Fallacy of Relativistic Doppler Effect
Koobee Wublee
** dt’ = (dt + [v] * d[s] / c^2) / sqrt(1 – v^2 / c^2)
Where
** [v] = velocity of dt frame as observed by the dt’ frame
** d[s] = observed displacement vector by the dt frame
** [] * [] = dot product of two vectors
It was attributed to Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar
who first wrote down the relativistic Doppler effect of light or
whoever the author of that 1905 paper was. The above equation becomes
the following.
** f’ / f = sqrt(1 – v^2 / c^2) / (1 + [v] * [c] / c^2)
Where
** f’ = 1 / dt’
** f = 1 / dt
** d[s]/dt = [c]
Of course, Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar was not
bright enough to realize the above equation in general. The nitwit
and almost all self-styled physicists can only rationalize in the very
special case where [v] and [c] are in parallel to each other. If so,
the above equation can be simplified according to the following.
** f’ / f = sqrt(1 – v^2 / c^2) / (1 - v / c)
Or
** f’ / f = sqrt(1 + v / c) / sqrt(1 - v / c)
Where
** [c] is always propagating from dt frame to dt’
** v > 0 means dt is moving away from dt’
In this case, the relativistic Doppler effect according to the Lorentz
transform would always predict an opposite to the classical one.
Oops! How can the self-styled physicists miss this blatant math error
for over 100 years?
Interestingly, there is another way of deriving the relativistic
Doppler effect. All the infinite non-ballistic-theory-of-light
transforms that satisfy the null results of the MMX share the same
equation of energy transform derive from the geodesic equations. In
doing so, the energy transform can be written as follows.
** E’ = (E + [v] * [p]) / sqrt(1 – v^2 / c^2)
Where
** E’, E = observed energies
** [p] = observed momentum by the dt frame
Using the same, previous criteria where [v] and [p] are in parallel
for the intellect-deficient self-styled physicists, the above
equations simplifies into the following.
** f’ / f = (1 – v / c) / sqrt(1 – v^2 / c^2)
Or
** f’ / f = sqrt(1 – v / c) / sqrt(1 + v / c)
Where
** [p] is always going from dt frame to dt’
** v > 0 means dt is moving away from dt’
** E’ = h f’
** E = h f
** [p] = h f [c] / c^2
This version of the relativistic Doppler effect is the exact opposite
of the one derived earlier in this post. Thus, yours truly demands to
know why the self-styled physicists have allowed this blatant math
error to go through to justify the validity of SR in the past 100
years.
Oh, would any wise Dingleberry suggest that [v] is the velocity of dt’
frame as observed by dt frame instead? If so, you can count on the
Guillotine is coming down hard in the reply post. Einstein the
nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar was a fudger of mathematics. The
nitwit understood nothing about SR and GR. The nitwit could not have
analyzed anything rationally and correctly to save his life. <shrug>
hanson
what the dt’ vs dt means, as well as the same for all other
apostrophed (') expressions. Use more picturesque lingo
then just the words "frame" or "coordinates", ... or the
quarreling will go on for ever.
You must demand unconditional capitulation from the
Einstein Dingleberries. Carry on, KW. -- hanson
-----------------
Moose A Toff
"Koobee Wublee" <koobee...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:26b528c7-5535-4989...@z27g2000prz.googlegroups.com...
As we all know more than me doo
rasterspace
akin to "phonon" but obviously not the same shape.
Uncle Ben
.....
>
> Of course, Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar was not
> bright enough to realize the above equation in general. The nitwit
> and almost all self-styled physicists can only rationalize in the very
> special case where [v] and [c] are in parallel to each other. If so,
> the above equation can be simplified according to the following.
>
Dear KW: If you would take the time to read Einstein's 1905
relativity paper, you would find the general case of Doppler's
phenomenon derived in SR in Section 7 of that paper for any angle
between the light propagation vector and the vector v.
Further, if you consult Tom Roberts's document on the experimental
basis of SR,
you would find experimental support for the transvers Doppler effect
as predicted.
Uncle Ben
Androcles
"Uncle Ben" <b...@greenba.com> wrote in message
news:d8072632-115f-42d8...@cu4g2000vbb.googlegroups.com...
On Mar 14, 1:23 am, Koobee Wublee <koobee.wub...@gmail.com> wrote:
.....
>
> Of course, Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar was not
> bright enough to realize the above equation in general. The nitwit
> and almost all self-styled physicists can only rationalize in the very
> special case where [v] and [c] are in parallel to each other. If so,
> the above equation can be simplified according to the following.
>
.....
Dear KW: If you would take the time to read Einstein's 1905
relativity paper, you would find the general case of Doppler's
phenomenon derived in SR in Section 7 of that paper for any angle
between the light propagation vector and the vector v.
===========================================
Queer Bonehead:
When the angle is 90 degrees the shift is blue.
Moving clocks crossing your path run slow but
tick fast.
Uncle Ben
You are half right:
Light emitted when the points are closest to each other is received
some time later and is red-shifted.
Light received when the points are closest to to each other was
emitted some time earlier and is blue shifted.
If this strains your brain, take two aspirins and respond in the
morning.
Love and kisses,
Uncle Ben
Koobee Wublee
> On Mar 14, 1:23 am, Koobee Wublee wrote:
>
> > Of course, Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar was not
> > bright enough to realize the above equation in general. The nitwit
> > and almost all self-styled physicists can only rationalize in the very
> > special case where [v] and [c] are in parallel to each other. If so,
> > the above equation can be simplified according to the following.
>
> relativity paper, you would find the general case of Doppler's
> phenomenon derived in SR in Section 7 of that paper for any angle
> between the light propagation vector and the vector v.
So, you do not dispute the rest of the post which is the most
important. <shrug>
> Further, if you consult Tom Roberts's document on the experimental
> basis of SR,
> you would find experimental support for the transvers Doppler effect
> as predicted.
First, you need to stand firm on what SR predicts and why. In time
transformation, SR predicts a Doppler effect that results in the exact
opposite of the classical prediction. In energy transformation, SR
fares better. The relative Doppler shift predicted by the energy
transformation results in a blue shift for transverse direction. SR
is not consistent at all. <shrug>
Uncle Ben
According to the experimental record SR is correct.
As for the transverse effect prediction, see my response to Androcles
above.
Uncle Ben
Koobee Wublee
> On Mar 15, 12:14 am, Koobee Wublee wrote:
> > So, you do not dispute the rest of the post which is the most
> > important. <shrug>
Unless you are inept in first year algebra, yours truly has to take
that as a yes that you do not dispute what I wrote besides the minor
historical account about your god, Einstein, the nitwit, the
plagiarist, and the liar. <shrug>
> > First, you need to stand firm on what SR predicts and why. In time
> > transformation, SR predicts a Doppler effect that results in the exact
> > opposite of the classical prediction. In energy transformation, SR
> > fares better. The relative Doppler shift predicted by the energy
> > transformation results in a blue shift for transverse direction. SR
> > is not consistent at all. <shrug>
>
> According to the experimental record SR is correct.
To compare experimental results with predictions, you have to specify
which prediction, no? Do you even understand this basic scientific
axiom? So, in transverse Doppler effect, SR is able to predict both
red and blue shifts at the same time. Do you favor the time or the
energy transformation? Do you even under the Lorentz transform?
<shrug>
> As for the transverse effect prediction, see my response to Androcles
> above.
Aspirins? Love an kisses? You are really out of your mind. <shrug>
Get lost.
Androcles
On Mar 14, 9:27 pm, "Androcles"
<Headmas...@Hogwarts.physics_2011march> wrote:
> "Uncle Ben" <b...@greenba.com> wrote in message
>
> news:d8072632-115f-42d8...@cu4g2000vbb.googlegroups.com...
> On Mar 14, 1:23 am, Koobee Wublee <koobee.wub...@gmail.com> wrote:
> .....
>
> > Of course, Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar was not
> > bright enough to realize the above equation in general. The nitwit
> > and almost all self-styled physicists can only rationalize in the very
> > special case where [v] and [c] are in parallel to each other. If so,
> > the above equation can be simplified according to the following.
>
> .....
>
> Dear KW: If you would take the time to read Einstein's 1905
> relativity paper, you would find the general case of Doppler's
> phenomenon derived in SR in Section 7 of that paper for any angle
> between the light propagation vector and the vector v.
>
> ===========================================
> Queer Bonehead:
> When the angle is 90 degrees the shift is blue.
> Moving clocks crossing your path run slow but
> tick fast.
You are half right:
Light emitted when the points are closest to each other is received
some time later and is red-shifted.
=============================================
Produce the equation, Queer Bonehead, and put some numbers in
using a spreadsheet. Remember cos (pi) = 0 and
"an observer is moving with velocity v relatively to an infinitely distant
source of light"- Einstein, so you need not worry about the angle changing.
"It is essential to have time defined by means of stationary clocks in the
stationary system, and the time now defined being appropriate to the
stationary system we call it ``the time of the stationary system.'' "
It is essential to have stupidity defined by means of quiescent neurons in
the brain-dead Bonehead, and the stupidity now defined being appropriate to
the brain-dead Bonehead we call it "the stupidity of the brain-dead
Bonehead".
Androcles
Uncle Ben
================================================
Assertion carries no weight. Produce the SR equation, put some numbers
in using a spreadsheet, prove that moving clocks run slow and tick fast.
Eric Gisse
[..]
> Get lost.
For someone who ends literally every thought with "<shrug>" you sure
do seem upset. Perhaps you are the one who should go away?
Androcles
"Eric Gisse" <jow...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:ade77926-f89e-45e5...@q12g2000prb.googlegroups.com...
> Get lost.
For someone
==============================
[..]
No physics content. Fuck off, imbecile.
Uncle Ben
> On Mar 14, 9:43 pm, Uncle Ben <b...@greenba.com> wrote:
> To compare experimental results with predictions, you have to specify
> which prediction, no? Do you even understand this basic scientific
> axiom? So, in transverse Doppler effect, SR is able to predict both
> red and blue shifts at the same time. Do you favor the time or the
> energy transformation? Do you even under the Lorentz transform?
> <shrug>
>
At the same time? If you read my claim correctly, you would see that
the two cases are not at the same time.
If you cannot see this, I will attempt to say it in french. (yawn)
Uncle Ben
Uncle Ben
> in using a spreadsheet, prove that moving clocks run slow and tick fast.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Read the Wikipedia article.
If, instead, I have to tutor you, it will cost you a case of best
bitter shipped on ice.
Androcles
Read the Wikipedia article.
==================================================
Wackypedia is still reporting 19th century science to the great
delight of Kinky Wobbly:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Clerk_Maxwell
"Maxwell demonstrated that electric and magnetic fields travel through space
in the form of waves, and at the constant speed of light. In 1864 Maxwell
wrote A Dynamical Theory of the Electromagnetic Field. It was with this that
he first proposed that light was in fact undulations in the same medium that
is the cause of electric and magnetic phenomena."
Key words:
"demonstrated"
"in fact"
"medium"
Paraphrasing and condensing:
"In fact" Maxwell "demonstrated" aether.
