SR false?

Rudolf Drabek

unread,

Sep 16, 2006, 2:43:17 PM9/16/06

to

http://www.helmut-hille.de/uni-linz.html

Abstract - An experiment is described showing that a 33 GHz microwave
signal received by rotating antennas is not exhibiting the frequency
shift ("transverse Doppler effect") predicted by the relativistic
Doppler formula. The sensitivity of the apparatus used has been tested
to be sufficient for detecting frequency shifts as small as 10-3 Hz
which corresponds to the value of (v/c)2 = 5.10-14 used in the
transverse Doppler shift experiment reported here. From the observed
absence of the transverse Doppler shift it is concluded that either the
time dilation predicted by the standard theory of special relativity
does not exist in reality or, if it does, is a phenomenon which does
not depend on relative velocities but may be a function of absolute
velocities in the fundamental frame of the isotropic microwave
background radiation.

Can that be true?
Are there measurements that show the transverse Doppler?, e.g GPS.
One thing is clear, that many effects can be explained by use of SR,
e.g lifetime of muons.
I don't know any source that can explain this with Newton.
Also there are effects, like Sagnac, that can be explained with SR and
Newton.
But let's say it with Sir Popper: truth has to be confirmed if still
true.

At the moment I'm not sure how to proceed.
Rudi

Sue...

unread,

Sep 16, 2006, 3:50:19 PM9/16/06

to

The experiment doesn't show that a *real* incompatability
exist with Maxwell's equations and Galiean relattivity
rather than an apparent one. IOW resolution of the two
postulates. While it may shake the foundations of
a few H.G. Wells fans that were reading too much
into to the thought experiments it doesn't seem to
suggest the need to derive time dependent field
equations any differently than we now do.

"Retarded potential"
http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/em/lectures/node50.html

BTW... The dielectic of free space, air or thin gas,
provides a local electromagnetic frame of reference,
not the CMBR which can't interact with other light.

Sue...

> Rudi

The Ghost In The Machine

unread,

Sep 16, 2006, 4:00:07 PM9/16/06

to

In sci.physics.relativity, Rudolf Drabek
<news...@aon.at>
wrote
on 16 Sep 2006 11:43:17 -0700
<1158432197.7...@k70g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>:

Simple. If it violates *GR*, then it's interesting.
SR only works within inertial reference frames; if gravity
or spinning is involved, it gives up and goes home. :-)

Since you mention rotating antennas this is probably a Sagnac
variant.

--
#191, ewi...@earthlink.net
Windows Vista. Because it's time to refresh your hardware. Trust us.

Sorcerer

unread,

Sep 16, 2006, 4:25:43 PM9/16/06

to

"Rudolf Drabek" <news...@aon.at> wrote in message
news:1158432197.7...@k70g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

| http://www.helmut-hille.de/uni-linz.html
|
| Abstract - An experiment is described showing that a 33 GHz microwave
| signal received by rotating antennas is not exhibiting the frequency
| shift ("transverse Doppler effect") predicted by the relativistic
| Doppler formula. The sensitivity of the apparatus used has been tested
| to be sufficient for detecting frequency shifts as small as 10-3 Hz
| which corresponds to the value of (v/c)2 = 5.10-14 used in the
| transverse Doppler shift experiment reported here. From the observed
| absence of the transverse Doppler shift it is concluded that either the
| time dilation predicted by the standard theory of special relativity
| does not exist in reality or, if it does, is a phenomenon which does
| not depend on relative velocities but may be a function of absolute
| velocities in the fundamental frame of the isotropic microwave
| background radiation.
|
| Can that be true?

No.
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Doppler/Doppler.htm

| Are there measurements that show the transverse Doppler?

No.

, e.g GPS.
| One thing is clear, that many effects can be explained by use of SR,
| e.g lifetime of muons.

In a race between a photon from the top of the atmosphere
and sea level, same race track, same clock, the muon takes 2.2
usec and dies, the photon takes 333 usec and bounces.
Muons are 150 times faster than light, PROVING SR is crap.

| I don't know any source that can explain this with Newton.

