Fallacy of Relativistic Doppler Effect

"Koobee Wublee" wrote in message
...
On Mar 28, 3:53 am, Daryl McCullough wrote:
Koobee Wublee says...

It should be very clear at this stage the Doppler shift no matter
how
you fudge it to be should agree with the energy transform as
described
below.

** f' / f = (1 + [v] * [c]) / sqrt(1 - v^2 / c^2)

Look at the obvious problem with this equation. You have V and C as velocity
vectors which means their dot product is in units of meters squared per second
squared, that is, (m/sec)^2. Then you are adding that to the dimensionless
number 1 in your numerator (1+[v]*[c]). In physics you cannot add quantities
that are in different units. Suppose [v]*[c] is 2x10^16(m/sec)^2, just how do
you propose to add that to the dimensionless number 1? In physics you cannot add
6 kilograms to 1 meter just like you cannot add 3(m/sec)^2 to a dimensionless
number.


Where

** [v] = Velocity vector between frames of f and f'
** [c] = Velocity vector of light
** [] * [] = dot product of two vectors

Under the transverse case,

** f' / f = 1 / sqrt(1 - v^2 / c^2)

Where

** [v] * [c] = 0

This means SR predicts a blue Doppler shift in the transverse
direction, and that is totally wrong. shrug

Anyone with half a brain would attempt to execute a graceful
retreat from that. shrug

It smells like a bunch of sour ass losers with unsportsmanlike
conducts. shrug

The bottom line is that SR does not produce what is observed in
experiments. Thus, SR is merely garbage. Just how difficult can
that be? shrug

p_x' = gamma (p_x - Ev/c^2)
p_y' = p_y
p_z' = p_z
E' = gamma (E - p_x v)

Is the transverse Doppler equation not the following?

** E' = gamma (E - p_x v)

Where

** p_x = 0

If yes, WTF is the problem? The transverse Doppler shift under SR is
blue. shrug?

If no, what should the correct equation for transverse Doppler shift
look like according to you?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relativ...ppler_eff ect

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relativ...Doppler_effect


I don't know why you think that there is some kind of
incompatibility.

Is the last equation the same as the following?

** E' / E = (1 + [v] * [c]) / sqrt(1 - v^2 / c^2)

Look at the obvious problem with this equation. You have V and C as velocity
vectors which means their dot product is in units of meters squared per second
squared, that is, (m/sec)^2. Then you are adding that to the dimensionless
number 1 in your numerator (1+[v]*[c]). In physics you cannot add quantities
that are in different units. Suppose [v]*[c] is 2x10^16(m/sec)^2, just how do
you propose to add that to the dimensionless number 1? In physics you cannot add
6 kilograms to 1 meter just like you cannot add 3(m/sec)^2 to a dimensionless
number.

Where

** [v] = Velocity vector between frames of f and f'
** [c] = Velocity vector of light
** [] * [] = dot product of two vectors

As yours truly has said, you guys are bunch of sour ass losers.
shrug

The bottom line is that SR is just garbage. shrug

No!

+

On Mar 28, 11:24*am, Koobee Wublee wrote:
On Mar 28, 7:50 am, PD wrote:





On Mar 27, 11:28 pm, Koobee Wublee wrote:
It should be very clear at this stage the Doppler shift no matter how
you fudge it to be should agree with the energy transform as described
below.

** *f’ / f = (1 + [v] * [c]) / sqrt(1 – v^2 / c^2)

Where

** *[v] = Velocity vector between frames of f and f’
** *[c] = Velocity vector of light
** *[] * [] = dot product of two vectors

Under the transverse case,

** *f’ / f = 1 / sqrt(1 – v^2 / c^2)

Where

** *[v] * [c] = 0

This means SR predicts a blue Doppler shift in the transverse
*direction, and that is totally wrong. *shrug

Anyone with half a brain would attempt to execute a graceful
*retreat from that. *shrug

It smells like a bunch of sour ass losers with unsportsmanlike
*conducts. *shrug

The bottom line is that SR does not produce what is observed in
experiments. *Thus, SR is merely garbage. *Just how difficult can
that be? *shrug

So, just to recap, what you are saying is that, in your view, the
Doppler shift should agree with the derivation that YOU produced and
which does NOT agree with experiment, and that on the basis of this
result, relativity should be found fault with.