As an impartial referee (I detest both aetherialists and relativists
alike),
I have to point out that since Bonehead cited wackypedia, the drivel
anyone can write, Bonehead lost to Kinky Wobbly; shrugging
ignorance wins over queer faggotry by a nose.
artful
> As we all know, the time transformation of the Lorentz transform is
[snip]
Your analysis is flawed .. you are comparing time dilation alone with
the combination of time dilation and doppler (ie relativeitc
doppler). In terms you might understand, you've done the equivalent
of proving regular doppler shift to be wrong by comparing the
frequency of a train whistle on the train vs the one an observer hears
and saying it is wrong because they are different.
I could point out your errors in more detail if you were at all
interested in learning why you are wrong.
But I douct that your arrogance will even let you even consider that
you made a mistake ss a possibility .. obviously (to you) the rest of
the physicists and mathematicians in the world don't know what they're
doing and you only you know how to do the math 'correctly' <shrug>.
Uncle Ben
I have studied your derivation No. 1 of the relativistic Doppler
effect,
and I believe your error is in claiming that [ds]/dt = [c]. I believe
that [ds]/dt = -[v].
I find it helpful to describe the frames of reference as the rest
frame of a star (x,y,z,t) and our observatory (x',y',z',t'). Thus the
direction of light is from star to observatory. In your presentation
[v] is the velocity of the star with respect to the laboratory, which
points from the observatory to the star. (This confirms your equation
of [v]*[c] = -vc.)
Now the laboratory is moving away from the star. The coordinates in
the LT concern events at the star and the laboratory. The laboratory
is moving in the +x direction with respect to the star. Thus [ds] is
the displacement of the laboratory w.r.t. the star in star-time dt.
[ds]/dt = the velocity of the observatory with respect to the star.
This is -[v].
Uncle Ben
Koobee Wublee
No, this is wrong. d[s] is the displacement vector of an event as
observed by the unprimed frame, and d[s’] is the displacement vector
of the same event as observed by the primed frame. The event is the
photon leaving the unprimed frame, and [v] is the velocity between the
two frames that has nothing to do with the event. <shrug>
You are not alone to make this mistake. Daryl McCullough tried to
fudge the answer into his wishing as explained by the following post.
Since then, Daryl has not been a man to confront his own mistake.
Because in doing so would invalidate SR since in actuality SR is not
accountable for and does not degenerate (at low speeds) to the
observed classical Doppler effect. <shrug>
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/7aaf065fe96cb951?hl=en
Notice this is a very simple algebra problem. If yours truly is
wrong, all these self-styled physicists would be all over my ass.
<shrug>
> I find it helpful to describe the frames of reference as the rest
> frame of a star (x,y,z,t) and our observatory (x',y',z',t'). Thus the
> direction of light is from star to observatory. In your presentation
> [v] is the velocity of the star with respect to the laboratory, which
> points from the observatory to the star. (This confirms your equation
> of [v]*[c] = -vc.)
Yes, that is correct. <shrug>
> Now the laboratory is moving away from the star. The coordinates in
> the LT concern events at the star and the laboratory. The laboratory
> is moving in the +x direction with respect to the star. Thus [ds] is
> the displacement of the laboratory w.r.t. the star in star-time dt.
> [ds]/dt = the velocity of the observatory with respect to the star.
> This is -[v].
Two days ago, you did not understand the Lorentz transform. After two
days of staring at a textbook, you are still confused with the Lorentz
transform. It is time to convert the pages of that textbook into
toilet papers unless the place you bought it from would give you a
complete refund in return. <shrug>
Is there anyone else who agrees with Uncle Ben? Tom? PD? Paul
Andersen?
Androcles
I find it helpful to describe the frames of reference as the rest
frame of a star (x,y,z,t) and our observatory (x',y',z',t').
It is essential to have time defined by means of stationary clocks in the
stationary system, and the time now defined being appropriate to the
stationary system we call it ``the time of the stationary system.''
You are hopelessly confused, queer Bonehead, t' doesn't exist but
tau does, whereas x'= x-vt differs from xi.
If t' existed in relativity it would be as t-vx/c^2, and -vx/c^2 is going
backwards in time.
You can't go calling t' the time of the moving observatory without
getting your frades mixem up as Einstein did.
As it is you have your sydbils moxeb up.
It is essential to have stupidity defined by means of quiescent neurons in
the queer unhelpful Bonehead, and the stupidity now defined being
appropriate to the queer unhelpful Bonehead we call it ``the stupidity of
the queer unhelpful Bonehead.''
**************************
Kinky Wobbly 2, Bonehead 0
**************************
artful
> On Mar 16, 8:21 pm, Uncle Ben <b...@greenba.com> wrote:
> > I have studied your derivation No. 1 of the relativistic Doppler
> > effect, and I believe your error is in claiming that [ds]/dt = [c].
> > I believe that [ds]/dt = -[v].
That is one of the errors .. yes
> No, this is wrong.
You are wrong
> d[s] is the displacement vector of an event
d[s] means a difference in displacement (ie how far something moves
for the layman such as yourself) .. an event doesn't have a difference
in displacement. An event doesn't move.
> as
> observed by the unprimed frame, and d[s’] is the displacement vector
> of the same event as observed by the primed frame.
>
> The event is the
> photon leaving the unprimed frame,
That's makes no sense
> and [v] is the velocity between the
> two frames that has nothing to do with the event. <shrug>
Your 'explanation' above is nonsense
> You are not alone to make this mistake.
He made no mistake .. you have, however. It would help if you knew
enough of physics to know what the terms in the equations your are
transcribing actually mean. I suggest a basic course in physics
Eric Gisse
> On Mar 17, 4:05 pm, Koobee Wublee <koobee.wub...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Mar 16, 8:21 pm, Uncle Ben <b...@greenba.com> wrote:
> > > I have studied your derivation No. 1 of the relativistic Doppler
> > > effect, and I believe your error is in claiming that [ds]/dt = [c].
> > > I believe that [ds]/dt = -[v].
>
> That is one of the errors .. yes
>
> > No, this is wrong.
>
> You are wrong
>
> > d[s] is the displacement vector of an event
>
> d[s] means a difference in displacement (ie how far something moves
> for the layman such as yourself) .. an event doesn't have a difference
> in displacement. An event doesn't move.
The thing is, nobody ever writes out 'ds'. He's the only one who does
it.
>
> > as
> > observed by the unprimed frame, and d[s’] is the displacement vector
> > of the same event as observed by the primed frame.
>
> > The event is the
> > photon leaving the unprimed frame,
>
> That's makes no sense
That's because he does not know what he is talking about. He is
generally close with words and concepts, but things like this
indicates he doesn't actually understand.
He does not know what the symbols mean, or how to compute anything
with them. You can go back years and find dozens of examples of him
being unable to compute the surface area of a sphere using the metric.
Androcles
[...]
The thing is, nobody ever writes out 'ds'. He's the only one who does
it.
=======================================
Oh, is THAT what the thing is?
I always did wonder what the thing was.
Now whenever I come across a thing I'll know it's a "nobody ever writes out
'ds'."
Uncle Ben
Coming from the only person in the world who believes in the "Einstein
expansion", in which a meter stick in my living room suddenly expands
because of a jet liner passing overhead, your opinion carries no
weight.
Still, enjoy your remaining years, dear John.
Uncle Ben
Uncle Ben
>
> Notice this is a very simple algebra problem. If yours truly is
> wrong, all these self-styled physicists would be all over my ass.
> <shrug>
>
> > I find it helpful to describe the frames of reference as the rest
> > frame of a star (x,y,z,t) and our observatory (x',y',z',t'). Thus the
> > direction of light is from star to observatory. In your presentation
> > [v] is the velocity of the star with respect to the laboratory, which
> > points from the observatory to the star. (This confirms your equation
> > of [v]*[c] = -vc.)
>
> Yes, that is correct. <shrug>
>
> > Now the laboratory is moving away from the star. The coordinates in
> > the LT concern events at the star and the laboratory. The laboratory
> > is moving in the +x direction with respect to the star. Thus [ds] is
> > the displacement of the laboratory w.r.t. the star in star-time dt.
> > [ds]/dt = the velocity of the observatory with respect to the star.
> > This is -[v].
>
> Two days ago, you did not understand the Lorentz transform. After two
> days of staring at a textbook, you are still confused with the Lorentz
> transform. It is time to convert the pages of that textbook into
> toilet papers unless the place you bought it from would give you a
> complete refund in return. <shrug>
>
> Is there anyone else who agrees with Uncle Ben? Tom? PD? Paul
>
> - Show quoted text -
Dear KW,
As the author of the original post, you have the prerogative of
defining the events you want to investigate. Let's do it your way, or
almost.
Event 1: The emission of the zero-crossing of a sine wave of light at
the star's surface.
Event 2: The emission one period later of the zero-crossing of the end
of the cycle begun as event 1, also at the star's surface.
Frame S = rest frame of star
Frame S' = rest frame of observatory
velocity of frame S' w.r.t. frame S = -[v], as you chose to express
it.
Problem: Find dt' using the differential form of the LT as given in
the o.p.
-------------------------------------------
Solution:
d[s] = x2 - x1 = 0, both events being at the same place w.r.t. the
star surface
dt = t2 - t1 = 1/f, given
ds' = increase in the distance to the star from the observatory
between event 1 and event 2
dt' = Doppler shifted period, to be determined by the LT.
Do you accept this formulation, my friend?
Uncle Ben
Daryl McCullough
> > > As we all know, the time transformation of the Lorentz transform is
>
> > > ** dt’ = (dt + [v] * d[s] / c^2) / sqrt(1 – v^2 / c^2)
>
> > > Where
>
> > > ** [v] = velocity of dt frame as observed by the dt’ frame
> > > ** d[s] = observed displacement vector by the dt frame
> > > ** [] * [] = dot product of two vectors
>
> > > It was attributed to Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar
> > > who first wrote down the relativistic Doppler effect of light or
> > > whoever the author of that 1905 paper was. The above equation becomes
> > > the following.
>
> > > ** f’ / f = sqrt(1 – v^2 / c^2) / (1 + [v] * [c] / c^2)
Oh, my gosh. Koobee is completely confused. That isn't a correct
derivation, at all. What he seems to be deriving is something
that has nothing to do with the Doppler shift. It's the correct
derivation for the following situation:
Suppose we have an observer at rest in the F' frame.
This observer is traveling at speed v in the +x direction,
as measured in the F frame. (I'm going to assume that
v is parallel to the line between the two observers,
so that I can dispense with the dot product business;
that's a complication that doesn't really introduce
any new insight).
Let the F' observer send a light
signal to an observer at rest in frame F.
Let delta-x be the displacement in the x-direction between
the sending event and the receiving event (that is, the change
in the x-coordinate), as measured in frame F.
Let delta-t be the time between these events, as measured
in frame F. Let delta-x' and delta-t' be the displacement and
time between the events, as measured in frame F'. Then
we have:
delta-x = - c delta-t
(delta-x is negative, since the light signal is traveling
in the -x direction).
