Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #364857 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Fabian Russell <root@localhost.localdomain> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2015-09-21 18:05 +0000 |
| Last post | 2015-10-24 00:03 +1100 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 292 — 34 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity
Problem with Dipole Radiation and Relativity Fabian Russell <root@localhost.localdomain> - 2015-09-21 18:05 +0000
Re: Problem with Dipole Radiation and Relativity John Heath <heathjohn2@gmail.com> - 2015-09-21 19:00 -0700
Re: Problem with Dipole Radiation and Relativity Fabian Russell <root@localhost.localdomain> - 2015-09-22 03:04 +0000
Re: Problem with Dipole Radiation and Relativity "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2015-09-21 21:24 -0700
Re: Problem with Dipole Radiation and Relativity Fabian Russell <root@localhost.localdomain> - 2015-09-22 04:42 +0000
Re: Problem with Dipole Radiation and Relativity "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2015-09-21 21:48 -0700
Re: Problem with Dipole Radiation and Relativity Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-09-22 09:03 -0500
Re: Problem with Dipole Radiation and Relativity "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2015-09-22 07:11 -0700
Re: Problem with Dipole Radiation and Relativity Helmut Wabnig <hwabnig@.- --- -.dotat> - 2015-09-22 19:08 +0200
Re: Problem with Dipole Radiation and Relativity "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2015-09-21 21:53 -0700
Re: Problem with Dipole Radiation and Relativity Fabian Russell <root@localhost.localdomain> - 2015-09-22 05:02 +0000
Re: Problem with Dipole Radiation and Relativity "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2015-09-21 22:21 -0700
Re: Problem with Dipole Radiation and Relativity Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-09-21 23:54 -0500
Re: Problem with Dipole Radiation and Relativity Fabian Russell <root@localhost.localdomain> - 2015-09-22 05:28 +0000
Re: Problem with Dipole Radiation and Relativity John Heath <heathjohn2@gmail.com> - 2015-09-22 17:37 -0700
Re: Problem with Dipole Radiation and Relativity "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2015-09-28 12:24 +0200
Re: Problem with Dipole Radiation and Relativity HGW <xxx@....> - 2015-09-29 07:47 +1000
Re: Problem with Dipole Radiation and Relativity Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-09-28 22:06 -0500
Re: Problem with Dipole Radiation and Relativity HGW <xxx@....> - 2015-10-03 08:26 +1000
Re: Problem with Dipole Radiation and Relativity Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-10-02 17:47 -0500
Re: Problem with Dipole Radiation and Relativity Henry Wilson <HW@.....> - 2015-10-05 04:47 +1100
Re: Problem with Dipole Radiation and Relativity Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-10-04 18:00 -0500
Re: Problem with Dipole Radiation and Relativity Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-10-05 09:46 +0200
Re: Problem with Dipole Radiation and Relativity Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-10-05 11:48 -0500
Re: Problem with Dipole Radiation and Relativity Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-10-05 20:19 +0200
Re: Problem with Dipole Radiation and Relativity Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-10-05 13:28 -0500
Re: Problem with Dipole Radiation and Relativity Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-10-05 21:16 +0200
Re: Problem with Dipole Radiation and Relativity Henry Wilson <HW@.....> - 2015-10-05 20:01 +1100
Re: Problem with Dipole Radiation and Relativity Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-10-05 11:52 -0500
Re: Problem with Dipole Radiation and Relativity Henry Wilson <HW@.....> - 2015-10-06 04:55 +1100
Re: Problem with Dipole Radiation and Relativity Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-10-06 07:59 -0500
Re: Problem with Dipole Radiation and Relativity "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2015-10-06 20:55 +0200
Re: Problem with Dipole Radiation and Relativity HGW <xxx@....> - 2015-10-07 07:50 +1100
Re: Problem with Dipole Radiation and Relativity "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2015-10-07 11:15 +0200
Re: Problem with Dipole Radiation and Relativity HGW <xxx@....> - 2015-10-06 14:52 +1100
Re: Problem with Dipole Radiation and Relativity Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-10-06 19:15 -0500
Re: Problem with Dipole Radiation and Relativity HGW <xxx@....> - 2015-10-09 07:36 +1100
Re: Problem with Dipole Radiation and Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-10-05 07:39 -0500
Re: Problem with Dipole Radiation and Relativity Henry Wilson <HW@.....> - 2015-10-06 05:03 +1100
Re: Problem with Dipole Radiation and Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-10-05 14:20 -0500
Re: Problem with Dipole Radiation and Relativity HGW <xxx@....> - 2015-10-06 15:02 +1100
Re: Problem with Dipole Radiation and Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-10-06 07:48 -0500
Re: Problem with Dipole Radiation and Relativity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2015-10-06 06:05 -0700
Re: Problem with Dipole Radiation and Relativity HGW <xxx@....> - 2015-10-07 07:40 +1100
Re: Problem with Dipole Radiation and Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-10-06 17:59 -0500
Re: Problem with Dipole Radiation and Relativity Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-10-06 19:17 -0500
Re: Problem with Dipole Radiation and Relativity HGW <xxx@....> - 2015-10-09 07:34 +1100
Re: Problem with Dipole Radiation and Relativity underante <underante@yahoo.com> - 2015-10-08 14:56 -0700
Re: Problem with Dipole Radiation and Relativity HGW <xxx@....> - 2015-10-09 11:32 +1100
Re: Problem with Dipole Radiation and Relativity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2015-10-06 01:44 -0700
Re: Problem with Dipole Radiation and Relativity Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-10-08 10:42 -0500
Re: Problem with Dipole Radiation and Relativity HGW <xxx@....> - 2015-10-09 08:14 +1100
Re: Problem with Dipole Radiation and Relativity JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2015-10-08 14:28 -0700
Re: Problem with Dipole Radiation and Relativity HGW <xxx@....> - 2015-10-09 11:35 +1100
Re: Problem with Dipole Radiation and Relativity pnalsing@gmail.com - 2015-10-08 17:36 -0700
Re: Problem with Dipole Radiation and Relativity JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2015-10-08 22:24 -0700
Re: Problem with Dipole Radiation and Relativity "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2015-09-29 11:00 +0200
Re: Problem with Dipole Radiation and Relativity alsor@interia.pl - 2015-09-28 16:29 -0700
Re: Problem with Dipole Radiation and Relativity JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2015-10-06 14:29 -0700
Re: Problem with Dipole Radiation and Relativity Katarina Bulakova <katabu@transmatric.org> - 2015-10-06 21:36 +0000
Re: Problem with Dipole Radiation and Relativity JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2015-10-06 14:55 -0700
Re: Problem with Dipole Radiation and Relativity Katarina Bulakova <katabu@transmatric.org> - 2015-10-06 22:02 +0000
Re: Problem with Dipole Radiation and Relativity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2015-10-06 23:20 -0700
Re: Problem with Dipole Radiation and Relativity JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2015-10-07 13:45 -0700
Re: Problem with Dipole Radiation and Relativity Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-10-07 22:50 +0200
Re: Problem with Dipole Radiation and Relativity Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-10-08 10:26 -0500
Re: Problem with Dipole Radiation and Relativity Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-10-08 18:38 +0200
Re: Problem with Dipole Radiation and Relativity Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-10-08 12:59 -0500
Re: Problem with Dipole Radiation and Relativity Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-10-08 22:43 +0200
Re: Problem with Dipole Radiation and Relativity JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2015-10-08 14:26 -0700
Re: Problem with Dipole Radiation and Relativity Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-10-08 23:55 +0200
Re: Problem with Dipole Radiation and Relativity JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2015-10-08 15:15 -0700
Re: Problem with Dipole Radiation and Relativity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2015-10-08 23:29 -0700
