Bob Cain wrote in message ...
The Ghost wrote:

......... The absence of a quantitative description of a
phenomenon is not a justifiable excuse for denying its existence. In
the history of science, there are many phenomena that were
demonstrated first and quantified later.


Evidence for existence of a phenomenon requires elimination
of spurious causes one way or another, either by
experimental setup or by having a _good_ characterization of
the spurious phenomena so that their effect can be removed
from the test data. How does your "experiment" do either so
that what remains can be legitimately regarded as evidence
of Doppler distortion?

I contend that my experiment has no so-called spurious phenomena.
Since you are the one claiming that it does, it is your responsibility
to identify them and demonstrate, with your own measurements, that my
measurement results are invalidated when the so-called spurious
phenomena are removed. Given that my measurement result agree with
expectation that the instantaneous FM-demodulated propagating signal
follows in time the instantaneous trapezoidal velocity of the source,
I seen no need to go looking for so-called spurious phenomena which
exist only in your mind.


And even if it satisfied that requirement, the phenomenon in
question now is not simply Doppler distortion but the
mechanism that produces it so a predictive model is
absolutely required. Why, if the mechanism is as simple as
is described, has no such model been forthcoming?

The mechanism for instantaneous Doppler shift is instantaneous
relative motion between the source and the observer. Beyond that, any
predictive model would necessarily have to be situation specific, and
in that regard, the simplest situations to model are the most
difficult to experimentally verify and vice versa.

This is basic stuff and should not have to be spoon fed to
anyone who claims to be an experimental scientist.

It is you, not I, who is having problems understianding this basic
stuff.