| |
 |
|
|
Science Forum Index » Physics - Relativity Forum » The correct Doppler formula falsifies relativity
Page 1 of 1
|
| Author |
Message |
| Albertito |
 Posted: Wed Apr 30, 2008 7:36 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
This is the correct Doppler formula for all moving
bodies,
f' = Exp(-v/c) f
where,
f is the ffrequency at the source, and
f' is the observed frequency.
If the observer and the source are moving directly
away from each other, the velocity is v > 0, and v < 0
if they are approaching.
Consider now, the relativistic Doppler formula
f_r' = sqrt((1 - v/c)/(1 + v/c)) f
We can expand both equations, f' and f_r', in their
respective power series until any arbitrary order, and
see the ratio f'/f_r is
f'/f_r = 1 - x^3/3 - x^5/5 + x^6 /18 - x^7/7 + ...
where x = v/c.
So, in any experimental test for that ratio, you'd have
to deal with measurement accuracies that could at
least make the term x^3/3 significant. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Dono |
| Posted: Wed Apr 30, 2008 7:54 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Apr 30, 10:36 am, AlbertShito <albertito1...@gmail.com> wrote:
Quote: This is the correct Doppler formula for all moving
bodies,
f' = Exp(-v/c) f
where,
f is the ffrequency at the source, and
f' is the observed frequency.
No, persistent imbecile.
The above is easily falsified by the Ives-Stilwell experiment. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Albertito |
| Posted: Wed Apr 30, 2008 8:04 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Apr 30, 6:54 pm, Dono <sa...@comcast.net> wrote:
Quote: On Apr 30, 10:36 am, AlbertShito <albertito1...@gmail.com> wrote:
This is the correct Doppler formula for all moving
bodies,
f' = Exp(-v/c) f
where,
f is the ffrequency at the source, and
f' is the observed frequency.
No, persistent imbecile.
The above is easily falsified by the Ives-Stilwell experiment.
You imbelice, you always have the fucking Ives-Stilwell
experiment in your mouth. Have you studied other
experiments, or is it that you only know of that one?
Tell me to what order of v/c it has been tested for a
relativistic Doppler in your loved Ives-Stilwell experiment. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Igor |
| Posted: Wed Apr 30, 2008 8:53 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Apr 30, 1:36 pm, Albertito <albertito1...@gmail.com> wrote:
Quote: This is the correct Doppler formula for all moving
bodies,
f' = Exp(-v/c) f
where,
f is the ffrequency at the source, and
f' is the observed frequency.
If the observer and the source are moving directly
away from each other, the velocity is v > 0, and v < 0
if they are approaching.
Consider now, the relativistic Doppler formula
f_r' = sqrt((1 - v/c)/(1 + v/c)) f
We can expand both equations, f' and f_r', in their
respective power series until any arbitrary order, and
see the ratio f'/f_r is
f'/f_r = 1 - x^3/3 - x^5/5 + x^6 /18 - x^7/7 + ...
where x = v/c.
So, in any experimental test for that ratio, you'd have
to deal with measurement accuracies that could at
least make the term x^3/3 significant.
I think you must have left out the part where you actually derived the
so-called correct Doppler formula from first principles. Other than
that, your post was fine. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Dono |
| Posted: Wed Apr 30, 2008 8:57 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Apr 30, 11:04 am, AlbertShito <albertito1...@gmail.com> wrote:
Quote: Have you studied other
experiments, or is it that you only know of that one?
Tell me to what order of v/c it has been tested for a
relativistic Doppler in your loved Ives-Stilwell experiment.
Second order, AlbertShito
The same is true for Kennedy Thorndike and MMX. I could recommend the
papers of Mansouri and Sexl but you prefer to make up your own
idiocies instead of studying. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Albertito |
| Posted: Wed Apr 30, 2008 9:17 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Apr 30, 7:57 pm, Dono <sa...@comcast.net> wrote:
Quote: On Apr 30, 11:04 am, AlbertShito <albertito1...@gmail.com> wrote:
Have you studied other
experiments, or is it that you only know of that one?
Tell me to what order of v/c it has been tested for a
relativistic Doppler in your loved Ives-Stilwell experiment.
Second order, AlbertShito
The same is true for Kennedy Thorndike and MMX. I could recommend the
papers of Mansouri and Sexl but you prefer to make up your own
idiocies instead of studying.
Ok, as far as I know, the Ives-Stilwell experiment has
verified the relativistic Doppler for speeds about v = 0.065c.
So, take a SR test theory, for example the RMS, and tell me
why my proposed formula wouldn't pass that test. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Dono |
| Posted: Wed Apr 30, 2008 10:48 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Apr 30, 12:17 pm, Albertito <albertito1...@gmail.com> wrote:
Quote: On Apr 30, 7:57 pm, Dono <sa...@comcast.net> wrote:
On Apr 30, 11:04 am, AlbertShito <albertito1...@gmail.com> wrote:
Have you studied other
experiments, or is it that you only know of that one?
Tell me to what order of v/c it has been tested for a
relativistic Doppler in your loved Ives-Stilwell experiment.