Re: Problem with Dipole Radiation and Relativity Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-10-09 10:09 -0500
Re: Problem with Dipole Radiation and Relativity Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-10-09 17:33 +0200
Re: Problem with Dipole Radiation and Relativity Natalina Nazvarova <natana42@hotmail.com> - 2015-10-09 16:10 +0000
Re: Problem with Dipole Radiation and Relativity John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2015-10-17 21:37 -0700
Re: Problem with Dipole Radiation and Relativity John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2015-10-17 21:24 -0700
Re: Problem with Dipole Radiation and Relativity Natalina Nazvarova <natana42@hotmail.com> - 2015-10-08 16:39 +0000
Re: Problem with Dipole Radiation and Relativity HGW <xxx@....> - 2015-10-09 07:50 +1100
Re: Problem with Dipole Radiation and Relativity Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-10-08 20:48 -0500
Re: Problem with Dipole Radiation and Relativity HGW <xxx@....> - 2015-10-09 14:19 +1100
Re: Problem with Dipole Radiation and Relativity kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-10-09 00:10 -0400
Re: Problem with Dipole Radiation and Relativity Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-10-08 21:11 -0700
Re: Problem with Dipole Radiation and Relativity Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-10-09 00:18 -0500
Re: Problem with Dipole Radiation and Relativity Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2015-10-08 22:59 -0700
Re: Problem with Dipole Radiation and Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-10-09 07:54 -0500
Re: Problem with Dipole Radiation and Relativity Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-10-09 10:13 -0500
Re: Problem with Dipole Radiation and Relativity Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2015-10-09 09:06 -0700
Re: Problem with Dipole Radiation and Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-10-09 12:55 -0500
Re: Problem with Dipole Radiation and Relativity Henry Wilson <HW@.....> - 2015-10-09 19:52 +1100
Re: Problem with Dipole Radiation and Relativity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2015-10-09 03:37 -0700
Re: Problem with Dipole Radiation and Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-10-09 07:51 -0500
Re: Problem with Dipole Radiation and Relativity Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-10-09 10:17 -0500
Re: Problem with Dipole Radiation and Relativity Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-10-09 17:22 +0200
Re: Problem with Dipole Radiation and Relativity HGW <xxx@....> - 2015-10-10 08:21 +1100
Re: Problem with Dipole Radiation and Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-10-09 17:07 -0500
Re: Problem with Dipole Radiation and Relativity Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-10-09 15:22 -0700
Re: Problem with Dipole Radiation and Relativity JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2015-10-09 15:41 -0700
Re: Problem with Dipole Radiation and Relativity HGW <xxx@....> - 2015-10-11 08:15 +1100
Re: Problem with Dipole Radiation and Relativity Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-10-10 14:50 -0700
Re: Problem with Dipole Radiation and Relativity HGW <xxx@....> - 2015-10-12 07:37 +1100
Re: Problem with Dipole Radiation and Relativity "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2015-10-11 19:27 +0200
Re: Problem with Dipole Radiation and Relativity HGW <xxx@....> - 2015-10-12 07:36 +1100
Re: Problem with Dipole Radiation and Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-10-11 16:25 -0500
Re: Problem with Dipole Radiation and Relativity "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2015-10-12 12:23 +0200
Re: Problem with Dipole Radiation and Relativity Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2015-10-12 00:09 +0200
Re: Problem with Dipole Radiation and Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-10-11 16:20 -0500
Re: Problem with Dipole Radiation and Relativity HGW <xxx@....> - 2015-10-12 10:05 +1100
Re: Problem with Dipole Radiation and Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-10-11 20:28 -0500
Re: Problem with Dipole Radiation and Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-10-11 16:21 -0500
Re: Problem with Dipole Radiation and Relativity Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2015-10-12 00:17 +0200
Re: Problem with Dipole Radiation and Relativity HGW <xxx@....> - 2015-10-12 10:08 +1100
Re: Problem with Dipole Radiation and Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-10-11 20:29 -0500
Re: Problem with Dipole Radiation and Relativity HGW <xxx@....> - 2015-10-12 20:13 +1100
Re: Problem with Dipole Radiation and Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-10-12 10:38 -0500
Re: Problem with Dipole Radiation and Relativity Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-10-12 13:25 -0500
Re: Problem with Dipole Radiation and Relativity HGW <xxx@....> - 2015-10-13 07:53 +1100
Re: Problem with Dipole Radiation and Relativity JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2015-10-12 15:00 -0700
Re: Problem with Dipole Radiation and Relativity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2015-10-13 06:24 -0700
Re: Problem with Dipole Radiation and Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-10-13 07:44 -0500
Re: Problem with Dipole Radiation and Relativity Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-10-13 11:20 -0500
Re: Problem with Dipole Radiation and Relativity HGW <HG@nowhere.com> - 2015-10-14 21:51 +0000
Re: Problem with Dipole Radiation and Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-10-15 10:05 -0500
Re: Problem with Dipole Radiation and Relativity ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc.) - 2015-10-16 06:17 +1100
Re: Problem with Dipole Radiation and Relativity Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-10-15 13:18 -0700
Re: Problem with Dipole Radiation and Relativity HGW <xxx@....> - 2015-10-16 08:14 +1100
Re: Problem with Dipole Radiation and Relativity Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-10-15 18:19 -0700
Re: Problem with Dipole Radiation and Relativity Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-10-15 16:18 -0500
Re: Problem with Dipole Radiation and Relativity HGW <xxx@....> - 2015-10-16 10:54 +1100
Re: Problem with Dipole Radiation and Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-10-15 15:33 -0500
Re: Problem with Dipole Radiation and Relativity HGW <xxx@....> - 2015-10-16 08:14 +1100
Re: Problem with Dipole Radiation and Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-10-15 16:49 -0500
Re: Problem with Dipole Radiation and Relativity HGW <xxx@....> - 2015-10-16 12:37 +1100
Re: Problem with Dipole Radiation and Relativity JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2015-10-15 19:24 -0700
Re: Problem with Dipole Radiation and Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-10-16 06:53 -0500
Re: Problem with Dipole Radiation and Relativity HGW <xxx@....> - 2015-10-17 19:05 +1100
Re: Problem with Dipole Radiation and Relativity Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-10-17 03:47 -0700
Re: Problem with Dipole Radiation and Relativity HGW <xxx@....> - 2015-10-18 09:00 +1100
Re: Problem with Dipole Radiation and Relativity Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-10-17 15:39 -0700
Re: Problem with Dipole Radiation and Relativity HGW <xxx@....> - 2015-10-18 11:20 +1100
Re: Problem with Dipole Radiation and Relativity Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-10-17 20:29 -0700
Re: Problem with Dipole Radiation and Relativity HGW <xxx@....> - 2015-10-19 20:20 +1100
Re: Problem with Dipole Radiation and Relativity Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-10-19 04:31 -0700
Re: Problem with Dipole Radiation and Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-10-19 08:55 -0500
Re: Problem with Dipole Radiation and Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-10-16 06:55 -0500
Re: Problem with Dipole Radiation and Relativity JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2015-10-16 13:11 -0700
Re: Problem with Dipole Radiation and Relativity Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-10-16 22:15 +0200
Re: Problem with Dipole Radiation and Relativity JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2015-10-16 14:25 -0700
Re: Problem with Dipole Radiation and Relativity Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-10-17 09:59 +0200
Re: Problem with Dipole Radiation and Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-10-16 15:33 -0500