OK, let’s do a recap. *Are the following equations valid under the
Lorentz transform and SR?

** *f’ / f = (1 + [v] * [c]) / sqrt(1 – v^2 / c^2)

That equation is invalid, period.
You have a small problem with dimensions in that equation.
The fact that you derived an equation with dimensional problems should
tell you something about your derivation. If you believe that SR has
*also* produced equations with dimensional problems like this one,
perhaps you could point to some.


Where

** *[v] = Velocity vector between frames of f and f’
** *[c] = Velocity vector of light
** *[] * [] = dot product of two vectors

Under the transverse case,

** *f’ / f = 1 / sqrt(1 – v^2 / c^2)

Where

** *[v] * [c] = 0

If the answer is yes, WTF is the problem? *shrug

If the answer is no, what do you think is the correct equation
describing the transverse Doppler shift under SR?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

"K_h" wrote in message
...
|
| "Koobee Wublee" wrote in message
| ...
| On Mar 28, 3:53 am, Daryl McCullough wrote:
| Koobee Wublee says...
|
| It should be very clear at this stage the Doppler shift no matter
| how
| you fudge it to be should agree with the energy transform as
| described
| below.
|
| ** f' / f = (1 + [v] * [c]) / sqrt(1 - v^2 / c^2)
|
| Look at the obvious problem with this equation. You have V and C as
velocity
| vectors which means their dot product is in units of meters squared per
second
| squared, that is, (m/sec)^2. Then you are adding that to the
dimensionless
| number 1 in your numerator (1+[v]*[c]).

That part is legitimate, simply substitute: c^2/c^2 = 1

c^2/c^2 - v^2/c^2 = (c^2-v^2) /c^2

The difference of two squares is [c+v]*[(c-v], because it equals
c^2 +v*c - v*c - v^2

so

1/beta = sqrt( [c+v]*[(c-v] /c^2) = sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)

It may not be physics, but it is a legitimate algebraic operation.

Chess boards have 63 squares, they measure 7 * 9. Changing the
board enables a checkmate, except that you need a 8 * 8 board or
you are not playing chess.

The problem with Einstein was he never learned mathematics in school,
his "doppler shift" means that moving clocks tick faster to run slow.
t = 1/f
Divide both sides by t,
1 = 1/tf
Multiply both sides by f,
f = 1/t

Now multiply both sides by beta
t * beta = beta/f

but Einstein says
t* beta = 1/ (f*beta)

He then attempts to correct this blunder by frame jumping:

"From the equation for omega' it follows that if an observer is moving with
velocity v relatively to an infinitely distant source of light..."

So now it is the observer that is moving and the distant oscillator is
stationary.
The poor sap was horrendously confused, as are the cretins that can't read
his pathetic algebra because they can't read algebra.

On Mar 28, 3:36 pm, PD wrote:
On Mar 28, 11:24 am, Koobee Wublee wrote:

OK, let’s do a recap. Are the following equations valid under the
Lorentz transform and SR?

** f’ / f = (1 + [v] * [c]) / sqrt(1 – v^2 / c^2)

Where

** [v] = Velocity vector between frames of f and f’
** [c] = Velocity vector of light
** [] * [] = dot product of two vectors

That equation is invalid, period.
You have a small problem with dimensions in that equation.
The fact that you derived an equation with dimensional problems should
tell you something about your derivation. If you believe that SR has
*also* produced equations with dimensional problems like this one,
perhaps you could point to some.

Good grief. The self-styled physicists have been calling (c = 1) for
almost 100 years, but nevertheless yes, it was a minor mistake of
yours truly in which it can be easily corrected if someone does not
half a brain. shrug The corrected equation is:

** f’ / f = (1 + [v] * [c] / c^2) / sqrt(1 – v^2 / c^2)

Where

** [v] = Velocity vector between frames of f and f’
** [c] = Velocity vector of light
** [] * [] = dot product of two vectors

Is the above equation valid under the Lorentz transform and SR?