Second order, AlbertShito
The same is true for Kennedy Thorndike and MMX. I could recommend the
papers of Mansouri and Sexl but you prefer to make up your own
idiocies instead of studying.
Ok, as far as I know, the Ives-Stilwell experiment has
verified the relativistic Doppler for speeds about v = 0.065c.
So, take a SR test theory, for example the RMS, and tell me
why my proposed formula wouldn't pass that test.
AlbertShito,
The modern tests are at v=0.25c.
You take your shitty formula and plug it in the explanation for Ives-
Stilwell.
I think your parents should stop leaving you home alone, you spend too
much time jacking off. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Eric Gisse |
| Posted: Wed Apr 30, 2008 11:00 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Apr 30, 9:36 am, Albertito <albertito1...@gmail.com> wrote:
[snip]
Do you ever get tired of making stuff up and telling us to believe
you? |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Albertito |
| Posted: Wed Apr 30, 2008 11:55 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Apr 30, 10:00 pm, Eric Gisse <jowr...@gmail.com> wrote:
Quote: On Apr 30, 9:36 am, Albertito <albertito1...@gmail.com> wrote:
[snip]
Do you ever get tired of making stuff up and telling us to believe
you?
I do not make up any stuff at all, believe me.
First principles:
1. The Principle of VARIANCE of Speed of Light.
Even for inertial systems, the relative motion between
source and observer imposes a relative anisotropy for
the propagation of light.
*Corollary, There is no time dilation. Time dilation is
an artifact of SR to hide the relative anisotropy for moving
bodies. If inertial source and observer are approaching at
speed v, the speed of light, c', will be higher than the
standard
c. But, if they are getting away, the speed of light would be
less than c. For inertial systems, it would be
c' = c Exp(-v/c)
To first order approximation it yields c' = c - v, and c' = c + v.
I have explained to you many times that exponential factor,
Exp(-v/c), emerges from the solution for the spontaneous emission
mechanism of photons in atoms. It is curious how Einstein was able
to envisage that spontaneous emission mechanism, but he couldn't
exploit it to propose a more consistent SR, without camouflaging the
relative anisotropy under the masks of time dilation and length
contraction. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Eric Gisse |
| Posted: Wed Apr 30, 2008 12:05 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Apr 30, 1:55 pm, Albertito <albertito1...@gmail.com> wrote:
[snip babble, unread]
Nothing you say has any actual content worth reading, so why don't you
be a good little kid and shut the fuck up so the adults can play in
silence? |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Albertito |
| Posted: Wed Apr 30, 2008 12:30 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Apr 30, 11:05 pm, Eric Gisse <jowr...@gmail.com> wrote:
Quote: On Apr 30, 1:55 pm, Albertito <albertito1...@gmail.com> wrote:
[snip babble, unread]
Nothing you say has any actual content worth reading, so why don't you
be a good little kid and shut the fuck up so the adults can play in
silence?
Play in silence? What a boring game! There is a lot
of silence under a grave, too. Are you studying in a
seminary (theological college)?
BTW, do you browse your textbooks of 'science' as
fast as you snip my posts? |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Dono |
| Posted: Wed Apr 30, 2008 1:09 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Apr 30, 11:53 am, Igor <thoov...@excite.com> wrote:
Quote: I think you must have left out the part where you actually derived the
so-called correct Doppler formula from first principles. Other than
that, your post was fine.- Hide quoted text -
:-)  |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Dirk Van de moortel |
| Posted: Wed Apr 30, 2008 2:29 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Igor <thoovler@excite.com> wrote in message
a85e50b2-a259-43df-a620-468c4f6a0545@k13g2000hse.googlegroups.com
Quote: On Apr 30, 1:36 pm, Albertito <albertito1...@gmail.com> wrote:
This is the correct Doppler formula for all moving
bodies,
f' = Exp(-v/c) f
where,
f is the ffrequency at the source, and
f' is the observed frequency.
If the observer and the source are moving directly
away from each other, the velocity is v > 0, and v < 0
if they are approaching.
Consider now, the relativistic Doppler formula
f_r' = sqrt((1 - v/c)/(1 + v/c)) f
We can expand both equations, f' and f_r', in their
respective power series until any arbitrary order, and
see the ratio f'/f_r is
f'/f_r = 1 - x^3/3 - x^5/5 + x^6 /18 - x^7/7 + ...
where x = v/c.
So, in any experimental test for that ratio, you'd have
to deal with measurement accuracies that could at
least make the term x^3/3 significant.
I think you must have left out the part where you actually derived the
so-called correct Doppler formula from first principles. Other than
that, your post was fine.
Reminds me of a post where someone wrote that the
Schwarzschild metric should be modified replacing the
factor
1 - 2M/r
with
exp( -2M/r ).
which differ in second order.
The derivation from first principles was left out as well.
Maybe his first principle was to avoid black holes :-)
Dirk Vdm |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
|
Page 1 of 1
All times are GMT - 5 Hours
The time now is Thu Aug 21, 2008 5:43 pm
|
|