Fallacy of Relativistic Doppler Effect

On 23/03/11 13:54, PD wrote:
On Mar 23, 2:10 am, Koobee wrote:
On Mar 22, 11:58 am, Daryl McCullough wrote:

Alfonso says...

Einstein's 1905 paper was somewhat sloppy. He did not define whether v
was towards or away from the source.

That is not correct. Einstein very clearly specifies that we have two
frames of reference K and k, and that the spatial origin of the k system
is moving at speed v in the positive x-direction, as measured by system K.

Could you point out where exactly?

Yes, section 3, where it says, "Now to the origin of one of the two
systems (k) let a constant velocity v be imparted in the direction of
the increasing x of the other stationary system (K), and let this
velocity be communicated to the axes of the co-ordinates, the relevant
measuring-rod, and the clocks."


You are the same guy who claims in my post when I said:

a/The frequency of a transverse moving clock is reduced.

b/The time interval between ticks is increased (dilated means increased)

That it was not clear that b referred to the same clock as a/

When I pointed out that it did you stated:

"Then the statement makes no sense. The time interval between ticks on
the clock moving are *unchanged* in the frame in which that clock is
at rest".

Now to any sensible person "The frequency of a transverse moving clock
is reduced". means a clock moving w.r.t you - it wouldn't be moving in
its own FoR would it? So "b/ The time interval between ticks is
increased" is clearly referring to the same transverse moving clock as
in a/ but for some reason you need that explained to you ... yet when
Einstein says "if an observer is moving with velocity v relatively to an
infinitely distant source of light of frequency f" in section 7 you
consider it is perfectly clear from section 3 which is the direction of
v.

The mind boggles. I have come to the conclusion that in your posts you
deliberately go out of your way to misunderstand what is written, to
introduce red herrings and deliberately complicate things. If you like
playing silly games then don't bother to reply to my posts.




KW, it is now abundantly clear that you have never read the 1905
paper, probably cannot read it, and your entire history of whining
about your perception of SR is grounded entirely on stuff you've made
up out of your own head.


So v is positive means that an object at rest in system k is moving
in the positive x-direction, as measured in system K. v is negative
means that an object at rest in system k is moving in the negative
x-direction.

It depends on which side of the x-axis the observer is located. So,
what you are saying makes no mathematical sense without specifying
where the observer is located along the x-axis. A better way to
explain what v is is to describe it as a relative velocity of one
point as observed by another specific point.shrug

You are confusing Doppler shift with time dilation. They are not
the same thing.

This is exactly what yours truly has been telling you. That was why
yours truly asked you to make a movie with a certain bandwidth. Send
it after mixing with a carrier frequency, and demodulate it with an
almost identical carrier frequency. You will notice time dilation
does not reflect in the Doppler shift. So, yours truly has been
guiding your thoughts away from the dark side of science. Could you
at least show some appreciation?shrug Oh, divorcing time dilation
from Doppler effect will help you in demystification if you are smart
enough to realize so.shrug

I think Einstein confused himself thinking that
clocks measure time. They in fact count ticks.

I don't see any evidence that Einstein is confused about this.

That is because you cannot do anything else besides fudging the
mathematics to suit your belief.shrug

Alfonso says...

Now to any sensible person "The frequency of a transverse moving clock
is reduced". means a clock moving w.r.t you - it wouldn't be moving in
its own FoR would it? So "b/ The time interval between ticks is
increased" is clearly referring to the same transverse moving clock as
in a/ but for some reason you need that explained to you ... yet when
Einstein says "if an observer is moving with velocity v relatively to an
infinitely distant source of light of frequency f" in section 7 you
consider it is perfectly clear from section 3 which is the direction of
v.

The whole paper is explaining the derivation of and the implications of
the Lorentz transformations. He introduces the two frames K and k at
the beginning of the paper, and every section returns to these two
frames.

Section 7 starts off:
"In the system K, very far from the origin of co-ordinates, let
there be a source of electrodynamic waves..."

Then a few sentences later:
"We wish to know the constitution of these waves, when they are
examined by an observer at rest in the moving system k."

It's certainly possible that someone by this point has forgotten
the definitions of K and k, but that doesn't make it ambiguous.
If I'm reading Romeo and Juliet, I might forget whether
Benvolio is Romeo's cousin, or Juliet's cousin, but that
doesn't mean that it is ambiguous whose cousin he is. It's
right there in the play.

--
Daryl McCullough
Ithaca, NY