Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.physics > #522510 > unrolled thread

Problem with Dipole Radiation and Relativity

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics

Contents

  Problem with Dipole Radiation and Relativity Fabian Russell <root@localhost.localdomain> - 2015-09-21 18:05 +0000
    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 Fabian Russell <root@localhost.localdomain> - 2015-09-22 04:42 +0000
    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 Fabian Russell <root@localhost.localdomain> - 2015-09-22 05:02 +0000
    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 noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2015-09-29 11:31 -0700
            Re: Problem with Dipole Radiation and Relativity noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2015-09-29 19:52 -0700
          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 noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2015-10-06 11:34 -0700
                        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 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
                            transitive property noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2015-10-08 12:33 -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 "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2015-09-29 11:00 +0200
    Re: Problem with Dipole Radiation and Relativity Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2015-10-24 00:03 +1100

Page 1 of 3  [1] 2 3  Next page →

#522510 — Problem with Dipole Radiation and Relativity

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]

#522620

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]

#522633

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]

#522635

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]

#522643

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]

#522638

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]

#523555

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]

#523653

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]

#523686

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]

#523776

but, dimers have no dipolar moment (OO, HH, NN etc.

> 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]

#523893

key finding, like 20 y.o,
is that most of space is dihydrogenic, not H+.  also,
polarization is minimally 3d,
been using x,y,z in cellphones for ten years at least

> but, dimers have no dipolar moment (OO, HH, NN etc.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#524310

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]

#524318

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]

#524537

On Fri, 2 Oct 2015 17:47:55 -0500, Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> wrote:

>On 10/2/15 5:26 PM, HGW wrote:
>> 'Wavelength' only exists in the frame of the wave itself.
>
>
>   Where did you come up this horseshit, Henry?

Wormey, you should always have confidence that you are not too old to learn
something new. Imagine you are out in the ocean somewhere and there is a big
swell. How would you measure the (absolute) distance between wavecrests?
 
Of course that length DOES exist in all frames and remains consant, which is
why I used parentheis around the word wavelength.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#524572

On 10/4/15 12:47 PM, Henry Wilson wrote:
>
> Wormey, you should always have confidence that you are not too old to learn
> something new. Imagine you are out in the ocean somewhere and there is a big
> swell. How would you measure the (absolute) distance between wavecrests?
>
> Of course that length DOES exist in all frames and remains consant, which is
> why I used parentheis around the word wavelength.
>

   Don't be silly Ralph--Distance measurement and time measurements
   for inertial observers is observer dependent based on their relative
   velocity to that being measured.

   Spacetime intervals are the same for all inertial observers, however.


-- 

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]

#524613

Użytkownik "Sam Wormley"  napisał w wiadomości grup 
dyskusyjnych:tM2dne5gXdkdMozLnZ2dnUU7-U-dnZ2d@giganews.com...

|   Don't be silly Ralph--Distance measurement and time measurements
|   for inertial observers is observer dependent based on their relative
|   velocity to that being measured.

You see, Sam, for a brainwashed fanatic moron like you, measurement
are always supporting any shit he imagine. Even Earth poles accelerating
in opposite directions.


|   Spacetime intervals are the same for all inertial observers, however.

Too bad you're unable to measure them.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#524677

On 10/5/15 2:46 AM, Maciej Woźniak wrote:
> You see, Sam, for a brainwashed fanatic moron like you, measurement
> are always supporting any shit he imagine. Even Earth poles accelerating

   What force is "accelerating" the earth's poles?

-- 

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]

#524702

Użytkownik "Sam Wormley"  napisał w wiadomości grup 
dyskusyjnych:j-OdnW52TKJ1NI_LnZ2dnUU7-LWdnZ2d@giganews.com...

On 10/5/15 2:46 AM, Maciej Woźniak wrote:
> You see, Sam, for a brainwashed fanatic moron like you, measurement
> are always supporting any shit he imagine. Even Earth poles accelerating

|   What force is "accelerating" the earth's poles?

Ask Ken F., not me.
Of course, his mumble is a bit non-standard (though in
my opinion it's closer to Great Guru's mumble than
your mumble is), still, he is a good example, what The
Shit is doing to a brain of its pray. 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#524710

On 10/5/15 1:19 PM, Maciej Woźniak wrote:
>
>
> Użytkownik "Sam Wormley"  napisał w wiadomości grup
> dyskusyjnych:j-OdnW52TKJ1NI_LnZ2dnUU7-LWdnZ2d@giganews.com...
>
> On 10/5/15 2:46 AM, Maciej Woźniak wrote:
>> You see, Sam, for a brainwashed fanatic moron like you, measurement
>> are always supporting any shit he imagine. Even Earth poles accelerating
>
> |   What force is "accelerating" the earth's poles?
>
> Ask Ken F., not me.
> Of course, his mumble is a bit non-standard (though in
> my opinion it's closer to Great Guru's mumble than
> your mumble is), still, he is a good example, what The
> Shit is doing to a brain of its pray.


   I'm asking you Maciej--What force is "accelerating" the earth's poles?

-- 

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]

#524725

Użytkownik "Sam Wormley"  napisał w wiadomości grup 
dyskusyjnych:j-OdnWN2TKLNXI_LnZ2dnUU7-LWdnZ2d@giganews.com...

On 10/5/15 1:19 PM, Maciej Woźniak wrote:
>
>
> Użytkownik "Sam Wormley"  napisał w wiadomości grup
> dyskusyjnych:j-OdnW52TKJ1NI_LnZ2dnUU7-LWdnZ2d@giganews.com...
>
> On 10/5/15 2:46 AM, Maciej Woźniak wrote:
>> You see, Sam, for a brainwashed fanatic moron like you, measurement
>> are always supporting any shit he imagine. Even Earth poles accelerating
>
> |   What force is "accelerating" the earth's poles?
>
> Ask Ken F., not me.
> Of course, his mumble is a bit non-standard (though in
> my opinion it's closer to Great Guru's mumble than
> your mumble is), still, he is a good example, what The
> Shit is doing to a brain of its pray.


|   I'm asking you Maciej--What force is "accelerating" the earth's poles?

If you mean the acceleration I was writing about, none. It's just
another idiocy invented by a relatiistic moron.
As I said, I know, that Ken is not a standard relativistic moron, but
he is still one. 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 1 of 3  [1] 2 3  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics

csiph-web