Re: Problem with Dipole Radiation and Relativity JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2015-10-16 14:38 -0700
Re: Problem with Dipole Radiation and Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-10-16 16:42 -0500
Re: Problem with Dipole Radiation and Relativity Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-10-19 13:20 -0500
Re: Problem with Dipole Radiation and Relativity HGW <xxx@....> - 2015-10-20 09:36 +1100
Re: Problem with Dipole Radiation and Relativity Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-10-20 22:09 -0500
Re: Problem with Dipole Radiation and Relativity HGW <xxx@....> - 2015-10-22 16:34 +1100
Re: Problem with Dipole Radiation and Relativity Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2015-10-21 00:16 -0700
Re: Problem with Dipole Radiation and Relativity "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2015-10-21 22:48 +0200
Re: Problem with Dipole Radiation and Relativity HGW <xxx@....> - 2015-10-22 16:40 +1100
Re: Problem with Dipole Radiation and Relativity "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2015-10-22 13:38 +0200
Re: Problem with Dipole Radiation and Relativity ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc.) - 2015-10-23 03:01 +1100
Re: Problem with Dipole Radiation and Relativity Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-10-22 09:29 -0700
Re: Problem with Dipole Radiation and Relativity Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-10-24 11:48 -0500
Re: Problem with Dipole Radiation and Relativity ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc.) - 2015-10-25 04:20 +1100
Re: Problem with Dipole Radiation and Relativity Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-10-24 11:13 -0700
Re: Problem with Dipole Radiation and Relativity Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-10-24 13:38 -0500
Re: Problem with Dipole Radiation and Relativity fuller.david@hotmail.com - 2015-10-24 11:51 -0700
Re: Problem with Dipole Radiation and Relativity ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc.) - 2015-10-25 06:00 +1100
Re: Problem with Dipole Radiation and Relativity Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-10-24 12:31 -0700
Re: Problem with Dipole Radiation and Relativity James Sinclair Jr <jamis@portalbnova.org> - 2015-10-24 19:45 +0000
Re: Problem with Dipole Radiation and Relativity Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-10-24 14:10 -0700
Re: Problem with Dipole Radiation and Relativity James Sinclair Jr <jamis@portalbnova.org> - 2015-10-24 21:42 +0000
Re: Problem with Dipole Radiation and Relativity ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc.) - 2015-10-26 03:31 +1100
Re: Problem with Dipole Radiation and Relativity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2015-10-26 00:22 -0700
Re: Problem with Dipole Radiation and Relativity Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-10-24 21:34 +0200
Re: Problem with Dipole Radiation and Relativity JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2015-10-24 21:44 -0700
Re: Problem with Dipole Radiation and Relativity John Heath <heathjohn2@gmail.com> - 2015-10-26 18:54 -0700
Re: Problem with Dipole Radiation and Relativity HGW <xxx@....> - 2015-10-27 17:51 +1100
Re: Problem with Dipole Radiation and Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-10-27 07:45 -0500
Re: Problem with Dipole Radiation and Relativity HGW <xxx@....> - 2015-10-28 08:56 +1100
Re: Problem with Dipole Radiation and Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-10-27 17:07 -0500
Re: Problem with Dipole Radiation and Relativity John Heath <heathjohn2@gmail.com> - 2015-10-27 16:07 -0700
Re: Problem with Dipole Radiation and Relativity HGW <xxx@....> - 2015-10-28 11:40 +1100
Re: Problem with Dipole Radiation and Relativity Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-10-27 18:26 -0700
Re: Problem with Dipole Radiation and Relativity HGW <xxx@....> - 2015-10-28 20:10 +1100
Re: Problem with Dipole Radiation and Relativity Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-10-28 04:51 -0700
Re: Problem with Dipole Radiation and Relativity ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc.) - 2015-10-29 04:28 +1100
Re: Problem with Dipole Radiation and Relativity Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-10-28 10:42 -0700
Re: Problem with Dipole Radiation and Relativity HGW <xxx@....> - 2015-10-29 09:08 +1100
Re: Problem with Dipole Radiation and Relativity Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-10-28 18:26 -0700
Re: Problem with Dipole Radiation and Relativity Jack Weidner <jackwd@webportal.au> - 2015-10-31 11:48 +0000
Re: Problem with Dipole Radiation and Relativity Jack Weidner <jackwd@webportal.au> - 2015-10-31 12:16 +0000
Re: Problem with Dipole Radiation and Relativity ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc.) - 2015-11-01 03:53 +1100
Re: Problem with Dipole Radiation and Relativity Wayne Olmstead <wayols@eclipseevenet.org> - 2015-11-01 16:28 +0000
Re: Problem with Dipole Radiation and Relativity "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2015-10-25 09:54 +0100
Re: Problem with Dipole Radiation and Relativity ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc.) - 2015-10-26 03:30 +1100
Re: Problem with Dipole Radiation and Relativity "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2015-10-26 09:58 +0100
Re: Problem with Dipole Radiation and Relativity HGW <xxx@....> - 2015-10-27 08:41 +1100
Re: Problem with Dipole Radiation and Relativity Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-10-26 15:27 -0700
Re: Problem with Dipole Radiation and Relativity Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-10-26 15:44 -0700
Re: Problem with Dipole Radiation and Relativity HGW <xxx@....> - 2015-10-27 17:52 +1100
Re: Problem with Dipole Radiation and Relativity Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-10-27 04:32 -0700
Re: Problem with Dipole Radiation and Relativity "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2015-10-27 20:30 +0100
Re: Problem with Dipole Radiation and Relativity HGW <xxx@....> - 2015-10-28 09:02 +1100
Re: Problem with Dipole Radiation and Relativity "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2015-10-28 09:23 +0100
Re: Problem with Dipole Radiation and Relativity HGW <xxx@....> - 2015-10-28 20:33 +1100
Re: Problem with Dipole Radiation and Relativity "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2015-10-28 21:16 +0100
Re: Problem with Dipole Radiation and Relativity ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc.) - 2015-10-30 04:46 +1100
Re: Problem with Dipole Radiation and Relativity "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2015-10-29 20:02 +0100
Re: Problem with Dipole Radiation and Relativity ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc.) - 2015-10-31 04:58 +1100
Re: Problem with Dipole Radiation and Relativity "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2015-10-31 11:41 +0100
Re: Problem with Dipole Radiation and Relativity ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc.) - 2015-11-01 04:03 +1100
Re: Problem with Dipole Radiation and Relativity "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2015-11-01 01:14 +0100
Re: Problem with Dipole Radiation and Relativity HGW <xxx@....> - 2015-11-01 21:11 +1100
Re: Problem with Dipole Radiation and Relativity Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-10-22 11:29 -0500
Re: Problem with Dipole Radiation and Relativity Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-10-22 18:46 +0200
Re: Problem with Dipole Radiation and Relativity kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-10-22 12:50 -0400
Re: Problem with Dipole Radiation and Relativity Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-10-22 19:05 +0200
Re: Problem with Dipole Radiation and Relativity Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-10-22 10:14 -0700
Re: Problem with Dipole Radiation and Relativity Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2015-10-22 10:18 -0700
Re: Problem with Dipole Radiation and Relativity Scott Finnegan <scofi@NNTPSwitch.org> - 2015-10-22 17:26 +0000
Re: Problem with Dipole Radiation and Relativity kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-10-22 16:14 -0400
Re: Problem with Dipole Radiation and Relativity Erebus Xanthopoulos <elefxa@spacepark.au> - 2015-10-23 11:28 +0000
Re: Problem with Dipole Radiation and Relativity ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc.) - 2015-10-23 05:03 +1100
Re: Problem with Dipole Radiation and Relativity Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-10-22 12:04 -0700
