Prev: Day of any date
Next: Errors of Bill Dubuque's perception of a valid math proof of IP; #123; 2nd ed; Euclid's IP
From: Paul Stowe on 18 Sep 2009 12:30
On Sep 10, 6:47 pm, "Peter Webb"
<webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote:
> "Don Stockbauer" <donstockba...(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:12fa66be-55a3-4544-989a-7acd500f9e2e(a)x6g2000prc.googlegroups.com...
> On Sep 10, 3:14 am, Don Stockbauer <donstockba...(a)hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Sep 10, 12:15 am, Pentcho Valev <pva...(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > Premise: The wavelength is determined by the light source and cannot
> > > depend on the movements of the observer.
>
> > > Premise: (frequency)=(speed of light)/(wavelength)
>
> > > Conclusion: If the observer is initially at rest relative to but then
> > > starts moving towards the light source, the frequency (Doppler effect)
> > > and THE SPEED OF LIGHT INCREASE.
>
> > > Pentcho Valev
> > > pva...(a)yahoo.com
>
> > The frequency increases, but the speed doesn't.
>
> > What is the speed relative to?
>
> I'm really kind of serious here.  I mean, if the SOL is so-and-so, it
> must be traveling relative to something which  serves as a baseline
> for measurement.  Was this settled at some point?  I mean, like, was
> it determined to be theaether?  Or maybe it travels relative to all
> the mass in the Universe?
>
> ________________________
> If you are serious, then here is how it works. The speed of light is a
> constant, irrespective of which inertial frame it is measured in. You can
> use any inertial reference frame as the "something" which the speed of light
> is measured against. The aether was originally intended to be that
> "something" against which absolute speed was measured; SR rendered the
> aetherworthless for this purpose.

This statement is simply, wrong! The aether was never something
against which absolute speed was measured. It was the "something"
that gave rise to c, its properties, and fields. I was thought that
by measuring our speed with respect to its base (rest frame) that the
measurement would demonstrate a unique characteristic which would
'prove' its existence. The rest frame is just one aspect of it since
the aether was considered a physical media akin to a gas.

At least get the basics right...
From: John Stafford on 20 Sep 2009 19:09

> Your statement that "The speed of a bullet is relative to a gun." is
> the sort of sloppy syntax that engenders your confusion.

The rate of an object moving across space is separate from the source of
it's motive. You know that. We all know that.

However, when we discuss the speed of light and its putative source we
are addressing the expansion/creation of the universe - IOW, the
creation of 'space' is ~the speed of light. Light-speed should be
presumed to be this expansion, and every issue regarding relative rates
adjusted to the creation of space.
From: Don Stockbauer on 20 Sep 2009 19:26
On Sep 20, 11:04 am, Zinnic <zeenr...(a)gate.net> wrote:
> On Sep 20, 8:34 am, Don Stockbauer <don.stockba...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > See above! Your grasp of relativity seems somewhat tenuous. If you are
> > > married, I suggest that each night you carefully check you are not
> > > bedding one of your Uncles.
> > > Zinnic
>
> > You might want to detail an exact procedure for him/her to go by.
>
> That has been done without effect by those  much more expert than I in
> the physics of relativity. I guess they gave when they failed to
> clarify Androcles confusion.
> I hoped that he might modify his claims if he recognizes that his
> contradictions  are apparent even to non-experts like myself.
> Apparently not!!  :-)
> Zinnic

I'm sorry, I was speaking of a "check to be sure one is not bedding
one's uncle" procedure.

First  |  Prev  | 
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5
Prev: Day of any date
Next: Errors of Bill Dubuque's perception of a valid math proof of IP; #123; 2nd ed; Euclid's IP