Fallacy of Relativistic Doppler Effect

On Mar 28, 11:35*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.

Come on, what? You set yourself on fire without any assistance. I'm
just happy to make smores.

It's remarkable that, through the flames, you perceive yourself
victorious and you perceive us to be the ones on fire. This is no
doubt due to an utter lack of self-awareness.

*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

PD says...

On Mar 29, 6:27=A0am, (Daryl McCullough)
wrote:

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.

Maybe he meant v.c/c^2, or in other words v/c cos(phi), where
phi is the angle between the velocity vector v and the velocity
vector for the light signal.

Koobee says plenty of truly stupid things, you don't need
to make a big deal over a typo.

But who knows? Maybe Koobee's whole basis for rejecting
Special Relativity is because he made a simple mathematical
error once, got the wrong answer, and blamed it on SR.

That seems to be the case with Androcles. He got hung up on
one line of Einstein's derivation of SR, and has never gotten
past that one line.

--
Daryl McCullough
Ithaca, NY

Koobee Wublee says...

On Mar 28, 3:53 am, Daryl McCullough wrote:

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)

As I have explained to you multiple times, there
are two different questions:
(1) If an electromagnetic wave has frequency f in
one reference frame, then what is its frequency
f' in another reference frame?
(2) If two observers are in relative motion, and the
one observer sends signals at a characteristic rate
of f signals per second, as measured on his own clock,
then what is the rate f' that the other observer will
receive those signals.

These two questions are related, but are not the same.
They don't have the same answer. Now, we can show that
*IF* the line separating the two observers is parallel
to the relative velocity between the two observers,
*THEN* the two ratios will be the same. If the line
separating the two observers is *NOT* parallel to
the relative velocity between the two observers, the
two ratios will *NOT* be the same.

If you ask two different questions, in general, you
get two different answers. That's to be expected.

--
Daryl McCullough
Ithaca, NY

..... ahahahahaha... hahahahaha... AHAHAHA...

"Daryl McCullough" wrote:

Addressing PD, Daryl McCullough wrote:
Koobee says plenty of truly stupid things, you don't need
to make a big deal over a typo.

But who knows? Maybe Koobee's whole basis for rejecting
Special Relativity is because he made a simple mathematical
error once, got the wrong answer, and blamed it on SR.

That seems to be the case with Androcles. He got hung up on
one line of Einstein's derivation of SR, and has never gotten
past that one line.
--
Daryl McCullough
Ithaca, NY

hanson wrote:
ahahaha.. Daryl, while you are sitting here in grand
judgment, fermenting and fomenting as is habitual
with Einstein Dingleberries, during their worship of
Albert's Sphincter, like you do,... you, Daryl, never
answered, for yourself, the fundamental question:

What's in it for yourself, McCullough, that you defend
Einstein's notions & his Weltbild as if your sanity and
very existence depend on it?
What kind of physics is it that you are defending here
with your tirade that is comparable in its vengeance
with that of an Islamist extremist, except for you
screaming "Einstein akhbar"?.... ahahahaha....

The best that can be said for you in your crusade
against KW and Andro is: "Pot - Kettle - Black"
So what's in it for you, Daryl?... ahahaha...

If you wanna dig deeper into SR, then KW & Andro
did, then show why SR, which is a Gedanken game
that exhibits a play of M,L & T combinations/events
which only need to satisfy the value of "c" as L/T,
which can assume the size of either infinity or any
arbitrarily defined numerical value, while SR blatantly
and willfully disregards charge (h) & Gravitation (G).
... AND suffers from the fatal physico-philosophical
flaw in that it uses in the formalism for its equations
additives/differences, that do NOT occur in nature,
instead of relying on natural multiplicative factoring.

So Daryl, use that route to pull the rug from under KW
and Andro.. but be careful that your rug is not just a prayer
rug again... or KW & Andro will clawback at you with full
justification. ... Till then, Daryl, Thanks for the laughs...
ahahahaha.. ahahahansnon

On Mar 28, 9:31 am, Koobee Wublee wrote:

On Mar 29, 6:46 am, PD wrote:

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

So, is this the problem that Einstein Dingleberries do not understand
what dot product is? shrug

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dot_product

On Mar 29, 9:44 am, Daryl McCullough wrote:

As I have explained to you multiple times, there
are two different questions:
(1) If an electromagnetic wave has frequency f in
one reference frame, then what is its frequency
f' in another reference frame?
(2) If two observers are in relative motion, and the
one observer sends signals at a characteristic rate
of f signals per second, as measured on his own clock,
then what is the rate f' that the other observer will
receive those signals.