I just explained it.

| Also there are effects, like Sagnac, that can be explained with SR and
| Newton.

| But let's say it with Sir Popper: truth has to be confirmed if still
| true.
|
| At the moment I'm not sure how to proceed.

Proceed from here:
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Rocket/Rocket.htm
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Smart/Smart.htm

Androcles

Sorcerer

unread,

Sep 16, 2006, 5:03:56 PM9/16/06

to

"Sue..." <suzyse...@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
news:1158436219.4...@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...

Oh, do shut up with your farside comic strip, it is getting real old.
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/spin.gif
http://members.tripod.com/piro_maniac/FARSIDE/
Androcles

Dirk Van de moortel

unread,

Sep 16, 2006, 5:09:55 PM9/16/06

to

"The Ghost In The Machine" <ew...@sirius.tg00suus7038.net> wrote in message news:k2vtt3-...@sirius.tg00suus7038.net...

Um, it does not for the latter.
SR does not only work with inertial frames:
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/acceleration.html
http://www.geocities.com/slithytove5/AccelClocks.htm
etc...

>
> Since you mention rotating antennas this is probably a Sagnac
> variant.

... which can be handled by SR perfectly.
http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s2-07/2-07.htm
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html
(section 7)
etc...

Dirk Vdm

Sorcerer

unread,

Sep 16, 2006, 6:55:02 PM9/16/06

to

"Dirk Van de moortel" <dirkvand...@ThankS-NO-SperM.hotmail.com> wrote
in message news:DKZOg.80055$xj2.1...@phobos.telenet-ops.be...

You lurves contradiction and Pair o'Dorks, don't you?
But we do NOT lurve you, fuckhead. :-)
Androcles

xx...@bellsouth.net

unread,

Sep 16, 2006, 7:53:50 PM9/16/06

to

Sorcerer wrote:
> "Rudolf Drabek" <news...@aon.at> wrote in message
> news:1158432197.7...@k70g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> | http://www.helmut-hille.de/uni-linz.html

> In a race between a photon from the top of the atmosphere

> and sea level, same race track, same clock, the muon takes 2.2
> usec and dies, the photon takes 333 usec and bounces.
> Muons are 150 times faster than light, PROVING SR is crap.

> Androcles

xxein: Please show some sort of proof for that statement.

Sorcerer

unread,

Sep 16, 2006, 8:42:01 PM9/16/06

to

<xx...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:1158450830....@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...

http://tinyurl.com/ge4v6

The Ghost In The Machine

unread,

Sep 16, 2006, 9:00:06 PM9/16/06

to

In sci.physics.relativity, xx...@bellsouth.net
<xx...@bellsouth.net>
wrote
on 16 Sep 2006 16:53:50 -0700
<1158450830....@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>:

His "proof" is simple. Muon lifetime is known, distance is about
100 km; therefore v = d/t = 150 times lightspeed. That's the
gist of Androcles' "proof". (The error therein is left to
the interested reader, although Dirk probably already knows
what it is; certainly *I* do. :-) )

There is a catch. Ground-based muons also have energy; on
average about 2 GeV. Since muons at rest have m_mu * c^2 =
107 MeV, the measured energy is too small by about 600 x.

This means, of course, that Androcles, world-renowned
scientist and mathematician, has discovered, along with
Planet Androcles circling Beta Persei (aka Algol), a
particle that is exactly like a muon only much lighter --
m_mu' * c^2 = 178 keV.

OR

the muon gives up most of its energy to the air upon transit
(I lack data on this one but other research suggests that the
pion creating said muon is about 6 GeV, and 2/3 of the energy
is lost in the atmosphere. Since this is easily measurable
in a cloud chamber I don't see much problem in doing it, although
I might have a problem googling it.)

OR

the muon is experiencing a gamma contraction of about 150, which
is just enough to squish its subjective transit distance to
660 m. (There are discrepancies, yes, again because of said
atmosphere.)

