This is the correct Doppler formula for all moving
bodies,

f' = Exp(-v/c) f

where,
f is the ffrequency at the source, and
f' is the observed frequency.

If the observer and the source are moving directly
away from each other, the velocity is v 0, and v 0
if they are approaching.

Consider now, the relativistic Doppler formula

f_r' = sqrt((1 - v/c)/(1 + v/c)) f

We can expand both equations, f' and f_r', in their
respective power series until any arbitrary order, and
see the ratio f'/f_r is


f'/f_r = 1 - x^3/3 - x^5/5 + x^6 /18 - x^7/7 + ...

where x = v/c.

So, in any experimental test for that ratio, you'd have
to deal with measurement accuracies that could at
least make the term x^3/3 significant.

On Apr 30, 10:36*am, Albert****o wrote:
This is the correct Doppler formula for all moving
bodies,

* * * * f' = Exp(-v/c) f

* * * * where,
* * * * f is the ffrequency at the source, and
* * * * f' is the observed frequency.

No, persistent imbecile.
The above is easily falsified by the Ives-Stilwell experiment.

On Apr 30, 6:54 pm, Dono wrote:
On Apr 30, 10:36 am, Albert****o wrote:

This is the correct Doppler formula for all moving
bodies,

f' = Exp(-v/c) f

where,
f is the ffrequency at the source, and
f' is the observed frequency.

No, persistent imbecile.
The above is easily falsified by the Ives-Stilwell experiment.

You imbelice, you always have the ****ing Ives-Stilwell
experiment in your mouth. Have you studied other
experiments, or is it that you only know of that one?
Tell me to what order of v/c it has been tested for a
relativistic Doppler in your loved Ives-Stilwell experiment.

On Apr 30, 1:36*pm, Albertito wrote:
This is the correct Doppler formula for all moving
bodies,

* * * * f' = Exp(-v/c) f

* * * * where,
* * * * f is the ffrequency at the source, and
* * * * f' is the observed frequency.

If the observer and the source are moving directly
away from each other, the velocity is v 0, and v 0
if they are approaching.

Consider now, the relativistic Doppler formula

* * * *f_r' = sqrt((1 - v/c)/(1 + v/c)) f

We can expand both equations, f' and f_r', *in their
respective power series until any arbitrary order, and
see the ratio f'/f_r is

* * * * f'/f_r = 1 - x^3/3 - x^5/5 + x^6 /18 *- x^7/7 + ...

* * * * where *x = v/c.

So, in any experimental test for that ratio, you'd have
to deal with measurement accuracies that could at
least make the term x^3/3 significant.

I think you must have left out the part where you actually derived the
so-called correct Doppler formula from first principles. Other than
that, your post was fine.

On Apr 30, 11:04 am, Albert****o wrote:
Have you studied other
experiments, or is it that you only know of that one?
Tell me to what order of v/c it has been tested for a
relativistic Doppler in your loved Ives-Stilwell experiment.



Second order, Albert****o
The same is true for Kennedy Thorndike and MMX. I could recommend the
papers of Mansouri and Sexl but you prefer to make up your own
idiocies instead of studying.

On Apr 30, 7:57 pm, Dono wrote:
On Apr 30, 11:04 am, Albert****o wrote:

Have you studied other
experiments, or is it that you only know of that one?
Tell me to what order of v/c it has been tested for a
relativistic Doppler in your loved Ives-Stilwell experiment.

Second order, Albert****o
The same is true for Kennedy Thorndike and MMX. I could recommend the
papers of Mansouri and Sexl but you prefer to make up your own
idiocies instead of studying.

Ok, as far as I know, the Ives-Stilwell experiment has
verified the relativistic Doppler for speeds about v = 0.065c.
So, take a SR test theory, for example the RMS, and tell me
why my proposed formula wouldn't pass that test.

Igor wrote in message

On Apr 30, 1:36 pm, Albertito wrote:
This is the correct Doppler formula for all moving
bodies,

f' = Exp(-v/c) f

where,
f is the ffrequency at the source, and
f' is the observed frequency.

If the observer and the source are moving directly
away from each other, the velocity is v 0, and v 0
if they are approaching.

Consider now, the relativistic Doppler formula

f_r' = sqrt((1 - v/c)/(1 + v/c)) f

We can expand both equations, f' and f_r', in their
respective power series until any arbitrary order, and
see the ratio f'/f_r is

f'/f_r = 1 - x^3/3 - x^5/5 + x^6 /18 - x^7/7 + ...

where x = v/c.

So, in any experimental test for that ratio, you'd have
to deal with measurement accuracies that could at
least make the term x^3/3 significant.

I think you must have left out the part where you actually derived the
so-called correct Doppler formula from first principles. Other than
that, your post was fine.

Reminds me of a post where someone wrote that the
Schwarzschild metric should be modified replacing the
factor
1 - 2M/r
with
exp( -2M/r ).
which differ in second order.
The derivation from first principles was left out as well.
Maybe his first principle was to avoid black holes :-)

Dirk Vdm

On Apr 30, 12:17 pm, Albertito wrote:
On Apr 30, 7:57 pm, Dono wrote:

On Apr 30, 11:04 am, Albert****o wrote:

Have you studied other
experiments, or is it that you only know of that one?
Tell me to what order of v/c it has been tested for a
relativistic Doppler in your loved Ives-Stilwell experiment.

Second order, Albert****o
The same is true for Kennedy Thorndike and MMX. I could recommend the
papers of Mansouri and Sexl but you prefer to make up your own
idiocies instead of studying.

Ok, as far as I know, the Ives-Stilwell experiment has
verified the relativistic Doppler for speeds about v = 0.065c.
So, take a SR test theory, for example the RMS, and tell me
why my proposed formula wouldn't pass that test.



Albert****o,

The modern tests are at v=0.25c.
You take your ****ty formula and plug it in the explanation for Ives-
Stilwell.
I think your parents should stop leaving you home alone, you spend too
much time jacking off.

On Apr 30, 9:36*am, Albertito wrote:
[snip]

Do you ever get tired of making stuff up and telling us to believe
you?

On Apr 30, 10:00 pm, Eric Gisse wrote:
On Apr 30, 9:36 am, Albertito wrote:
[snip]

Do you ever get tired of making stuff up and telling us to believe
you?

I do not make up any stuff at all, believe me.

First principles:

1. The Principle of VARIANCE of Speed of Light.
Even for inertial systems, the relative motion between
source and observer imposes a relative anisotropy for
the propagation of light.

*Corollary, There is no time dilation. Time dilation is
an artifact of SR to hide the relative anisotropy for moving
bodies. If inertial source and observer are approaching at
speed v, the speed of light, c', will be higher than the
standard
c. But, if they are getting away, the speed of light would be
less than c. For inertial systems, it would be

c' = c Exp(-v/c)

To first order approximation it yields c' = c - v, and c' = c + v.

I have explained to you many times that exponential factor,
Exp(-v/c), emerges from the solution for the spontaneous emission
mechanism of photons in atoms. It is curious how Einstein was able
to envisage that spontaneous emission mechanism, but he couldn't
exploit it to propose a more consistent SR, without camouflaging the
relative anisotropy under the masks of time dilation and length
contraction.