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: mluttgens on 14 Dec 2008 12:40 On 14 déc, 18:25, Dono <sa...(a)comcast.net> wrote: > 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. Donochka, You seem to have a problem with Alzheimer. Btw, what is the difference between a speed and a closing speed? Do you imply that a car colliding with a tree had no speed? Marcel Luttgens
From: Eric Gisse on 14 Dec 2008 14:04 On Dec 14, 7:58 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 Clearly you are in your own land, as this is not how this reality works.
From: mluttgens on 14 Dec 2008 14:56 On 14 déc, 20:04, Eric Gisse <jowr...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Dec 14, 7:58 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 > > Clearly you are in your own land, as this is not how this reality > works. You probably meant: Clearly you are in your own land, as this is not how SR's reality works. Marcel Luttgens
From: Dono on 14 Dec 2008 18:52 On Dec 14, 9:40 am, mluttg...(a)orange.fr wrote: > > > You seem to have a problem with Alzheimer. > Btw, what is the difference between a speed and a closing speed? > Do you imply that a car colliding with a tree had no speed? > > Marcel Lattkes, Lattkes The speed of light "c" is independent of the speed of the source and the speed of the observer. So, an observer moving with speed +v towards the source of light and an observer moving with speed -v away from the source of light will measure the speed of light as being ...."c". Contrary to your idiotic ballistic theory. On the other hand the speed at which the light and the observer "close" the distance between themselves in the first example, is "c +v". I am quite sure that countless of people have explained this to you (DvM,PD, Paul anderson, TR) but you are too touched in the brain to understand it. Ciao, old fart
From: mluttgens on 14 Dec 2008 19:33
On 15 déc, 00:52, Dono <sa...(a)comcast.net> wrote: > On Dec 14, 9:40 am, mluttg...(a)orange.fr wrote: > > > > > You seem to have a problem with Alzheimer. > > Btw, what is the difference between a speed and a closing speed? > > Do you imply that a car colliding with a tree had no speed? > > > Marcel Lattkes, > > Lattkes > > The speed of light "c" is independent of the speed of the source and > the speed of the observer. So, an observer moving with speed +v > towards the source of light and an observer moving with speed -v away > from the source of light will measure the speed of light as > being ...."c". Contrary to your idiotic ballistic theory. > > On the other hand the speed at which the light and the observer > "close" the distance between themselves in the first example, is "c > +v". I am quite sure that countless of people have explained this to > you (DvM,PD, Paul anderson, TR) but you are too touched in the brain > to understand it. > > Ciao, old fart Donochka, I don't believe in the ballistic theory, as I agree that the speed of lightis independent of the speed of its source. But I claim that somebody (which could be some device) moving towards the source of the light at some velocity v will conclude from its observed blueshift that the *relative* velocity of light is c+v, and that somebody moving awway at v from the light source will conclude from its observed redshift that the velocity of light wrt to him is c-v. You can call c +/- v closing speeds, but that doesn't change the fact that the *relative* velocity of light is not indpendent of the speed of the observer. And it is easy to demonstrate that, as long as one agrees that the speed of light is independent of the speed of its source, time slowing and length contraction both occur, even if light speed is not independent of the observer's speed. Marcel Luttgens |