Other measurements are possible and indeed already have been done;
a simple one would be measuring flux of incoming muons while
traveling in an airplane. Also, high-speed muons are creatable
in a storage ring.

ver...@gawab.com

unread,

Sep 16, 2006, 9:17:07 PM9/16/06

to

VERGON

I don't know whether this will help or not but here goes.

TIME DILATION

Vertner Vergon

ABSTRACT

We examine time dilation as set forth in Einstein's paper and find it
has an inconsistency and a reductio ad absurdum. We ascertain a correct
time variation and illustrate its viability.

There is always an open question as to the accuracy of Scientific
articles. So the question arises, how can we judge the accuracy of an
article that involves a theory?

Firstly, the article (theory) must be consistent both internally and
with empiricism. If it isn't it is flawed.

Secondly, it must not violate any known physics laws. Nor, obviously,
can it lead to a reductio ad absurdum.

Theories necessarily contain speculation - else they are not theories
but simply logical constructs. Such constructs must also meet the above
requirements.

Articles generally contain both theory and reference to facts (such as
experiments). These must be verified.

If an article ( or theory) meets these requirements it cannot be
rejected. If it is, it is done so out of sheer obstinancy and/or
stupidity.

Let us examine the concept of Time Dilation as contained in the Special
Theory of Relativity.

We start our examination of the time dilation concept by going to its
source -- Einstein's paper, On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies. We
refer to his gedanken experiment of moving clocks. One of two
synchronized identical clocks remains at rest while the other moves
away and returns. When Einstein perceived the difference of the clock
readings in his calculations, he stated the moving clock "was slow by
...". The immediate perception by the public was that he meant if a
clock was "slow by" - it had to have run slower. He also said the
moving clock was "behind" the inertial clock by ... . These two
statements do not mean the same thing. If one clock is running slower,
then it is running slower, and that has only one meaning.

On the other hand to say one clock is behind the other is open to
alternative explanations, e.g., the moving clock could have traveled a
shorter world line -- or may have traveled faster than observed. In
either case the clock would maintain its normal (proper) rate but for a
shorter duration than the inertial clock and thus be behind. At any
rate the accepted version is that the clock ran slower and thus was
born the concept of time dilation.

This concept is usually presented by an illustration that says if one
were to observe a clock on a fast moving spaceship, they would observe
it to run slowly. It must be emphasized that this running slowly occurs
regardless of the direction or vector of the ship. That is to say it
matters not whether the spaceship is receding or approaching, time runs
slower. Also to be emphasized is that this slowness of time is not just
a matter of observation but actually takes place -- for when the clock
returns it is actually 'behind" the stationary (or Earth) clock.

Since this is the declared case, we are inevitably drawn to only one
conclusion, the moving clock has to be running slowly in its own
coordinate system. Here we are faced with an unforgiving contradiction
for basic relativity states that all clocks keep proper time in their
respective coordinate systems. It is inconsistent that a clock can
actually run slowly in its own coordinate system - and also, the
while, keep proper time; in short the clock would have to keep two
different rates simultaneously, a reductio ad absurdum. This
contradiction requires that the time dilation concept, i.e., t' = t
sqrt(1 - v2/c2) be discarded.

The question arises, is there something to take its place? The answer
is yes.

To lay the foundation for this replacement we note that any known
constant frequency is a clock. The scientific community has chosen the
excited cesium atom as the standard atomic clock. This is an arbitrary
choice. Next, we note that the cesium clock (or any other constant
frequency atom) will never vary in its rate. So they will always keep
proper time. However, observations of these clocks will show a
variation due to the Doppler effect. We declare this variation in
frequency is a variation in observed time. Since the frequency is a
clock, an observed variation in the frequency is an observed variation
in time. Call it Doppler or what one will, that is merely a description
of the mechanics. In the final analysis it is a variation in observed
time.

THINGS ARE NOT ALWAYS WHAT THEY SEEM.