Re: Problem with Dipole Radiation and Relativity ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc.) - 2015-10-23 04:59 +1100
Re: Problem with Dipole Radiation and Relativity Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-10-22 11:54 -0700
Re: Problem with Dipole Radiation and Relativity kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-10-22 14:58 -0400
Re: Problem with Dipole Radiation and Relativity pnalsing@gmail.com - 2015-10-22 12:27 -0700
Re: Problem with Dipole Radiation and Relativity HGW <xxx@....> - 2015-10-23 08:03 +1100
Re: Problem with Dipole Radiation and Relativity Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-10-22 14:27 -0700
Re: Problem with Dipole Radiation and Relativity Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-10-22 23:32 +0200
Re: Problem with Dipole Radiation and Relativity JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2015-10-22 15:26 -0700
Re: Problem with Dipole Radiation and Relativity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2015-10-22 23:44 -0700
Re: Problem with Dipole Radiation and Relativity ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc.) - 2015-10-23 20:40 +1100
Re: Problem with Dipole Radiation and Relativity Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-10-23 05:03 -0700
Re: Problem with Dipole Radiation and Relativity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2015-10-23 05:15 -0700
Re: Problem with Dipole Radiation and Relativity Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-10-23 06:05 -0700
Re: Problem with Dipole Radiation and Relativity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2015-10-23 06:27 -0700
Re: Problem with Dipole Radiation and Relativity paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2015-10-23 07:46 -0700
Re: Problem with Dipole Radiation and Relativity Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-10-23 16:59 +0200
Re: Problem with Dipole Radiation and Relativity Erebus Xanthopoulos <elefxa@spacepark.au> - 2015-10-23 12:17 +0000
Re: Problem with Dipole Radiation and Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-10-26 09:47 -0500
Re: Problem with Dipole Radiation and Relativity HGW <xxx@....> - 2015-10-27 08:42 +1100
Re: Problem with Dipole Radiation and Relativity pnalsing@gmail.com - 2015-10-26 15:18 -0700
Re: Problem with Dipole Radiation and Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-10-26 17:39 -0500
Re: Problem with Dipole Radiation and Relativity HGW <xxx@....> - 2015-10-27 17:53 +1100
Re: Problem with Dipole Radiation and Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-10-27 07:45 -0500
Re: Problem with Dipole Radiation and Relativity underante <underante@yahoo.com> - 2015-10-22 16:03 -0700
Re: Problem with Dipole Radiation and Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-10-26 09:16 -0500
Re: Problem with Dipole Radiation and Relativity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2015-10-21 23:58 -0700
Re: Problem with Dipole Radiation and Relativity Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2015-10-22 00:41 -0700
Re: Problem with Dipole Radiation and Relativity "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2015-10-22 13:21 +0200
Re: Problem with Dipole Radiation and Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-10-26 09:23 -0500
Re: Problem with Dipole Radiation and Relativity Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2015-10-26 09:42 -0700
Re: Problem with Dipole Radiation and Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-10-26 12:17 -0500
Re: Problem with Dipole Radiation and Relativity Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2015-10-26 13:41 -0700
Re: Problem with Dipole Radiation and Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-10-26 17:36 -0500
Re: Problem with Dipole Radiation and Relativity Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2015-10-27 09:13 -0700
Re: Problem with Dipole Radiation and Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-10-27 12:18 -0500
Re: Problem with Dipole Radiation and Relativity Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-10-27 12:23 -0500
Re: Problem with Dipole Radiation and Relativity Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2015-10-27 22:28 -0700
Re: Problem with Dipole Radiation and Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-10-28 11:44 -0500
Re: Problem with Dipole Radiation and Relativity Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-10-28 10:35 -0700
Re: Problem with Dipole Radiation and Relativity Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2015-10-28 23:06 -0700
Re: Problem with Dipole Radiation and Relativity JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2015-10-27 11:47 -0700
Re: Problem with Dipole Radiation and Relativity Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2015-10-27 22:32 -0700
Re: Problem with Dipole Radiation and Relativity JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2015-10-28 03:48 -0700
Re: Problem with Dipole Radiation and Relativity Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2015-10-28 10:53 -0700
Re: Problem with Dipole Radiation and Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-10-28 16:52 -0500
Re: Problem with Dipole Radiation and Relativity Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2015-10-28 22:59 -0700
Re: Problem with Dipole Radiation and Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-10-29 10:01 -0500
Re: Problem with Dipole Radiation and Relativity Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2015-10-29 09:48 -0700
Re: Problem with Dipole Radiation and Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-10-29 12:21 -0500
Re: Problem with Dipole Radiation and Relativity Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2015-11-02 21:48 -0800
Re: Problem with Dipole Radiation and Relativity Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-10-29 10:51 -0700
Re: Problem with Dipole Radiation and Relativity JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2015-10-29 11:27 -0700
Re: Problem with Dipole Radiation and Relativity Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2015-11-02 21:52 -0800
Re: Problem with Dipole Radiation and Relativity ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc.) - 2015-10-23 03:52 +1100
Re: Problem with Dipole Radiation and Relativity Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-10-26 14:16 -0500
Re: Problem with Dipole Radiation and Relativity Günther Huldiberaht <gunhu@allrportos.org> - 2015-10-26 19:48 +0000
Re: Problem with Dipole Radiation and Relativity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2015-10-08 23:55 -0700
Re: Problem with Dipole Radiation and Relativity JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2015-10-09 10:58 -0700
Re: Problem with Dipole Radiation and Relativity Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-10-09 22:59 +0200
Re: Problem with Dipole Radiation and Relativity JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2015-10-09 14:16 -0700
Re: Problem with Dipole Radiation and Relativity Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-10-10 09:57 +0200
Re: Problem with Dipole Radiation and Relativity JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2015-10-11 23:29 -0700
Re: Problem with Dipole Radiation and Relativity Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2015-10-08 22:27 -0700
Re: Problem with Dipole Radiation and Relativity JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2015-10-09 11:01 -0700
Re: Problem with Dipole Radiation and Relativity HGW <xxx@....> - 2015-10-10 08:15 +1100
Re: Problem with Dipole Radiation and Relativity Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2015-10-24 00:03 +1100
Page 1 of 15 [1] 2 3 … 15 Next page →
| From | Fabian Russell <root@localhost.localdomain> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-21 18:05 +0000 |
| Subject | Problem with Dipole Radiation and Relativity |
| Message-ID | <pan.2015.09.21.18.05.41@localhost.localdomain> |
An observer moving with velocity 0.6c approaches a radiating dipole
antenna in a direction perpendicular to the dipole axis:
|
| direction of motion
|
\/
---------- ---------- stationary dipole
| |
| |
Assume the dipole is resonant in its own frame with frequency F.
The moving observer thus sees a frequency of 2F.
The radiation pattern will also be transformed. The calculations
in textbooks show the distorted dipole pattern that is observed
in the moving frame to be of the following form:
http://s12.postimg.org/qq52njtel/doppler.png
Now, here is the problem.
