Fallacy of Relativistic Doppler Effect

On Mar 23, 11:33 am, PD wrote:
On Mar 23, 1:10 pm, Koobee Wublee wrote:

Given the wording, it is not very clear what is going on. It is only
subject to where your imagination can take you. shrug

So let's see. You cannot understand what is stated in the single
sentence above. And so you say that anyone who claims to be able to
read English sentences is in fact just making that up.

You indeed possess vivid hallucinating interpretations. shrug

This is one of your cheap shots. shrug

It's not a cheap shot if it's true, Koobee. You can't understand the
single sentence that has been quoted from it, you could not even FIND
in the paper where it was located and had to ask someone where it was,
and so it's no wonder that you've never read the paper, let alone
understood it.

Wow! A cheap shot on top of another. shrug

You're exposed, Koobee. Your WHOLE HISTORY on s.p.r has consisted of
nothing but bluster and empty twaddle.

Another cheap shot. shrug

You've just confessed that you don't understand where Doppler shift
comes from, even in sound waves, despite your floundering attempts to
understand it using either Galilean or Lorentz transforms. This utter
incompetence on YOUR part you blame on others.

More cheap shots. shrug

The bottom line is that using the same method the Galilean transform
predicts no Doppler shift even for sound waves. Thus, deriving the
Doppler shift using the method pulled out of his ass by Einstein the
nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar is just plain wrong. Want to try
to weasel your way out of this one again or just stomping on your feet
throwing ****s as cheap shots? Come on, little man. Yours truly
dares you. shrug

On Mar 23, 11:29 am, Eric Gisse wrote:
On Mar 23, 11:15 am, Koobee Wublee wrote:

It sounds like (f = 1 / dt). So, you deny that is the case and
vigorously prove it to be the case. What a contradiction! shrug

Looks like you don't know the difference between 'time' and 'period'.

Hmmm... Time is period, and period is time. When it is said “a
period of time”, it is literarily wrong because of redundancy. What
other ignorancy is expected from a college dropout anyway?

In reality, Doppler effect is very simple. It is just

** frequency = speed / wavelength

Observed frequency, observed speed, and observed wavelength, of
course. shrug

And SR offers no correct predictions. shrug

Really?

Yes, really. shrug

No correct predictions at all?

That is correct. shrug

Not even one?

Yes, again. The college dropout is indeed really stupid. shrug

Well I guess if some idiot on USENET said it, it must be true.

The college dropout is sucking on his thumb mumbling incoherent chants
again. shrug

On Mar 23, 10:11*pm, Koobee Wublee wrote:

[...]

You've just confessed that you don't understand where Doppler shift
comes from, even in sound waves, despite your floundering attempts to
understand it using either Galilean or Lorentz transforms. This utter
incompetence on YOUR part you blame on others.

More cheap shots. *shrug

The bottom line is that using the same method the Galilean transform
predicts no Doppler shift even for sound waves.

Yes, double down on your stupidity.

The guy who can't work a simple problem set in classical mechanics
MUST know what he's talking about!

*Thus, deriving the
Doppler shift using the method pulled out of his ass by Einstein the
nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar is just plain wrong. *Want to try
to weasel your way out of this one again or just stomping on your feet
throwing ****s as cheap shots? *Come on, little man. *Yours truly
dares you. *shrug

The arrogant idiot who hides behind a pseudonym dares you!

Why don't you shrug a few more times, and spout some more of your
catchphrases? I'm sure that'll convince someone you are right, instead
of convincing them you are an arrogant, abusive idiot who substitutes
invective for knowledge.

Since you hate everyone you respond to on USENET, why don't you just
take a vacation? That way you won't have to shrug all the time, and
hurl bile at literally every person you talk to.

On Mar 23, 10:33 pm, Eric Gisse wrote:

The guy who can't work a simple problem set in classical mechanics
MUST know what he's talking about!

