Justification for a new doppler radar formula
in [Physics]
|
Prev: Finding peak displacement from RMS sinusoidal acceleration without using frequency...?
Next: Worm Holes
From: Dono. on 23 Feb 2010 23:22 On Feb 23, 8:02 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. > > 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 =src(--------------- * ---------------- ) F_emitted c+vi-V c-vi 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 2. You are incapable of generalizing your formula in order to solve the two simple exercises I gave you. So, your "stuff" is worthless
From: Dono. on 23 Feb 2010 23:23 On Feb 23, 8:22 pm, "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 > > > <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. > > > 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 =src(--------------- * ---------------- ) F_emitted > > c+vi-V c-vi > > 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 > > 2. You are incapable of generalizing your formula in order to solve > the two simple exercises I gave you. > > So, your "stuff" is worthless Typo: > c + vi c - vi + V > F_obs =SQRT(--------------- * ---------------- ) F_emitted c+vi-V c-vi
From: Dono. on 23 Feb 2010 23:27 On Feb 23, 8:02 pm, Surfer <n...(a)spam.net> wrote: > > The inferred speeds for the actual one way speed of light for that > direction would then be c+vi and c-vi. > Experiment says that there is no light speed anisotropy detected to the limit < 10^-15. So, you still suck.
From: eric gisse on 23 Feb 2010 23:35 Surfer wrote: > On Tue, 23 Feb 2010 15:52:12 -0800, eric gisse > <jowr.pi.nospam(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >>Surfer wrote: >> >>> On Mon, 22 Feb 2010 20:02:11 -0800, eric gisse >>> <jowr.pi.nospam(a)gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>>>Surfer wrote: >>>> >>>>> On Mon, 22 Feb 2010 11:25:29 -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. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The result with c as the speed of light, V as the target velocity >>>>>>> and Ft as the transmitted frequency, gives the shifted frequency Fr >>>>>>> as: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Fr = Ft (c+V)/(c-V) (1) >>>>>> >>>>>>I showed you that deriving this formula is a simple exercise in SR. >>>>>>The above formula is confirmed by experiment. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> I don't believe experiments performed so far have been accurate enough >>>>> to detect a difference. >>>> >>>>Is that belief based on the results of an actual literature search? Or a >>>>guess? >>>> >>> A bit of both. >>> >>> This paper reports: >>> >>> Radar Verification of the Doppler Formula >>> Irwin I. Shapiro, Michael E. Ash, and Menasha J. Tausner*,� >>> Phys. Rev. Lett. 17, 933�935 >>> >>> "Frequencies of radar echos from the planets Mercury and Venus have >>> recently been measured to about 1 part in 10^10 at times when the >>> line-of-sight component of the relative velocity between the Earth and >>> target was as large as 10^-4 c....." >>> >>> For comparison here are the two formula again. >>> >>> Fr1 = (c+V)/(c-V) Ft (1) >>> >>> >>> (c + vi) (c - vi + V) >>> Fr2 = --------------- ---------------- Ft (2) >>> (c + vi - V) ( c - vi) >>> >>> As it happens, while the orbits of Mercury and Venus lie close to the >>> ecliptic plane, the direction of 3-space flow is almost perpendicular >>> to that plane. Since (2) is a scalar formula, vi needs to be set equal >>> to the line of sight component of 3-space velocity between the Earth >>> and target. >> >>What about the magnitude of the bullshit flow? > > Provided below as "Galactic flow speed = 486000 m/s" >> >>Relativistic doppler has been tested to at least second order, and matches >>SR exactly. >> > But to what precision? Without that figure your claim doesn't mean > anything. More than enough? Dono gave you some references. Expand your latest wild assed guess in orders of (v/c) and check against observation. [...]
From: Surfer on 24 Feb 2010 01:15
On Tue, 23 Feb 2010 19:47:21 -0800 (PST), "Dono." <sa_ge(a)comcast.net> wrote: >On Feb 23, 6:42 pm, Surfer <n...(a)spam.net> wrote: >> >> But to what precision? Without that figure your claim doesn't mean >> anything. >> > > >10^-15 > >See here: > ># M�ller, H., �Testing Lorentz invariance by use of vacuum and matter >filled cavity resonators�, (2004). arXiv:hep-ph/0412385. > >A general review. ># Braxmaier, C., M�ller, H., Pradl, O., Mlynek, J., Peters, A., and >Schiller, S., �Tests of Relativity Using a Cryogenic Optical >Resonator�, Phys. Rev. Lett., 88, 010401, (2002). > >- ># M�ller, H., Herrmann, S., Saenz, A., Peters, A., and L�mmerzahl, C., >�Optical cavity tests of Lorentz invariance for the electron�, Phys. >Rev. D, 68, 116006-1-17, (2003). arXiv:hep-ph/0401016. M�ller, H., >Braxmaier, C., Hermann, S., Peters, A., and L�mmerzahl, C., >�Electromagnetic cavities and Lorentz invariance violation�, Phys. >Rev. D67, 056006 (2003). > >- ># Wolf, P., Bize, S., Clairon, A., Santarelli, G., Tobar, M.E., and >Luiten, A.N., �Improved test of Lorentz invariance in >electrodynamics�, Phys. Rev. D, 70, 051902-1-4, (2004). arxiv:hep-ph/ >0407232. Wolf et al., �Tests of Lorentz Invariance using a Microwave >Resonator�, Phys. Rev. Lett., 90, no. 6, 060402 (2003). > >- ># Lipa, J.A., Nissen, J.A., Wang, S., Stricker, D.A., and Avaloff, D., >�A New Limit on Signals of Lorentz Violation in Electrodynamics�, >Phys. Rev. Lett., 90, 060403, (2003). arXiv:physics/0302093. > >Superconducting cylindrical cavities oriented vertically and East- >West. No anisotropy to 1 part in 1013. ># Stanwix, P.L., Tobar, M.E., Wolf, P., Susli, M., Locke, C.R., >Ivanov, E.N., Winterflood, J., and van Kann, F., �Test of Lorentz >Invariance in Electrodynamics Using Rotating Cryogenic Sapphire >Microwave Oscillators�, Phys. Rev. Lett., 95, 040404, (2005). >arXiv:hep-ph/0506074. > The above experiments don't test Doppler radar frequency shift. Accordingly their results are not relevant to Doppler radar frequency shift. Surfer |