Since the dipole axis is perpendicular to the motion it will not
be Lorentz contracted. The moving observer therefore sees an
antenna length that is is too long for its frequency. The moving
observer sees a *non-resonant* dipole.
The pattern of a non-resonant dipole is different from a resonant
dipole. The following image shows a resonant (F) and non-resonant (2F)
dipole pattern:
http://s24.postimg.org/l9yhlpik5/dipole_rad.png
Why doesn't the moving observer see a distorted dipole pattern
with TWO LOBES instead of ONE LOBE? Since the moving observer
sees a frequency of 2F from an antenna that is resonant at F
the transform should be done on the non-resonant, two-lobed,
pattern.
What is the resolution of this apparent problem?
[toc] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | John Heath <heathjohn2@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-21 19:00 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <e857a616-39ce-47c7-b239-81fd4746430f@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #364857 |
On Monday, September 21, 2015 at 2:06:07 PM UTC-4, Fabian Russell wrote: > An observer moving with velocity 0.6c approaches a radiating dipole > antenna in a direction perpendicular to the dipole axis: > > > > | > | direction of motion > | > \/ > > > > ---------- ---------- stationary dipole > | | > | | > > > > Assume the dipole is resonant in its own frame with frequency F. > > The moving observer thus sees a frequency of 2F. > > The radiation pattern will also be transformed. The calculations > in textbooks show the distorted dipole pattern that is observed > in the moving frame to be of the following form: > > http://s12.postimg.org/qq52njtel/doppler.png > > > Now, here is the problem. > > Since the dipole axis is perpendicular to the motion it will not > be Lorentz contracted. The moving observer therefore sees an > antenna length that is is too long for its frequency. The moving > observer sees a *non-resonant* dipole. > > The pattern of a non-resonant dipole is different from a resonant > dipole. The following image shows a resonant (F) and non-resonant (2F) > dipole pattern: > > http://s24.postimg.org/l9yhlpik5/dipole_rad.png > > > Why doesn't the moving observer see a distorted dipole pattern > with TWO LOBES instead of ONE LOBE? Since the moving observer > sees a frequency of 2F from an antenna that is resonant at F > the transform should be done on the non-resonant, two-lobed, > pattern. > > What is the resolution of this apparent problem? The laws of physics are the same for all frames of reference. However if one is making a cross FoR observation all bets are off for the laws of physics being the same. The postulate only applies to a given FoR from within that FoR not a observation of another FoR. I do not see a conflict with relativity here?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Fabian Russell <root@localhost.localdomain> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-22 03:04 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pan.2015.09.22.03.04.11@localhost.localdomain> |
| In reply to | #364910 |
On Mon, 21 Sep 2015 19:00:55 -0700, John Heath wrote: > > The laws of physics are the same for all frames of reference. > However if one is making a cross FoR observation all bets are off > Cross FoR observation? How is that happening here? The moving observer, in his own frame, sees a dipole moving toward him that is resonant at frequency F but radiating at 2F. He must therefore conclude that the antenna is non-resonant and would have a non-resonant dipole pattern. But the Lorentz transform (LT) applied to a moving dipole produces only the resonant dipole pattern (single lobe) in a distorted form. I am not greatly familiar with the mathematics of this kind of transformation, but the textbooks I've consulted show only the resonant dipole pattern as the result of the LT. I must be missing something somewhere and that's why I ask on this forum.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-21 21:24 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <f9561519-cd21-448f-85a5-8fcea487ea71@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #364857 |
On Monday, September 21, 2015 at 11:06:07 AM UTC-7, Fabian Russell wrote: > An observer moving with velocity 0.6c approaches a radiating dipole > antenna in a direction perpendicular to the dipole axis: > > > > | > | direction of motion > | > \/ > > > > ---------- ---------- stationary dipole > | | > | | > > > > Assume the dipole is resonant in its own frame with frequency F. > > The moving observer thus sees a frequency of 2F. > > The radiation pattern will also be transformed. The calculations > in textbooks show the distorted dipole pattern that is observed > in the moving frame to be of the following form: > > http://s12.postimg.org/qq52njtel/doppler.png > > 1. The above picture is for motion along the x-axis (PARALLEL to the dipole axis). 2. Your picture above it is done for motion along the y axis (PERPENDICULAR on the dipole axis) . 3. Do you see the problem?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Fabian Russell <root@localhost.localdomain> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-22 04:42 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pan.2015.09.22.04.42.20@localhost.localdomain> |
| In reply to | #364927 |
On Mon, 21 Sep 2015 21:24:58 -0700, Dono, wrote: >> >> http://s12.postimg.org/qq52njtel/doppler.png >> >> > > 1. The above picture is for motion along the x-axis (PARALLEL to the dipole axis). > No. The above image depicts dipole radiation with the dipole oriented on the vertical axis (y-axis). The motion is along the horizontal axis (x-axis) and thus is perpendicular to the dipole axis. There is NO radiation in a direction parallel to the dipole axis, as is shown in the above image. There is MAXIMAL radiation in a direction perpendicular to the dipole axis, as is shown in the above image. http://www.radio-electronics.com/info/antennas/dipole/radiation-patterns.php http://electriciantraining.tpub.com/14182/css/14182_186.htm My description is accurate.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-21 21:48 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <22715118-a54f-4d43-a402-28b1d39de25a@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #364932 |
On Monday, September 21, 2015 at 9:43:18 PM UTC-7, Fabian Russell wrote: > On Mon, 21 Sep 2015 21:24:58 -0700, Dono, wrote: > > >> > >> http://s12.postimg.org/qq52njtel/doppler.png > >> > >> > > > > 1. The above picture is for motion along the x-axis (PARALLEL to the dipole axis). > > > > No. The above image depicts dipole radiation with the dipole oriented on the > vertical axis (y-axis). The motion is along the horizontal axis (x-axis) and > thus is perpendicular to the dipole axis. > > There is NO radiation in a direction parallel to the dipole axis, as is shown > in the above image. There is MAXIMAL radiation in a direction perpendicular > to the dipole axis, as is shown in the above image. > > http://www.radio-electronics.com/info/antennas/dipole/radiation-patterns.php > > http://electriciantraining.tpub.com/14182/css/14182_186.htm > > My description is accurate. You are wrong but I cannot convince you.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-22 09:03 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <INadnZRy8OULwpzLnZ2dnUU7_82dnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #364934 |
On 9/21/15 9/21/15 11:48 PM, Dono, wrote: > On Monday, September 21, 2015 at 9:43:18 PM UTC-7, Fabian Russell wrote: >> On Mon, 21 Sep 2015 21:24:58 -0700, Dono, wrote: >>>> http://s12.postimg.org/qq52njtel/doppler.png >>> 1. The above picture is for motion along the x-axis (PARALLEL to the dipole axis). >> No. The above image depicts dipole radiation with the dipole oriented on the >> vertical axis (y-axis). The motion is along the horizontal axis (x-axis) and >> thus is perpendicular to the dipole axis. > > You are wrong but I cannot convince you. No, he is correct on this specific point. In that picture the dipole antenna is along the vertical axis and the relative motion is along the horizontal axis, perpendicular to the dipole. Tom Roberts.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-22 07:11 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <b63f46ea-6a2e-4a1f-a841-2c273a887428@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #364959 |