So, you cannot work a simple problem to save your life. That explains
why you are still a college dropout in your 30’s. shrug

Thus, deriving the
Doppler shift using the method pulled out of his ass by Einstein the
nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar is just plain wrong. Want to try
to weasel your way out of this one again or just stomping on your feet
throwing ****s as cheap shots? Come on, little man. Yours truly
dares you. shrug

The arrogant idiot who hides behind a pseudonym dares you!

Who would that be?

Why don't you shrug a few more times,

shrug

and spout some more of your catchphrases?

What catchphrases? shrug

I'm sure that'll convince someone you are right, instead
of convincing them you are an arrogant, abusive idiot who substitutes
invective for knowledge.

Since you hate everyone you respond to on USENET, why don't you just
take a vacation? That way you won't have to shrug all the time, and
hurl bile at literally every person you talk to.

Please don’t take it out on yours truly. The problem of being a
perpetual college dropout is yours only. Do you not understand that?

In the meantime, the bottom line is that using the same method as what
Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar had done, the
Galilean transform predicts no Doppler shift even for sound waves.
Thus, this method of deriving the Doppler effect is garbage. It only
bedazzles nitwits. Yes, only a nitwit can bedazzle other nitwits.
shrug

Eric Gisse says...

On Mar 23, 10:11=A0pm, Koobee Wublee wrote:

[...]

You've just confessed that you don't understand where Doppler shift
comes from, even in sound waves, despite your floundering attempts to
understand it using either Galilean or Lorentz transforms. This utter
incompetence on YOUR part you blame on others.

More cheap shots.

The bottom line is that using the same method the Galilean transform
predicts no Doppler shift even for sound waves.

Yes, double down on your stupidity.

He's wrong, of course.

Relativistic case: For simplicity, consider an electromagnetic
wave traveling in the +x direction.

Frame F:
E = A cos(kx - wt) e_y
B = A/c cos(kx - wt) e_z

where c = w/k

Under a Lorentz transform, in this special case,
x -- gamma (x' + v t')
t -- gamma (t' + v/c^2 x')
E_y -- gamma (E_y - v B_z)
B_z -- gamma (B_x - v E_y)

So in frame F':
E = gamma (A cos(kx - wt) - v/c A cos(kx - wt))
= gamma (1-v/c) A cos(kx-wt)
= gamma (1-v/c) A cos(k gamma (x'+vt') - w gamma (t'+v/c^2 x'))
= gamma (1-v/c) A cos(gamma(k-vw/c^2)x' - gamma (w - kv)t')

This has the same form as in frame F if we interpret:
A' = gamma (1-v/c) A = square-root((1-v/c)/(1+v/c)) A
k' = gamma (k-vw/c^2) = gamma (k-v/ck) = square-root((1-v/c)/(1+v/c)) k
w' = gamma (w-kv) = gamma (w-w/c v) = square-root((1-v/c)/(1+v/c))

So the relativistic Doppler shift for frequency is:

w'/w = square-root((1-v/c)/(1+v/c))

Non-relativistic case (sound): Again, for simplicity, consider
a sound wave traveling in the +x direction. Sound is a pressure
wave of the form:

P = A cos(kx - wt)

where in this case, w/k is the speed of sound.

Under a Galilean transform,
x -- x' + vt'
t -- t'
P -- P

(Pressure, being a scalar, doesn't change value under
a Galilean transform)

So in frame F':
P' = A cos(kx - wt)
= A cos(k(x'+vt') - wt')
= A cos(kx' - (w-kv) t')

This has the same form as in frame F if we interpret:
A' = A
k' = k
w' = w - kv = w - w/c v = w (1-v/c)

So the non-relativistic Doppler shift for frequency is:
w'/w = 1-v/c

--
Daryl McCullough
Ithaca, NY

Eric Gisse says...

On Mar 23, 10:11=A0pm, Koobee Wublee wrote:

[...]

You've just confessed that you don't understand where Doppler shift
comes from, even in sound waves, despite your floundering attempts to
understand it using either Galilean or Lorentz transforms. This utter
incompetence on YOUR part you blame on others.

