Doppler shift is evidence for varying speed of light.


 Science > Physics > Doppler shift is evidence for varying speed of light.

LINK TO THIS PAGE  


rating :  0   |  0


  Page 1 of 16

1
 

2
 

3
 

4
 

5
 

6
 

7
 

8
 

9
 

10
 

11
 

12
 

13
 

14
 

15
 

16
 
Topic: Science > Physics
User: ""
Date: 03 Aug 2005 10:09:12 AM
Object: Doppler shift is evidence for varying speed of light.
Doppler shift is evidence for varying speed of light.
Why?
Because the wave length of a specific light source remains constant in
all frames and thus according to the equation:
speed of light = Lambda*frequency
Therefore, If frequency is shifted then the speed of light is varied.
Ken Seto
.

User: "Bilge"

Title: Re: Doppler shift is evidence for varying speed of light. 03 Aug 2005 11:20:47 AM
kenseto@erinet.com:

Doppler shift is evidence for varying speed of light.
Why?


Because you didn't understand the simple explanation. Why else?
.
User: ""

Title: Re: Doppler shift is evidence for varying speed of light. 03 Aug 2005 01:50:31 PM
Because you are an idiot runt of the SR experts.:-)
.
User: "The Ghost In The Machine"

Title: Re: Doppler shift is evidence for varying speed of light. 04 Aug 2005 12:00:05 AM
In sci.physics,

<
>
wrote
on 3 Aug 2005 11:50:31 -0700
<1123095031.183883.240440@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>:

Because you are an idiot runt of the SR experts.:-)

The problem is that all three of SR, BaT, and IRT predict
a wavelength shift from moving source to stationary observer.
The question is: how much?
--
#191,

It's still legal to go .sigless.
.
User: "kenseto"

Title: Re: Doppler shift is evidence for varying speed of light. 05 Aug 2005 11:00:05 AM
"The Ghost In The Machine" <ewill@sirius.tg00suus7038.net> wrote in message
news:jjh8s2-hkj.ln1@sirius.tg00suus7038.net...

In sci.physics,


<
>
wrote
on 3 Aug 2005 11:50:31 -0700
<1123095031.183883.240440@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>:

Because you are an idiot runt of the SR experts.:-)


The problem is that all three of SR, BaT, and IRT predict
a wavelength shift from moving source to stationary observer.

NO....IRT does not predict wavelength shift. IRT predicts the wave length
from identical light source remains constant in all frames. Any observed
doppler shift is due to the varying speed of light.
Ken Seto
.




User: "Uncle Al"

Title: Re: Doppler shift is evidence for varying speed of light. 03 Aug 2005 01:23:10 PM
"kenseto@erinet.com" wrote:


Doppler shift is evidence for varying speed of light.
Why?
Because the wave length of a specific light source remains constant in
all frames and thus according to the equation:
speed of light = Lambda*frequency
Therefore, If frequency is shifted then the speed of light is varied.

Ken Seto

Hey stooopid, CPU photolithography is done under water to compress the
exposing wavelength at constant frequency. This allows
diffraction-limited resolution at smaller scales for the same light
source. At the sodium D-line it is a compression factor of 1.333, at
400 nm it is 1.3445, at 226.5 nm it is 1.394. It increases in the
deep UV and the near-IR (n=1.53 at 500 cm^(-1), Appl. Opt. 28
1714-1719 (1989)).
Ignorant idiot.
http://www.iapws.org/relguide/rindex.pdf
"Release on refractive index of ordinary water substance as a
function of wavelength, temperature and pressure," published by
International Association for the Properties of Water and Steam
(IAPWS), September 1997.
"Refractive index of water and steam as function of wavelength,
temperature and density," J. Phys. Ch. R. 19 677-717 (1990)
"The complex refractive index of water," David J Segelstein, ix, 167
leaves : ill. ; 29 cm. Thesis (M.S.)--Department of Physics.
University of Missouri-Kansas City, 1981.
"Optical properties of pure water in the 250-600 nm range," Opt.
Spectrosc. 41 391- 392 (1976)
"Optical constants of water in the 200 nm to 200 µm wavelength
region," Appl. Opt. 12 555-563 (1973)
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf
.
User: ""

Title: Re: Doppler shift is evidence for varying speed of light. 03 Aug 2005 01:58:24 PM
Hey idiot....your explanation is based on the interpretation that the
speed of light is constant.
.
User: "Uncle Al"

Title: Re: Doppler shift is evidence for varying speed of light. 03 Aug 2005 03:12:22 PM
"kenseto@erinet.com" wrote:

"UncleAl@hate.sapm.net" wrote

Hey stooopid, CPU photolithography is done under water to compress the
exposing wavelength at constant frequency. This allows
diffraction-limited resolution at smaller scales for the same light
source. At the sodium D-line it is a compression factor of 1.333, at
400 nm it is 1.3445, at 226.5 nm it is 1.394. It increases in the
deep UV and the near-IR (n=1.53 at 500 cm^(-1), Appl. Opt. 28
1714-1719 (1989)).

Ignorant idiot.

http://www.iapws.org/relguide/rindex.pdf
"Release on refractive index of ordinary water substance as a
function of wavelength, temperature and pressure," published by
International Association for the Properties of Water and Steam
(IAPWS), September 1997.
"Refractive index of water and steam as function of wavelength,
temperature and density," J. Phys. Ch. R. 19 677-717 (1990)
"The complex refractive index of water," David J Segelstein, ix, 167
leaves : ill. ; 29 cm. Thesis (M.S.)--Department of Physics.
University of Missouri-Kansas City, 1981.
"Optical properties of pure water in the 250-600 nm range," Opt.
Spectrosc. 41 391- 392 (1976)
"Optical constants of water in the 200 nm to 200 µm wavelength
region," Appl. Opt. 12 555-563 (1973)
Hey idiot....your explanation is based on the interpretation that the
speed of light is constant.

You ineducable fucking imbecile - does your Pentium exist or not? If
it does, then lambda during its photolithographic fabrication was
compressed ~1.5X by immersion in water.
Listen up, you *****-faced baboon, if it is reproducibly observed it is
real. Your ignorance, incompetence, and psychosis are not of interest
to the world at large. Quite the contrary. You are not even an
interesting laughingstock.
Haul your unwiped ***** to
http://www.uspto.gov/
and look up th sheaf of patents that scream you are a boor and a
jackass. Or get a note from Andy Grove co-signed by your mama.
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf
.
User: "kenseto"

Title: Re: Doppler shift is evidence for varying speed of light. 05 Aug 2005 11:43:15 AM
"Uncle Al" <UncleAl0@hate.spam.net> wrote in message
news:42F12526.7A633A03@hate.spam.net...

