Cranks on the endangered species list
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: The spinor nature of spacetime - Fictitious motion in a Minkowski spacetime
Next: QCD Meson Mass Paper -- Full Draft
From: shuba on 14 Dec 2008 11:43 mluttgens wrote: > On 9 d�c, 03:14, Uncle Ben <b...(a)greenba.com> wrote: > > On Dec 8, 7:41�pm, mluttg...(a)orange.fr wrote: > > > What is you proof that light velocity is independent of the velocity > > > of the observer? How do you explain his observed red or blueshift? > > Easy. �The frequency shifts are not velocity shifts. > > Thank you, next time, I shall use this argument before the court In mluttgens-land, where the purpose of police radar is to measure the speed of the radar signal, it just might work. ---Tim Shuba---
From: Dono on 14 Dec 2008 11:45 On Dec 14, 8:43 am, shuba <tim.sh...(a)lycos.ScPoAmM> wrote: >> Thank you, next time, I shall use this argument before the court > > In mluttgens-land, where the purpose of police radar is to > measure the speed of the radar signal, it just might work. > > ---Tim Shuba--- :-) :-)
From: mluttgens on 14 Dec 2008 11:58 On 14 déc, 17:43, shuba <tim.sh...(a)lycos.ScPoAmM> wrote: > mluttgens wrote: > > On 9 déc, 03:14, Uncle Ben <b...(a)greenba.com> wrote: > > > On Dec 8, 7:41 pm, mluttg...(a)orange.fr wrote: > > > > What is you proof that light velocity is independent of the velocity > > > > of the observer? How do you explain his observed red or blueshift? > > > Easy. The frequency shifts are not velocity shifts. > > > Thank you, next time, I shall use this argument before the court > > In mluttgens-land, where the purpose of police radar is to > measure the speed of the radar signal, it just might work. > > ---Tim Shuba--- Yes, it could work if the judge is a SRist. In my "land", the car's velocity is v, and the *relative* radar signal's velocity is c +/- v, not c. Marcel Luttgens
From: Dono on 14 Dec 2008 12:25 On Dec 14, 8:58 am, mluttg...(a)orange.fr wrote: > On 14 déc, 17:43, shuba <tim.sh...(a)lycos.ScPoAmM> wrote: > > > mluttgens wrote: > > > On 9 déc, 03:14, Uncle Ben <b...(a)greenba.com> wrote: > > > > On Dec 8, 7:41 pm, mluttg...(a)orange.fr wrote: > > > > > What is you proof that light velocity is independent of the velocity > > > > > of the observer? How do you explain his observed red or blueshift? > > > > Easy. The frequency shifts are not velocity shifts. > > > > Thank you, next time, I shall use this argument before the court > > > In mluttgens-land, where the purpose of police radar is to > > measure the speed of the radar signal, it just might work. > > > ---Tim Shuba--- > > Yes, it could work if the judge is a SRist. > In my "land", the car's velocity is v, and the *relative* radar > signal's velocity is c +/- v, not c. > > Marcel Luttgens Lattkes, You still struggle to figure out the difference between "light speed" and "closing speed". The window of opportunity for you to learn is narrowing daily due to your Alzheimer onset.
From: Androcles on 14 Dec 2008 12:29
"shuba" <tim.shuba(a)lycos.ScPoAmM> wrote in message news:tim.shuba-45FB4F.10435714122008(a)sn-ip.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net... > mluttgens wrote: > >> On 9 d�c, 03:14, Uncle Ben <b...(a)greenba.com> wrote: >> > On Dec 8, 7:41 pm, mluttg...(a)orange.fr wrote: > >> > > What is you proof that light velocity is independent of the velocity >> > > of the observer? How do you explain his observed red or blueshift? > >> > Easy. The frequency shifts are not velocity shifts. >> >> Thank you, next time, I shall use this argument before the court > > In mluttgens-land, where the purpose of police radar is to > measure the speed of the radar signal, it just might work. > > > ---Tim Shuba--- In Uncle Ben-land you explain something by saying what it isn't. Hence the explanation of a dog's breakfast is "it's not the theory of relativity" (even though it is). |