We can use the Lorentz transformations to compute
delta-t' in terms of delta-t:
delta-t' = gamma (delta-t - v/c^2 delta-x)
= gamma (delta-t + v/c^2 c delta-t)
= (1+v/c) gamma delta-t
= (1+v/c)/square-root(1-(v/c)^2) delta-t
= square-root((1+v/c)/(1-v/c)) delta-t
This delta-t' and delta-t has NOTHING to do with any
frequency. Note: there is nothing in anything that
was said here that has anything to do with the *frequency*
of the light used. delta-t has nothing to do with
the frequency of the light, and this derivation has
NOTHING to do with Doppler shift.
What Koobee apparently has done is to reason:
delta-t is a time. If you take the reciprocal,
you can call that a frequency, f. Similarly,
we can let f' = 1/delta-t'. Then we calculate
the ratio of the frequencies as:
f'/f = (1/delta-t')/(1/delta-t)
= delta-t/delta-t'
= square-root((1+v/c)/(1-v/c))
This ratio looks like the relativistic Doppler shift
formula, but it has NOTHING to
do with any Doppler shift, because f and f' have
NOTHING to do with the light frequency. The real
frequency of the light didn't even enter into the
problem.
This is C-student level work. It is an indication
that the student really has not taken the time to
think through what it is he is deriving, and is
instead doing purely formal manipulations without
understanding.
If you want to derive the Doppler shift for
the frequency of light, you have to have some
place where the frequency of light goes into
the derivation.
Koobee's derivation didn't come close to being
correct. At some point, he blames this on *EINSTEIN*,
but Koobee's bogus derivation has nothing to do with
Einstein. It's Koobee's own incompetence at work.
--
Daryl McCullough
Ithaca, NY
Uncle Ben
wrote:
Androcles
=========================================
You are hopelessly confused, queer Bonehead. I and most people in
the world believe nothing at all happens to a metre stick in your living
room because of a jet liner passing overhead.
Only yesterday a plane passed overhead and nothing happened to
my walking cane, nor did I expect it to.
Since no effect is, was or ever will be observed, my opinion concurs
with experimental evidence and carries a great deal of weight.
This same null result was also carefully measured by Michelson
and verified by Morley in 1887 and that too carries enormous weight.
Only the insane would claim "the result was null, therefore the length
changed in the direction of motion".
Your infantile stupidity in believing a length will increase or decrease
solely as a result of velocity carries no weight, and even less weight
than the god Einstein whose opinion you reversed. Let's face it, you
are so deranged you don't know beta from gamma, it's all Greek to
you.
The SI unit of stupidity is the bengreen. Kinky Wobbly scored 500
millibengreens for his ectoplasmic aether, he's only half as stupid as
you. Your admiration of McCullough must obviously place him in
the 900 millibengreen region of the stupidity scale. One millibengreen
is also known as the bonehead, so I'm actually being kind by calling
you "Bonehead".
Uncle Ben
>
> - Show quoted text -
The Einstein Expansion is not my belief; it is your conclusion as to
the predicition of SR.
But we have been over this many times, and you are fixed in your
belief that Einstein goofed, just as KW is convinced of the same thing
in the case of the Doppler effect.
Bonehead
Androcles
============================================
Math doesn't lie, you can't change the fairy story to "lived happily ever
after" when Cinderella's glass slipper cracked and amputed her foot
or xi = L/(less than one) is a contraction.
But we have been over this many times, and you are fixed in your
belief that Einstein goofed, just as KW is convinced of the same thing
in the case of the Doppler effect.
=============================================
Coming from the only person in the world who believes in the "Lorentz
contraction", in which a gas meter in your house suddenly contracts
because of a GPS satellite passing overhead, your insanity carries no
weight.
I'll rely on the experimental evidence: nothing happens even if Einstein
didn't agree with Lorentz, they were both fucking idiots, like you.
**************************
Kinky Wobbly 3, Bonehead 0
**************************
rasterspace
> > It's Koobee's own work.
Uncle Ben
>
> - Show quoted text -
John, do you know of anybody who agrees with you about the Einstein
Expansion?
Or are you just smarter than everybody and alone in your magestorial
splendor?
Koobee Wublee
On Mar 16, 10:05 pm, Koobee Wublee wrote:
> > As we all know, the time transformation of the Lorentz transform is
>
> > ** dt’ = (dt + [v] * d[s] / c^2) / sqrt(1 – v^2 / c^2)
>
> > Where
>
> > ** [v] = velocity of dt frame as observed by the dt’ frame
> > ** d[s] = observed displacement vector by the dt frame
> > ** [] * [] = dot product of two vectors
>
> > It was attributed to Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar
> > who first wrote down the relativistic Doppler effect of light or
> > whoever the author of that 1905 paper was. The above equation becomes
> > the following.
>
> > ** f’ / f = sqrt(1 – v^2 / c^2) / (1 + [v] * [c] / c^2)
>
> > Where
>
> > ** f’ = 1 / dt’
> > ** f = 1 / dt
> > ** d[s]/dt = [c]
>
> > Of course, Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar was not
> > bright enough to realize the above equation in general. The nitwit
> > and almost all self-styled physicists can only rationalize in the very
> > special case where [v] and [c] are in parallel to each other. If so,
> > the above equation can be simplified according to the following.
>
> > ** f’ / f = sqrt(1 – v^2 / c^2) / (1 - v / c)
>
> > Or
>
> > ** f’ / f = sqrt(1 + v / c) / sqrt(1 - v / c)
>
> > Where
>
> > ** [c] is always propagating from dt frame to dt’
> > ** v > 0 means dt is moving away from dt’
>
> Oh, my gosh. Koobee is completely confused. That isn't a correct
> derivation, at all. What he seems to be deriving is something
> that has nothing to do with the Doppler shift. It's the correct
> derivation for the following situation:
>
> [mumblings with no substance and no points mercifully snipped]
Yours truly has been telling you that is not the correct derivation
for Doppler effects for years since with the same derivation, the
Galilean transform does not yield any Doppler shift which is just
wrong. <shrug>
> > In this case, the relativistic Doppler effect according to the Lorentz
> > transform would always predict an opposite to the classical one.
> > Oops! How can the self-styled physicists miss this blatant math error
> > for over 100 years?
>
> > Interestingly, there is another way of deriving the relativistic
> > Doppler effect. All the infinite non-ballistic-theory-of-light
> > transforms that satisfy the null results of the MMX share the same
> > equation of energy transform derive from the geodesic equations. In
> > doing so, the energy transform can be written as follows.
>
> > ** E’ = (E + [v] * [p]) / sqrt(1 – v^2 / c^2)
>
> > Where
>
> What Koobee apparently has done is to reason:
>
> delta-t is a time. If you take the reciprocal,
> you can call that a frequency, f. Similarly,
> we can let f' = 1/delta-t'. Then we calculate
> the ratio of the frequencies as:
>
> f'/f = (1/delta-t')/(1/delta-t)
> = delta-t/delta-t'
> = square-root((1+v/c)/(1-v/c))
However, this was exactly how your god Einstein the nitwit, the
plagiarist, and the liar derived the relativistic Doppler shift from
after some mathemaGical inversion of v. <shrug>
> This is C-student level work. It is an indication
> that the student really has not taken the time to
> think through what it is he is deriving, and is
> instead doing purely formal manipulations without
> understanding.
Right, your god Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar was
nothing but a nitwit, a plagiarist, and a liar. <shrug>
> If you want to derive the Doppler shift for
> the frequency of light, you have to have some
> place where the frequency of light goes into
> the derivation.
Gee! Yours truly also has been telling you the following for years.
<shrug>
** f = (observed speed) / wavelength
> Koobee's derivation didn't come close to being
> correct. At some point, he blames this on *EINSTEIN*,
> but Koobee's bogus derivation has nothing to do with
> Einstein.
In Maxwell’s Aether, the observed speed is dependent on the velocity
of the observer while the wavelength is invariant embedded in the
medium itself, and that explains the classical Doppler effect.
<shrug>
Under SR, the observed speed is the invariant one. So, the wavelength
must be dependent on the observer. The FitzGerald-Lorentz length
contraction does not bode very well for SR’s explanation of Doppler
effect. <shrug>
> It's Koobee's own incompetence at work.
You are the one who is incompetent. Remember that you made the same
stupid mistake as Uncle Ben the phd (what else is new)? MathemaGics
rules in you and Uncle Ben. You have no analytic skills but merely
are a fudger of mathematics like your good Einstein the nitwit, the
plagiarist, and the liar was. <shrug>
Koobee Wublee
No. <shrug> It is just pitiful that would come out of a phd.
<shrug>
Uncle Ben
>
> - Show quoted text -
My formulation yields the time interval between events w.r.t. the
observatory, which is the relativistic part. To complete the Doppler
calculation one adds the difference in travel time of the two points
on the wave. The observatory moves during that time interval and the
calculation yields the classical part of the Doppler effect.
Einstein is, of course, correct.
Uncle Ben
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Your "derivation" of the relativistic Doppler shift (in the wrong
direction) and blaming it on Einstein puts you in a class with John
Parker, who "derived" the Einstein Expansion a few years back,
claiming that Einstein erred in driving the Lorentz Contraction.
John, at least did the LT correctly and flubbed only in the last step.
He showed that the moving rod measured w.r.t. its rest frame is longer
than the same rod w.r.t. the stationary frame. His idiocy was that he
assigned the length w.r.t. the stationary frame as L and concluded
that the proper length must have expanded to L*gamma. He could not see
that the moving frame IS the rest frame of the moving rod.
Your presentation is in some kind of code. (What does it mean that a
vector points to "dt" or to "dt'", as if they were points in space?) I
guessed your meaning in spite of the poor description, and you did mis-
identify the vector d[s]. That is why you could not even derive the
classical Doppler shift by means of the Galilean transformation.
Koobee Wooblee and Androcles, both believing in isolation that the
emperor has no clothes.
Uncle Ben
Uncle Ben
Androcles
My formulation yields the time interval between events w.r.t. the
observatory, which is the relativistic part. To complete the Doppler
calculation one adds the difference in travel time of the two points
on the wave. The observatory moves during that time interval and the
calculation yields the classical part of the Doppler effect.
Einstein is, of course, correct.
=============================================
Two points on a wave?
Indicate two points on a wave and the frame to which they belong with this
diagram
from Dan Russell, Ph.D., Associate Professor of Applied Physics at Kettering
University in Flint, MI.
http://paws.kettering.edu/~drussell/Demos/SHO/damp.html
Unlike you, Dan Russell probably has a real Ph.D.
Einstein was, of course, an idiot.
Einstein is, of course, as dead as your brain.
*****************************
Kinky Wobbly 4, Bonehead 0
*****************************
Androcles
Koobee Wooblee and Androcles, both believing in isolation that the
emperor has no clothes.
Uncle Ben
Uncle Ben
==============================================
Actually the emperor has no empire, his castles in the air are mirages of
ectoplasm.
Androcles
Androcles
Androcles
Androcles
Androcles
Androcles
*************************
Androcles 6, Boonehead 2
*************************
Daryl McCullough
>
>On Mar 18, 12:56=A0am, Koobee Wublee <koobee.wub...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Mar 17, 8:29 am, Daryl McCullough wrote:
>> > Oh, my gosh. Koobee is completely confused. That isn't a correct
>> > derivation, at all. What he seems to be deriving is something
>> > that has nothing to do with the Doppler shift. It's the correct
>> > derivation for the following situation:
>>
>> > [mumblings with no substance and no points mercifully snipped]
>>
>> Yours truly has been telling you that is not the correct derivation
>> for Doppler effects for years since with the same derivation, the
>> Galilean transform does not yield any Doppler shift which is just
>> wrong.