"kenseto@erinet.com" wrote:

"UncleAl@hate.sapm.net" wrote

Hey stooopid, CPU photolithography is done under water to compress the
exposing wavelength at constant frequency. This allows
diffraction-limited resolution at smaller scales for the same light
source. At the sodium D-line it is a compression factor of 1.333, at
400 nm it is 1.3445, at 226.5 nm it is 1.394. It increases in the
deep UV and the near-IR (n=1.53 at 500 cm^(-1), Appl. Opt. 28
1714-1719 (1989)).

Ignorant idiot.

http://www.iapws.org/relguide/rindex.pdf
"Release on refractive index of ordinary water substance as a
function of wavelength, temperature and pressure," published by
International Association for the Properties of Water and Steam
(IAPWS), September 1997.
"Refractive index of water and steam as function of wavelength,
temperature and density," J. Phys. Ch. R. 19 677-717 (1990)
"The complex refractive index of water," David J Segelstein, ix, 167
leaves : ill. ; 29 cm. Thesis (M.S.)--Department of Physics.
University of Missouri-Kansas City, 1981.
"Optical properties of pure water in the 250-600 nm range," Opt.
Spectrosc. 41 391- 392 (1976)
"Optical constants of water in the 200 nm to 200 µm wavelength
region," Appl. Opt. 12 555-563 (1973)


Hey idiot....your explanation is based on the interpretation that the
speed of light is constant.


You ineducable fucking imbecile - does your Pentium exist or not? If
it does, then lambda during its photolithographic fabrication was
compressed ~1.5X by immersion in water.

Listen up, you *****-faced baboon, if it is reproducibly observed it is
real. Your ignorance, incompetence, and psychosis are not of interest
to the world at large. Quite the contrary. You are not even an
interesting laughingstock.

Hitler AL....You are a fucking idiot runt.
Definition for a runt of the SR experts:
A moron who thinks that SR is a religion. An idiot who doesn't
know the limitations of SR. A mental midget who can't comprehend
beyond what he was taught in school. An imbecile who follows
the real experts around like a puppy and eats up their ***** like
gourmet puppy chow. An ***** who will attack anybody who
disagrees with SR.
Ken Seto
Ken Seto
.


User: "Sam Wormley"

Title: Re: Doppler shift is evidence for varying speed of light. 03 Aug 2005 02:45:08 PM
wrote:

Hey idiot....your explanation is based on the interpretation that the
speed of light is constant.

Speed of light is a constant!
.
User: "The Ghost In The Machine"

Title: Re: Doppler shift is evidence for varying speed of light. 04 Aug 2005 12:00:06 AM
In sci.physics, Sam Wormley
<swormley1@mchsi.com>
wrote
on Wed, 03 Aug 2005 19:45:08 GMT
<899Ie.215729$_o.70417@attbi_s71>:

kenseto@erinet.com wrote:

Hey idiot....your explanation is based on the interpretation that the
speed of light is constant.


Speed of light is a constant!

Speed of light is *DEFINED* constant. It may not *BE* quite constant,
although for all intents and purposes we've measured as such prior
to 1983, and presumably still attempt to show its isotropy today,
within a certain error -- probably 10^-13 or so by now, but I'd
frankly have to look.
However, one has to be careful in curved metric spaces, lest an
inconsistent length basis be used between point A, which might be,
say, at the top of a mountain, and point B, which is at the base.
Such effects, at least from what I can see, appear extremely
tiny, at least here on Earth. Near a black hole's event horizon,
though, things will get *very* strange.
--
#191,

It's still legal to go .sigless.
.
User: "Gregory L. Hansen"

Title: Re: Doppler shift is evidence for varying speed of light. 04 Aug 2005 10:09:47 AM
In article <14i8s2-hkj.ln1@sirius.tg00suus7038.net>,
The Ghost In The Machine <ewill@sirius.tg00suus7038.net> wrote:

In sci.physics, Sam Wormley
<swormley1@mchsi.com>
wrote
on Wed, 03 Aug 2005 19:45:08 GMT
<899Ie.215729$_o.70417@attbi_s71>:

kenseto@erinet.com wrote:

Hey idiot....your explanation is based on the interpretation that the
speed of light is constant.


Speed of light is a constant!


Speed of light is *DEFINED* constant. It may not *BE* quite constant,
although for all intents and purposes we've measured as such prior
to 1983, and presumably still attempt to show its isotropy today,
within a certain error -- probably 10^-13 or so by now, but I'd
frankly have to look.

Here's an article I thought was interesting.
"Test of special relativity by a determination of the Lorentz limiting
velocity: Does E=mc^2?" by Greene, Dewey, Kessler, and Fischbach, Phys Rev
D 44, R2216 (1991).
Abstract: We describe a method by which existing precision measurements
may be used to provide a new laboratory test of the special theory of
relativity. In this test the speed of light c_em is compared with the
limiting velcity of massive particles, c_m. Although it is conventionally
assumed that c_em=c_m=c. this need not be the case in phenomenological
alternatives to special relativity. Our results impose limits on the
quantity (1-c_m/c_em). Unlike null tests of special relativity, this
limit does not depend on assumptions concerning the motion of the
laboratory with respect to a preferred frame.
They find, as of 1991, that (1-c_m/c_em) = 1(12)e-6.
Oddly enough, in all of the "Einstein was wrong" discussions I've payed
attention to here, I don't think I've ever seen the assertion that c_em
!= c_m. And this article was published in a peer-reviewed journal, too.
--
"It is the weak who are cruel. Gentleness can only be expected from the
strong." -- Leo Roskin
.



User: "PD"

Title: Re: Doppler shift is evidence for varying speed of light. 04 Aug 2005 09:18:32 AM
wrote:

Hey idiot....your explanation is based on the interpretation that the
speed of light is constant.