More cheap shots.

The bottom line is that using the same method the Galilean transform
predicts no Doppler shift even for sound waves.

Yes, double down on your stupidity.

It's really hard for me to guess why Koobee thinks that
the method used by Einstein predicts no Doppler shift
in the nonrelativistic case. I cannot imagine what
Koobee might have done wrong. It's possible that
he's still confused about the difference between
Doppler shift and time dilation. He thinks
that since there is no time dilation in the
nonrelativistic case, that there is no Doppler
shift.

But Doppler shift doesn't come from the
transformation for time, it comes from
the transformation for the *spatial*
coordinate.

The phase for a traveling wave is
given (both relativistically and
non-relativistically) by:

Phi = kx - wt

To compute w' in a new coordinate
system, you rewrite x and t in terms
of x' and t':

x = gamma (x' + vt')
t = gamma (t' + v/c^2 x')

So in the frame F', we have:

Phi' = gamma k (x'+vt') - gamma w (t'+v/c^2 x')
= gamma (k-vw/c^2) x' - gamma (w-vk) t'

So
k' = gamma (k-vw/c^2)
w' = gamma (w-vk)

To get the nonrelativistic limit, you just
take the limit in which v/c is small, so
gamma is approximately 1, and v/c^2 is approximately
zero. This produces:

k' = k
w' = w-vk

In the Galilean case, there is no shift for *wave-length*
(k = 2pi/L, where L is the wavelength), but there is still
a shift for frequency (w is actually 2pi f, where f is
the frequency).

--
Daryl McCullough
Ithaca, NY

On 23/03/11 13:50, PD wrote:
On Mar 23, 5:39 am, wrote:
On 22/03/11 18:21, PD wrote:




I think Einstein confused himself thinking that clocks measure
time.

Yes, indeed. Time is what clocks measure.

You cannot have your cake and eat it either time is the reciprocal
of frequency or it is what a clock measures.

Time is not the reciprocal of frequency. Time is benchmarked by a
locally stationary reproducible process. See the NIST standards.

You are ducking the issue:

a/The frequency of a transverse moving clock is reduced.
b/The time interval between ticks is increased (dilated means increased)
c/ What the moving clock registers is reduced.

What are the units of a/b/ and c/
a is 1/s or Hz
b is s the reciprocal of Hz
c is the number of ticks (unitless)

Which statement do you disagree with?

Dilate "To expand; to distend; to enlarge or extend in all
directions; to swell; -- opposed to contract"

The time interval between ticks dilates.
The value read on the clock gets smaller - contracts.

They cannot both be described as time. Does time contact or dilate?
c only measures time is the unit of time (second) is invariant.



They in fact count ticks. If time dilates the time interval
between the ticks gets longer (increases) while the number of
ticks counted decreases. If time stops the clock stops because
the time interval between ticks has become infinite - the
frequency of the ticks become zero and what is registered on
the clock is zero.

Of course what the second postulate describes is an observer
(every observer) being stationary w.r.t the aether. What is
perhaps interesting is this:

...............................S-v

...............................X

SR says that light emitted when S is directly opposite X will
travel at c to X and arrive at X from the direction S-X. The
frequency received will not however be Fo (as one might
expect) but lower because of time dilation.

What Ballistic theory says is that the light leaving S has a
component v whereby the light propagates in a circle who's
centre tracks with S. When it arrives at X it does so from the
direction S'-X

..................................S'-v
............................vt| |

...............................X

which means that the source has a component of motion away from
X so the frequency is lower than Fo. In fact both theories give
the same frequency arriving at X. when emitted from position S.
SR claims it is due to time dilation and ballistic theory
because of Doppler shift.

..................................S'-v
............................vt| |

...............................X X'

Ballistic theory says that for light emitted at point S the
frequency will be Fo at point X' where the light is coming
from the S'-X' direction. Strangely so does SR which says that
at X' light is travelling in the direction S-X' and therefore
the source has a component of motion towards X' increasing its
frequency just enough to cancel the effects of time dilation.

