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: Dono on 14 Dec 2008 19:50 On Dec 14, 4:33 pm, mluttg...(a)orange.fr wrote: > 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, Why would this "somebody" conclude such an idiocy when there are quite a few experiments that ALREADY contradict this idea , Lattkes? > 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. Why would "somebody" conclude such an imbecility, Lattks? Never mind, you don't need to answer. > 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. See, this is what I call pure imbecility, Lattkes. You are blessed, you are a pure imbecile. :-) > 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 Lattkes But Lattkes, in relativity, there is no difference between the motion of the source and the motion of the oobserver. They move RELATIVE to each other. This is true even in Galilean relativity, you pure imbecile :-)
From: Eric Gisse on 14 Dec 2008 20:39 On Dec 14, 10:56 am, mluttg...(a)orange.fr wrote: > 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 Coincidence, as reality clearly disagrees with you and agrees with relativity.
From: mluttgens on 14 Dec 2008 20:48 On 15 déc, 01:50, Dono <sa...(a)comcast.net> wrote: > On Dec 14, 4:33 pm, mluttg...(a)orange.fr wrote: > > > > > > > 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, > > Why would this "somebody" conclude such an idiocy when there are quite > a few experiments that ALREADY contradict this idea , Lattkes? > > > 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. > > Why would "somebody" conclude such an imbecility, Lattks? Never mind, > you don't need to answer. > > > 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. > > See, this is what I call pure imbecility, Lattkes. You are blessed, > you are a pure imbecile. :-) > > > 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 Lattkes > > But Lattkes, in relativity, there is no difference between the motion > of the source and the motion of the oobserver. They move RELATIVE to > each other. This is true even in Galilean relativity, you pure > imbecile :-)- Donochka, How can somebody be soo stupid as to mix up the motion of a light source whith that of its observer? Only SRists can ignore that the observed frequency of a light source, for instance a star situated at some approximately fixed distance from the Earth, is a function of the periodic motion of the Earth relative to the source. Such stars exist, their situation wrt the Earth is determined by gravitational links, which are objective facts, not Einsteinian theoretical fantasies. The same is true of a radar *situated* along the road, used to determine the velocity of an approaching car. Only a SRist would claim that the car is at rest, but that the radar is moving towards the car. SR is so stupidly theoretical, that one has to wonder if their proponents are intellectually sane, or mere crackpots. Marcel Luttgens
From: Dono on 14 Dec 2008 21:13 On Dec 14, 5:48 pm, mluttg...(a)orange.fr wrote: > On 15 déc, 01:50, Dono <sa...(a)comcast.net> wrote: > > > > > On Dec 14, 4:33 pm, mluttg...(a)orange.fr wrote: > > > > 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, > > > Why would this "somebody" conclude such an idiocy when there are quite > > a few experiments that ALREADY contradict this idea , Lattkes? > > > > 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. > > > Why would "somebody" conclude such an imbecility, Lattks? Never mind, > > you don't need to answer. > > > > 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. > > > See, this is what I call pure imbecility, Lattkes. You are blessed, > > you are a pure imbecile. :-) > > > > 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 Lattkes > > > But Lattkes, in relativity, there is no difference between the motion > > of the source and the motion of the oobserver. They move RELATIVE to > > each other. This is true even in Galilean relativity, you pure > > imbecile :-)- > > Donochka, > > How can somebody be soo stupid as to mix up the motion of a light > source whith that of its observer? Lattkes, Here is a short list: Galilei, Newton, Einstein :-) <rest of your imbecilities snipped>
From: Dono on 14 Dec 2008 21:19
On Dec 14, 5:48 pm, mluttg...(a)orange.fr wrote: > > The same is true of a radar *situated* along the road, used to > determine the velocity of an approaching car. Only a SRist would claim > that the car is at rest, but that the radar is moving towards the car. > SR is so stupidly theoretical, that one has to wonder if their > proponents are intellectually sane, or mere crackpots. > > Marcel Lattkes Lattkes, You realize that you are contradicting Galilean relativiity, don't you? No? Never mind , pure imbecile :-) |