If you're referring to Uncle Al's citations then, ironically, you are
still wrong. In a transition to a material of a different index of
refraction, what is held constant is frequency, the speed of light
through the medium changes, and so the wavelength changes. This is a
crucial consideration not only for the cases that Uncle Al cites, but
also in non-reflective coatings for the glasses which apparently do
nothing for your myopia.
PD
.
User: "kenseto"

Title: Re: Doppler shift is evidence for varying speed of light. 05 Aug 2005 03:24:51 PM
"PD" <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1123165112.345034.320520@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...


kenseto@erinet.com wrote:

Hey idiot....your explanation is based on the interpretation that the
speed of light is constant.


If you're referring to Uncle Al's citations then, ironically, you are
still wrong. In a transition to a material of a different index of
refraction, what is held constant is frequency, the speed of light
through the medium changes, and so the wavelength changes. This is a
crucial consideration not only for the cases that Uncle Al cites, but
also in non-reflective coatings for the glasses which apparently do
nothing for your myopia.

The other possibility is that inside the material nothing is changed. That's
the reason why when light re-emerges from the material it will have the same
wavelength, frequency and speed.
Ken Seto
.
User: "PD"

Title: Re: Doppler shift is evidence for varying speed of light. 05 Aug 2005 04:02:09 PM
kenseto wrote:

"PD" <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1123165112.345034.320520@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...


kenseto@erinet.com wrote:

Hey idiot....your explanation is based on the interpretation that the
speed of light is constant.


If you're referring to Uncle Al's citations then, ironically, you are
still wrong. In a transition to a material of a different index of
refraction, what is held constant is frequency, the speed of light
through the medium changes, and so the wavelength changes. This is a
crucial consideration not only for the cases that Uncle Al cites, but
also in non-reflective coatings for the glasses which apparently do
nothing for your myopia.


The other possibility is that inside the material nothing is changed. That's
the reason why when light re-emerges from the material it will have the same
wavelength, frequency and speed.

That possibility is ruled out by experiment. Here is the mechanism for
nonreflective coatings. The way those work is that light incident on
the front surface of the coating splits, some reflecting from the front
of the coating and some reflecting off the back of the coating and then
coming out the front of the coating again. Those two wave contributions
then superimpose and the total light is the result of the interference
of those contributions. Because the light that has to reflect off the
back of the coating has further to go (twice the thickness of the
coating), the two waves in general will not be completely in phase. In
fact, if the thickness is arranged to be 1/4 of a wavelength, then the
difference in path length will be 1/2 wavelength, and the two
contributions will be completely out of phase and they will cancel each
other, almost entirely eliminating reflected light.
The trick to doing this right is to discover that the thickness has to
be 1/4 of the wavelength of the light *in the coating*, which is
shorter than the wavelength in the surrounding air (or vacuum) by the
factor n (index of refraction). If you don't take that into account,
the non-reflective coating isn't non-reflective. That is a simple
experiment to verify and is verified in people's eyeglasses and camera
lenses every day.
Glad to tie up that loose shoelace for you.
PD
.
User: "kenseto"

Title: Re: Doppler shift is evidence for varying speed of light. 07 Aug 2005 12:09:15 PM
"PD" <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1123275729.619208.230960@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...


kenseto wrote:

"PD" <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1123165112.345034.320520@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...


kenseto@erinet.com wrote:

Hey idiot....your explanation is based on the interpretation that

the

speed of light is constant.


If you're referring to Uncle Al's citations then, ironically, you are
still wrong. In a transition to a material of a different index of
refraction, what is held constant is frequency, the speed of light
through the medium changes, and so the wavelength changes. This is a
crucial consideration not only for the cases that Uncle Al cites, but
also in non-reflective coatings for the glasses which apparently do
nothing for your myopia.


The other possibility is that inside the material nothing is changed.

That's

the reason why when light re-emerges from the material it will have the

same

wavelength, frequency and speed.


That possibility is ruled out by experiment. Here is the mechanism for
nonreflective coatings. The way those work is that light incident on
the front surface of the coating splits, some reflecting from the front
of the coating and some reflecting off the back of the coating and then
coming out the front of the coating again. Those two wave contributions
then superimpose and the total light is the result of the interference
of those contributions. Because the light that has to reflect off the
back of the coating has further to go (twice the thickness of the
coating), the two waves in general will not be completely in phase. In
fact, if the thickness is arranged to be 1/4 of a wavelength, then the
difference in path length will be 1/2 wavelength, and the two
contributions will be completely out of phase and they will cancel each
other, almost entirely eliminating reflected light.

The trick to doing this right is to discover that the thickness has to
be 1/4 of the wavelength of the light *in the coating*, which is
shorter than the wavelength in the surrounding air (or vacuum) by the
factor n (index of refraction). If you don't take that into account,
the non-reflective coating isn't non-reflective. That is a simple
experiment to verify and is verified in people's eyeglasses and camera
lenses every day.

How is this refute my claim that doppler shfit is evidence for varying light
speed?
.
User: "PD"

Title: Re: Doppler shift is evidence for varying speed of light. 12 Aug 2005 03:08:18 PM
kenseto wrote:

"PD" <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1123275729.619208.230960@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...


kenseto wrote:

"PD" <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1123165112.345034.320520@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...


kenseto@erinet.com wrote:

Hey idiot....your explanation is based on the interpretation that

the

speed of light is constant.


If you're referring to Uncle Al's citations then, ironically, you are
still wrong. In a transition to a material of a different index of
refraction, what is held constant is frequency, the speed of light
through the medium changes, and so the wavelength changes. This is a
crucial consideration not only for the cases that Uncle Al cites, but
also in non-reflective coatings for the glasses which apparently do
nothing for your myopia.


The other possibility is that inside the material nothing is changed.

That's

the reason why when light re-emerges from the material it will have the

same

wavelength, frequency and speed.


That possibility is ruled out by experiment. Here is the mechanism for
nonreflective coatings. The way those work is that light incident on
the front surface of the coating splits, some reflecting from the front
of the coating and some reflecting off the back of the coating and then
coming out the front of the coating again. Those two wave contributions
then superimpose and the total light is the result of the interference
of those contributions. Because the light that has to reflect off the
back of the coating has further to go (twice the thickness of the
coating), the two waves in general will not be completely in phase. In
fact, if the thickness is arranged to be 1/4 of a wavelength, then the
difference in path length will be 1/2 wavelength, and the two
contributions will be completely out of phase and they will cancel each
other, almost entirely eliminating reflected light.

