Prev: Finding peak displacement from RMS sinusoidal acceleration without using frequency...?
Next: Worm Holes
From: Surfer on 24 Feb 2010 01:20
On Tue, 23 Feb 2010 20:35:01 -0800, eric gisse
<jowr.pi.nospam(a)gmail.com> wrote:

>
>>>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.
>
None of them concerned Doppler radar frequency shift.
So not relevant.


From: Dono. on 24 Feb 2010 01:46
On Feb 23, 10:20 pm, Surfer <n...(a)spam.net> wrote:
>
> None of them concerned Doppler radar frequency shift.
> So not relevant.

You are still the same idiot, you need to take your blinders off, all
the experiments constrain light speed anisotropy.

From: Surfer on 24 Feb 2010 02:46
On Tue, 23 Feb 2010 22:46:18 -0800 (PST), "Dono." <sa_ge(a)comcast.net>
wrote:

>On Feb 23, 10:20 pm, Surfer <n...(a)spam.net> wrote:
>>
>> None of them concerned Doppler radar frequency shift.
>> So not relevant.
>
>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.


From: Surfer on 24 Feb 2010 03:07
On Tue, 23 Feb 2010 20:22:41 -0800 (PST), "Dono." <sa_ge(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.



From: eric gisse on 24 Feb 2010 03:55
Surfer wrote:

> On Tue, 23 Feb 2010 22:46:18 -0800 (PST), "Dono." <sa_ge(a)comcast.net>
> wrote:
>
>>On Feb 23, 10:20 pm, Surfer <n...(a)spam.net> wrote:
>>>
>>> None of them concerned Doppler radar frequency shift.
>>> So not relevant.
>>
>>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.

Only if you think there is no relation between "measured light speed" and
"actual light speed".
First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Prev: Finding peak displacement from RMS sinusoidal acceleration without using frequency...?
Next: Worm Holes