On Tuesday, September 22, 2015 at 7:03:07 AM UTC-7, tjrob137 wrote: > On 9/21/15 9/21/15 11:48 PM, Dono, wrote: > > On Monday, September 21, 2015 at 9:43:18 PM UTC-7, Fabian Russell wrote: > >> On Mon, 21 Sep 2015 21:24:58 -0700, Dono, wrote: > >>>> http://s12.postimg.org/qq52njtel/doppler.png > >>> 1. The above picture is for motion along the x-axis (PARALLEL to the dipole axis). > >> No. The above image depicts dipole radiation with the dipole oriented on the > >> vertical axis (y-axis). The motion is along the horizontal axis (x-axis) and > >> thus is perpendicular to the dipole axis. > > > > You are wrong but I cannot convince you. > > No, he is correct on this specific point. > > In that picture the dipole antenna is along the vertical axis and the relative > motion is along the horizontal axis, perpendicular to the dipole. > > > Tom Roberts. In the second picture, the one he took from the book , yes. In his first picture, the crude one he did himself, no. (or the picture is very bad). Either way, he does not understand the relativistic Doppler effect.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Helmut Wabnig <hwabnig@.- --- -.dotat> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-22 19:08 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <u9230bds6g2tmiuo02r1her9ph686hta2q@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #364961 |
On Tue, 22 Sep 2015 07:11:16 -0700 (PDT), "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> wrote: >On Tuesday, September 22, 2015 at 7:03:07 AM UTC-7, tjrob137 wrote: >> On 9/21/15 9/21/15 11:48 PM, Dono, wrote: >> > On Monday, September 21, 2015 at 9:43:18 PM UTC-7, Fabian Russell wrote: >> >> On Mon, 21 Sep 2015 21:24:58 -0700, Dono, wrote: >> >>>> http://s12.postimg.org/qq52njtel/doppler.png >> >>> 1. The above picture is for motion along the x-axis (PARALLEL to the dipole axis). >> >> No. The above image depicts dipole radiation with the dipole oriented on the >> >> vertical axis (y-axis). The motion is along the horizontal axis (x-axis) and >> >> thus is perpendicular to the dipole axis. >> > >> > You are wrong but I cannot convince you. >> >> No, he is correct on this specific point. >> >> In that picture the dipole antenna is along the vertical axis and the relative >> motion is along the horizontal axis, perpendicular to the dipole. >> >> >> Tom Roberts. > >In the second picture, the one he took from the book , yes. >In his first picture, the crude one he did himself, no. (or the picture is very bad). >Either way, he does not understand the relativistic Doppler effect. Either way, it's an interesting question. Either way, the original poster falls into the same pit as many before him. He says: >Now, here is the problem. > >Since the dipole axis is perpendicular to the motion it will not >be Lorentz contracted. The moving observer therefore sees an >antenna length that is is too long for its frequency. The moving >observer sees a *non-resonant* dipole. every other The moving observer sees only the center of the antenna directly and without distortion, the arms of the dipole have a considerable sideways distortion due to perspective during approach. Try it with a pencil you move towards your nose. w.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-21 21:53 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <1639fd92-eb17-4a6d-9356-3659df14c0d5@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #364857 |
On Monday, September 21, 2015 at 11:06:07 AM UTC-7, Fabian Russell wrote: > An observer moving with velocity 0.6c approaches a radiating dipole > antenna in a direction perpendicular to the dipole axis: > > > > | > | direction of motion > | > \/ > > > > ---------- ---------- stationary dipole > | | > | | > > i.e. ALONG the antenna axis > > Assume the dipole is resonant in its own frame with frequency F. > in the moving frame to be of the following form: > > http://s12.postimg.org/qq52njtel/doppler.png > i.e. PERPENDICULAR to antenna axis Do you see the issue? Still no?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Fabian Russell <root@localhost.localdomain> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-22 05:02 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pan.2015.09.22.05.02.46@localhost.localdomain> |
| In reply to | #364936 |
On Mon, 21 Sep 2015 21:53:57 -0700, Dono, wrote: > > i.e. PERPENDICULAR to antenna axis > > Do you see the issue? Still no? > You are the one who can't understand. My crude drawing is done because it was the only way to do a rough sketch with ASCII characters. Just rotate my drawing 90 degrees and it will conform to the image of the dipole patterns that follows. Maybe you are confused by the term "dipole axis." The axis contains the material, the straight wire or rods, that compose the dipole antenna. Thus, a direction parallel to the dipole axis is one parallel to the straight wire or rods.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-21 22:21 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <87063abd-a1be-4255-922f-4cd4aae22638@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #364941 |
On Monday, September 21, 2015 at 10:03:21 PM UTC-7, Fabian Russell wrote: > On Mon, 21 Sep 2015 21:53:57 -0700, Dono, wrote: > > > > > i.e. PERPENDICULAR to antenna axis > > > > Do you see the issue? Still no? > > > > You are the one who can't understand. > > My crude drawing is done because it was the only way to do > a rough sketch with ASCII characters. Just rotate my drawing > 90 degrees and it will conform to the image of the dipole > patterns that follows. > > Maybe you are confused by the term "dipole axis." The axis > contains the material, the straight wire or rods, that compose > the dipole antenna. Thus, a direction parallel to the dipole > axis is one parallel to the straight wire or rods. Yeah, your drawing is too crude, the root of the problem is that you don't understand how the relativistic Doppler effect works.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-21 23:54 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <zPqdnY8QgbtjQ53LnZ2dnUU7_8ydnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #364857 |
On 9/21/15 9/21/15 1:05 PM, Fabian Russell wrote: > An observer moving with velocity 0.6c approaches a radiating dipole > antenna in a direction perpendicular to the dipole axis: > > > > | > | direction of motion > | > \/ > > > > ---------- ---------- stationary dipole > | | > | | > > > > Assume the dipole is resonant in its own frame with frequency F. > > The moving observer thus sees a frequency of 2F. The physical situation is considerably more complicated than you seem to think. It appears that you blindly applied the relativistic Doppler formula, not realizing that when the observer passes the antenna the wave switches direction (to her, from front to back), and the frequency she observes for the wave instantly drops to 0.5 F. And also: the intensity pattern in her rest frame is HIGHLY time dependent, but the plots you refer to do not, and can not, display time dependence. > The radiation pattern will also be transformed. The calculations > in textbooks show the distorted dipole pattern that is observed > in the moving frame to be of the following form: > > http://s12.postimg.org/qq52njtel/doppler.png I don't know the provenance of that figure and cannot vouch for it, but it does not seem unreasonable for a frame approaching the antenna. But note that the intensity plot is by no means the whole story, as the frequency and wavelength of the signal varies a lot over time, AND IT DEPENDS ON THE DIRECTION OF THE OBSERVER RELATIVE TO THE WAVE. That is, in the right-hand plot the frequency is VERY different at the left and right sides. More importantly, such figures cannot display the inherent time dependence. > Now, here is the problem. > > Since the dipole axis is perpendicular to the motion it will not > be Lorentz contracted. The moving observer therefore sees an > antenna length that is is too long for its frequency. The moving > observer sees a *non-resonant* dipole. > > The pattern of a non-resonant dipole is different from a resonant > dipole. The following image shows a resonant (F) and non-resonant (2F) > dipole pattern: > > http://s24.postimg.org/l9yhlpik5/dipole_rad.png I do not know the provenance of this figure, either, and it seems suspect, because the left plot is labeled "l=1 wavelength" but shows a half-wave dipole pattern; I don't know what the right plot is, because a full-wave dipole doesn't work (the center must be a node, but dipole antennas can only be fed at an anti-node). Nor does a 2-wave dipole. > Why doesn't the moving observer see a distorted dipole pattern > with TWO LOBES instead of ONE LOBE? Since the moving observer > sees a frequency of 2F from an antenna that is resonant at F > the transform should be done on the non-resonant, two-lobed, > pattern. Regardless of issues/problems with your figures, you are making an incorrect assumption here: the length of a dipole antenna is related to the wavelength of its source, not its frequency. The wavelength of a transverse wave is unaffected by "length contraction". But more importantly, the Doppler formula you apparently used applies to the observed frequency of the wave, not to the transverse wavelength or anything at all about the source and its antenna. There is another, probably more important lesson here: when equations are derived in the rest frame of some apparatus, one cannot simply assume they remain valid in other frames. Here the radiation pattern of an antenna is derived in the rest frame of the antenna (left-hand side of your first plot); what moving observers might see is VERY complicated, because it is (obviously) time dependent -- the usual plots do not (and can not) show that, because they apply ONLY WHEN THE ANTENNA IS NOT MOVING). Bottom line: if you want to know what the radiation pattern looks like to a moving observer, you must COMPUTE it. The plots you reference are WOEFULLY INADEQUATE. (If the plots came from a good textbook, and they did compute it, then the textbook will have given A LOT more description of the physical situation being displayed, along with caveats and conditions for the calculation.) Tom Roberts
