Justification for a new doppler radar formula
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: Exactly why the theories of relativity are complete nonsense- the basic mistake exposed!
Next: CERN, Read the Great Job of Luis Sancho!
From: Surfer on 25 Feb 2010 10:03 On Tue, 23 Feb 2010 10:18:53 -0800 (PST), "Dono." <sa_ge(a)comcast.net> wrote: >On Feb 23, 9:30�am, Surfer <n...(a)spam.net> wrote: >> >> The measured speed is found to be >> isotropic in all frames, but the actual speed can be isotropic in only >> one frame. >> >You realize how stupid the above statement IS, eh? >You also realize that IF your formula were right (it isn't), it would >STILL be falsified by all the experiments in the Ives-Stilwell class? The Ives-Stilwell experiment tested Doppler shift not radar Doppler shift. Unlike radar Doppler shift, Doppler shift includes time dilation. However a formula for Doppler shift that took into account both absolute motion effects and time dilation is something that would be interesting to test.
From: Surfer on 25 Feb 2010 10:22 On Thu, 25 Feb 2010 00:07:32 -0800, eric gisse <jowr.pi.nospam(a)gmail.com> wrote: >Surfer wrote: > >> On Wed, 24 Feb 2010 15:48:41 -0800, eric gisse >> <jowr.pi.nospam(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >>>Surfer wrote: >>> >>>> Well I have used the term "actual light speed" rather carelessly here. >>>> It could mean the speed that would be obtained if measurement was >>>> completely error free. >>>> >>>> However I intended it to mean the inferred speed of light relative to >>>> an observer if one took the observer's velocity relative to a >>>> preferred frame into account. If the later was v, then the inferred >>>> speeds of light for beams parallel to v would be c-v and c+v. >>>> >>>> The experiments don't contrain the anisotropy of such speeds. >>> >>>Anisotropy experiments aren't nullified because your anisotropy takes a >>>'special form'. >>> >> That is correct. And perfect isotropy of the measured speed of light >> in vacuum also doesn't nullify this special form. > >Thus the special plead for mediums makes its' triumphant return. > Except the inferred speeds referred to here are inferred speeds in vacuum, not in media.
From: Dono. on 25 Feb 2010 10:57 On Feb 25, 7:03 am, Surfer <n...(a)spam.net> wrote: > On Tue, 23 Feb 2010 10:18:53 -0800 (PST), "Dono." <sa...(a)comcast.net> > wrote: > > >On Feb 23, 9:30 am, Surfer <n...(a)spam.net> wrote: > > >> The measured speed is found to be > >> isotropic in all frames, but the actual speed can be isotropic in only > >> one frame. > > >You realize how stupid the above statement IS, eh? > >You also realize that IF your formula were right (it isn't), it would > >STILL be falsified by all the experiments in the Ives-Stilwell class? > > The Ives-Stilwell experiment tested Doppler shift not radar Doppler > shift. > Pathetic imbecile, the "radar" Doppler shift formula is based on the Doppler shift formula. You aren't only an idiot, you are a pathetic cheater as well.
From: Surfer on 25 Feb 2010 19:31 On Thu, 25 Feb 2010 07:57:38 -0800 (PST), "Dono." <sa_ge(a)comcast.net> wrote: >On Feb 25, 7:03 am, Surfer <n...(a)spam.net> wrote: >> On Tue, 23 Feb 2010 10:18:53 -0800 (PST), "Dono." <sa...(a)comcast.net> >> wrote: >> >> >On Feb 23, 9:30 am, Surfer <n...(a)spam.net> wrote: >> >> >> The measured speed is found to be >> >> isotropic in all frames, but the actual speed can be isotropic in only >> >> one frame. >> >> >You realize how stupid the above statement IS, eh? >> >You also realize that IF your formula were right (it isn't), it would >> >STILL be falsified by all the experiments in the Ives-Stilwell class? >> >> The Ives-Stilwell experiment tested Doppler shift not radar Doppler >> shift. >> > >Pathetic imbecile, the "radar" Doppler shift formula is based on the >Doppler shift formula. > But the Ives-Stillwell experiment didn't prove that the SR Doppler shift formula is correct. It only showed that it was an improvement over the classical Doppler shift formula.
From: eric gisse on 25 Feb 2010 20:34
Surfer wrote: > On Thu, 25 Feb 2010 07:57:38 -0800 (PST), "Dono." <sa_ge(a)comcast.net> > wrote: > >>On Feb 25, 7:03 am, Surfer <n...(a)spam.net> wrote: >>> On Tue, 23 Feb 2010 10:18:53 -0800 (PST), "Dono." <sa...(a)comcast.net> >>> wrote: >>> >>> >On Feb 23, 9:30 am, Surfer <n...(a)spam.net> wrote: >>> >>> >> The measured speed is found to be >>> >> isotropic in all frames, but the actual speed can be isotropic in >>> >> only one frame. >>> >>> >You realize how stupid the above statement IS, eh? >>> >You also realize that IF your formula were right (it isn't), it would >>> >STILL be falsified by all the experiments in the Ives-Stilwell class? >>> >>> The Ives-Stilwell experiment tested Doppler shift not radar Doppler >>> shift. >>> >> >>Pathetic imbecile, the "radar" Doppler shift formula is based on the >>Doppler shift formula. >> > But the Ives-Stillwell experiment didn't prove that the SR Doppler > shift formula is correct. It only showed that it was an improvement > over the classical Doppler shift formula. In other words, SR is consistent with observation. Thanks for playing. |