Next, we examine a counter argument which states that the relativistic
Doppler rate is the result of the following: If one takes the
non-relativistic Doppler rate and modifies it by the time dilation
they, come up with the relativistic Doppler rate. This, supposedly,
confirms time dilation. Upon further examination, we perceive that even
if we were to accept that explanation, what we have is the situation
whereby an approaching clock is observed to run fast -- not as fast as
non-relativistic mechanics would have -- but fast. This is contrary to
time dilation which requires an approaching clock to run slowly. That a
reversal in direction results in a reversal of time rate is to be
expected since time variation is the result of velocity vectors - and
vectors are directional.

If a theory conflicts with empiricism, it has to be discarded.

Using the Doppler rate as the time rate will yield the time dilation
effect. And that is the proper way to refer to it -- "time dilation
effect". The reason: The net time differential when the movement of the
clock is complete is the same as though the dilation time was operative
throughout.

What then? What is the explanation for the "effect", but not the
actuality? Particle accelerator operators and Ives & Stillwell claim to
have "directly observed" time dilation. What they have observed is
transverse Doppler rates. And it so happens, by some extraordinary
coincidence, that the transverse Doppler rate is the same as the time
dilation rate.

And now to display the Doppler time resolution of the Twins Paradox:

What is displayed here is the round trip Twins experience with no
paradox. The upward arrow signifies outward bound, the downward arrow
signifies inward bound. The double arrows signify the ship being
observed going outbound while it in actuality is traveling inbound.
(second chart). This, of course, is due to the time it takes light to
travel. The observed velocity is v(.75c). At this velocity the so
called time dilation rate is 1/2 . The distance to far-point is sqrt(3
light seconds). So the elapsed time for the ship's transit is one
second due to the fact its actual velocity is sqrt(3 light seconds/sec)
( See The Dual VelocitiesTheory of Relativity.)*

( For seconds or years, the figures hold.)

This means that four years on earth would be only two years on ship.
The time rates shown in the second chart are the time rates of the ship
as observed by earth. They are Doppler rates.

They have to be. Any invariable frequency -- clock or atom -- will be
observed at Doppler rates. The same is true for observations of earth
by the ship (first chart). So there is a parity of rate observations as
required by the principle of relativity.

NOTICE, there is no time dilation rate observed (1/2 in this case) --
but when the trip is concluded the difference in the clock readings is
as though the ship clock had run at half time to the earth clock, i.e.
, run at dilation time. When Einstein saw that in his calculations
(1905 paper) he said the A clock "ran slow" by ... . This created the
impression that time really ran slower for the ship's clock. The table
below shows this isn't so. It runs at the normal (proper) rate but is
observed to run at the Doppler rate.

It is worth mentioning that according to the Special Theory of
Relativity a clock in the approach mode runs slow - but astronomers
observe clocks in the approach mode, and they are running fast.
Consequently, there is no time dilation observed. There is, however, a
time dilation effect, i.e., the transit time differential on the two
clocks -- and these were created by Doppler time.

OBSERVE:

(In case the following table is distorted due to transmission, this
article may be found at http://www.wbabin.net . Go to the pull down
"LIST OF AUTHORS" and click on Vertner Vergon. Then click on the
April 25 insertion. The table there is not disturbed.)

ASTRONAUT'S TABLE
***************************

DOPPLER
ELAPSED TIME X TIME-FREQUENCY = OBSERVED ELAPSED
ON SHIP RATE
TIME ON EARTH
(IN SECONDS) (t/f)
( IN SECONDS)
_________________________________________________________

/ \ 1.000 X .268 =
.268
|

| 1.000 X 3.732 =
3.732
\ /
__________________________________________________________
total
elapsed 2.000
4.000
time

ASTRONOMER'S TABLE

******************************

ELAPSED TIME x DOPPLER = OBSERVED ELAPSED

ON EARTH TIME-FREQUENCY TIME ON SHIP

(IN SECONDS) RATE (INSECONDS)
___________________________________________________
/ \
| 2.00 x 2.68 =
.536 |

| 1 sec
/ \ | 1.732 x 2.68 =
.464 |
| \ /

| .268 x 3.732 =
1.000
\ /
____________________________________________________
total
elapsed 4.000
2.000
time

So we see that although the final time differential is as though time
dilation were operating - in fact it is the Doppler time-frequency
that operates.