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Fabian Russell <root@localhost.localdomain> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-22 05:28 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pan.2015.09.22.05.28.31@localhost.localdomain> |
| In reply to | #364937 |
On Mon, 21 Sep 2015 23:54:20 -0500, Tom Roberts wrote: > > Bottom line: if you want to know what the radiation pattern looks like to a > moving observer, you must COMPUTE it. The plots you reference are WOEFULLY > INADEQUATE. > > (If the plots came from a good textbook, and they did compute it, > then the textbook will have given A LOT more description of the > physical situation being displayed, along with caveats and > conditions for the calculation.) > A reference that provides derivations of the relativistic dipole transforms is here (see page 14): http://ocw.mit.edu/courses/nuclear-engineering/22-105-electromagnetic-interactions-fall-2005/readings/chap4.pdf There is little information available specifically on dipole radiation and relativity. Most of the material I've found refers to synchrotron radiation, but a discussion of this often includes dipoles. For example, this reference on page 6 derives the relativistic transformations but the result gives only a distorted resonant dipole: http://physics.usask.ca/~hirose/p812/notes/Ch8.pdf
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | John Heath <heathjohn2@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-22 17:37 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <c17f1e27-17e8-44f4-a157-e0bab3a9d00b@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #364944 |
On Tuesday, September 22, 2015 at 1:29:34 AM UTC-4, Fabian Russell wrote: > On Mon, 21 Sep 2015 23:54:20 -0500, Tom Roberts wrote: > > > > > Bottom line: if you want to know what the radiation pattern looks like to a > > moving observer, you must COMPUTE it. The plots you reference are WOEFULLY > > INADEQUATE. > > > > (If the plots came from a good textbook, and they did compute it, > > then the textbook will have given A LOT more description of the > > physical situation being displayed, along with caveats and > > conditions for the calculation.) > > > > > A reference that provides derivations of the relativistic dipole transforms > is here (see page 14): > > http://ocw.mit.edu/courses/nuclear-engineering/22-105-electromagnetic-interactions-fall-2005/readings/chap4.pdf > > > There is little information available specifically on dipole radiation and > relativity. Most of the material I've found refers to synchrotron radiation, > but a discussion of this often includes dipoles. For example, this reference > on page 6 derives the relativistic transformations but the result gives > only a distorted resonant dipole: > > http://physics.usask.ca/~hirose/p812/notes/Ch8.pdf Too many variables on the table. Let us eliminate movement so that the Doppler effect and special relativity are no longer an issue. You look at the sun and note that the fingerprint of hydrogen , absorption spectrum , has shifted lower ?? Think of hydrogen as a tiny dipole antenna. It is not possible that a hydrogen tiny dipole antenna can shift it's absorption spectrum lower as hydrogen is hydrogen and yet there it is on the sun with a lower than expected spectrum. The postulate that the laws of physics are the same for all FoR also applies to a gravitational FoR. Someone living on the sun must have the exact laws of physics that we have on earth. That someone on the sun has a slower ticking clock caused by gravitational time dilation and hydrogen atoms will also have a slower ticking clock causing it's absorption spectrum to be as it should be thus the laws of that someone on the sun are exactly the same as us on earth. An observation from earth of a hydrogen spectrum on the sun is lower than expected is not relevant as this is not our FoR. Only our hydrogen on earth is obligated to be as expected so that the laws of physics are the same for us. The laws of physics being the same for all FoR be it relative movement or gravitational applies only to a given FoR not observations of other FoRs.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-28 12:24 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <mub4h9$je1$1@news.albasani.net> |
| In reply to | #364857 |
On 21.09.2015 20:05, Fabian Russell wrote: > An observer moving with velocity 0.6c approaches a radiating dipole > antenna in a direction perpendicular to the dipole axis: > > > > | > | direction of motion > | > \/ > > > > ---------- ---------- stationary dipole > | | > | | > > > > Assume the dipole is resonant in its own frame with frequency F. > > The moving observer thus sees a frequency of 2F. > > The radiation pattern will also be transformed. The calculations > in textbooks show the distorted dipole pattern that is observed > in the moving frame to be of the following form: > > http://s12.postimg.org/qq52njtel/doppler.png > > > Now, here is the problem. > > Since the dipole axis is perpendicular to the motion it will not > be Lorentz contracted. The moving observer therefore sees an > antenna length that is is too long for its frequency. The moving > observer sees a *non-resonant* dipole. As Tom has pointed out, this is a bit more complicated than you may think. But to give a very simplified explanation of this particular point: It is true that the length of the dipole as measured in the moving observer frame is unchanged. But if you look at the standing current wave in the dipole as a clock, this clock will be "running slow" as measured in the frame where the dipole is moving. That is, the projection of the phase velocity of the current into the moving dipole will be c sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2) so it will resonating at the frequency f sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2) as observed in the frame where the dipole is moving. (Note: This is NOT the frequency of the radiation in the frame where the dipole is moving. It is the rate of the resonating dipole clock as observed in said frame.) This is basically the same phenomenon as in the light clock: https://paulba.no/LightClock.html The frequency observed by a stationary observer on the axis perpendicular to the the centre of the dipole and parallel to the velocity of the dipole will be: F sqrt((c+/-v)/(c-/+v)), upper sign if dipole approaching and vice versa. > > The pattern of a non-resonant dipole is different from a resonant > dipole. The following image shows a resonant (F) and non-resonant (2F) > dipole pattern: > > http://s24.postimg.org/l9yhlpik5/dipole_rad.png > > > Why doesn't the moving observer see a distorted dipole pattern > with TWO LOBES instead of ONE LOBE? Because the the dipole is resonant in all frames. The distortion of the dipole pattern is basically the same phenomenon as beaming: https://paulba.no/div/Beaming.pdf See also paragraph 7 page 15 in Einstein's paper: https://paulba.no/paper/Electrodynamics.pdf According to this, the amplitude of the signal from the approaching dipole will be: (the larger lobe) A'^2 = A^2 (c+v)/(c-v) and from the receding side: (the smaller lobe) A'^2 = A^2 (c-v)/(c+v) (The energy is proportional to A^2) > Since the moving observer > sees a frequency of 2F from an antenna that is resonant at F > the transform should be done on the non-resonant, two-lobed, > pattern. > > What is the resolution of this apparent problem? > -- Paul https://paulba.no/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | HGW <xxx@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-29 07:47 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <bscj0b9sreg51md9g68qg2jfflpasdi6ha@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #365522 |