The trick to doing this right is to discover that the thickness has to
be 1/4 of the wavelength of the light *in the coating*, which is
shorter than the wavelength in the surrounding air (or vacuum) by the
factor n (index of refraction). If you don't take that into account,
the non-reflective coating isn't non-reflective. That is a simple
experiment to verify and is verified in people's eyeglasses and camera
lenses every day.


How is this refute my claim that doppler shfit is evidence for varying light
speed?

It rules out your claim above that inside the material nothing
(including wavelength) is changed. Now if you will admit that this is
wrong, we will presently turn to what is wrong with interpreting
Doppler shift as a change in light speed.
PD
.
User: "kenseto"

Title: Re: Doppler shift is evidence for varying speed of light. 13 Aug 2005 09:23:51 AM
"PD" <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1123877298.770634.202450@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...


kenseto wrote:

"PD" <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1123275729.619208.230960@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...


kenseto wrote:

"PD" <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1123165112.345034.320520@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...


kenseto@erinet.com wrote:

Hey idiot....your explanation is based on the interpretation

that

the

speed of light is constant.


If you're referring to Uncle Al's citations then, ironically, you

are

still wrong. In a transition to a material of a different index of
refraction, what is held constant is frequency, the speed of light
through the medium changes, and so the wavelength changes. This is

a

crucial consideration not only for the cases that Uncle Al cites,

but

also in non-reflective coatings for the glasses which apparently

do

nothing for your myopia.


The other possibility is that inside the material nothing is

changed.

That's

the reason why when light re-emerges from the material it will have

the

same

wavelength, frequency and speed.


That possibility is ruled out by experiment. Here is the mechanism for
nonreflective coatings. The way those work is that light incident on
the front surface of the coating splits, some reflecting from the

front

of the coating and some reflecting off the back of the coating and

then

coming out the front of the coating again. Those two wave

contributions

then superimpose and the total light is the result of the interference
of those contributions. Because the light that has to reflect off the
back of the coating has further to go (twice the thickness of the
coating), the two waves in general will not be completely in phase. In
fact, if the thickness is arranged to be 1/4 of a wavelength, then the
difference in path length will be 1/2 wavelength, and the two
contributions will be completely out of phase and they will cancel

each

other, almost entirely eliminating reflected light.

The trick to doing this right is to discover that the thickness has to
be 1/4 of the wavelength of the light *in the coating*, which is
shorter than the wavelength in the surrounding air (or vacuum) by the
factor n (index of refraction). If you don't take that into account,
the non-reflective coating isn't non-reflective. That is a simple
experiment to verify and is verified in people's eyeglasses and camera
lenses every day.


How is this refute my claim that doppler shfit is evidence for varying

light

speed?


It rules out your claim above that inside the material nothing
(including wavelength) is changed.

Sheesh....it does not rule out my claim at all. Inside the material clocks
runs at a different rate. Thus frequency, wavelength and light speed will
maintain the same ratio as outdise the material.

Now if you will admit that this is
wrong, we will presently turn to what is wrong with interpreting
Doppler shift as a change in light speed.

Doppler shift is a change in light speed. This statement cannot be refuted
because all observers measures the same wavelength for identical light
source in their frame. There is no valid reason why the wavelength should
change on its way to the observer. There is valid reason why light speed
changes if the observer is moving wrt the incoming light.
Ken Seto
.
User: "Androcles Androcles@ MyPlace.org"

Title: KEN SETO, THE RUNT OF THE AETHERIALISTS, AGREES DOPPLER SHIFT IS A CHANGE IN LIGHT SPEED 13 Aug 2005 10:10:46 AM
"kenseto" <kenseto@erinet.com> wrote in message
news:XnnLe.71758$yC5.18789@tornado.ohiordc.rr.com...
|
| Doppler shift is a change in light speed. This statement cannot be
refuted
| because all observers measures the same wavelength for identical light
| source in their frame. There is no valid reason why the wavelength
should
| change on its way to the observer. There is valid reason why light
speed
| changes if the observer is moving wrt the incoming light.
|
| Ken Seto
Egads, Seto!! You've given up aether! Well done!
MMX:
c+u
f' = f --------------,
c+v
from Doppler.
u = v, the source has the same speed as the detector.
Hence f' = f, no fringe shift.
Androcles
.
User: "kenseto"

Title: Re: KEN SETO, THE RUNT OF THE AETHERIALISTS, AGREES DOPPLER SHIFT IS A CHANGE IN LIGHT SPEED 14 Aug 2005 09:50:09 AM
"Androcles" <Androcles@ MyPlace.org> wrote in message
news:W3oLe.4200$le3.2033@fe1.news.blueyonder.co.uk...


"kenseto" <kenseto@erinet.com> wrote in message
news:XnnLe.71758$yC5.18789@tornado.ohiordc.rr.com...

|
| Doppler shift is a change in light speed. This statement cannot be
refuted
| because all observers measures the same wavelength for identical light
| source in their frame. There is no valid reason why the wavelength
should
| change on its way to the observer. There is valid reason why light
speed
| changes if the observer is moving wrt the incoming light.
|
| Ken Seto

Egads, Seto!! You've given up aether! Well done!

No I have not given up the ether. The reason why wave length remain constant
is because light waves are being transmitted by a stationary ether at a
constant speed. Doppler shfit is due to the observer moving wrt to these
light waves.


MMX:
c+u
f' = f --------------,
c+v

from Doppler.

u = v, the source has the same speed as the detector.

Hence f' = f, no fringe shift.

Wrong the MMX null result is due to the apparatus is moving vertically wrt
the horizontally moving light rays. This interpretation is supported by the
Pound-Rebka experiments.
Ken Seto
.
User: "Androcles Androcles@ MyPlace.org"