If no, what do you think the correct equation for relativistic Doppler
shift is? shrug

If yes, WTF? The above equation simplifies into the following for
transverse Doppler shift. Please don’t bullshift this with
‘tangential Doppler shift’. shrug

Under the transverse case,

** f’ / f = 1 / sqrt(1 – v^2 / c^2)

Where

** [v] * [c] = 0

In that case, SR predicts a blue transverse Doppler shift, no?
shrug

This was checked mated several posts ago. In fact, this was
checkmated several years ago. It took this incidence to open up the
eyes of Einstein Dingleberries where they are caught using the time
transformation for transverse Doppler shift and the energy
transformation for longitudinal one. What an embarrassment, no?
MathemaGicians? shrug

On Mar 28, 3:19*pm, Koobee Wublee wrote:
On Mar 27, 10:57 pm, Eric Gisse wrote:

Koobee Wublee wrote:
It should be very clear at this stage the Doppler shift no matter how
you fudge it to be should agree with the energy transform as described
below.

** *f’ / f = (1 + [v] * [c]) / sqrt(1 – v^2 / c^2)

Where

** *[v] = Velocity vector between frames of f and f’
** *[c] = Velocity vector of light
** *[] * [] = dot product of two vectors

Its' already been established that you don't know how to derive
anything in relativity. What's the point in going over old ground?

So, the college dropout thinks the equation above is wrong under SR.
shrug

YOU ALREADY AGREED THAT YOUR DERIVATION OF THE DOPPLER EFFECT IS
WRONG, YOU ****ING IDIOT.

[snip rest, unread]

Let’s do a recap for the younger and future generations of physicists.

Yours truly started out the thread by pointing out no valid Doppler
shift exists under SR. Well, either if it exists or not, SR is
garbage. Please allow yours truly to explain.

If it doesn’t, the outcome is obvious. However, after several failed
attempts at fudging the math, Daryl was able to cook one up.
Unknowing to the Einstein Dingleberries, SR is skating on ever thinner
ice for doing so.

In the past, the self-styled physicists were able to explain the
longitudinal relativistic Doppler shift from the equation of energy
transformation. When confronted with the transverse Doppler shift,
they were able to conveniently tossing out the equation for time
transformation despite these two equations contradict each other all
the way.

Now, we have established that the time transformation cannot be used
to predict the relativistic Doppler effect. Any mathematical fudging
must now all agree with energy transformation.

Guess what? The rest is history. With the time transformation out of
commission for good, energy transformation fails miserably at
delivering the prediction for transverse Doppler effect.

SR IS INDEED GARBAGE!

Come on, PD. Why don’t you behave like these morons Gisse the college
dropout and Inertial the high school dropout? Or like Daryl who
continues to crank out voodoo math in desperate attempts to salvage SR
for a losing case. It must have gotten through his skull that he
could cook up something again after that feat. Any mathematicians
with half a brain would have recognized a checkmate coming several
posts before this, but not Daryl. He just would not give up. He must
be pulling his hair out by now.

Come on, Tom. What is your excuse not to stay away from this thread
at all cost? Scared?

Yours truly will take silence as a kowtow gesture from all the self-
styled physicists.

So, case closed. SR IS JUST GARBAGE.

shrug

On Mar 28, 9:35*pm, Koobee Wublee wrote:

[snip]


In the past, the self-styled physicists

Such as yourself.

Note that 'self styled' physicists are notably different from actual
physicists.

were able to explain the
longitudinal relativistic Doppler shift from the equation of energy
transformation. *

As has been established repeatedly, that's not how the Doppler shift
is derived. The correct derivation is available in any textbook on the
subject, and has even been given to you in bite sized form. And you
still don't get it, which makes you as stupid as you are dishonest.

No point in continuing reading when you repeatedly cling to a provably
false premise.

[snip rest, unread]

On Mar 28, 10:36 pm, Eric Gisse wrote:
On Mar 28, 9:35 pm, Koobee Wublee wrote:

Let’s do a recap for the younger and future generations of physicists..

