Justification for a new doppler radar formula
in [Physics]
|
Prev: Finding peak displacement from RMS sinusoidal acceleration without using frequency...?
Next: Worm Holes
From: Androcles on 21 Feb 2010 04:59 "Surfer" <no(a)spam.net> wrote in message news:ebm1o51jh6nauuqaockuvij7lmj6onn7oi(a)4ax.com... > On Sat, 20 Feb 2010 21:16:23 -0800 (PST), "Dono." <sa_ge(a)comcast.net> > wrote: > >>On Feb 20, 7:08 pm, Surfer <n...(a)spam.net> wrote: >>> The formula for radar Doppler shift can be derived without invoking >>> Einsteins' theory of special relativity, because all observations are >>> made in the same frame of reference. >> >>I don't know what gave you this idiotic idea. >> > > Its self evident. > >>This is a simple exercise in SR: > > If one assumes the speed of light is isotropic in the frame of the > radar system, the derivation is dead simple without SR. > > In the radar system frame of reference, let the transmitted signal > have frequency Ft, then the corresponding outgoing wavelength is, > Lt = c/Ft > > This signal will impinge on the target with period > T = Lt/(c + V) Wrong. T =-Lt/-c. It's self-evident, the speed of the incident signal is unaffected by the speed of the target, the speed of the reflected signal c+v.
From: Dono. on 21 Feb 2010 09:16 On Feb 20, 11:11 pm, Surfer <n...(a)spam.net> wrote: > . You get the same result. > > However, my method of derivation allows me to optionally use light > speeds of (c+vi) and (c-vi) and see what difference that makes. > > Reliance on the SR formulae wouldn't allow me to do that. > Heck,you can't help being an antirelativistic idiot.
From: Surfer on 21 Feb 2010 15:11 On Sun, 21 Feb 2010 06:16:48 -0800 (PST), "Dono." <sa_ge(a)comcast.net> wrote: >On Feb 20, 11:11�pm, Surfer <n...(a)spam.net> wrote: >> . You get the same result. >> >> However, my method of derivation allows me to optionally use light >> speeds of (c+vi) and (c-vi) and see what difference that makes. >> >> Reliance on the SR formulae wouldn't allow me to do that. >> > > >Heck,you can't help being an antirelativistic idiot. > Not at all. In situations where SR formulae need to be used, I am very happy to use them.
From: Tom Roberts on 21 Feb 2010 23:34 Surfer wrote: > [...] There are TWO essential aspects to doing science: developing a theory, and then TESTING it experimentally. You need to do part 2 before you have anything of use. Other people, of course, know this. And the assumptions you used have been known for well over a century. Other people have developed theories based on those assumptions, but unlike you they have TESTED them. In all cases to date, such theories have failed the experimental tests. You may think your theory is somehow "special". But given the actual history of physics, it is highly unlikely to survive experimental tests. So don't expect anyone else to care, until and unless you come up with a test that your theory passes and SR does not. Merely having an experimental record equal to that of SR is insufficient, as LET demonstrates. Your theory, of course, cannot be equal to SR (it makes some different predictions). That's another reason to be skeptical of your theory, as SR is completely unrefuted within its domain of applicability. > If one assumes the speed of light is isotropic in the frame of the > radar system, [...] That is, of course, an EXCELLENT assumption, because it has been OBSERVED for every locally-inertial frame an earthbound laboratory ever occupies. And the accuracy of those observations are good enough to rule out any v, v^2, v^3, or v^4 dependency on choice of frame, where v is the orbital velocity of the earth. So, for instance, in theories like yours, if you claim that the CMBR dipole=0 frame is the "preferred frame", the theory is already refuted experimentally. Tom Roberts
From: Dono. on 22 Feb 2010 01:12
On Feb 21, 12:11 pm, Surfer <n...(a)spam.net> wrote: > On Sun, 21 Feb 2010 06:16:48 -0800 (PST), "Dono." <sa...(a)comcast.net> > wrote: > > >On Feb 20, 11:11 pm, Surfer <n...(a)spam.net> wrote: > >> . You get the same result. > > >> However, my method of derivation allows me to optionally use light > >> speeds of (c+vi) and (c-vi) and see what difference that makes. > > >> Reliance on the SR formulae wouldn't allow me to do that. > > >Heck,you can't help being an antirelativistic idiot. > > Not at all. In situations where SR formulae need to be used, I am very > happy to use them. Solve this (with your theory): Moving mirror -------------- V -> /\ / \ / \ / \ f_src f_observed=? What is f_observed as a function of f_src? The light ray makes and angle "theta" with the moving mirror. The morror moves with speed V wrt the source and the observer. The source and the observers do not move wrt each other. |