Fallacy of Relativistic Doppler Effect

On Mar 29, 4:54 pm, "K_h" wrote:
"Koobee Wublee" wrote:

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...t#Transverse_D...

shaking head

Equivalent to the symbols used here, the Wikipedia article is saying
the following.

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

Or

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

In doing so, it predicts the exact opposite of the observed
longitudinal Doppler effect. Way to go, dumb ass. shrug

That same equation does not agree with the one written down in the
1905 paper of Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar. Way
to go, moron. shrug

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

[snipped rest of garbage]

And it does not agree with what Daryl had derived. Way to go,
nincompoop. shrug

I truly hope all of this helps.

You cannot recognize one equation from another. Have you graduated
from grade school? Guess not. Well, that is three strikes of
stupidity against you, and you are out. Get the **** lost.

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

"K_h" wrote in message
...
|
| 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.


No. The transverse blue-shift is given he

http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einst...res/img107.gif

This equation is not some secondhand crap you pulled from your arse
or wackypedia.

No. For phi = pi this reduces to f_o = f_s / sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2) and so f_o
is GREATER than f_s.
No.
No.
No, you stupid lying *******.

Brian Quincy Hutchings"
who was originally Lyndon LaRouche's roach, that
morphed into "Spudnick", son of "Mr. Potato head"
which was disasterous for him, & so he's hiding now
as "rasterspace" in , &
wonders, asked and wrote:
||Brian said|| "... do I have to kiss the dingleberries?"

hanson wrote:
Yes Brian, you may, if it is "Daryl McCullough"
who 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

Koobee Wublee says...

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

In doing so, it predicts the exact opposite of the observed
longitudinal Doppler effect. Way to go, dumb ass. shrug

You have an annoying habit of interpreting anything you don't
understand as evidence that somebody *ELSE* is being stupid.
Isn't more reasonable to assume that if you don't understand
something, that maybe it's *YOU* who is making a mistake of
reasoning?

The Wikipedia article makes a distinction between two cases:
(1) "...light emitted when the objects are closest together
will be received some time later, at reception the amount of
redshift will be 1/gamma"

(2) "Light received when the objects are closest together was
emitted some time earlier, at reception the amount of blueshift
is gamma"

So whether you have a redshift or a blueshift depends on exactly
what the question was.

--
Daryl McCullough
Ithaca, NY

Addressing Koobee Wublee, "Daryl McCullough"
wrote:
KW, you have an annoying habit.....
So whether you have a redshift or a blueshift
depends on exactly what the question was.
Daryl McCullough, Ithaca, NY

hanson wrote:
..... ahahahaha... "KW has an annoying habit???"
Listen to yourself before you pass judgment...

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 29, 9:11*pm, "Androcles"
wrote:
"K_h" wrote in message

...
|
| No. *The transverse red-shift is given he
|
|http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relativ...t#Transverse_D...
|
| The equation is f_o = f_s * sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2) and so f_o is less than f_s.

No. The transverse blue-shift is given he

*http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einst...res/img107.gif

This equation is not some secondhand crap you pulled from your arse
or wackypedia.

No. For phi = pi *this reduces to *f_o = f_s / sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2) and so f_o
is GREATER than f_s.
No.
No.
No, you stupid lying *******.

Dear John, just in case you are running low on insults, here is a
resupply:

stupid stupid stupid stupid stupid stupid stupid stupid stupid stupid
lying lying lying lying lying lying lying lying lying lying lying
lying
******* ******* ******* ******* ******* ******* ******* *******
*******
faggot faggot faggot faggot faggot faggot faggot faggot faggot faggot
**** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** ****
ignorant ignorant ignorant ignorant ignorant ignorant ignorant
ignorant
****ing ****ing ****ing ****ing ****ing ****ing ****ing ****ing
****ing
bonehead bonehead bonehead bonehead bonehead bonehead bonehead
bonehead
idiot idiot idiot idiot idiot idiot idiot idiot idiot idiot idiot
idiot

Try to find others. These are getting stale.

No charge!

Uncle Ben

On Mar 30, 4:53 am, Daryl McCullough wrote:
Koobee Wublee says...

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

My mistake.

The second equation of my last post should read:

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

Since [c] is always propagating towards the observer, so

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

As a reference, the 1st equation is

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

In doing so, it predicts the exact opposite of the observed
longitudinal Doppler effect. Way to go, dumb ass. shrug

You have an annoying habit of interpreting anything you don't
understand as evidence that somebody *ELSE* is being stupid.
Isn't more reasonable to assume that if you don't understand
something, that maybe it's *YOU* who is making a mistake of
reasoning?

See what yours truly means? There two ways to derive the relativistic
Doppler shift.

One is to do so from the time transformation which yields:

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

The other one is from the energy transformation which yields:

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

These two equations contradict each other.

When talking about longitudinal Doppler shift, the self-styled
physicists were using 2) which is correct. When talking about
transverse result, the self-styled physicists pulled out 1) with a
mathemaGical flipping of the sign to explain the expected result.

Do you remember that you have recently rejected 1)? So, what is the
problem?

2) always predicts a blue shift in the transverse direction.

However, in a centrifuge for example, a transverse scenario is
impossible to achieve. Thus, it depends on the rotating speed and the
size of the spinning apparatus.

At low rotating speeds, 2) can predict red shift.

** f’ / f ~ 1 – k v / c + v^2 / c^2 / 2

Where

** 1 k
** k = apparatus dependent

At high speeds, there is no change that 2) can predict red shift
anymore.

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

sorry, I thought that you were interested in discussing physics;
I'll take a pass on your silly attitude.

have a nice ______.

On Wed, 23 Mar 2011 22:11:36 -0700, Koobee Wublee wrote:

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

Waitaminute.... Even that a source of sound moving with respect to its
medium, (no, don't confuse this with electromagnetic waves) encounters a
slightly stiffer medium than one stationary with respect to it, thus with
a slightly higher speed of sound, demonstrably experiences a Doppler
effect damn' close to that predicted by a simple application of algebra
understandable by someone of Galileo's time doesn't make an impression on
you convinces me that Tucker is right: You really are a stuffed animal.
[sigh]

-- RLW

after I put my 3D glasses back on
-- whew, that was disorienteering --
I realized that he was *still* a 2D avatar,
probably a Minkowski phase-diagram or,
possibly, a Feynman thing with funny pants.