These two questions are related, but are not the same.

Bull****! Garbage comments like that show how ignorant Daryl is.
What it looks like is that Daryl is now exhausted with his
permutations of mathematical fudges, and he is desperate to hold on to
his religious belief by throwing **** around. shrug

In the meantime, there is only one question. So, here it is again.
Is the following equation valid and correct for the relativistic
Doppler effect?

** 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

If no, what should be the correct equation for the most general case?

If yes, WTF is the problem?

For those Einstein Dingleberries who do not understand what dot
product is (including PD and Daryl), the above equation simplifies
into the following.

** f’ / f = (1 + v cos(theta) / c) / sqrt(1 – v^2 / c^2)

Where

** [v] * [c] / c^2 = v cos(theta) / c

The longitudinal Doppler effect if in coming occurs at theta = 0.

** f’ / f = (1 + v / c) / sqrt(1 – v^2 / c^2), in coming

Where

** [v] * [c] / c^2 = v / c

The longitudinal Doppler effect if receding occurs at theta = 180
degrees.

** f’ / f = (1 - v / c) / sqrt(1 – v^2 / c^2), in coming

Where

** [v] * [c] / c^2 = - v / c

The transverse Doppler effect occurs at theta = 90 degrees.

** f’ / f = 1 / sqrt(1 – v^2 / c^2)

Where

** [v] * [c] / c^2 = 0

This would always indicate a blue shift that does not agree with
experimental observations. shrug

Einstein Dingleberries cannot weasel out of this one, and the bottom
line is that SR is indeed just garbage. shrug

do you mean by transverse,
that the relative motion is perpendicular
to the distance between the two?

shut the Heck **, you silly Pidgen!

do you mean by transverse,
that the relative motion is perpendicular to the distance between the
two,
as in a circular orbit, or
twice in an elliptical orbit, or once in a hyperbolic orbit?

I mean, everything cannot be settled "on the x-axis,
without loss of generality."

OK, so, special relativity, in all its baroque simplicity
when done in quaternions' real scalar & imaginary vector,
"uses in the formalism for its equations
additives/differences, that do NOT occur in nature,
instead of relying on natural multiplicative factoring"
-- what ever that is supposed to mean.

and, quantum mechanics is noncommutative!

"Koobee Wublee" wrote in message
...
On Mar 28, 9:31 am, Koobee Wublee wrote:
In the meantime, there is only one question. So, here it is again.
Is the following equation valid and correct for the relativistic
Doppler effect?

** 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

If no, what should be the correct equation for the most general case?

Check out this website because it answers this question. Read it carefully: f_o
is the frequency the receiver measures in his/her rest frame and f_s is the
frequency of the source in the rest frame of the source.

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


The transverse Doppler effect occurs at theta = 90 degrees.

** f’ / f = 1 / sqrt(1 – v^2 / c^2)

Where

** [v] * [c] / c^2 = 0

This would always indicate a blue shift that does not agree with
experimental observations. shrug

No. The transverse red-shift is given he

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

The equation is f_o = f_s * sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2) and so f_o is less than f_s. A
lower frequency corresponds to a longer wavelength and so we get:

Lambda_o = Lambda_s / sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2).

So Lambda_o is greater than Lambda_s. What this means is that an observer in the
rest frame of the receiver sees photons emitted by the source at 90 degrees (90
degrees in the rest frame of the receiver) to be red-shifted. But those same
photons would not have been emitted at 90 degrees in the rest frame of the source
due to relativistic aberration. In the rest frame of the source, photons emitted
at 90 degrees will not be emitted at 90 degrees in the rest frame of the
receiver. Those photons will be blue shifted relative to the receiver and that
is explained at he

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relativ...ry _direction

I truly hope all of this helps.

Einstein Dingleberries cannot weasel out of this one, and the bottom
line is that SR is indeed just garbage. shrug

Not at all.

+