And *NOBODY* derives the Doppler shift that way. Koobee makes
up a derivation that is completely wrong, and then complains
about his *OWN* derivation.
>> > What Koobee apparently has done is to reason:
>>
>> > delta-t is a time. If you take the reciprocal,
>> > you can call that a frequency, f. Similarly,
>> > we can let f' = 1/delta-t'. Then we calculate
>> > the ratio of the frequencies as:
>>
>> > f'/f = (1/delta-t')/(1/delta-t)
>> > = delta-t/delta-t'
>> > = square-root((1+v/c)/(1-v/c))
>>
>> However, this was exactly how your god Einstein the nitwit, the
>> plagiarist, and the liar derived the relativistic Doppler shift from
>> after some mathemaGical inversion of v.
Koobee is unable to follow any derivation, and he blames
his stupidity on Einstein, for some reason.
>Your "derivation" of the relativistic Doppler shift (in the wrong
>direction) and blaming it on Einstein puts you in a class with John
>Parker, who "derived" the Einstein Expansion a few years back,
>claiming that Einstein erred in driving the Lorentz Contraction.
Right. When Koobee makes a mistake, he blames it on Einstein.
Einstein had nothing to do with Koobee's errors.
Daryl McCullough
Here's an interesting question: Since this ratio
has nothing (apparently) to do with Doppler shifts,
*why* does it have the same form as a Doppler shift?
It occurred to me why. Let's identify three events:
e_0 = the two observers depart from each other
e_1 = the "traveling" observer sends a light signal
e_2 = the "stay-at-home" observer receives the light
signal.
Now, imagine that we make a movie of these events and
play it *backwards*. In the time-reversed movie, things
happen like this:
First (event e_2) a light signal is "sent" by the stay-at-home
observer. (The time reversal of receiving a signal is sending
a signal).
Second (event e_1) the signal is "received" by the traveling
observer. (The time reversal of sending is receiving).
Third (event e_0) the two observers are together. If
a second light signal were sent at this point, it would
arrive instantaneously, since the two are side-by-side.
So we can interpret the time-reversed sequence of events
like this:
The stay-at-home observer is sending signals at a rate
of one signal every delta-t seconds (where delta-t is the
absolute value of the time between e_2 and e_1, as measured by
the stay-at-home observer). The first signal is
sent at event e_2 and the second is sent at e_0.
The traveling observer is traveling *toward* the
stay-at-home observer (because the time-reverse of
a positive velocity is a negative velocity). He
receives events at a rate of one signal every delta-t'
seconds (where delta-t' is the absolute value of the
time between e_1 and e_0).
Since the traveling observer is receiving signals
from an *approaching* sender (in this time-reversed
sequence of events), he uses the relativistic
Doppler shift for an approaching sender:
delta-t'/delta-t = square-root((1+v/c)/(1-v/c))
which is exactly the ratio computed in my previous
post, using the Lorentz transformations. This explains
why the ratio looks like a Doppler shift, and why
the sign of v seems the opposite what it should.
Daryl McCullough
>Your "derivation" of the relativistic Doppler shift (in the wrong
>direction) and blaming it on Einstein puts you in a class with John
>Parker, who "derived" the Einstein Expansion a few years back,
>claiming that Einstein erred in driving the Lorentz Contraction.
We can see here http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/
in section 7, Einstein derives the relativistic Doppler shift in a
way that has nothing to do with Koobee's derivation, nor with my
derivation. Instead, he directly uses the transformational properties
of the electromagnetic field, which is the hard way, but is more
directly relevant, I suppose.
So Koobee is lying (or mistaken, to be charitable) in calling the
erroneous derivation Einstein's.
Uncle Ben
The two points were defined earlier as points on a hypothetical sine
wave sliced from a light wave at two zero-crossings one wavelength
apart.
BTW, I have wanted to ask you how you assigned lengths to the moving
rod, one w.r.t. the "stationary" frame and one to the "moving" frame
(re: Lorentz contraction/expansion).
We agreed that the length w.r.t. the "moving" frame is greater than
the length w.r.t. the "stationary" frame. Did you not realize that the
"moving" frame is the REST frame of the moving rod?
Or did you just take the names of the frames too seriously?
Uncle Ben
Koobee Wublee
> Here's an interesting question: Since this ratio
> has nothing (apparently) to do with Doppler shifts,
> *why* does it have the same form as a Doppler shift?
>
> [bullshit snipped]
>
> which is exactly the ratio computed in my previous
> post, using the Lorentz transformations. This explains
> why the ratio looks like a Doppler shift, and why
> the sign of v seems the opposite what it should.
You have no idea what you are talking about which is emphasized with
your line of “why the sign of v seems the opposite what it should”.
You are just fudging the mathematics to justify your personal belief.
<shrug>
Koobee Wublee
> We can see here
> http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/
> in section 7, Einstein derives the relativistic Doppler shift in a
> way that has nothing to do with Koobee's derivation, nor with my
> derivation.
In section 7, Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar used
energy transformation which was not yet derived by anyone including
Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar. In section, 8,
Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar used time
transformation with a flipping v to arrive at an answer in which he
knew should be correct and accepted. <shrug>
> Instead, he directly uses the transformational properties
> of the electromagnetic field, which is the hard way, but is more
> directly relevant, I suppose.
Bullshit! <shrug>
> So Koobee is lying (or mistaken, to be charitable) in calling the
> erroneous derivation Einstein's.
<shrug>
PD
> On Mar 18, 8:48 am, Daryl McCullough wrote:
>
> > We can see here
> >http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/
> > in section 7, Einstein derives the relativistic Doppler shift in a
> > way that has nothing to do with Koobee's derivation, nor with my
> > derivation.
>
> In section 7, Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar used
> energy transformation which was not yet derived by anyone including
> Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar.
You apparently cannot read. Section 7 is entitled (English
translation) Theory of Doppler's Principle and of Aberration. And
there what is applied is are the electric and magnetic field
transformations, and coordinate transformations. Energy
transformations do not appear in this section.
hanson
>
"Uncle Ben" <b...@greenba.com> wrote:
On Mar 18, 12:56 am, Koobee Wublee <koobee.wub...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mar 17, 8:29 am, Daryl McCullough wrote:
> On Mar 16, 10:05 pm, Koobee Wublee wrote:
>
> > Oh, my gosh. Koobee is completely confused. That isn't a correct
> > derivation, at all. What he seems to be deriving is something
> > that has nothing to do with the Doppler shift. It's the correct
> > derivation for the following situation:
> > [mumblings with no substance and no points mercifully snipped]
>
> Yours truly has been telling you that is not the correct derivation
> for Doppler effects for years since with the same derivation, the
> Galilean transform does not yield any Doppler shift which is just
> wrong. <shrug>
>
> > What Koobee apparently has done is to reason:
> > delta-t is a time. If you take the reciprocal,
> > you can call that a frequency, f. Similarly,
> > we can let f' = 1/delta-t'. Then we calculate
> > the ratio of the frequencies as:
> > f'/f = (1/delta-t')/(1/delta-t)
> > = delta-t/delta-t'
> > = square-root((1+v/c)/(1-v/c))
>
> However, this was exactly how your god Einstein the nitwit, the
> plagiarist, and the liar derived the relativistic Doppler shift from
> after some mathemaGical inversion of v. <shrug>
>
> > This is C-student level work. It is an indication
> > that the student really has not taken the time to
> > think through what it is he is deriving, and is
> > instead doing purely formal manipulations without
> > understanding.
>
> Right, your god Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar was
> nothing but a nitwit, a plagiarist, and a liar. <shrug>
>
> > If you want to derive the Doppler shift for
> > the frequency of light, you have to have some
> > place where the frequency of light goes into
> > the derivation.
>
> Gee! Yours truly also has been telling you the following for years.
> <shrug>
> ** f = (observed speed) / wavelength
>
> > Koobee's derivation didn't come close to being
> > correct. At some point, he blames this on *EINSTEIN*,
> > but Koobee's bogus derivation has nothing to do with
> > Einstein.
>
> In Maxwell’s Aether, the observed speed is dependent on the velocity
> of the observer while the wavelength is invariant embedded in the
> medium itself, and that explains the classical Doppler effect.
> <shrug>
> Under SR, the observed speed is the invariant one. So, the wavelength
> must be dependent on the observer. The FitzGerald-Lorentz length
> contraction does not bode very well for SR’s explanation of Doppler
> effect. <shrug>
>
> > It's Koobee's own incompetence at work.
>
> You are the one who is incompetent. Remember that you made the same
> stupid mistake as Uncle Ben the phd (what else is new)? MathemaGics
> rules in you and Uncle Ben. You have no analytic skills but merely
> are a fudger of mathematics like your good Einstein the nitwit, the
> plagiarist, and the liar was. <shrug>
>
Your "derivation" of the relativistic Doppler shift (in the wrong
direction) and blaming it on Einstein puts you in a class with John
Parker, who "derived" the Einstein Expansion a few years back,
claiming that Einstein erred in driving the Lorentz Contraction.
John, at least did the LT correctly and flubbed only in the last step.
He showed that the moving rod measured w.r.t. its rest frame is longer
than the same rod w.r.t. the stationary frame. His idiocy was that he
assigned the length w.r.t. the stationary frame as L and concluded
that the proper length must have expanded to L*gamma. He could not see
that the moving frame IS the rest frame of the moving rod.
Your presentation is in some kind of code. (What does it mean that a
vector points to "dt" or to "dt'", as if they were points in space?) I
guessed your meaning in spite of the poor description, and you did mis-
identify the vector d[s]. That is why you could not even derive the
classical Doppler shift by means of the Galilean transformation.
>
Koobee Wooblee and Androcles, both believing in isolation that the
>
hanson wrote:
ahahahaha... "in isolation"??... aka.. "in a solution"
... aka... "insulation"... aka "in an illusion"... etc...
>
Ballroom man, listen. You will never find out nor know.
The reason is simple. You, Ben AND Androcles &
Koobee Wooblee and Daryl are ALL correct and right.
But each one of you is ONLY right from his own
perspective, that is from your own [1] place where
you sit and explain what you [1] perceives...
... and that makes all the other guys' [2,3 & 4] view
automatically wrong in the eyes of [1]... & naturally
also when they exchange places.... ahahaha...
>
This is the wonder of relativity!! It's a beautiful thing
to justify your very own superiority, in the Gedanken
world... (of Jewish origin)... BUT in the real world
where you have to feed yourself and your family...
-------- SR is short for SILLY RANT ------- and
----- GR stands for GULLIBLE RECITAL -----
Relativity is as useless as are its trains, whose 100
milion mph speed "faded into Minkowski's non-existent
locations & time" of his mental turbidity and intellectual
subduction... ahahahahaha...
>
So, keep on dancing and entertain each other.