It is a very simple example of why - simply because SR gives
the right answer - it is wrong to assume that that disproves
Ballistic theory. If the light postulate was wrong and light
was ballistic then the Lorentz transforms would simply be
equivalence formula making up for the error by suitably
deforming space and time to get the right answer. One might
draw an analogy with the geocentric theory where a wrong
assumption was accommodated by considerably complicating other
things.

Oh, would any wise Dingleberry suggest that [v] is the
velocity of dt frame as observed by dt frame instead? If so,
you can count on the Guillotine is coming down hard in the
reply post. Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar
was a fudger of mathematics. The nitwit understood nothing
about SR and GR. The nitwit could not have analyzed anything
rationally and correctly to save his life.shrug

Alfonso says...

On 23/03/11 13:50, PD wrote:

Time is not the reciprocal of frequency. Time is benchmarked by a
locally stationary reproducible process. See the NIST standards.

You are ducking the issue:

It's not a matter of ducking the issue, it's a matter of
it being very difficult to teach a course in physics on
Usenet, because you have no idea what kind of backgrounds
the students have.

a/The frequency of a transverse moving clock is reduced.
b/The time interval between ticks is increased (dilated means increased)

That's an incorrect statement, according to SR. What
is correct is this: Let F and F' be two inertial frames
such that a clock is at rest in frame F' and is traveling
at speed v as measured in frame F. Let e_1 and e_2 be events
taking place at this clock. (For example, e_1 might be a
tick of the clock, and e_2 might be the next tick).

Then the prediction of SR is:

T_12 = gamma T'_12

where T_12 is the time between events e_1 and e_2 as
measured in frame F, and T'_12 is the time between
those events as measured in frame F'.

This is different from your B because it is explicitly
frame-dependent. If the clock were measured from a
different frame, the time between ticks would be different.

c/ What the moving clock registers is reduced.

I have no idea what you mean by that.

What are the units of a/b/ and c/
a is 1/s or Hz
b is s the reciprocal of Hz
c is the number of ticks (unitless)

Which statement do you disagree with?

None of this has much directly to do with Doppler shifts.
A Doppler shift occurs in the following situation:

As before, let e_1 and e_2 be two events taking place
at a clock that is at rest in frame F'. Let there be
a second clock be at rest in frame F, some distance
from the first clock. Let e_3 be the event at which
a light signal produced at e_1 reaches the second
clock. Let e_4 be the event at which a light signal
produced at e_2 reaches the second clock.

If we let T_34 be the time between e_3 and e_4,
as measured in frame F, and T'_12 be the time
between e_1 and e_2, as measured in frame F',
then the Doppler shift is the ratio

T'_12/T_34

The prediction of SR, in the case in which the F'
clock is moving away from the F clock at speed v,
is

T'_12/T_34 = square-root((1-v/c)/(1+v/c))

(The ratio of the frequencies is the reciprocal
of this)

The prediction of SR, in the case in which the
F' clock is moving transversely (perpendicular
to the line between the two clocks) is:

T'_12/T_34 = square-root(1-(v/c)^2)

(The ratio of the frequencies is the reciprocal
of this)

You ask about units. Since it is a ratio, it
doesn't matter. If the clocks are identical
in construction, then we can let T'_12 =
the number of "ticks" of the F' clock between
e_1 and e_2, and let T_34 be the number of
"ticks" of the F clock between e_3 and e_4.

If instead of the F' clock being the sender
of the signals, it is the receiver of the
signals (that is, if signals are sent by
the F clock at events e_3 and e_4, and
the signals are received by the F' clock
at events e_1 and e_2) then the prediction
of SR is:

T'_12/T_34 = square-root((1+v/c)/(1-v/c))

for the case of the F' clock moving directly
away from the F clock, and

T'_12/T_34 = 1/square-root(1-(v/c)^2)

for the case of the F' clock moving transversely.

