'Relativistic' "Doppler" shift
in [Math]
|
Prev: (anti-)automorphisms on clifford algebras
Next: A castigation of Napoleon Bonehead Green, Doctor of Phrenology,
From: spudnik on 1 Aug 2010 21:51 if you are on a train & you look out of it from the cab, toward the station at night, both the sounds & the light eminating from the station will be blueshifted per the velocity of the train & yourself, wondering about the math of the psychedelic experienced ... me, three, with or without LSD. > how can Doppler have anything to do with relativity? thus quoth: I used electrical engineer language to describe the four polarization states of the electromagnetic field inside an antenna. Let me use covariant QED language. The two circular polarization states are unchanged in QED language. Clockwise and counterclockwise are good words. However, the transverse magnetic mode is called the longitudinal spin state. The transverse electric mode is called the time-like spin state. To summarize: I described a good heuristic relating QED to classical antenna theory. The spin state of the photon relates to the polarization state of the radio wave or radio field. There are two polarization/spin states in the far field (far from the antennae) and four polarization/spin states in the near field (close to the antennae). thus: the pythagorean theorem is perfectly dimensional, as he and I both concern ourselves with "circling," instead of "tatragoning." that is, "Einstein's proof" via similarity, which he probably found at the gymnasium in Euclid, is merely diagrammatic as he gave it; the actual construction *is* the lunes proof (Hippocrates', I think, but different than the Oath's .-) > So why are you assuming otherwise? thus: in spite of his slogan about phase-space, Minkowski was a fantastic Nd geometer. anyway, it's downright innumerate to worry about it, without actually peeking at l'OEuvre de Fermatttt, but Hipparchus' (or Hippocrates') lunes proof is all that you need for the dimensionality of the 2d pythag. thm., if not the 3d pair of them (quadruplets). the main thing, though, is that Fermat didn't have to prove n=3, since his proof apparently applied to all of the odd primes; only the special case of n=4 does not fall to teh well-known lemma for composite exponents, and this he showed, in one of his rare expositions. thus: too bad, the unit associated with the pound, had to be associated with The newton -- the plagiarist, the spook, the freemason, the corpuscular "theorist" ... --les ducs d'oil! http://tarpley.net/online-books/george-bush-the-unauthorized-biograph... --Light, A History! http://wlym.com/~animations/fermat/index.html
From: Y.Porat on 1 Aug 2010 23:35
On Aug 2, 3:51 am, spudnik <Space...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > if you are on a train & you look out of it > from the cab, toward the station at night, > both the sounds & the light eminating from the station > will be blueshifted per the velocity of the train & yourself, > wondering about the math of the psychedelic experienced ... me, > three, with or without LSD. > > > how can Doppler have anything to do with relativity? > > thus quoth: > I used electrical engineer language to describe the four > polarization states of the electromagnetic field inside an antenna. > Let me use covariant QED language. > The two circular polarization states are unchanged in QED > language. Clockwise and counterclockwise are good words. However, the > transverse magnetic mode is called the longitudinal spin state. The > transverse electric mode is called the time-like spin state. > To summarize: I described a good heuristic relating QED to > classical antenna theory. The spin state of the photon relates to the > polarization state of the radio wave or radio field. There are two > polarization/spin states in the far field (far from the antennae) and > four polarization/spin states in the near field (close to the > antennae). > > thus: the pythagorean theorem is perfectly dimensional, as > he and I both concern ourselves with "circling," instead > of "tatragoning." that is, "Einstein's proof" via similarity, > which he probably found at the gymnasium > in Euclid, is merely diagrammatic as he gave it; > the actual construction *is* the lunes proof > (Hippocrates', I think, but different than the Oath's .-) > > > So why are you assuming otherwise? > > thus: in spite of his slogan about phase-space, > Minkowski was a fantastic Nd geometer. anyway, > it's downright innumerate to worry about it, > without actually peeking at l'OEuvre de Fermatttt, but > Hipparchus' (or Hippocrates') lunes proof is all > that you need for the dimensionality of the 2d pythag. thm., > if not the 3d pair of them (quadruplets). > the main thing, though, is that Fermat didn't have > to prove n=3, since his proof apparently applied > to all of the odd primes; only the special case > of n=4 does not fall to teh well-known lemma > for composite exponents, and this he showed, > in one of his rare expositions. > > thus: too bad, the unit associated with the pound, had > to be associated with The newton -- the plagiarist, > the spook, the freemason, the corpuscular "theorist" ... > > --les ducs d'oil!http://tarpley.net/online-books/george-bush-the-unauthorized-biograph... > > --Light, A History!http://wlym.com/~animations/fermat/index.html ------------------------ the Inorganic Nature is not cleaver enough to follow your mind boggling IT IS MUCH SIMPLER THAN YOU IMAGINE !!! y.p --------------------------------- |