The dancing may come to an end the day when
the first one of you explains and DEFINES in
no uncertain terms, in street lingo, with examples
and besides his personal formalism what he means
by "frame"... "w.r.t. ... "dt" or to "dt'", "observer" etc...
>
But that is not gonna happen, because when done
so, a winner will emerge... and they all know that.
ahaha... So, the dancing, the foxtrot & especially
the side-step-tango will continue... ahahahaha...
Thanks for the laughs, guys... ahahahanson
Daryl McCullough
Koobee Wublee says...
>
>On Mar 18, 8:44 am, Daryl McCullough wrote:
>
>> Here's an interesting question: Since this ratio
>> has nothing (apparently) to do with Doppler shifts,
>> *why* does it have the same form as a Doppler shift?
>>
>> [bullshit snipped]
>>
>> which is exactly the ratio computed in my previous
>> post, using the Lorentz transformations. This explains
>> why the ratio looks like a Doppler shift, and why
>> the sign of v seems the opposite what it should.
>
>You have no idea what you are talking about which is emphasized with
The derivation is *YOURS*. That's not the way that Einstein
derived the Doppler shift, it's not the way I derive the Doppler shift.
It's the way *YOU* derived it, and blamed it on Einstein. I noticed
that the result looked like a Doppler shift (with the wrong sign of
v), even though there was no apparent reason for it to.
I'm not justifying *MY* derivation, because it's *YOUR* derivation,
wrong sign and all.
You posted it. You didn't get it from Einstein. You didn't get it
from me.
Daryl McCullough
>
>On Mar 18, 8:48 am, Daryl McCullough wrote:
>
>> We can see here
>> http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/
>> in section 7, Einstein derives the relativistic Doppler shift in a
>> way that has nothing to do with Koobee's derivation, nor with my
>> derivation.
>
>In section 7, Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar used
>energy transformation
He was not using the energy transformation. He was using the
transformation properties of the electromagnetic field. You
are deeply, deeply confused. That confusion is not Einstein's
fault.
Androcles
<snip>
=================================================
***** LEARN TO READ ******
Indicate two points on a wave and the frame to which they belong
**** WITH THIS DIAGRAM ******
so that we can bother refer to it, you
**** FUCKING ILLITERATE IMBECILE *****
Uncle Ben
>
> - Show quoted text -
Sorry, dear, the animated diagram you linked to does not show a wave.
It shows two oscillators.
Do you know the difference?
Uncle Ben
Uncle Ben
>
> - Show quoted text -
Furthermore, points do not belong to frames. All points can be
represented in any frame.
A frame is just a device to use to discuss points.
It seems a late day to have to inform you about these elementary
things. Maybe we should just forget about any discussion.
Uncle Ben
Uncle Ben
>
> - Show quoted text -
Compared to you, poor old Androcles is a genius.
Androcles
=======================================
It very clearly shows two waves, on the right hand side.
You are attempting to win a debate by lying as usual, queer disgusting fool.
Obviously a wave doesn't have two points and you don't have even one.
Einstein was, of course, an idiot.
Einstein is, of course, as dead as your brain.
*****************************
Kinky Wobbly 5, Bonehead 0
*****************************
Uncle Ben
>
> - Show quoted text -
Those are animated graphs. But if you want to consider them waves,
pick a point where a wave crosses the axis. It moves. Find another
point where the wave crosses the axis with the same slope as at the
first point. Those make two points that include a whole number of
wavelengths between them.
There. Was that hard? I am sure you understand, being the smart boy
that you are.
Uncle Ben
Koobee Wublee
> Koobee Wublee says...
> >In section 7, Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar used
> >energy transformation
>
> He was not using the energy transformation. He was using the
> transformation properties of the electromagnetic field.
Bullshit! <shrug>
> You are deeply, deeply confused.
You don’t even understand how to apply the Lorentz transform.
> That confusion is not Einstein's fault.
The confusion is indeed yours and that of Einstein the nitwit, the
plagiarist, and the liar. <shrug>
Koobee Wublee
> Koobee Wublee says...
> > You have no idea what you are talking about which is emphasized with
> > your line of why the sign of v seems the opposite what it should.
>
> The derivation is *YOURS*.
Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar just wrote down
these equations. The nitwit did not invoke electromagnetism to do
so. The derivation was indeed the nitwit’s. <shrug>
After fudging the mathematics to suit your personal belief, now you
also have to twist the history around. It is all in the nitwit’s 1905
paper. <shrug>
You are a fudger of mathematics and twister of history. <shrug>
Koobee Wublee
> On Mar 18, 12:04 pm, Koobee Wublee wrote:
> > In section 7, Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar used
> > energy transformation which was not yet derived by anyone including
> > Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar.
>
> You apparently cannot read.
<shrug>
> Section 7 is entitled (English
> translation) Theory of Doppler's Principle and of Aberration.
<shrug>
> And
> there what is applied is are the electric and magnetic field
> transformations, and coordinate transformations.
Bullshit! <shrug>
> Energy transformations do not appear in this section.
The equation of the Doppler shift came from energy transformation.
<shrug>
hanson
green Ballroom dancer "Uncle Ben" <b...@greenba.com>
made a sidestep-tango, cranked himself & wrote:
>
"hanson" <han...@quick.net> wrote:
Compared to you, poor old Androcles is a genius.
>
ahahahaha.. See Ben, just like I said:... there, there, you
go on with an encore of your side-step-tango dance
diversion... -- Your resulting mental turbidity and your
intellectual subduction is hilarious and highly entertaining....
Thanks for the laughs, Ben... ahahahahaha... ahahahanson
>
>
Andro's score card:
*****************************
Kinky Wobbly 7, Green Bonehead-dancer 0
*****************************
Androcles
Those are animated graphs.
==================================
Really? Are you sure? Well, well, who'd a thought it?
But if you want to consider them waves,
pick a point where a wave crosses the axis.
==================================
That would be an instant, a moment, an epoch, Bonehead.
It moves.
===================================
What does, the moment? Carpe diem, Bonehead.
Find another
point where the wave crosses the axis with the same slope as at the
first point. Those make two points that include a whole number of
wavelengths between them.
=====================================
No no, Bonehead, that's a wavetime, or "period".
Do you know the difference?
There. Was that hard? I am sure you understand, being the smart boy
that you are.
====================================
Yes, Bonehead, it is very hard, you are very wrong.
Indicate TWO points on a wave
**** AND THE FRAME TO WHICH THEY BELONG ****
Eric Gisse
You sure do shrug a lot. Perhaps you should go to a doctor.
Uncle Ben
said they were waves. So, to accomodate you I said I would consider
them as waves, namely by considering the horizontal axis to be in
space, not in time.
Now, you seem to have taken advantage of my generosity, insisting that
my "points" are in time, not space.
So, go find someone else to pester. I am outta here.
PD
> On Mar 18, 10:25 am, PD <thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Mar 18, 12:04 pm, Koobee Wublee wrote:
> > > In section 7, Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar used
> > > energy transformation which was not yet derived by anyone including
> > > Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar.
>
> > You apparently cannot read.
>
> <shrug>
>
> > Section 7 is entitled (English
> > translation) Theory of Doppler's Principle and of Aberration.
>
> <shrug>
>
> > And
> > there what is applied is are the electric and magnetic field
> > transformations, and coordinate transformations.
>
> Bullshit! <shrug>
Read it.
"Applying the equations of transformation found in § 6 for electric
and magnetic forces, and those found in § 3 for the co-ordinates and
the time, we obtain directly..."
where § 6 is entitled: "Transformation of the Maxwell-Hertz Equations
for Empty Space. On the Nature of the Electromotive Forces Occurring
in a Magnetic Field During Motion" and § 3 is entitled: "Theory of the
Transformation of Co-ordinates and Times from a Stationary System to
another System in Uniform Motion of Translation Relatively to the
Former".
It's not a long article. You should be able to read it.
>
> > Energy transformations do not appear in this section.
>
> The equation of the Doppler shift came from energy transformation.
> <shrug>
Not in Einstein's derivation.
PD
> On Mar 18, 10:25 am, PD <thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Mar 18, 12:04 pm, Koobee Wublee wrote:
> > > In section 7, Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar used
> > > energy transformation which was not yet derived by anyone including
> > > Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar.
>
> > You apparently cannot read.
>
> <shrug>
>
> > Section 7 is entitled (English
> > translation) Theory of Doppler's Principle and of Aberration.
>
> <shrug>
>
> > And
> > there what is applied is are the electric and magnetic field
> > transformations, and coordinate transformations.
>
> Bullshit! <shrug>
>
> > Energy transformations do not appear in this section.
>
> The equation of the Doppler shift came from energy transformation.
> <shrug>
You are deeply, deeply disturbed, you know. It takes a pretty big
pathology to claim that you saw a horse walk through your living room
and is standing in your bathroom, and when someone brings your own dog
out from the bathroom, you then insist that the dog is a horse.
Exactly how unbalanced ARE you?
PD
Yes, exactly, it's written in black and white, in plain German, or if
you like, translated into plain English.
It takes a pretty fruity fruitcake to claim that what is written in
plain English does not say what it says. And to furthermore insist
that everyone else who is reading plain English differently than you
are is a fudger and twister of history.
hanson
KW, You sure do shrug a lot. Perhaps you should go to a doctor.
>
hanson wrote:
Funny one-liner, Eric... ahahahaha... But why aren't you
trying to be the doctor here? Give'm doctor's orders on
what and how to do it so they do understand EACH other.
Everybody, from the bottom feeding Green Ballroom
dancing uncle Ben on up accuses the others to be wrong
on the same issue. Make'em stop doing that, Eric...
Till then, thanks for the laughs... ahahaha... ahahahanson
Androcles
==========================================
So your waves are a range of hills or bumps in the road, and
a wavelength is from mountain top to mountain top.
Got it.
==========================================
Now, you seem to have taken advantage of my generosity, insisting that
my "points" are in time, not space.
So, go find someone else to pester. I am outta here.
*************************
Androcles 1, Bonehead 0
*************************
You lose. Fuck off, babbling illiterate Bonehead.
rasterspace
of bothering with the annoyance of spacetime & lightcones ...
and pants.
Sue...
> As we all know, the time transformation of the Lorentz transform is
>
> ** dt’ = (dt + [v] * d[s] / c^2) / sqrt(1 – v^2 / c^2)
>
> Where
>
> ** [v] = velocity of dt frame as observed by the dt’ frame
> ** d[s] = observed displacement vector by the dt frame
> ** [] * [] = dot product of two vectors
<<In the electron reference frame, the undulator
transverse B-field (Fig. 2a[link]), after a Lorentz
transformation, becomes the combination of a transverse
B-field plus a transverse E-field (Fig. 2b[link]),
traveling together at a speed u [asymptotically equal to]
c. These are also the characteristics of an electromagnetic
wave. The wavelength of this wave is given, in the
electron reference frame, by the undulator period
corrected for the relativistic Lorentz contraction.