Title: Re: KEN SETO, THE RUNT OF THE AETHERIALISTS, AGREES DOPPLER SHIFT IS A CHANGE IN LIGHT SPEED 14 Aug 2005 10:17:19 AM
"kenseto" <kenseto@erinet.com> wrote in message
news:BSILe.71908$yC5.51185@tornado.ohiordc.rr.com...
|
| "Androcles" <Androcles@ MyPlace.org> wrote in message
| news:W3oLe.4200$le3.2033@fe1.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
| >
| > "kenseto" <kenseto@erinet.com> wrote in message
| > news:XnnLe.71758$yC5.18789@tornado.ohiordc.rr.com...
| >
| > |
| > | Doppler shift is a change in light speed. This statement cannot be
| > refuted
| > | because all observers measures the same wavelength for identical
light
| > | source in their frame. There is no valid reason why the wavelength
| > should
| > | change on its way to the observer. There is valid reason why light
| > speed
| > | changes if the observer is moving wrt the incoming light.
| > |
| > | Ken Seto
| >
| > Egads, Seto!! You've given up aether! Well done!
|
| No I have not given up the ether. The reason why wave length remain
constant
| is because light waves are being transmitted by a stationary ether at
a
| constant speed. Doppler shfit is due to the observer moving wrt to
these
| light waves.
| >
| > MMX:
| > c+u
| > f' = f --------------,
| > c+v
| >
| > from Doppler.
| >
| > u = v, the source has the same speed as the detector.
| >
| > Hence f' = f, no fringe shift.
|
| Wrong the MMX null result is due to the apparatus is moving vertically
wrt
| the horizontally moving light rays. This interpretation is supported
by the
| Pound-Rebka experiments.
|
| Ken Seto
Awww.... I guess you still are the runt of the aetherialists, huh?
Not many of you left, Ken, you are an endangered species. I'd
get myself put on the list if I were you.
Androcles
.
User: "kenseto"

Title: Re: KEN SETO, THE RUNT OF THE AETHERIALISTS, AGREES DOPPLER SHIFT IS A CHANGE IN LIGHT SPEED 16 Aug 2005 07:54:26 AM
"Androcles" <Androcles@ MyPlace.org> wrote in message
news:3gJLe.4668$P.4445@fe3.news.blueyonder.co.uk...


"kenseto" <kenseto@erinet.com> wrote in message
news:BSILe.71908$yC5.51185@tornado.ohiordc.rr.com...
|
| "Androcles" <Androcles@ MyPlace.org> wrote in message
| news:W3oLe.4200$le3.2033@fe1.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
| >
| > "kenseto" <kenseto@erinet.com> wrote in message
| > news:XnnLe.71758$yC5.18789@tornado.ohiordc.rr.com...
| >
| > |
| > | Doppler shift is a change in light speed. This statement cannot be
| > refuted
| > | because all observers measures the same wavelength for identical
light
| > | source in their frame. There is no valid reason why the wavelength
| > should
| > | change on its way to the observer. There is valid reason why light
| > speed
| > | changes if the observer is moving wrt the incoming light.
| > |
| > | Ken Seto
| >
| > Egads, Seto!! You've given up aether! Well done!
|
| No I have not given up the ether. The reason why wave length remain
constant
| is because light waves are being transmitted by a stationary ether at
a
| constant speed. Doppler shfit is due to the observer moving wrt to
these
| light waves.
| >
| > MMX:
| > c+u
| > f' = f --------------,
| > c+v
| >
| > from Doppler.
| >
| > u = v, the source has the same speed as the detector.
| >
| > Hence f' = f, no fringe shift.
|
| Wrong the MMX null result is due to the apparatus is moving vertically
wrt
| the horizontally moving light rays. This interpretation is supported
by the
| Pound-Rebka experiments.
|
| Ken Seto

Awww.... I guess you still are the runt of the aetherialists, huh?
Not many of you left, Ken, you are an endangered species. I'd
get myself put on the list if I were you.

Fucking idiot.
.

User: "tj Frazir"

Title: Re: KEN SETO, THE RUNT OF THE AETHERIALISTS, AGREES DOPPLER SHIFTI... 14 Aug 2005 01:42:44 PM
c is the limit for evry observer.
Even the observer at the edge of huble constant .
At the edge of Hubble constant 15 billion light years away the star is
moving away from us at c .
DS is a strait line .
Then out side the visible universe the star is invisible to us . Its
speed from us is faster than light speed. But c is still light speed.
Even to the star that went past hubble c from us , its light speed is
constant c .

Dark energy is the energy presure of stait line energy.
c is the rate energy will react with energy .
there is more light with no wavelenth at all inside the visible
universe than there is space.
BGR is light from near c stars at the edge of the hubble constant.
After that its an undetectable stait line .
.


User: "The Ghost In The Machine"

Title: Re: KEN SETO, THE RUNT OF THE AETHERIALISTS, AGREES DOPPLER SHIFT IS A CHANGE IN LIGHT SPEED 14 Aug 2005 11:00:05 AM
In sci.physics, kenseto
<kenseto@erinet.com>
wrote
on Sun, 14 Aug 2005 14:50:09 GMT
<BSILe.71908$yC5.51185@tornado.ohiordc.rr.com>:


"Androcles" <Androcles@ MyPlace.org> wrote in message
news:W3oLe.4200$le3.2033@fe1.news.blueyonder.co.uk...


"kenseto" <kenseto@erinet.com> wrote in message
news:XnnLe.71758$yC5.18789@tornado.ohiordc.rr.com...

|
| Doppler shift is a change in light speed. This statement cannot be
refuted
| because all observers measures the same wavelength for identical light
| source in their frame. There is no valid reason why the wavelength
should
| change on its way to the observer. There is valid reason why light
speed
| changes if the observer is moving wrt the incoming light.
|
| Ken Seto

Egads, Seto!! You've given up aether! Well done!


No I have not given up the ether. The reason why wave length remain constant
is because light waves are being transmitted by a stationary ether at a
constant speed. Doppler shfit is due to the observer moving wrt to these
light waves.

That would give a frequency ratio of (1-v/c). This is not consistent
with SR's sqrt(1-v/c)/sqrt(1+v/c), though the divergence is small
for v << c.


MMX:
c+u
f' = f --------------,
c+v

from Doppler.

u = v, the source has the same speed as the detector.

Hence f' = f, no fringe shift.


Wrong the MMX null result is due to the apparatus is moving vertically wrt
the horizontally moving light rays. This interpretation is supported by the
Pound-Rebka experiments.

It's not clear to me how Pound-Rebka can be used to distinguish
between GR and "falling light", without more research on my part.
Ideally, Harvard Tower would have a grip-track and the gamma source
would be movable; the results would then be plotted as resonance
versus distance. A pulley might work if sway can be minimized.
The fact is that there is no shift. The interpretation *why* is
not quite as clear.


Ken Seto

--
#191,

It's still legal to go .sigless.
.
User: "kenseto"

Title: Re: KEN SETO, THE RUNT OF THE AETHERIALISTS, AGREES DOPPLER SHIFT IS A CHANGE IN LIGHT SPEED 14 Aug 2005 03:05:24 PM
"The Ghost In The Machine" <ewill@sirius.tg00suus7038.net> wrote in message
news:km54t2-dsp.ln1@sirius.tg00suus7038.net...