On Mon, 28 Sep 2015 12:24:18 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> wrote: >On 21.09.2015 20:05, Fabian Russell wrote: >> An observer moving with velocity 0.6c approaches a radiating dipole >> antenna in a direction perpendicular to the dipole axis: >> >> >> >> | >> | direction of motion >> | >> \/ >> >> >> >> ---------- ---------- stationary dipole >> | | >> | | >> >> >> >> Assume the dipole is resonant in its own frame with frequency F. >> >> The moving observer thus sees a frequency of 2F. >> >> The radiation pattern will also be transformed. The calculations >> in textbooks show the distorted dipole pattern that is observed >> in the moving frame to be of the following form: >> >> http://s12.postimg.org/qq52njtel/doppler.png >> >> >> Now, here is the problem. >> >> Since the dipole axis is perpendicular to the motion it will not >> be Lorentz contracted. The moving observer therefore sees an >> antenna length that is is too long for its frequency. The moving >> observer sees a *non-resonant* dipole. > >As Tom has pointed out, this is a bit more complicated than >you may think. It is not complicated. It is very simple. The wavelength is the same in all frames (naturally). The frequency measured by the moving observer is simply the wave arrival rate, fo(c+v)/c, as observed. >But to give a very simplified explanation of this particular point: >It is true that the length of the dipole as measured in the moving >observer frame is unchanged. But if you look at the standing >current wave in the dipole as a clock, this clock will be >"running slow" as measured in the frame where the dipole is moving. >That is, the projection of the phase velocity of the current >into the moving dipole will be c sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2) >so it will resonating at the frequency f sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2) >as observed in the frame where the dipole is moving. >(Note: This is NOT the frequency of the radiation in > the frame where the dipole is moving. It is the rate of > the resonating dipole clock as observed in said frame.) >This is basically the same phenomenon as in the light clock: >https://paulba.no/LightClock.html HAHAHHHAHHAHHHAA! Surely you are silly enough to refer someone to that again. It is hilarious! ....<irrlevant comments snipped>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-28 22:06 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <89mdnQUnlpSknZfLnZ2dnUU7_8ydnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #365613 |
On 9/28/15 9/28/15 4:47 PM, HGW wrote: > It is not complicated. It is very simple. > The wavelength is the same in all frames (naturally). You have "simplified" it via an error. In the rest frame of the (dipole) antenna, the wavelength of the observed wave is the same everywhere, in all directions. In a frame moving relative to the antenna, the wavelength of the observed wave depends on where it is being detected; specifically on the angle between wave propagation direction and the relative velocity (frame/antenna); the frequency of the observed wave likewise depends on that angle; both will, of course, be time dependent in general, for except along the axis through the center of the dipole, that angle is changing with time (the antenna is MOVING wrt the observer). I remind you that this discussion is of a plot that includes all angles. This is just the (relativistic) Doppler effect. > The frequency measured by > the moving observer is simply the wave arrival rate, fo(c+v)/c, as observed. Nope. Not even close. The observed frequency depends on the angle mentioned above. And your formula does not include the relativistic correction. >> But to give a very simplified explanation of this particular point: >> It is true that the length of the dipole as measured in the moving >> observer frame is unchanged. But if you look at the standing >> current wave in the dipole as a clock, this clock will be >> "running slow" as measured in the frame where the dipole is moving. >> That is, the projection of the phase velocity of the current >> into the moving dipole will be c sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2) >> so it will resonating at the frequency f sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2) >> as observed in the frame where the dipole is moving. >> (Note: This is NOT the frequency of the radiation in >> the frame where the dipole is moving. It is the rate of >> the resonating dipole clock as observed in said frame.) >> This is basically the same phenomenon as in the light clock: >> https://paulba.no/LightClock.html > > HAHAHHHAHHAHHHAA! Surely you are silly enough to refer someone to that again. > It is hilarious! It may be "hilarious" to you. To those of us who actually understand this, it is correct. Tom Roberts
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | HGW <xxx@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-03 08:26 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <3i0u0bljhldo5l9ot3qhduo49t3js9ecus@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #365664 |
On Mon, 28 Sep 2015 22:06:32 -0500, Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> wrote: >On 9/28/15 9/28/15 4:47 PM, HGW wrote: >> It is not complicated. It is very simple. >> The wavelength is the same in all frames (naturally). > >You have "simplified" it via an error. > >In the rest frame of the (dipole) antenna, the wavelength of the observed wave >is the same everywhere, in all directions. In a frame moving relative to the >antenna, the wavelength of the observed wave depends on where it is being >detected; 'Wavelength' only exists in the frame of the wave itself. Try analysing a water wave if that ifs too hard for you. >specifically on the angle between wave propagation direction and the >relative velocity (frame/antenna); the frequency of the observed wave likewise >depends on that angle; both will, of course, be time dependent in general, for >except along the axis through the center of the dipole, that angle is changing >with time (the antenna is MOVING wrt the observer). I remind you that this >discussion is of a plot that includes all angles. What are you talking about? The angle is 90. >This is just the (relativistic) Doppler effect. It is a Newtonian Doppler effect, as measured. >> The frequency measured by >> the moving observer is simply the wave arrival rate, fo(c+v)/c, as observed. > >Nope. Not even close. The observed frequency depends on the angle mentioned above. We are talking about observer movement normal to the antenna. Can't you read? > And your formula does not include the relativistic correction. > > >>> But to give a very simplified explanation of this particular point: >>> It is true that the length of the dipole as measured in the moving >>> observer frame is unchanged. But if you look at the standing >>> current wave in the dipole as a clock, this clock will be >>> "running slow" as measured in the frame where the dipole is moving. >>> That is, the projection of the phase velocity of the current >>> into the moving dipole will be c sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2) >>> so it will resonating at the frequency f sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2) >>> as observed in the frame where the dipole is moving. >>> (Note: This is NOT the frequency of the radiation in >>> the frame where the dipole is moving. It is the rate of >>> the resonating dipole clock as observed in said frame.) >>> This is basically the same phenomenon as in the light clock: >>> https://paulba.no/LightClock.html >> >> HAHAHHHAHHAHHHAA! Surely you are silly enough to refer someone to that again. >> It is hilarious! > >It may be "hilarious" to you. To those of us who actually understand this, it is >correct. HAHAHHAHHHAHA! Tom, you are so obsessed with 4D geometry that you have lost touch with the 3D version. You surely don't take Paul's light clock animation seriously. The observer cannot affect the observed! > >Tom Roberts
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-02 17:47 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <7vednXLhGJkGlJLLnZ2dnUU7-I0AAAAA@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #366055 |
On 10/2/15 5:26 PM, HGW aka Ralph Malcolm Rabbidge, who is neither
a Henry, Henri, nor a Wilson, wrote:
> 'Wavelength' only exists in the frame of the wave itself.
Where did you come up this horseshit, Ralph?
--
sci.physics is an unmoderated newsgroup dedicated
to the discussion of physics, news from the physics
community, and physics-related social issues.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 1 of 15 [1] 2 3 … 15 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web