Fallacy of Relativistic Doppler Effect

As we all know, the time transformation of the Lorentz transform is

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

Where

** [v] = velocity of dt frame as observed by the dt’ frame
** d[s] = observed displacement vector by the dt frame
** [] * [] = dot product of two vectors

It was attributed to Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar
who first wrote down the relativistic Doppler effect of light or
whoever the author of that 1905 paper was. The above equation becomes
the following.

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

Where

** f’ = 1 / dt’
** f = 1 / dt
** d[s]/dt = [c]

Of course, Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar was not
bright enough to realize the above equation in general. The nitwit
and almost all self-styled physicists can only rationalize in the very
special case where [v] and [c] are in parallel to each other. If so,
the above equation can be simplified according to the following.

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

Or

** f’ / f = sqrt(1 + v / c) / sqrt(1 - v / c)

Where

** [c] is always propagating from dt frame to dt’
** v 0 means dt is moving away from dt’

In this case, the relativistic Doppler effect according to the Lorentz
transform would always predict an opposite to the classical one.
Oops! How can the self-styled physicists miss this blatant math error
for over 100 years?

Interestingly, there is another way of deriving the relativistic
Doppler effect. All the infinite non-ballistic-theory-of-light
transforms that satisfy the null results of the MMX share the same
equation of energy transform derive from the geodesic equations. In
doing so, the energy transform can be written as follows.

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

Where

** E’, E = observed energies
** [p] = observed momentum by the dt frame

Using the same, previous criteria where [v] and [p] are in parallel
for the intellect-deficient self-styled physicists, the above
equations simplifies into the following.

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

Or

** f’ / f = sqrt(1 – v / c) / sqrt(1 + v / c)

Where

** [p] is always going from dt frame to dt’
** v 0 means dt is moving away from dt’
** E’ = h f’
** E = h f
** [p] = h f [c] / c^2

This version of the relativistic Doppler effect is the exact opposite
of the one derived earlier in this post. Thus, yours truly demands to
know why the self-styled physicists have allowed this blatant math
error to go through to justify the validity of SR in the past 100
years.

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

KW, be very specific and unambiguous in first explaining
what the dt’ vs dt means, as well as the same for all other
apostrophed (') expressions. Use more picturesque lingo
then just the words "frame" or "coordinates", ... or the
quarreling will go on for ever.
You must demand unconditional capitulation from the
Einstein Dingleberries. Carry on, KW. -- hanson
-----------------

"Koobee Wublee" wrote:
As we all know, the time transformation of the Lorentz transform is

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

Where

** [v] = velocity of dt frame as observed by the dt’ frame
** d[s] = observed displacement vector by the dt frame
** [] * [] = dot product of two vectors

It was attributed to Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar
who first wrote down the relativistic Doppler effect of light or
whoever the author of that 1905 paper was. The above equation becomes
the following.

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

Where

** f’ = 1 / dt’
** f = 1 / dt
** d[s]/dt = [c]

Of course, Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar was not
bright enough to realize the above equation in general. The nitwit
and almost all self-styled physicists can only rationalize in the very
special case where [v] and [c] are in parallel to each other. If so,
the above equation can be simplified according to the following.

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

Or

** f’ / f = sqrt(1 + v / c) / sqrt(1 - v / c)

Where

** [c] is always propagating from dt frame to dt’
** v 0 means dt is moving away from dt’

In this case, the relativistic Doppler effect according to the Lorentz
transform would always predict an opposite to the classical one.
Oops! How can the self-styled physicists miss this blatant math error
for over 100 years?

Interestingly, there is another way of deriving the relativistic
Doppler effect. All the infinite non-ballistic-theory-of-light
transforms that satisfy the null results of the MMX share the same
equation of energy transform derive from the geodesic equations. In
doing so, the energy transform can be written as follows.

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

Where

** E’, E = observed energies
** [p] = observed momentum by the dt frame

Using the same, previous criteria where [v] and [p] are in parallel
for the intellect-deficient self-styled physicists, the above
equations simplifies into the following.

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

Or

** f’ / f = sqrt(1 – v / c) / sqrt(1 + v / c)

Where

** [p] is always going from dt frame to dt’
** v 0 means dt is moving away from dt’
** E’ = h f’
** E = h f
** [p] = h f [c] / c^2

This version of the relativistic Doppler effect is the exact opposite
of the one derived earlier in this post. Thus, yours truly demands to
know why the self-styled physicists have allowed this blatant math
error to go through to justify the validity of SR in the past 100
years.

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

You a nip?

"Koobee Wublee" wrote in message
...
As we all know more than me doo

too hung-up on Einstein's notion of "photon,"
akin to "phonon" but obviously not the same shape.

On Mar 14, 1:23*am, Koobee Wublee wrote:
......