In sci.physics, kenseto
<kenseto@erinet.com>
wrote
on Sun, 14 Aug 2005 14:50:09 GMT
<BSILe.71908$yC5.51185@tornado.ohiordc.rr.com>:


"Androcles" <Androcles@ MyPlace.org> wrote in message
news:W3oLe.4200$le3.2033@fe1.news.blueyonder.co.uk...


"kenseto" <kenseto@erinet.com> wrote in message
news:XnnLe.71758$yC5.18789@tornado.ohiordc.rr.com...

|
| Doppler shift is a change in light speed. This statement cannot be
refuted
| because all observers measures the same wavelength for identical

light

| source in their frame. There is no valid reason why the wavelength
should
| change on its way to the observer. There is valid reason why light
speed
| changes if the observer is moving wrt the incoming light.
|
| Ken Seto

Egads, Seto!! You've given up aether! Well done!


No I have not given up the ether. The reason why wave length remain

constant

is because light waves are being transmitted by a stationary ether at a
constant speed. Doppler shfit is due to the observer moving wrt to these
light waves.


That would give a frequency ratio of (1-v/c). This is not consistent
with SR's sqrt(1-v/c)/sqrt(1+v/c), though the divergence is small
for v << c.

Hey idiot....Faa/Fab is not equal to (1-v/c)



MMX:
c+u
f' = f --------------,
c+v

from Doppler.

u = v, the source has the same speed as the detector.

Hence f' = f, no fringe shift.


Wrong the MMX null result is due to the apparatus is moving vertically

wrt

the horizontally moving light rays. This interpretation is supported by

the

Pound-Rebka experiments.


It's not clear to me how Pound-Rebka can be used to distinguish
between GR and "falling light", without more research on my part.
Ideally, Harvard Tower would have a grip-track and the gamma source
would be movable; the results would then be plotted as resonance
versus distance. A pulley might work if sway can be minimized.

The fact is that there is no shift. The interpretation *why* is
not quite as clear.

You are a very stupid person. Pound and Rebka show that the direction of
absolute motion is in the vertical direction by showing that frequency shift
is in the vertical direction. This means that my interpretation of the MMX
null result is correct. The null result is due to that the apparatus is
moving in the vertical direction wrt the horizontal light rays.
.
User: "The Ghost In The Machine"

Title: Re: KEN SETO, THE RUNT OF THE AETHERIALISTS, AGREES DOPPLER SHIFT IS A CHANGE IN LIGHT SPEED 14 Aug 2005 11:00:07 PM
In sci.physics, kenseto
<kenseto@erinet.com>
wrote
on Sun, 14 Aug 2005 20:05:24 GMT
<8uNLe.60049$B52.27197@tornado.ohiordc.rr.com>:


"The Ghost In The Machine" <ewill@sirius.tg00suus7038.net> wrote in message
news:km54t2-dsp.ln1@sirius.tg00suus7038.net...

In sci.physics, kenseto
<kenseto@erinet.com>
wrote
on Sun, 14 Aug 2005 14:50:09 GMT
<BSILe.71908$yC5.51185@tornado.ohiordc.rr.com>:


"Androcles" <Androcles@ MyPlace.org> wrote in message
news:W3oLe.4200$le3.2033@fe1.news.blueyonder.co.uk...


"kenseto" <kenseto@erinet.com> wrote in message
news:XnnLe.71758$yC5.18789@tornado.ohiordc.rr.com...

|
| Doppler shift is a change in light speed. This statement cannot be
refuted
| because all observers measures the same wavelength for identical

light

| source in their frame. There is no valid reason why the wavelength
should
| change on its way to the observer. There is valid reason why light
speed
| changes if the observer is moving wrt the incoming light.
|
| Ken Seto

Egads, Seto!! You've given up aether! Well done!


No I have not given up the ether. The reason why wave length
remain constant is because light waves are being transmitted
by a stationary ether at a constant speed. Doppler shfit is
due to the observer moving wrt to these light waves.


That would give a frequency ratio of (1-v/c). This is not consistent
with SR's sqrt(1-v/c)/sqrt(1+v/c), though the divergence is small
for v << c.


Hey idiot....Faa/Fab is not equal to (1-v/c)

Let me walk through this very slowly. Assume for an instant the
postulates of nBaT:
[1] Light is c relative to the source.
[2] Time and space are absolute; all clocks remain synchronized no
matter what their motion, and all lengths remain the same as well.
Now radiate a spherical wavefront from a source at rest, of frequency
299.792458 MHz so that the wavefronts are exactly 1 m distance apart.
An observer moving at velocity v directly away from the source will
only be hit by
299792458 * (c-v) /c
of these wavefronts every second.
Granted, this is using nBaT, not using IRT/MM. If one uses standard
SR, whose postulates are:
[1] Light is c (TWLS) relative to source and observer.
[2] Time and space twist to accomodate [1].
then one gets a frequency ratio of sqrt(1-v/c) / sqrt(1+v/c), after
a lot of calculation of which one gets as an intermediary the
Lorentz Transformation. It's not hard to rederive though I'll
refer you to some of my previous posts.
If IRT/MM is an upgrade of SR one has a consistency problem, as
far as I can tell anyway.



MMX:
c+u
f' = f --------------,
c+v

from Doppler.

u = v, the source has the same speed as the detector.

Hence f' = f, no fringe shift.


Wrong the MMX null result is due to the apparatus is moving vertically

wrt

the horizontally moving light rays. This interpretation is supported by

the

Pound-Rebka experiments.


It's not clear to me how Pound-Rebka can be used to distinguish
between GR and "falling light", without more research on my part.
Ideally, Harvard Tower would have a grip-track and the gamma source
would be movable; the results would then be plotted as resonance
versus distance. A pulley might work if sway can be minimized.

The fact is that there is no shift. The interpretation *why* is
not quite as clear.


You are a very stupid person.

Damn, I hate it when I do that. MMX has no shift. Pound-Rebka does.

Pound and Rebka show that the direction of
absolute motion is in the vertical direction by showing that frequency shift
is in the vertical direction. This means that my interpretation of the MMX
null result is correct. The null result is due to that the apparatus is
moving in the vertical direction wrt the horizontal light rays.

