Relativistic Doppler shift
in [Relativity]
|
From: Dono. on 31 Jul 2010 23:12 On Jul 31, 2:22 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > What about sideways absorption? It cannot be red or blueshifted. There > are angles of partial energy shift. You are almost as stupid as Koobee-Wublee but not quite.
From: BURT on 31 Jul 2010 23:24 On Jul 31, 8:12 pm, "Dono." <sa...(a)comcast.net> wrote: > On Jul 31, 2:22 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > What about sideways absorption? It cannot be red or blueshifted. There > > are angles of partial energy shift. > > You are almost as stupid as Koobee-Wublee but not quite. What is the energy shift of light when absorbed by something moving sideways to its direction? or a 90 degree angle to light's propagation? Mitch Raemsch
From: Y.Porat on 1 Aug 2010 09:39 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 ---------------------
From: PD on 2 Aug 2010 12:14 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.
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 |