In the longitudinal direction the contracted length is
L/[gamma], where [gamma] is the relativistic [gamma]-factor,
defined by the equation 1/[gamma] 2 = (1 - u2/c2) and
proportional to the electron energy [gamma]m0c2 (m0 = electron
rest mass). >>
http://journals.iucr.org/s/issues/2011/02/00/kv5089/kv5089bdy.html
See also:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Formulation_of_Maxwell%27s_equations_in_special_relativity
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz_force#Covariant_form_of_the_Lorentz_force
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faraday_paradox#Inapplicability_of_Faraday.27s_law
Sue...
[,,,]
Koobee Wublee
> On Mar 18, 2:49 pm, Koobee Wublee wrote:
> > Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar just wrote down
> > these equations. The nitwit did not invoke electromagnetism to do
> > so. The derivation was indeed the nitwit’s. <shrug>
>
> > After fudging the mathematics to suit your personal belief, now you
> > also have to twist the history around. It is all in the nitwit’s 1905
> > paper. <shrug>
>
> Yes, exactly, it's written in black and white, in plain German, or if
> you like, translated into plain English.
Yes, yours truly also agrees. After fudging the mathematics to suit
your personal belief, now you also have to twist the history around.
It is all in the nitwit’s 1905 paper. <shrug>
> It takes a pretty fruity fruitcake to claim that what is written in
> plain English does not say what it says.
That explains why PD is so fruity fruitcake. <shrug>
You can deny all you want. The records are in the posts of these
newsgroups in which the Einstein Dingleberries are caught red handedly
trying to fudge the mathematics and twist the history to suit their
personal belief in SR and GR. Let the next generations of physicists
sort them out. <shrug>
Koobee Wublee
> On Mar 18, 2:53 pm, Koobee Wublee wrote:
> Read it.
> "Applying the equations of transformation found in § 6 for electric
> and magnetic forces, and those found in § 3 for the co-ordinates and
> the time, we obtain directly..."
> where § 6 is entitled: "Transformation of the Maxwell-Hertz Equations
> for Empty Space. On the Nature of the Electromotive Forces Occurring
> in a Magnetic Field During Motion" and § 3 is entitled: "Theory of the
> Transformation of Co-ordinates and Times from a Stationary System to
> another System in Uniform Motion of Translation Relatively to the
> Former".
Oh, where is the mathematics? Exactly what are the parameters in
electromagnetism that contribute to the Doppler shift? Einstein the
nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar just hand-waved it and wrote down
the final equation. Gee! How dumb can you get? <shrug>
> > The equation of the Doppler shift came from energy transformation.
> > <shrug>
>
> Not in Einstein's derivation.
Of course not. Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar was
a plagiarist. <shrug>
papa...@gmail.com
It is quite clear shruggy boy, that only you are the nitwit, the
plagiarist, and the liar. But more than that, you are totally nuts.
Get stronger drugs from your doctor, since those you are using are not
working!!.
Uncle Ben
> On Mar 14, 1:23 am, Koobee Wublee <koobee.wub...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > As we all know, the time transformation of the Lorentz transform is
>
> > ** dt’ = (dt + [v] * d[s] / c^2) / sqrt(1 – v^2 / c^2)
>
> > Where
>
> > ** [v] = velocity of dt frame as observed by the dt’ frame
> > ** d[s] = observed displacement vector by the dt frame
> > ** [] * [] = dot product of two vectors
>
> <<In the electron reference frame, the undulator
> transverse B-field (Fig. 2a[link]), after a Lorentz
> transformation, becomes the combination of a transverse
> B-field plus a transverse E-field (Fig. 2b[link]),
> traveling together at a speed u [asymptotically equal to]
> c. These are also the characteristics of an electromagnetic
> wave. The wavelength of this wave is given, in the
> electron reference frame, by the undulator period
> corrected for the relativistic Lorentz contraction.
> In the longitudinal direction the contracted length is
> L/[gamma], where [gamma] is the relativistic [gamma]-factor,
> defined by the equation 1/[gamma] 2 = (1 - u2/c2) and
> proportional to the electron energy [gamma]m0c2 (m0 = electron
> rest mass). >>http://journals.iucr.org/s/issues/2011/02/00/kv5089/kv5089bdy.html
>
> See also:
>
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz_force#Covariant_form_of_the_Lore...
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faraday_paradox#Inapplicability_of_Farad...
>
> Sue...
>
> [,,,]
See also
Declaration of independence
War and Peace by Leo Tolstoy
The house at pooh corner by AA Milne
The Castle by Franz kafka
Uncle Ben
hanson
Shmigel <papa...@gmail.com> was instructed by his
superior, Ball room ex-& pervert dancer "uncle Ben", to
exhibit a side-step tango, which the Benster trained him
to do, and so "pap" Shmigel wrote:
>
On 18 mar, 20:24, Koobee Wublee <koobee.wub...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mar 18, 1:25 pm, PD <thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Mar 18, 2:53 pm, Koobee Wublee wrote:
>
>
> > Read it.
> > "Applying the equations of transformation found in § 6 for electric
> > and magnetic forces, and those found in § 3 for the co-ordinates and
> > the time, we obtain directly..."
> > where § 6 is entitled: "Transformation of the Maxwell-Hertz Equations
> > for Empty Space. On the Nature of the Electromotive Forces Occurring
> > in a Magnetic Field During Motion" and § 3 is entitled: "Theory of the
> > Transformation of Co-ordinates and Times from a Stationary System to
> > another System in Uniform Motion of Translation Relatively to the
> > Former".
>
> Oh, where is the mathematics? Exactly what are the parameters in
> electromagnetism that contribute to the Doppler shift? Einstein the
> nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar just hand-waved it and wrote down
> the final equation. Gee! How dumb can you get? <shrug>
>
> > > The equation of the Doppler shift came from energy transformation.
> > > <shrug>
>
> > Not in Einstein's derivation.
>
> Of course not. Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar was
> a plagiarist. <shrug>
>
and so "Miguel" wrote:
It is quite clear shruggy boy, that only you are the nitwit, the
plagiarist, and the liar. But more than that, you are totally nuts.
Get stronger drugs from your doctor, since those you are
using are not working!!.
>
you, Miguel, the "papa", and that "uncle" cum Ben
appear to teach each other the sidestep-tango and
then relativistically debate which of you 2 is the
bigger dog on the other's shortened leash... ahahaha
... ahahahaha.. You are a splendid pair of Einstein
Dingleberries.. . .... Carry on with your worship of
Albert's sphincter... It's hilarious... ahahahaha...
Thanks for the laughs, you 2 Dreidels.. ahahaha...
hanson
barked like a dog in the night at a distant noise he knows
nothing about... and so he wrote:
>
On Mar 18, 6:26 pm, "Sue..." <suzysewns...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
> On Mar 14, 1:23 am, Koobee Wublee <koobee.wub...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
KW wrote:
> > As we all know, the time transformation of the Lorentz transform is
> > ** dt’ = (dt + [v] * d[s] / c^2) / sqrt(1 – v^2 / c^2)
> > Where
> > ** [v] = velocity of dt frame as observed by the dt’ frame
> > ** d[s] = observed displacement vector by the dt frame
> > ** [] * [] = dot product of two vectors
>
Dennis Sue wrote:
> <<In the electron reference frame, the undulator
> transverse B-field (Fig. 2a[link]), after a Lorentz
> transformation, becomes the combination of a transverse
> B-field plus a transverse E-field (Fig. 2b[link]),
> traveling together at a speed u [asymptotically equal to]
> c. These are also the characteristics of an electromagnetic
> wave. The wavelength of this wave is given, in the
> electron reference frame, by the undulator period
> corrected for the relativistic Lorentz contraction.
> In the longitudinal direction the contracted length is
> L/[gamma], where [gamma] is the relativistic [gamma]-factor,
> defined by the equation 1/[gamma] 2 = (1 - u2/c2) and
> proportional to the electron energy [gamma]m0c2 (m0 = electron
> rest mass). >>
http://journals.iucr.org/s/issues/2011/02/00/kv5089/kv5089bdy.html
> See also:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Formulation_of_Maxwell%27s_equations_in_...
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz_force#Covariant_form_of_the_Lore...
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faraday_paradox#Inapplicability_of_Farad...
> Sue...
> [,,,]
>
Ballroom dancer "Uncle Ben" wrote
See also
Declaration of independence
War and Peace by Leo Tolstoy
The house at pooh corner by AA Milne
The Castle by Franz kafka
Uncle Ben
>
hanson wrote:
... ahahahaha.. That's not was meant by you needing
to define "frame"... "w.r.t. ... "dt" or to "dt'", "observer",
etc... .... ... So, listen up you pervert "uncle":
Ben, you have no idea what is being talked about here.
... Go now & do another ball room sidestep tango with
your "papa" Rios... ... Thanks for the laughs, guys
ahahahaha... ahahahahanson
rasterspace
that I worship the nitwit?
rasterspace
Koobee Wublee
> On 18 mar, 20:24, Koobee Wublee wrote:
> > Oh, where is the mathematics? Exactly what are the parameters in
> > electromagnetism that contribute to the Doppler shift? Einstein the
> > nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar just hand-waved it and wrote down
> > the final equation. Gee! How dumb can you get? <shrug>
>
> It is quite clear shruggy boy...
What is the crying baby complaining about? Oh, yours truly shrugging
too much as if it is going to break my shoulders. The Einstein
Dingleberries are just getting dumber and dumber. Breaking my
shoulder is not of anyone’s problem except yours truly. <shrug>
Back to our discussions of how Einstein Dinglberries are getting
dumber and dumber, we witness a janitor from Cornell who claims to be
a computer scientist, but all he can do is fudging the mathematics to
justify his own personal belief. <shrug>
Exposed as nothing but a fudger of mathematics who understands no
physics at heart, this janitor along with a self-claimed college
professor of physics tried to divert the discussion to the derivation
of relativistic Doppler shift in the 1905 paper by their god Einstein
the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar. They have claimed the
nitwit used fancy electromagnetism fully compliant with the Lorentz
transform to derive the relativistic Doppler effect, and yet in that
same paper, there exists no such divine derivation of so. You know
these clowns are just two desperate Einstein Dingleberries trying to
hold their religious belief in a status quo. <shrug>
In the meantime, let’s lay our bickering aside for a moment. Japan is
suffering through this triple calamities triggered by an event of epic
proportion. These people are in dire needs of any sorts of help from
the world. So, please, please donate and help out. <thank you>
Sue...
[...]
>
> In the meantime, let’s lay our bickering aside for a moment. Japan is
> suffering through this triple calamities triggered by an event of epic
> proportion. These people are in dire needs of any sorts of help from
> the world. So, please, please donate and help out. <thank you>
KW, Who failed to teach you how to copy and paste?
<<You may also make a donation directly to the Red Cross
or Red Crescent in your country, and so attract any national
tax relief, by clicking here.
http://www.ifrc.org/en/who-we-are/directory/web-pages/
>>
==========
Sue...
hanson
>
Kike Suess "Sue..." <suzyse...@yahoo.com.au>
cranked himself over KW & believed in his kikeophile
assumption that KW was an turbaned ass-venter...
ahahahaha... Thanks for the laughs for your Yiddisher
street corner performance.... ahahahahanson
Daryl McCullough
>
>On Mar 18, 6:26=A0pm, "Sue..." <suzysewns...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
>> See also:
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Formulation_of_Maxwell%27s_equations_in_...