Ah...so the null result is because the light *falls* while traveling
from mirror to mirror, then?
--
#191,

It's still legal to go .sigless.
.
User: "kenseto"

Title: Re: KEN SETO, THE RUNT OF THE AETHERIALISTS, AGREES DOPPLER SHIFT IS A CHANGE IN LIGHT SPEED 15 Aug 2005 09:36:26 AM
"The Ghost In The Machine" <ewill@sirius.tg00suus7038.net> wrote in message
news:lrf5t2-9lt.ln1@sirius.tg00suus7038.net...

In sci.physics, kenseto
<kenseto@erinet.com>
wrote
on Sun, 14 Aug 2005 20:05:24 GMT
<8uNLe.60049$B52.27197@tornado.ohiordc.rr.com>:


"The Ghost In The Machine" <ewill@sirius.tg00suus7038.net> wrote in

message

news:km54t2-dsp.ln1@sirius.tg00suus7038.net...

In sci.physics, kenseto
<kenseto@erinet.com>
wrote
on Sun, 14 Aug 2005 14:50:09 GMT
<BSILe.71908$yC5.51185@tornado.ohiordc.rr.com>:


"Androcles" <Androcles@ MyPlace.org> wrote in message
news:W3oLe.4200$le3.2033@fe1.news.blueyonder.co.uk...


"kenseto" <kenseto@erinet.com> wrote in message
news:XnnLe.71758$yC5.18789@tornado.ohiordc.rr.com...

|
| Doppler shift is a change in light speed. This statement cannot be
refuted
| because all observers measures the same wavelength for identical

light

| source in their frame. There is no valid reason why the wavelength
should
| change on its way to the observer. There is valid reason why light
speed
| changes if the observer is moving wrt the incoming light.
|
| Ken Seto

Egads, Seto!! You've given up aether! Well done!


No I have not given up the ether. The reason why wave length
remain constant is because light waves are being transmitted
by a stationary ether at a constant speed. Doppler shfit is
due to the observer moving wrt to these light waves.


That would give a frequency ratio of (1-v/c). This is not consistent
with SR's sqrt(1-v/c)/sqrt(1+v/c), though the divergence is small
for v << c.


Hey idiot....Faa/Fab is not equal to (1-v/c)



Let me walk through this very slowly. Assume for an instant the
postulates of nBaT:

I don't give a ***** about BaT.


[1] Light is c (TWLS) relative to source and observer.
[2] Time and space twist to accomodate [1].

then one gets a frequency ratio of sqrt(1-v/c) / sqrt(1+v/c), after
a lot of calculation of which one gets as an intermediary the
Lorentz Transformation. It's not hard to rederive though I'll
refer you to some of my previous posts.

If IRT/MM is an upgrade of SR one has a consistency problem, as
far as I can tell anyway.

In IRT the frequency ratio is measured and it is Faa/Fab.


It's not clear to me how Pound-Rebka can be used to distinguish
between GR and "falling light", without more research on my part.
Ideally, Harvard Tower would have a grip-track and the gamma source
would be movable; the results would then be plotted as resonance
versus distance. A pulley might work if sway can be minimized.

The fact is that there is no shift. The interpretation *why* is
not quite as clear.


You are a very stupid person.


Damn, I hate it when I do that. MMX has no shift. Pound-Rebka does.

Hey idiot the MMX has no shift because the plane of the light rays is
horizontal and perpendicular to the vertical direction of absolute motion of
the apparatus. Pound-Rebka has shift because the plane of the light rays are
in the same vertical direcection as the direction of absolute motion of the
apparatus.


Pound and Rebka show that the direction of
absolute motion is in the vertical direction by showing that frequency

shift

is in the vertical direction. This means that my interpretation of the

MMX

null result is correct. The null result is due to that the apparatus is
moving in the vertical direction wrt the horizontal light rays.

Ah...so the null result is because the light *falls* while traveling
from mirror to mirror, then?

Idiot.
.
User: "Sam Wormley"

Title: Re: KEN SETO, THE RUNT OF THE AETHERIALISTS, AGREES DOPPLER SHIFTIS A CHANGE IN LIGHT SPEED 15 Aug 2005 09:48:17 AM
kenseto wrote:

Hey idiot the MMX has no shift because the plane of the light rays is
horizontal and perpendicular to the vertical direction of absolute motion of
the apparatus. Pound-Rebka has shift because the plane of the light rays are
in the same vertical direcection as the direction of absolute motion of the
apparatus.

Seto doesn't understand Pound and Rebka
http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/biography/Rebka.html
o polarization is not an issue
o there is no "absolute" motion
.
User: "The Ghost In The Machine"

Title: Re: KEN SETO, THE RUNT OF THE AETHERIALISTS, AGREES DOPPLER SHIFT IS A CHANGE IN LIGHT SPEED 16 Aug 2005 12:48:22 AM
In sci.physics, Sam Wormley
<swormley1@mchsi.com>
wrote
on Mon, 15 Aug 2005 14:48:17 GMT
<RW1Me.252176$x96.172589@attbi_s72>:

kenseto wrote:

Hey idiot the MMX has no shift because the plane of the light rays is
horizontal and perpendicular to the vertical direction of absolute motion of
the apparatus. Pound-Rebka has shift because the plane of the light rays are
in the same vertical direcection as the direction of absolute motion of the
apparatus.



Seto doesn't understand Pound and Rebka
http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/biography/Rebka.html

o polarization is not an issue
o there is no "absolute" motion

Seto also doesn't understand the notion of a theoretical
prediction. One can of course easily measure Fab/Faa
in a physical experiment, but IRT/MM doesn't even try to
predict its value, apparently, whereas SR, nBaT, and even
rLaT have no difficulty, although rLaT has to introduce
an additional velocity component because of the rigid aether.
SR: Fab/Faa = sqrt(1-v/c)/sqrt(1+v/c)
rLaT: Fab/Faa = (1-v/c-w/c)/(1-w/c)
nBaT: Fab/Faa = (1-v/c)
IRT/MM: Fab/Faa = ... uh ...
(Note that this is for the (x,t) variant. For the (x,y,z,t) variant
vector addition and trigonometry gets involved.)
I have seen additional theories:
HA = H-Aether
PPJT = Probabilistic Particle Jump Theory (Louis Savain)
DLoL = Dedanoe's Law of Lever
but they don't even get this far.
--
#191,

It's still legal to go .sigless.
.
User: "kenseto"

Title: Re: KEN SETO, THE RUNT OF THE AETHERIALISTS, AGREES DOPPLER SHIFT IS A CHANGE IN LIGHT SPEED 16 Aug 2005 07:57:55 AM
"The Ghost In The Machine" <ewill@sirius.tg00suus7038.net> wrote in message
news:tg88t2-d3f.ln1@sirius.tg00suus7038.net...

