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: PD on 24 Feb 2010 10:03 On Feb 23, 10:02 pm, Surfer <n...(a)spam.net> wrote: > On Tue, 23 Feb 2010 09:52:52 -0800 (PST), PD > > > > <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >On Feb 23, 11:30 am, Surfer <n...(a)spam.net> wrote: > >> On Tue, 23 Feb 2010 06:23:09 -0800 (PST), PD > > >> <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >> >On Feb 22, 8:55 pm, Surfer <n...(a)spam.net> wrote: > >> >> On Mon, 22 Feb 2010 12:33:02 -0800 (PST), PD > > >> >> <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >> >> >On Feb 20, 9:08 pm, Surfer <n...(a)spam.net> wrote: > >> >> >> Suppose a frame of reference is identified in which the one way speed > >> >> >> of light is 'truely' isotropic, referred to below as the 'isotropic > >> >> >> frame'. > > >> >> >Filippas and Fox showed experimentally that this is not the case. > > >> >> I found. > > >> >> Velocity of Gamma Rays from a Moving Source > >> >> T. A. Filippas and J. G. Fox > >> >> Phys. Rev. 135, B1071 B1075http://prola.aps.org/abstract/PR/v135/i4B/pB1071_1 > > >> >> That tested the idea that photons might travel at speed c relative to > >> >> the source from which they are emitted. > > >> >> But what I wrote above is quite different. > > >> >Not really, unless you assume that the laboratory was at rest with > >> >respect to the aether for every single run that they did, just by > >> >fortuitous accident. > > >> Here is the second postulate of special relativityhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Postulates_of_special_relativity > > >> "......As measured in any inertial frame of reference, light is always > >> propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c that is > >> independent of the state of motion of the emitting body...." > > >> So far as measured speed of photons is concerned, Filippas and Fox > >> should have obtained a result that complies with that. > > >> In contrast what I wrote was, > > >> ".....Suppose a frame of reference is identified in which the one way > >> speed of light is 'truely' isotropic....." > > >> But here I was refering to actual speed of light rather than measured > >> speed of light. Apologies if that wasn't clear. > > >> The two concepts are different. The measured speed is found to be > >> isotropic in all frames, but the actual speed can be isotropic in only > >> one frame. > > >Ah, and how would one verify experimentally that the actual speed is > >isotropic in one frame and anisotropic in other frames, other than by > >measurement? > > By inferring actual speeds from measurements other than direct > measurement of the speed of light. How do you check that your formula is right? You've inferred a number that cannot be measured from a formula that you apparently assume is right without having any way to check it. This is not good science. > > Eg. the formula I gave for radar Doppler shift was, > > (c + vi) (c - vi + V) > Fr = --------------- ---------------- Ft . > (c + vi - V) ( c - vi) > > If Doppler radar was applied to a target of known velocity V relative > to the radar system, we would then be able to use the formula to > calculate vi for the direction concerned. > > The inferred speeds for the actual one way speed of light for that > direction would then be c+vi and c-vi. > > Surfer
From: Surfer on 24 Feb 2010 10:17 On Wed, 24 Feb 2010 00:55:44 -0800, eric gisse <jowr.pi.nospam(a)gmail.com> wrote: >Surfer wrote: > >> On Tue, 23 Feb 2010 22:46:18 -0800 (PST), "Dono." <sa_ge(a)comcast.net> >> wrote: >> >>>.... all the experiments constrain light speed anisotropy. >>> >> They only constrain the anisotropy of directly measured light speed in >> vacuum. >> >> That has no relevance to the anisotropy of actual light speed in >> vacuum. >> >> The two concepts are quite different. > >Only if you think there is no relation between "measured light speed" and >"actual light speed". > 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.
From: Dono. on 24 Feb 2010 10:18 On Feb 24, 12:07 am, Surfer <n...(a)spam.net> wrote: > On Tue, 23 Feb 2010 20:22:41 -0800 (PST), "Dono." <sa...(a)comcast.net> > wrote: > > > > >On Feb 23, 8:02 pm, Surfer <n...(a)spam.net> wrote: > >> On Tue, 23 Feb 2010 09:52:52 -0800 (PST), PD > > >> Eg. the formula I gave for radar Doppler shift was, > > >> (c + vi) (c - vi + V) > >> Fr = --------------- ---------------- Ft . > >> (c + vi - V) ( c - vi) > > >> If Doppler radar was applied to a target of known velocity V relative > > >Your "formula" is worthless since: > > >1. It would predict > > > c + vi c - vi + V > > F_obs =sqrt (---------- * ------------- ) F_emitted > > c+vi-V c-vi > > You have made a mistake somewhere. The speed of (c+vi) can have no > influence on the frequency the target observes. > > > > >which is FALSIFIED by existent (see previous list I gave you) > >experiments that CONFIRM the CORRECT formula: > > >F_obs=sqrt((1+V/c)/(1-V/c))*F_mitted > > However the experiments you listed didn't test Doppler frequency > shift, but rather other aspects of special relativity. The experiments I listed constrain light speed anisotropy to <10^-15. Therefore, your "vi" is less than 10^-15 c. Meaning that: vi<3*10^-7 m/s The above renders your theory null. You understand that , Peter?
From: Dono. on 24 Feb 2010 10:19 On Feb 23, 11:46 pm, Surfer <n...(a)spam.net> wrote: > > >You are still the same idiot, you need to take your blinders off, all > >the experiments constrain light speed anisotropy. > > They only constrain the anisotropy of directly measured light speed in > vacuum. > > That has no relevance to the anisotropy of actual light speed in > vacuum. > > The two concepts are quite different. Today, you are a much bigger imbecile than you were yesterday. Tomorrow, you will be a yet much bigger imbecile than today.
From: Surfer on 24 Feb 2010 10:34
On Wed, 24 Feb 2010 07:18:02 -0800 (PST), "Dono." <sa_ge(a)comcast.net> wrote: >On Feb 24, 12:07 am, Surfer <n...(a)spam.net> wrote: >> On Tue, 23 Feb 2010 20:22:41 -0800 (PST), "Dono." <sa...(a)comcast.net> >> wrote: >> >> >> >> >On Feb 23, 8:02 pm, Surfer <n...(a)spam.net> wrote: >> >> On Tue, 23 Feb 2010 09:52:52 -0800 (PST), PD >> >> >> Eg. the formula I gave for radar Doppler shift was, >> >> >> (c + vi) (c - vi + V) >> >> Fr = --------------- ---------------- Ft . >> >> (c + vi - V) ( c - vi) >> >> >> If Doppler radar was applied to a target of known velocity V relative >> >> >Your "formula" is worthless since: >> >> >1. It would predict >> >> > c + vi c - vi + V >> > F_obs =sqrt (---------- * ------------- ) F_emitted >> > c+vi-V c-vi >> >> You have made a mistake somewhere. The speed of (c+vi) can have no >> influence on the frequency the target observes. >> >> >> >> >which is FALSIFIED by existent (see previous list I gave you) >> >experiments that CONFIRM the CORRECT formula: >> >> >F_obs=sqrt((1+V/c)/(1-V/c))*F_mitted >> >> However the experiments you listed didn't test Doppler frequency >> shift, but rather other aspects of special relativity. > > > >The experiments I listed constrain light speed anisotropy to <10^-15. >Therefore, your "vi" is less than 10^-15 c. Meaning that: > >vi<3*10^-7 m/s > That is not correct. The experiments only contrain the anisotropy of the directly measured speed of light in vacuum. Speeds such as c-vi and c+vi are inferred speeds so are not subject to those contraints. |