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz_force#Covariant_form_of_the_Lore...
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faraday_paradox#Inapplicability_of_Farad...
>>
>> Sue...
>>
>> [,,,]
>
>See also
>
>Declaration of independence
>War and Peace by Leo Tolstoy
>The house at pooh corner by AA Milne
>The Castle by Franz kafka
Ben, if you're going to cite references, you should include URLs!
--
Daryl McCullough
Ithaca, NY
hanson
"Daryl McCullough" <stevend...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> carb-Uncle Ben Green, Ballroom dancer, says...
>>
>>"Sue..." <suzysewns...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
>>> See also:
>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Formulation_of_Maxwell%27s_equations_in_...
>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz_force#Covariant_form_of_the_Lore...
>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faraday_paradox#Inapplicability_of_Farad...
>>> [,,,]
>>
carb-Uncle Ben Green, Ballroom dancer, wrote:
>>See also
>>Declaration of independence
>>War and Peace by Leo Tolstoy
>>The house at pooh corner by AA Milne
>>The Castle by Franz kafka
>
> Ben, if you're going to cite references, you should include URLs!
> Ithaca, NY
>
hanson wrote:
an even much more appropriate reference is the url of
Ben Green's own <http://tinyurl.com/Proof-of-Relativity>
rasterspace
rotate with the magnet and the magnet rotated with the disk that a
current should still be produced, not by EMF in the disk (there is no
relative motion between the disk and magnet) but in the external
circuit linking the brushes[1] which is in fact in relative motion
with respect to the rotating magnet. In fact it was shown that so long
as a current loop was used to measure induced EMFs from the motion of
the disk and magnet it is not possible to tell if the magnetic field
does or does not rotate with the magnet.
Several experiments have been proposed using electrostatic
measurements or electron beams to resolve the issue but apparently
none has been successfully performed to date.
[edit]Relation to Faraday's law of induction
rasterspace
rasterspace
hanson
who was originally Lyndon LaRouche's roach, that
morphed into "Spudnick", son of "Mr. Potato head"
which was disasterous for him and so he is hiding
now in/as "rasterspace" <Spac...@hotmail.com>.
who wrote:
... do I have to kiss the dingleberries?
>
... ahahahaha.. someone e-mailed me your post, Brian.
LOL & ROTFL. Do you know what "dingleberries"
are? ... ahahahaha.. Are you into coprophilia, you old
pig? ... AHAHAHAHA... You are even worse then
Wabnigger is, who proudly posted: "I, Wabnig, am an
Einstein Dingleberry"... Are you that gross by nature,
or just a dirty olde kacker who don't know any better?
Thanks for the laughs though, ... ahahaha... ahahahanson
PD
> On Mar 18, 1:25 pm, PD <thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Mar 18, 2:53 pm, Koobee Wublee wrote:
> > Read it.
> > "Applying the equations of transformation found in § 6 for electric
> > and magnetic forces, and those found in § 3 for the co-ordinates and
> > the time, we obtain directly..."
> > where § 6 is entitled: "Transformation of the Maxwell-Hertz Equations
> > for Empty Space. On the Nature of the Electromotive Forces Occurring
> > in a Magnetic Field During Motion" and § 3 is entitled: "Theory of the
> > Transformation of Co-ordinates and Times from a Stationary System to
> > another System in Uniform Motion of Translation Relatively to the
> > Former".
>
> Oh, where is the mathematics? Exactly what are the parameters in
> electromagnetism that contribute to the Doppler shift?
X, Y, Z, L, M, N
They're right there in the paper. All you have to do is read it.
> Einstein the
> nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar just hand-waved it and wrote down
> the final equation. Gee! How dumb can you get? <shrug>
Not at all. He showed the derivation. Can you not follow it?
PD
> On Mar 18, 5:51 pm, "papar...@gmail.com" wrote:
>
> > On 18 mar, 20:24, Koobee Wublee wrote:
> > > Oh, where is the mathematics? Exactly what are the parameters in
> > > electromagnetism that contribute to the Doppler shift? Einstein the
> > > nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar just hand-waved it and wrote down
> > > the final equation. Gee! How dumb can you get? <shrug>
>
> > It is quite clear shruggy boy...
>
> What is the crying baby complaining about? Oh, yours truly shrugging
> too much as if it is going to break my shoulders. The Einstein
> Dingleberries are just getting dumber and dumber. Breaking my
> shoulder is not of anyone’s problem except yours truly. <shrug>
>
> Back to our discussions of how Einstein Dinglberries are getting
> dumber and dumber, we witness a janitor from Cornell who claims to be
> a computer scientist, but all he can do is fudging the mathematics to
> justify his own personal belief. <shrug>
>
> Exposed as nothing but a fudger of mathematics who understands no
> physics at heart, this janitor along with a self-claimed college
> professor of physics tried to divert the discussion to the derivation
> of relativistic Doppler shift in the 1905 paper by their god Einstein
> the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar. They have claimed the
> nitwit used fancy electromagnetism fully compliant with the Lorentz
> transform to derive the relativistic Doppler effect, and yet in that
> same paper, there exists no such divine derivation of so.
It's RIGHT THERE in the paper. Can you not read?
rasterspace
even of Newton's God-am corpuscle.
Koobee Wublee
> On Mar 18, 7:24 pm, Koobee Wublee wrote:
> > Oh, where is the mathematics? Exactly what are the parameters in
> > electromagnetism that contribute to the Doppler shift?
>
> X, Y, Z, L, M, N
> They're right there in the paper. All you have to do is read it.
Yours truly has witnessed a lot of fudging by Einstein the nitwit, the
plagiarist, and the liar in the same fashion as Daryl defecated the
voodoo mathematics all over these newsgroups. In this particular
case, all you have to do is to apply the same technique to the
Galilean transform, and tell us what happens. Well, in this case, the
classical electromagnetism results in no Doppler shift, and any wise
engineers would immediately “undo” away from this fucked up
situation. Since Einstein Dingleberries are just stupid, opinionated,
and zealous at heart, the examples of PD and Daryl just continue to
walk into the path of absurdities. <shrug and sigh>
PD is hopelessly mystified as an ex-college physics professor (go
figure). Daryl’s id actually knows of his own stupidity after all
yours truly has pointed out numerous blunders by Daryl. Because of
that, Daryl is now less confident in the garbage of SR and GR. His
only recourse is to hide under PD’s skirt and occasionally,
childishly, and mindlessly utters some form of incoherent and useless
defiance to the truth. <shrug>
> > Einstein the
> > nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar just hand-waved it and wrote down
> > the final equation. Gee! How dumb can you get? <shrug>
>
> Not at all. He showed the derivation. Can you not follow it?
You are indeed opinionated with no mathematical or analytical skills.
<shrug>
It is getting old spanking PD’s, Daryl’s, and Uncle Ben’s asses in
public. Is there any other Einstein Dingleberry who wants to have his
or her ass spanked? <shrug>
hanson
who was originally Lyndon LaRouche's roach, that
morphed into "Spudnick", son of "Mr. Potato head"
which was disasterous for him and so he is hiding
now in/as "rasterspace" <Spac...@hotmail.com>.
who wrote:
... do I have to kiss the dingleberries?
>
hanson wrote:
... ahahahaha.. someone e-mailed me your post, Brian.
LOL & ROTFL. Do you know what "dingleberries"
are? ... ahahahaha.. Are you into coprophilia, you old
or just a dirty olde kacker who don't know any better?
>
I don't think that jealosy makes a good theory of light, or
even of Newton's God-am corpuscle.
>
hanson wrote:
... I don't care about your jealousy nor about your
God-am corpuscle... nor about your parroting of old
theories. You are just gross by nature, and a dirty
olde kacker who doesn't know any better. ...But,
thanks for the laughs... ahahahaha... ahahahanson
>
PD
> On Mar 21, 7:19 am, PD <thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Mar 18, 7:24 pm, Koobee Wublee wrote:
> > > Oh, where is the mathematics? Exactly what are the parameters in
> > > electromagnetism that contribute to the Doppler shift?
>
> > X, Y, Z, L, M, N
> > They're right there in the paper. All you have to do is read it.
>
> Yours truly has witnessed a lot of fudging by Einstein the nitwit, the
> plagiarist, and the liar in the same fashion as Daryl defecated the
> voodoo mathematics all over these newsgroups. In this particular
> case, all you have to do is to apply the same technique to the
> Galilean transform, and tell us what happens. Well, in this case, the
> classical electromagnetism results in no Doppler shift, and any wise
> engineers would immediately “undo” away from this fucked up
> situation. Since Einstein Dingleberries are just stupid, opinionated,
> and zealous at heart, the examples of PD and Daryl just continue to
> walk into the path of absurdities. <shrug and sigh>
Two comments.
- You have yet to demonstrate that the "all you have to do" results in
what you claim it does.
- Doppler shift is observed to happen when the source and receiver are
in relative motion, in the amount that is predicted by relativity.
Thus, your claim that the Galilean transform doesn't produce that
nasty bugaboo of a Doppler shift would also be an admission that the
Galilean transform doesn't match experimental observation. You
apparently think that it's better to be rid of something you don't
like, and to hell with observation. Perhaps you are going to suggest
that what is missing is the "interpretation" that the observed shift
is in fact not a shift at all.
>
> PD is hopelessly mystified as an ex-college physics professor (go
> figure). Daryl’s id actually knows of his own stupidity after all
> yours truly has pointed out numerous blunders by Daryl. Because of
> that, Daryl is now less confident in the garbage of SR and GR. His
> only recourse is to hide under PD’s skirt and occasionally,
> childishly, and mindlessly utters some form of incoherent and useless
> defiance to the truth. <shrug>
>
> > > Einstein the
> > > nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar just hand-waved it and wrote down
> > > the final equation. Gee! How dumb can you get? <shrug>
>
> > Not at all. He showed the derivation. Can you not follow it?
>
> You are indeed opinionated with no mathematical or analytical skills.
> <shrug>
Is that your answer to "Can you not follow it?"
Alfonso
> As we all know, the time transformation of the Lorentz transform is
>
> ** dt’ = (dt + [v] * d[s] / c^2) / sqrt(1 – v^2 / c^2)
>
> Where
>
> ** [v] = velocity of dt frame as observed by the dt’ frame
> ** d[s] = observed displacement vector by the dt frame
> ** [] * [] = dot product of two vectors
>
> who first wrote down the relativistic Doppler effect of light or
> whoever the author of that 1905 paper was. The above equation becomes
> the following.
>
> ** f’ / f = sqrt(1 – v^2 / c^2) / (1 + [v] * [c] / c^2)
>
> Where
>
> ** f’ = 1 / dt’
> ** f = 1 / dt
> ** d[s]/dt = [c]
>
> Of course, Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar was not
> bright enough to realize the above equation in general. The nitwit
> and almost all self-styled physicists can only rationalize in the very
> special case where [v] and [c] are in parallel to each other. If so,
> the above equation can be simplified according to the following.
