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: Koobee Wublee on 28 Jul 2010 02:20 On Jul 25, 6:48 am, "Dono." <sa...(a)comcast.net> wrote: > On Jul 24, 11:03 pm, "I.N. Galidakis" wrote: > > I know the Doppler shift expression for relative motion, I just don't know > > whether to put v=omega*r in this case, or that, multiplied by some cosine or > > sine, since the velocity of the wave emitter and the linear velocity from > > rotation are perpendicular when the beam hits the observer. > > You only get transverse Doppler effect, so you need to put v=omega*r, > no cosine, in the formula for transverse Doppler effect. Precisely: > > f_observed=f_emitted*sqrt(1-(omega*r/c)^2)- Hide quoted text - Dono, the one who does not know anything, needs to be advised that according the equation describing energy, the transverse Doppler effect under SR is exactly the opposite of what you wrote. See below. E' = E / sqrt(1 - v^2 / c^2) h f' = h f / sqrt(1 - v^2 / c^2) f_observed = f_emitted / sqrt(1 - v^2 / c^2) Once again, SR (as well as GR) is able to predict anything possible (ie: anything you can imagine). Some would say the ability for SR and GR to predict any phenomena possible, even if they are contradictory to each, is the greatest achievements of relativity. However, true scholars of physicists would know better. They would call that completely bullshit. <shrug>
From: Dono. on 28 Jul 2010 09:18 On Jul 27, 11:20 pm, Koobee Wublee <koobee.wub...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >snip cretinisms< Imbecile : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relativistic_Doppler_effect#Transverse_Doppler_effect
From: Koobee Wublee on 28 Jul 2010 13:03 On Jul 28, 6:18 am, "Dono." <sa...(a)comcast.net> wrote: > On Jul 27, 11:20 pm, Koobee Wublee wrote: > > > Dono, the one who does not know anything, needs to be advised that > > according the equation describing energy, the transverse Doppler > > effect under SR is exactly the opposite of what you wrote. See below. > > > E' = E / sqrt(1 - v^2 / c^2) > > > h f' = h f / sqrt(1 - v^2 / c^2) > > > f_observed = f_emitted / sqrt(1 - v^2 / c^2) > > > Once again, SR (as well as GR) is able to predict anything possible > > (ie: anything you can imagine). Some would say the ability for SR and > > GR to predict any phenomena possible, even if they are contradictory > > to each, is the greatest achievements of relativity. However, true > > scholars of physicists would know better. They would call that > > completely bullshit. <shrug> > > I am Dono, and I am a nincompoop. > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relativistic_Doppler_effect#Transverse_Doppler_effect 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 ** [s] = Displacement vector of the observed as observed by dt ** * = Dot product of two vectors Claiming the frequency is just the inverse of time, the above equation becomes the following. f = f sqrt(1 B^2) / (1 [B] * (d[s]/dt) / c) Or f = f sqrt(1 B^2) / (1 [B] * [c] / c) Where ** f = 1 / dt ** f = 1 / dt ** d[s]/dt = [c] All the transformations (non-ballistic theory of light) that satisfy the null results of the MMX (including the Voigt, Larmors, and the Lorentz transforms) arrive at the following equation describing the transformation of energy. E = (E [B] * [p] c) / sqrt(1 B^2) Where ** [p] = Observed momentum by E, a vector Throw in Plancks work plagiarized by Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar, the above equation becomes the following. f = f (1 [B] * [c] / c) / sqrt(1 B^2) Where ** [p] c = h f [c] / c ** E = h f ** E = h f Anyone not a nincompoop would immediately notice a direct contradiction of the conclusion. <shrug> The claim of the frequency being the inverse of time is actually wrong. Consider the time transformation under the Galilean transform below. dt = dt Embracing the above claim, the above equation becomes the following which indicates no Doppler effect. Thus, this claim is just wrong. I notice quite a few applications are done this way in quantum mechanics. f = f <shrug>
From: Dono. on 28 Jul 2010 13:17 On Jul 28, 10:03 am, Koobee Wublee <koobee.wub...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > snip imbecilities< You are a cretin, Woobler
From: eric gisse on 28 Jul 2010 16:14
Dono. wrote: > On Jul 28, 10:03 am, Koobee Wublee <koobee.wub...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> snip imbecilities< > > You are a cretin, Woobler Wow, he's still around? I killfiled him long ago. Nobody even responds to him anymore, he's like poncho. |