Relativistic Doppler shift
in [Physics]
|
Prev: Quantum Gravity 404.2: Are Random Variables with Memory or with Slow Decay to Infinity Repulsive/Expansive?
Next: Quantum Gravity 404.3: A Memory or Fat-Tailed Repulsion Spacecraft?
From: harald on 2 Aug 2010 12:25 On Aug 1, 3:39 pm, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jul 29, 7:55 am, "whoever" <whoe...(a)whereever.com> wrote: > > > > > "Koobee Wublee" wrote in message > > >news:db4d65cc-0782-4b3c-8b0a-d805654bac7f(a)w15g2000pro.googlegroups.com.... > > > >On Jul 28, 10:03 am, Koobee Wublee wrote: > > > >> > From the Lorentz transform, one sees that the time transformation is > > >> > given by the following. > > > >> > dt = (dt [B] * d[s] / c) / sqrt(1 B^2) > > > >> > Where > > > >> > ** [B] c = Velocity of dt as observed by dt, a vector > > > That makes no sense .. how can an interval of time have a velocity or > > observe anything > > > > > ** [s] = Displacement vector of the observed as observed by dt > > > > ** * = Dot product of two vectors > > > --- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: n...(a)netfront.net --- > > ------------------ > how can Doppler > has anything to do with relativity > while light moves the same velocity c > in all frames ! > > Y.P > --------------------- Dear Y, In this thread I showed -for 1D- how the standard Doppler effect of waves plus time dilation results in "relativity" of observation. Was that too difficult to follow? Do you know classical Doppler? Harald
From: Y.y.Porat on 4 Aug 2010 00:00 On Aug 2, 6:14 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Aug 1, 8:39 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > ------------------ > > how can Doppler > > has anything to do with relativity > > while light moves the same velocity c > > in all frames ! > > > Y.P > > --------------------- > > That's what distinguishes relativistic Doppler from the Doppler in > medium-carried signals. Different basis, similar outcome. > > READ when you don't know. ----------------- no matter where dOPPLER HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH RELATIVITY !!! provided that at last you understand that hf is not the energy of the real single photon! yet a parrot like you will never understand it !! i gave up any attempt to change anything in your mind !! it is simply impossible either from your tactical considerations or from psychologic barriers keep ell Y.Porat -------------------------
From: harald on 4 Aug 2010 03:38 On Aug 4, 6:00 am, "Y.y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Aug 2, 6:14 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Aug 1, 8:39 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > ------------------ > > > how can Doppler > > > has anything to do with relativity > > > while light moves the same velocity c > > > in all frames ! > > > > Y.P > > > --------------------- > > > That's what distinguishes relativistic Doppler from the Doppler in > > medium-carried signals. Different basis, similar outcome. > > > READ when you don't know. > > ----------------- > no matter where > dOPPLER HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH > RELATIVITY !!! > > provided that at last you understand that > hf is not the energy of the real single photon! > > yet a parrot like you > will never understand it !! > > i gave up any attempt > to change anything in your mind !! > it is simply impossible > either from your tactical > considerations > or from psychologic barriers > keep ell > Y.Porat > ------------------------- Hi Y, Indeed SRT kept Maxwell's theory for stationary frames, contrary to what PD suggests; but see my comment to you. Harald
From: Y.Porat on 4 Aug 2010 08:58
On Aug 2, 6:25 pm, harald <h...(a)swissonline.ch> wrote: > On Aug 1, 3:39 pm, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Jul 29, 7:55 am, "whoever" <whoe...(a)whereever.com> wrote: > > > > "Koobee Wublee" wrote in message > > > >news:db4d65cc-0782-4b3c-8b0a-d805654bac7f(a)w15g2000pro.googlegroups.com.... > > > > >On Jul 28, 10:03 am, Koobee Wublee wrote: > > > > >> > From the Lorentz transform, one sees that the time transformation is > > > >> > given by the following. > > > > >> > dt = (dt [B] * d[s] / c) / sqrt(1 B^2) > > > > >> > Where > > > > >> > ** [B] c = Velocity of dt as observed by dt, a vector > > > > That makes no sense .. how can an interval of time have a velocity or > > > observe anything > > > > > > ** [s] = Displacement vector of the observed as observed by dt > > > > > ** * = Dot product of two vectors > > > > --- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: n...(a)netfront.net --- > > > ------------------ > > how can Doppler > > has anything to do with relativity > > while light moves the same velocity c > > in all frames ! > > > Y.P > > --------------------- > > Dear Y, > > In this thread I showed -for 1D- how the standard Doppler effect of > waves plus time dilation results in "relativity" of observation. Was > that too difficult to follow? Do you know classical Doppler? > > Harald ------------- sorry apparently a ddi bother to read all posts thanks !! i was meaning the case of photons!! which is the case that is still not undestood commonly classical or shlasical the real reason of any Doppler is in relative moving frame less than c you getas well diffferent numbers of wave per second in th e moving frame (even in sound Doppler)lengths per second) and indeed is is relativistic since the relative movement is relativistic so BTW sorry PD i ddint understand your meaning responding my post you was right about cases of relative velocities **less than c *** !! ----------- anyway the less trivial case to understand is Doppler ***of EM Waves *** (which was in my mind while i did the previous above post !!! ATB Y.Porat --------------------- |