In sci.physics, Sam Wormley
<swormley1@mchsi.com>
wrote
on Mon, 15 Aug 2005 14:48:17 GMT
<RW1Me.252176$x96.172589@attbi_s72>:

kenseto wrote:

Hey idiot the MMX has no shift because the plane of the light rays is
horizontal and perpendicular to the vertical direction of absolute

motion of

the apparatus. Pound-Rebka has shift because the plane of the light

rays are

in the same vertical direcection as the direction of absolute motion of

the

apparatus.



Seto doesn't understand Pound and Rebka
http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/biography/Rebka.html

o polarization is not an issue
o there is no "absolute" motion


Seto also doesn't understand the notion of a theoretical
prediction. One can of course easily measure Fab/Faa
in a physical experiment, but IRT/MM doesn't even try to
predict its value, apparently, whereas SR, nBaT, and even
rLaT have no difficulty, although rLaT has to introduce
an additional velocity component because of the rigid aether.

SR: Fab/Faa = sqrt(1-v/c)/sqrt(1+v/c)
rLaT: Fab/Faa = (1-v/c-w/c)/(1-w/c)
nBaT: Fab/Faa = (1-v/c)
IRT/MM: Fab/Faa = ... uh ...

(Note that this is for the (x,t) variant. For the (x,y,z,t) variant
vector addition and trigonometry gets involved.)

Fucking idiot...you don't even know how to measure relative velocity.
.
User: "The Ghost In The Machine"

Title: Re: KEN SETO, THE RUNT OF THE AETHERIALISTS, AGREES DOPPLER SHIFT IS A CHANGE IN LIGHT SPEED 16 Aug 2005 10:51:44 AM
In sci.physics, kenseto
<kenseto@erinet.com>
wrote
on Tue, 16 Aug 2005 12:57:55 GMT
<nplMe.66139$B52.28455@tornado.ohiordc.rr.com>:


"The Ghost In The Machine" <ewill@sirius.tg00suus7038.net> wrote in message
news:tg88t2-d3f.ln1@sirius.tg00suus7038.net...

In sci.physics, Sam Wormley
<swormley1@mchsi.com>
wrote
on Mon, 15 Aug 2005 14:48:17 GMT
<RW1Me.252176$x96.172589@attbi_s72>:

kenseto wrote:

Hey idiot the MMX has no shift because the plane of the light rays is
horizontal and perpendicular to the vertical direction of absolute

motion of

the apparatus. Pound-Rebka has shift because the plane of the light

rays are

in the same vertical direcection as the direction of absolute motion of

the

apparatus.



Seto doesn't understand Pound and Rebka
http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/biography/Rebka.html

o polarization is not an issue
o there is no "absolute" motion


Seto also doesn't understand the notion of a theoretical
prediction. One can of course easily measure Fab/Faa
in a physical experiment, but IRT/MM doesn't even try to
predict its value, apparently, whereas SR, nBaT, and even
rLaT have no difficulty, although rLaT has to introduce
an additional velocity component because of the rigid aether.

SR: Fab/Faa = sqrt(1-v/c)/sqrt(1+v/c)
rLaT: Fab/Faa = (1-v/c-w/c)/(1-w/c)
nBaT: Fab/Faa = (1-v/c)
IRT/MM: Fab/Faa = ... uh ...

(Note that this is for the (x,t) variant. For the (x,y,z,t) variant
vector addition and trigonometry gets involved.)


Fucking idiot...you don't even know how to measure relative velocity.

OK. Go ahead and illustrate how to properly measure
relative velocity. You are allowed mirrors, lasers,
rulers (or rods), and timers. Note that O and A only
know the length of their own rulers.
Here's several ways, using standard SR principles.
A places his rod with endpoints 0 and -L in his space. (He
is moving with a positive velocity.) The farpoint of A's
rod has a mirror.
At time 0 he notes O is coincident with him.
At time t he sees O's flash in the farpoint mirror.
The computation of A's velocity relative to O is
v = L/(t - L/c)
= Lc/(tc - L)
This works because A knows that O's light will be moving
at c relative to his rod, regardless of what v actually is.
All A has to do is compensate for the time the light takes
to get to him from his mirror, a known length away from him.
Bear in mind that SR makes absolutely no distinction between
standard length and light-length (although it does make a
distinction between O's spacetime coordinate and A's
spacetime coordinates).
Another method is possible, but requires O have a mirror.
A beams a frequency reference to his mirror, and measures
the frequency ratio r (= Fab/Faa in your notation).
He then computes v=c(1-r)/(1+r). This works because one
can consider O's mirror to be a re-emitter of A's light,
and the ratio is therefore the square of the ratio
sqrt(1-v/c)/sqrt(1+v/c). Note that r is assumed < 1.
Another method uses the *wavelength* ratio, which in SR is
simply the reciprocal of the frequency ratio. It's harder
to measure but should work well enough; wavelength * frequency = c
always everywhere.
Still other methods measure beam power and per-photon energy.
Since the energy of each photon is directly proportional
to frequency in SR, one gets the same value as frequency
or wavelength. Beam power gets affected by the time twist,
but one can compensate. I'd have to work it out, and
it's a slightly unusual measurement anyway.
Which of these (if any) are right in IRT/MM? *None* of these
will work in nBaT, though the lightrod measurement could
be modified:
v = L/(t - L/(c-v))
v(t - L/(c-v)) = L
vt - vL/(c-v) = L
vt(c-v) - vL = L(c-v)
vt(c-v) - vL - L(c-v) = 0
v^2 - cv + Lc/t = 0
v = c/2-c*sqrt(1-4(L/t)^2)/2
This is wrong because nBaT is wrong but it's what nBaT requires.
--
#191,

It's still legal to go .sigless.
.



















  Page 1 of 16

1
 

2
 

3
 

4
 

5
 

6
 

7
 

8
 

9
 

10
 

11
 

12
 

13
 

14
 

15
 

16
 


Related Articles