Yours truly started out the thread by pointing out no valid Doppler
shift exists under SR. Well, either if it exists or not, SR is
garbage. Please allow yours truly to explain.

If it doesn’t, the outcome is obvious. However, after several failed
attempts at fudging the math, Daryl was able to cook one up.
Unknowing to the Einstein Dingleberries, SR is skating on ever thinner
ice for doing so.

In the past, the self-styled physicists were able to explain the
longitudinal relativistic Doppler shift from the equation of energy
transformation. When confronted with the transverse Doppler shift,
they were able to conveniently tossing out the equation for time
transformation despite these two equations contradict each other all
the way.

Now, we have established that the time transformation cannot be used
to predict the relativistic Doppler effect. Any mathematical fudging
must now all agree with energy transformation.

Guess what? The rest is history. With the time transformation out of
commission for good, energy transformation fails miserably at
delivering the prediction for transverse Doppler effect.

SR IS INDEED GARBAGE!

Come on, PD. Why don’t you behave like these morons Gisse the college
dropout and Inertial the high school dropout? Or like Daryl who
continues to crank out voodoo math in desperate attempts to salvage SR
for a losing case. It must have gotten through his skull that he
could cook up something again after that feat. Any mathematicians
with half a brain would have recognized a checkmate coming several
posts before this, but not Daryl. He just would not give up. He must
be pulling his hair out by now.

Come on, Tom. What is your excuse not to stay away from this thread
at all cost? Scared?

Yours truly will take silence as a kowtow gesture from all the self-
styled physicists.

So, case closed. SR IS JUST GARBAGE.

shrug

[bark, bark, bark]

Down, bitch! Go back to your dog house.

Ps. Yours truly actually treats his best friend, a lab mix, better
than the morons like Gisse the college dropout and Inertial the high
school dropout. shrug

K_h says...


"Koobee Wublee" wrote

** f' / f = (1 + [v] * [c]) / sqrt(1 - v^2 / c^2)

Look at the obvious problem with this equation. You have V and C as velocity
vectors which means their dot product is in units of meters squared per second
squared, that is, (m/sec)^2. Then you are adding that to the dimensionless
number 1 in your numerator (1+[v]*[c]). In physics you cannot add quantities
that are in different units. Suppose [v]*[c] is 2x10^16(m/sec)^2, just how do
you propose to add that to the dimensionless number 1? In
physics you cannot add 6 kilograms to 1 meter just like you cannot
add 3(m/sec)^2 to a dimensionless number.

Uh, Koobee is not that clueless. I'm sure it was a typo.
What he meant to write was

f'/f = (1+v/c)/sqrt-(1-v^2/c^2)

for the parallel Doppler case, and

f'/f = 1/sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2)

for the transverse Doppler case.

--
Daryl McCullough
Ithaca, NY

On Mar 29, 6:27*am, (Daryl McCullough)
wrote:
K_h says...



"Koobee Wublee" wrote
** *f' / f = (1 + [v] * [c]) / sqrt(1 - v^2 / c^2)

Look at the obvious problem with this equation. *You have V and C as velocity
vectors which means their dot product is in units of meters squared per second
squared, that is, (m/sec)^2. *Then you are adding that to the dimensionless
number 1 in your numerator (1+[v]*[c]). *In physics you cannot add quantities
that are in different units. *Suppose [v]*[c] is 2x10^16(m/sec)^2, just how do
you propose to add that to the dimensionless number 1? *In
physics you cannot add 6 kilograms to 1 meter just like you cannot
add 3(m/sec)^2 to a dimensionless *number.

Uh, Koobee is not that clueless. I'm sure it was a typo.
What he meant to write was

f'/f = (1+v/c)/sqrt-(1-v^2/c^2)

Oh yes, I'm sure. It's awfully easy to confuse the dot product with
the quotient.




for the parallel Doppler case, and

f'/f = 1/sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2)

for the transverse Doppler case.

--
Daryl McCullough
Ithaca, NY