For the case of the F' clock moving *toward*
the F clock, instead of away, you just reverse
sign of v:

T'_12/T_34 = square-root((1+v/c)/(1-v/c))
for F' clock sending

T'_12/T_34 = square-root((1-v/c)/(1+v/c))
for F clock sending

--
Daryl McCullough
Ithaca, NY

On Mar 24, 7:40*am, Alfonso wrote:
On 23/03/11 13:50, PD wrote:

On Mar 23, 5:39 am, *wrote:
On 22/03/11 18:21, PD wrote:
I think Einstein confused himself thinking that clocks measure
time.

Yes, indeed. Time is what clocks measure.

You cannot have your cake and eat it either time is the reciprocal
of frequency or it is what a clock measures.

Time is not the reciprocal of frequency. Time is benchmarked by a
locally stationary reproducible process. See the NIST standards.

You are ducking the issue:

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

Yes.

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

The time interval as measured by a clock at *rest* in this frame is
increased between the ticks of the clock that is moving in this frame,
yes.

c/ What the moving clock registers is reduced.

Reduced, relative to a clock at rest in this frame, yes.

Note that there is no ethereal, detached Time that is affected. What
you are *always* doing is comparing the time measured on one clock
between two events with the time measured on another clock between the
same two events.


What are the units of a/b/ and c/
a is 1/s or Hz
b is s the reciprocal of Hz
c is the number of ticks (unitless)

Which statement do you disagree with?

Dilate "To expand; to distend; to enlarge or extend in all
* directions; to swell; -- opposed to contract"

The time interval between ticks dilates.
The value read on the clock gets smaller - contracts.

They cannot both be described as time. Does time contact or dilate?







c only measures time is the unit of time (second) is invariant.

They in fact count ticks. If time dilates the time interval
between the ticks gets longer (increases) while the number of
ticks counted decreases. If time stops the clock stops because
the time interval between ticks has become infinite - the
frequency of the ticks become zero and what is registered on
the clock is zero.

Of course what the second postulate describes is an observer
(every observer) being stationary w.r.t the aether. What is
perhaps interesting is this:

...............................S-v

...............................X

SR says that light emitted when S is directly opposite X will
travel at c to X and arrive at X from the direction S-X. The
frequency received will not however be Fo (as one might
expect) but lower because of time dilation.

What Ballistic theory says is that the light leaving S has a
component v whereby the light propagates in a circle who's
centre tracks with S. When it arrives at X it does so from the
direction S'-X

..................................S'-v
............................vt| *|

...............................X

which means that the source has a component of motion away from
X so the frequency is lower than Fo. In fact both theories give
the same frequency arriving at X. when emitted from position S.
SR claims it is due to time dilation and ballistic theory
because of Doppler shift.

..................................S'-v
............................vt| *|

...............................X *X'

Ballistic theory says that for light emitted at point S the
frequency will be Fo at point X' where the light is coming
from the S'-X' direction. Strangely so does SR which says that
at X' light is travelling in the direction S-X' and therefore
the source has a component of motion towards X' increasing its
frequency just enough to cancel the effects of time dilation.

It is a very simple example of why - simply because SR gives
the right answer - it is wrong to assume that that disproves
Ballistic theory. If the light postulate was wrong and light
was ballistic then the Lorentz transforms would simply be
equivalence formula making up for the error by suitably
deforming space and time to get the right answer. One might
draw an analogy with the geocentric theory where a wrong
assumption was accommodated by considerably complicating other
things.

Oh, would any wise Dingleberry suggest that [v] is the
velocity of dt frame as observed by dt frame instead? *If so,
you can count on the Guillotine is coming down hard in the
reply post. Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar
was a fudger of mathematics. *The nitwit understood nothing
about SR and GR. The nitwit could not have analyzed anything
rationally and correctly to save his life.shrug

On Mar 24, 4:50*am, (Daryl McCullough)
wrote:

[...]

That was a very nice and clean derivation of both Doppler effects. It
makes me fractionally sad to know it'll be completely wasted on its'
intended target.