Of course, Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar was not
bright enough to realize the above equation in general. *The nitwit
and almost all self-styled physicists can only rationalize in the very
special case where [v] and [c] are in parallel to each other. *If so,
the above equation can be simplified according to the following.

......

Dear KW: If you would take the time to read Einstein's 1905
relativity paper, you would find the general case of Doppler's
phenomenon derived in SR in Section 7 of that paper for any angle
between the light propagation vector and the vector v.

Further, if you consult Tom Roberts's document on the experimental
basis of SR,
you would find experimental support for the transvers Doppler effect
as predicted.

Uncle Ben

On Mar 14, 6:17 pm, Uncle Ben wrote:
On Mar 14, 1:23 am, Koobee Wublee wrote:

Of course, Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar was not
bright enough to realize the above equation in general. The nitwit
and almost all self-styled physicists can only rationalize in the very
special case where [v] and [c] are in parallel to each other. If so,
the above equation can be simplified according to the following.

Dear KW: If you would take the time to read Einstein's 1905
relativity paper, you would find the general case of Doppler's
phenomenon derived in SR in Section 7 of that paper for any angle
between the light propagation vector and the vector v.

So, you do not dispute the rest of the post which is the most
important. shrug

Further, if you consult Tom Roberts's document on the experimental
basis of SR,
you would find experimental support for the transvers Doppler effect
as predicted.

First, you need to stand firm on what SR predicts and why. In time
transformation, SR predicts a Doppler effect that results in the exact
opposite of the classical prediction. In energy transformation, SR
fares better. The relative Doppler shift predicted by the energy
transformation results in a blue shift for transverse direction. SR
is not consistent at all. shrug

On Mar 15, 12:14*am, Koobee Wublee wrote:
On Mar 14, 6:17 pm, Uncle Ben wrote:

On Mar 14, 1:23 am, Koobee Wublee wrote:

Of course, Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar was not
bright enough to realize the above equation in general. *The nitwit
and almost all self-styled physicists can only rationalize in the very
special case where [v] and [c] are in parallel to each other. *If so,
the above equation can be simplified according to the following.

Dear KW: *If you would take the time to read Einstein's 1905
relativity paper, you would find the general case of Doppler's
phenomenon derived in SR in Section 7 of that paper for any angle
between the light propagation vector and the vector v.

So, you do not dispute the rest of the post which is the most
important. *shrug

Further, if you consult Tom Roberts's document on the experimental
basis of SR,
you would find experimental support for the transvers Doppler effect
as predicted.

First, you need to stand firm on what SR predicts and why. *In time
transformation, SR predicts a Doppler effect that results in the exact
opposite of the classical prediction. *In energy transformation, SR
fares better. *The relative Doppler shift predicted by the energy
transformation results in a blue shift for transverse direction. *SR
is not consistent at all. *shrug

According to the experimental record SR is correct.
As for the transverse effect prediction, see my response to Androcles
above.

Uncle Ben

On Mar 14, 9:43 pm, Uncle Ben wrote:
On Mar 15, 12:14 am, Koobee Wublee wrote:

So, you do not dispute the rest of the post which is the most
important. shrug

Unless you are inept in first year algebra, yours truly has to take
that as a yes that you do not dispute what I wrote besides the minor
historical account about your god, Einstein, the nitwit, the
plagiarist, and the liar. shrug

First, you need to stand firm on what SR predicts and why. In time
transformation, SR predicts a Doppler effect that results in the exact
opposite of the classical prediction. In energy transformation, SR
fares better. The relative Doppler shift predicted by the energy
transformation results in a blue shift for transverse direction. SR
is not consistent at all. shrug

According to the experimental record SR is correct.

To compare experimental results with predictions, you have to specify
which prediction, no? Do you even understand this basic scientific
axiom? So, in transverse Doppler effect, SR is able to predict both
red and blue shifts at the same time. Do you favor the time or the
energy transformation? Do you even under the Lorentz transform?
shrug

As for the transverse effect prediction, see my response to Androcles
above.

Aspirins? Love an kisses? You are really out of your mind. shrug

Get lost.

On Mar 14, 10:42*pm, Koobee Wublee wrote:
[..]

Get lost.

For someone who ends literally every thought with "shrug" you sure
do seem upset. Perhaps you are the one who should go away?

On Mar 15, 1:42*am, Koobee Wublee wrote:
On Mar 14, 9:43 pm, Uncle Ben wrote:
....
To compare experimental results with predictions, you have to specify
which prediction, no? *Do you even understand this basic scientific
axiom? *So, in transverse Doppler effect, SR is able to predict both
red and blue shifts at the same time. *Do you favor the time or the
energy transformation? *Do you even under the Lorentz transform?
shrug

....
At the same time? If you read my claim correctly, you would see that
the two cases are not at the same time.

If you cannot see this, I will attempt to say it in french. (yawn)

Uncle Ben