn't exist.) Alternatively, you should be able to show the mathematical predictions from your model and how well they match the evidence for dark energy. As you can do neither of these, I think we can dismiss your idea. (And simply saying the same thing repeatedly doesn't make it any more plausible.)

Of course not. But it only exists if the light source is moving relative to the sensor. And that is NOT true in your pictures.

You have that backwards. They have been studying these sort of situations for decades. The LIGO results nicely confirm that the theory is correct. Because (several years ago) I read a lot about the subject. The alignment was calculated in a paper that someone posted in another (or this?) thread. This paper: http://arxiv.org/abs/1602.03840

That is the relativistic Doppler effect. It doesn't make any difference. v=0 therefore no Doppler effect. In that equation v = 0 therefore doppler shift = 0.

You have seen diagrams of the geodesics of space-time being curved by the presence of mass? That would be the equivalent analogy. I haven't seen the details (and I don't read German) but I assume he found that there was a wave solution to the field equations. (i.e. not by analogy)

Firstly, experiments like MIchelson-Morley and LIGO use two arms because they use interferometry in order to measure very small differences (fractions of the wavelength of light). You are not going to be able to make very accurate measurements with one arm. Look here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interferometry Maybe it has a page in your language. Secondly, there will be no Doppler effect. That happens when there is a difference in speed between the source and the receiver. That is not the case with an arm with a transmitter at one end, and a sensor at the other. For example, you hear the Doppler effect when a car drives past you, but not when you are driving at the same speed as the other cars. You mention GPS in the title (I don't know why). That is one case where the Doppler effect is important. The receivers have to scan a wide range of frequencies, either side of the transmitted signal, because the satellite could be moving towards or away from the receiver.

Maybe. But, because the relationship between electromagnetism and gravity is an analogy it might just confuse you. I suppose, in this analogy, the "fieldlines" would be equivalent to the geometry of space-time. But the mathematics of electromagnetism and GR are completely different. And therefore the effect of moving charge/mass, are completely different.

You are, as is so often the case, overthinking things. Gravity is caused by the total mass and energy (plus some other things) of the system. There is no need to think about the fundamental particles.

There is no such thing and no evidence for such a thing. Simply repeating it won't magically make it true. Who are "they"?

I very much doubt it is as simple as that. I would remind you (again) that it takes hundreds of hours of supercomputer time to calculate what happens. If it were as simple as you want it to be, they would be wasting their time. This is, to be honest, an idiotic waste of time.

The Higgs mechanism may give things mass but that isn't relevant as to whether small masses are affected by gravity in the same way. We have no reason to doubt it but, for individual particles, no way to test it either.

But there is no such thing. On large scales there is no directionality. And dark energy is isotropic.

I think you need to explain a bit more. Can you use Doppler for what?

What? Is there a question here?

Nobody knows. As the article you says, it may well be infinite because it appears t be flat. As we can take it as an axiom that you don't understand, we can be fairly confident that the size of the universe has nothing to do with where you are. Is the world a different size for people in Paris or New York? No. The observable universe is the universe that an observer can observe. From any point it is 46 billion light years radius. The observer can be anywhere. No one knows the size of the universe. Oh, and before you ask: No one knows the size of the universe. And to answer your next question: No one knows the size of the universe. OK? There may a be a useful analogy here. On the Earth, when you look around, there is a maximum distance you can see, called the horizon. Of the top of my head, I don't remember the distance (and it depends on your altitude) but let's say it is 30 miles. So you can see a maximum of 30 miles in each direction. That is your "observable Earth". Someone 30 miles from you can see 30 miles in each direction, that is their observable Earth. Someone in China can see 30 miles in each direction, that is their observable Earth. So the "observable Earth" is a fixed size but different for each observer. The earth is of finite size (but unbounded, remember) so you can consider it to be made up of a finite number of "observable Earths". That may or may not be true of the Universe. (Because, and you may not know this, we don't know how big the universe is or if it infinite. Bet that's a surprise to you.)

I was going to mention ALPHA as well: http://alpha.web.cern.ch/node/248

That would imply there was some central point in the universe that all galaxies are moving away from. That isn't how current models work - rather everything is moving away from everything else, with no central position. (The simplest model, conceptually, for this is an infinite universe.) Also dark energy is required to describe the accelerating expansion of the universe (not just expansion). If there were some central "thing" pushing things away, then the effect would decrease with distance.

There isn't really (except for the simplest cases, as ajb says). Which is why they have to use simulations. It doesn't need any speculation, does it? It is well-explained by existing theory. I would say, in this context, they mean light (i.e. electromagnetic waves) rather than photons, specifically. Although the distinction is a bit artificail as they are both descriptions of the same thing. They actually mean "gravitational waves" not gravity waves. But, yes, I would say that gravitational waves and gravitational radiation are different words meaning the same thing; like electromagnetic radiation means electromagnetic waves. What do you mean by the speed of gravity? You can only measure the speed of changes in gravity, and that is a gravitational wave. Why? There are no bosons in GR. There is no quantum theory of gravity. There is no complete model for gravitons or evidence for their existence. Well, gravitational waves certainly have energy. I doubt you need to worry about the contribution of individual atoms. For one thing, their masses and individual movements are negligible compared to the mass of the whole body. Also, in most cases where we are likely to detect gravitational waves (black holes, neutron stars) there are no atoms. (You have a bit of a tendency to go off into irrelevant details; I think this is one those cases.)

More likely a work of art. There are other examples. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Book_from_the_Sky

The energy they are referring to is caused by the (mainly frictional) heating of matter that falls towards a balck hole. This blows some of the matter away again. And, in extreme case, powers polar jets. I have no idea what "the dark energy associated with a Universal black hole" means. What is a "Universal black hole"? And why would it have dark energy associated with it?

Oh good grief. Again? Really? Are you related to goldfish? Observable universe: Misconceptions on its size The (current) radius is about 46 billion light years. Do you want to write that down so you don't forget it again. This is not necessarily true. It depends on the topology. There is a good discussion of that here: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/123674/why-does-a-flat-universe-imply-an-infinite-universe Read from "This claim is simply wrong" (a familiar phrase to you by now.)

It is not necessarily incorrect. But it may be incorrect. Or it may be correct. If the universe is infinite then it is correct. If the universe is not infinite then you cannot add infinite "observable points" and so it is not correct. It may be. Or it may not. I know you find this impossible to deal with but ... [scary music, flashes of lightning, weird sound effects] ... WE DON'T KNOW !!!! Possibly we will never know. It might be impossible to know.