>
> ** f’ / f = sqrt(1 – v^2 / c^2) / (1 - v / c)
>
> Or
>
> ** f’ / f = sqrt(1 + v / c) / sqrt(1 - v / c)
>
> Where
>
> ** [c] is always propagating from dt frame to dt’
> ** v> 0 means dt is moving away from dt’
>
> In this case, the relativistic Doppler effect according to the Lorentz
> transform would always predict an opposite to the classical one.
> Oops! How can the self-styled physicists miss this blatant math error
> for over 100 years?
>
> Interestingly, there is another way of deriving the relativistic
> Doppler effect. All the infinite non-ballistic-theory-of-light
> transforms that satisfy the null results of the MMX share the same
> equation of energy transform derive from the geodesic equations. In
> doing so, the energy transform can be written as follows.
>
> ** E’ = (E + [v] * [p]) / sqrt(1 – v^2 / c^2)
>
> Where
>
> ** E’, E = observed energies
> ** [p] = observed momentum by the dt frame
>
> Using the same, previous criteria where [v] and [p] are in parallel
> for the intellect-deficient self-styled physicists, the above
> equations simplifies into the following.
>
> ** f’ / f = (1 – v / c) / sqrt(1 – v^2 / c^2)
>
> Or
>
> ** f’ / f = sqrt(1 – v / c) / sqrt(1 + v / c)
>
> Where
>
> ** [p] is always going from dt frame to dt’
> ** v> 0 means dt is moving away from dt’
> ** E’ = h f’
> ** E = h f
> ** [p] = h f [c] / c^2
>
> This version of the relativistic Doppler effect is the exact opposite
> of the one derived earlier in this post. Thus, yours truly demands to
> know why the self-styled physicists have allowed this blatant math
> error to go through to justify the validity of SR in the past 100
> years.
Einstein's 1905 paper was somewhat sloppy. He did not define whether v
was towards or away from the source.
He also gets it wrong "We see that, in contrast with the customary view,
when v = -c, f' = infinity".
According to SR as it is currently understood if v = +/-c time stops and
frequency becomes zero. I think Einstein confused himself thinking that
clocks measure time. They in fact count ticks. If time dilates the time
interval between the ticks gets longer (increases) while the number of
ticks counted decreases. If time stops the clock stops because the time
interval between ticks has become infinite - the frequency of the ticks
become zero and what is registered on the clock is zero.
Of course what the second postulate describes is an observer (every
observer) being stationary w.r.t the aether. What is perhaps interesting
is this:
...............................S->v
...............................X
SR says that light emitted when S is directly opposite X will travel at
c to X and arrive at X from the direction S-X. The frequency received
will not however be Fo (as one might expect) but lower because of time
dilation.
What Ballistic theory says is that the light leaving S has a component v
whereby the light propagates in a circle who's centre tracks with S.
When it arrives at X it does so from the direction S'-X
..................................S'->v
............................vt>| |<
...............................X
which means that the source has a component of motion away from X so the
frequency is lower than Fo. In fact both theories give the same
frequency arriving at X. when emitted from position S. SR claims it is
due to time dilation and ballistic theory because of Doppler shift.
..................................S'->v
............................vt>| |<
...............................X X'
Ballistic theory says that for light emitted at point S the frequency
will be Fo at point X' where the light is coming from the S'-X'
direction. Strangely so does SR which says that at X' light is
travelling in the direction S-X' and therefore the source has a
component of motion towards X' increasing its frequency just enough to
cancel the effects of time dilation.
It is a very simple example of why - simply because SR gives the right
answer - it is wrong to assume that that disproves Ballistic theory. If
the light postulate was wrong and light was ballistic then the Lorentz
transforms would simply be equivalence formula making up for the error
by suitably deforming space and time to get the right answer. One might
draw an analogy with the geocentric theory where a wrong assumption was
accommodated by considerably complicating other things.
> Oh, would any wise Dingleberry suggest that [v] is the velocity of dt’
> frame as observed by dt frame instead? If so, you can count on the
> Guillotine is coming down hard in the reply post. Einstein the
> nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar was a fudger of mathematics. The
> nitwit understood nothing about SR and GR. The nitwit could not have
> analyzed anything rationally and correctly to save his life.<shrug>
PD
But it can be determined from context.
> He also gets it wrong "We see that, in contrast with the customary view,
> when v = -c, f' = infinity".
> According to SR as it is currently understood if v = +/-c time stops and
> frequency becomes zero.
That is simply incorrect. f' goes to zero only for a *receding* source
approaching c.
> I think Einstein confused himself thinking that
> clocks measure time.
Yes, indeed. Time is what clocks measure.
Daryl McCullough
>Einstein's 1905 paper was somewhat sloppy. He did not define whether v
>was towards or away from the source.
That is not correct. Einstein very clearly specifies that we have two
frames of reference K and k, and that the spatial origin of the k system
is moving at speed v in the positive x-direction, as measured by system K.
So v is positive means that an object at rest in system k is moving
in the positive x-direction, as measured in system K. v is negative
means that an object at rest in system k is moving in the negative
x-direction.
>He also gets it wrong "We see that, in contrast with the customary view,
>when v = -c, f' = infinity".
No, he did not get it wrong. What he computed was the following:
if, as measured by system K, an electromagnetic wave is propagating
with frequency f in the +x direction, then the frequency measured
by system k will be
f' = square-root((1-v/c)/(1+v/c)) f
If v is positive, meaning that the k observer is receding from the K observer,
then f' < f, meaning that it is Doppler-shifted to a lower frequency.
If v is negative, meaning that the k observer is approaching the K observer,
then f' > f, meaning that it is Doppler-shifted to a higher frequency.
It immediately follows from the derived relationship between f and f'
that as v --> -c, we have: f'/f --> infinity. As v --> +c,
we have: f'/f --> 0.
>According to SR as it is currently understood if v = +/-c time stops and
>frequency becomes zero.
You are confusing Doppler shift with time dilation. They are not
the same thing. As v --> -c, we have: f' --> infinity.
As v --> +c, we have: f' --> 0.
>I think Einstein confused himself thinking that
>clocks measure time. They in fact count ticks.
I don't see any evidence that Einstein is confused
about this.
rasterspace
unless it's yours.
seriously, the newtonian so-called theory
of a particulate light is without any merit, and
only serves to confuse the issue,
which is constructive & destructive interference
of actual waves in & of & around matter,
including in "deep space."
hanson
Koobee Wublee
> On Mar 22, 1:19 am, Koobee Wublee wrote:
> > Yours truly has witnessed a lot of fudging by Einstein the nitwit, the
> > plagiarist, and the liar in the same fashion as Daryl defecated the
> > voodoo mathematics all over these newsgroups. In this particular
> > case, all you have to do is to apply the same technique to the
> > Galilean transform, and tell us what happens. Well, in this case, the
> > classical electromagnetism results in no Doppler shift, and any wise
> > engineers would immediately “undo” away from this fucked up
> > situation. Since Einstein Dingleberries are just stupid, opinionated,
> > and zealous at heart, the examples of PD and Daryl just continue to
> > walk into the path of absurdities. <shrug and sigh>
>
> Two comments.
That many? You really need how to bullshit good. <shrug>
> - You have yet to demonstrate that the "all you have to do" results in
> what you claim it does.
Hmmm... Asking yours truly to show mathemagics is indeed voodoo
mathematics is just asking too much. <shrug> As Tom wrote, it is
indeed your problem only if you cannot comprehend that is voodoo
mathematics. <shrug>
> - Doppler shift is observed to happen when the source and receiver are
> in relative motion,
<yawn> That is correct. <shrug>
> in the amount that is predicted by relativity.
In reality, the Lorentz transform predicts odd Doppler shift not in
accordance with what is observed. <shrug> However, the Lorentz
transform offers one to play with mathemaGics to allow one to play
god. <shrug>
> Thus, your claim that the Galilean transform doesn't produce that
> nasty bugaboo of a Doppler shift would also be an admission that the
> Galilean transform doesn't match experimental observation.
Hmmm... You are grossly mistaken. Yours truly never claimed such
so. <shrug>
[rest of stupid misunderstanding mercifully snipped]
> > PD is hopelessly mystified as an ex-college physics professor (go
> > figure). Daryl’s id actually knows of his own stupidity after all
> > yours truly has pointed out numerous blunders by Daryl. Because of
> > that, Daryl is now less confident in the garbage of SR and GR. His
> > only recourse is to hide under PD’s skirt and occasionally,
> > childishly, and mindlessly utters some form of incoherent and useless
> > defiance to the truth. <shrug>
>
> > You are indeed opinionated with no mathematical or analytical skills.
> > <shrug>
>
> Is that your answer to "Can you not follow it?"
I suppose you are entitled to speculate whatever shit you wish to
consume for diner. After all, the US still allows the utmost freedom
of censored or politically correct speech. <shrug>
Koobee Wublee
> Alfonso says...
>
> >Einstein's 1905 paper was somewhat sloppy. He did not define whether v
> >was towards or away from the source.
>
> That is not correct. Einstein very clearly specifies that we have two
> frames of reference K and k, and that the spatial origin of the k system
> is moving at speed v in the positive x-direction, as measured by system K.
Could you point out where exactly?
> So v is positive means that an object at rest in system k is moving
> in the positive x-direction, as measured in system K. v is negative
> means that an object at rest in system k is moving in the negative
> x-direction.
It depends on which side of the x-axis the observer is located. So,
what you are saying makes no mathematical sense without specifying
where the observer is located along the x-axis. A better way to
explain what v is is to describe it as a relative velocity of one
point as observed by another specific point. <shrug>
> You are confusing Doppler shift with time dilation. They are not
> the same thing.
This is exactly what yours truly has been telling you. That was why
yours truly asked you to make a movie with a certain bandwidth. Send
it after mixing with a carrier frequency, and demodulate it with an
almost identical carrier frequency. You will notice time dilation
does not reflect in the Doppler shift. So, yours truly has been
guiding your thoughts away from the dark side of science. Could you
at least show some appreciation? <shrug> Oh, divorcing time dilation
from Doppler effect will help you in demystification if you are smart
enough to realize so. <shrug>
> >I think Einstein confused himself thinking that
> >clocks measure time. They in fact count ticks.
>
> I don't see any evidence that Einstein is confused about this.
That is because you cannot do anything else besides fudging the
mathematics to suit your belief. <shrug>
Alfonso
No. It can be determined *if* you know what the answer should be.
"if an observer is moving with velocity v relatively to an infinitely
distant source of light of frequency f"
Is totally ambiguous
>
>> He also gets it wrong "We see that, in contrast with the customary
>> view, when v = -c, f' = infinity". According to SR as it is
>> currently understood if v = +/-c time stops and frequency becomes
>> zero.
>
> That is simply incorrect. f' goes to zero only for a *receding*
> source approaching c.
>
>> I think Einstein confused himself thinking that clocks measure
>> time.
>
> Yes, indeed. Time is what clocks measure.
You cannot have your cake and eat it either time is the reciprocal of
frequency or it is what a clock measures.
a/The frequency of a transverse moving clock is reduced.
b/The time interval between ticks is increased (dilated means increased)
c/ What the moving clock registers is reduced.
What are the units of a/b/ and c/
a is 1/s or Hz
b is s the reciprocal of a
c is the number of ticks (unitless)
c only measures time is the unit of time (second) is invariant.