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 24 Feb 2010 11:00 On Feb 24, 7:34 am, Surfer <n...(a)spam.net> wrote: > On Wed, 24 Feb 2010 07:18:02 -0800 (PST), "Dono." <sa...(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. You realize how lame this idiocy sounds, Peter? 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 11:59 On Wed, 24 Feb 2010 07:03:51 -0800 (PST), PD <thedraperfamily(a)gmail.com> wrote: >On Feb 23, 10:02�pm, Surfer <n...(a)spam.net> wrote: >> On Tue, 23 Feb 2010 09:52:52 -0800 (PST), PD >> >> >> >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. > One way would be to repeat the procedure for different targets with different velocities relative to the radar system. If the formula is correct, the data from the different targets should provide consistent values for vi. If the formula is incorrect that is unlikely. The following paper shows some results that have been obtained. Resolving Spacecraft Earth-Flyby Anomalies with Measured Light Speed Anisotropy Reginald T. Cahill (Flinders University) http://arxiv.org/abs/0804.0039
From: eric gisse on 24 Feb 2010 18:48 Surfer wrote: > 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. Anisotropy experiments aren't nullified because your anisotropy takes a 'special form'.
From: Surfer on 25 Feb 2010 01:49 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.
From: eric gisse on 25 Feb 2010 03:07
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. |