|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#141
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#142
|
|||
|
|||
Fallacy of [email protected]
"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 *******. |
#143
|
|||
|
|||
Fallacy of Relativistic Doppler Effect
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 |
#144
|
|||
|
|||
Fallacy of Relativistic Doppler Effect
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 |
#145
|
|||
|
|||
Fallacy of Relativistic Doppler Effect
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 |
#146
|
|||
|
|||
Fallacy of [email protected]
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 |
#147
|
|||
|
|||
Fallacy of Relativistic Doppler Effect
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) |
#148
|
|||
|
|||
Fallacy of Relativistic Doppler Effect
sorry, I thought that you were interested in discussing physics;
I'll take a pass on your silly attitude. have a nice ______. |
#149
|
|||
|
|||
Fallacy of Relativistic Doppler Effect
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 |
#150
|
|||
|
|||
Fallacy of Relativistic Doppler Effect
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. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
DOPPLER EFFECT, SPEED OF LIGHT AND EINSTEINIANA'S TEACHERS | Pentcho Valev | Astronomy Misc | 1 | August 22nd 09 06:44 AM |
DOPPLER EFFECT IN EINSTEIN ZOMBIE WORLD | Pentcho Valev | Astronomy Misc | 1 | October 27th 08 07:47 PM |
GRAVITATIONAL REDSHIFT AND DOPPLER EFFECT | Pentcho Valev | Astronomy Misc | 5 | August 5th 07 09:33 AM |
TOM ROBERTS WILL EXPLAIN THE DOPPLER EFFECT | Pentcho Valev | Astronomy Misc | 0 | May 27th 07 06:46 AM |
Classical transverse Doppler effect | Sergey Karavashkin | Research | 0 | April 13th 05 02:36 PM |