Note: Not only is there a parity of rate observations, but the length
of time each twin is an observer is equal to the time he is observed.
Thus there is a time commonality of observation. This, in a space-time
chart given in Space-time Physics (by Taylor and Wheeler), is labeled
the "line of simultaneity".

* To calculate the Astronomer's observation of the outgoing trip,
we note the following: The distance to far point is 1.732 light
seconds. The velocity of the ship to the astronomer is the relativistic
.866 c. Thus it will take two seconds for transit. But Astronomer will
not observe that until light recording that event arrives at earth.
This will take 1.732 seconds. Adding the 2 seconds and the 1.732
seconds yields the 3.732 seconds of observation (upward arrows).

* Regarding the return trip: Even though the ship is traveling at a
(Newtonian) speed greater than c, it does not surpass the light
recording its journey. Instead, the waves pile up (condense) in front
of it and are observed by Astronomer at the rate of 3.732 times norm.
This phenomenon indicates that light can travel faster than c but the
manifestation of that is an increased frequency (shorter wavelength)
- with the observation of c as the velocity.

Sorcerer

unread,

Sep 16, 2006, 10:02:29 PM9/16/06

to

<ver...@gawab.com> wrote in message
news:1158455827.3...@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

HAHAHAHA!!!
What a MORON!
Androcles

Sorcerer

unread,

Sep 16, 2006, 10:02:29 PM9/16/06

to

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

news:dviut3-...@sirius.tg00suus7038.net...

Yep.
"Everything should be as "silly" as possible, preferably sillier" - Einstein

The silly part is pretending the muon is as slow as a photon.

(The error therein is left to
| the interested reader, although Dirk probably already knows
| what it is; certainly *I* do. :-) )
|
| There is a catch.

Nah... You measure energy in funny relativistic units, you cheat.

Ground-based muons also have energy; on
| average about 2 GeV. Since muons at rest have m_mu * c^2 =
| 107 MeV

See? "Muons at rest". Put them on a microscope slide, did you?
Since muons at rest contain at least one top quark, they have
less energy when moving.

, the measured energy is too small by about 600 x.
|
| This means, of course, that Androcles, world-renowned
| scientist and mathematician, has discovered, along with
| Planet Androcles circling Beta Persei (aka Algol), a
| particle that is exactly like a muon only much lighter --
| m_mu' * c^2 = 178 keV.

Nah, Ghost in the Machine, world renowned fuckwit has
discovered the top of the atmosphere is 660 metres above
sea level.

| OR
|
| the muon gives up most of its energy to the air upon transit
| (I lack data on this one but other research suggests that the
| pion creating said muon is about 6 GeV, and 2/3 of the energy
| is lost in the atmosphere. Since this is easily measurable
| in a cloud chamber I don't see much problem in doing it, although
| I might have a problem googling it.)

Michelson didn't have much trouble find aether, but I tried googling
and it wasn't there.
I saw a man upon the stair,
A little man who wasn't there.
He wasn't there again today,
Oh how I wish he'd go away.

|
| OR
|
| the muon is experiencing a gamma contraction of about 150, which
| is just enough to squish its subjective transit distance to
| 660 m. (There are discrepancies, yes, again because of said
| atmosphere.)
|
| Other measurements are possible and indeed already have been done;
| a simple one would be measuring flux of incoming muons while
| traveling in an airplane. Also, high-speed muons are creatable
| in a storage ring.
|

In other words there are lies, damned lies and statistics.
But you go ahead and believe the top of the atmosphere
is 660 metres above sea level. It's funny, I could breathe
just fine when I climbed Snowdon in North Wales. I'll
just go on calling you an imbecile and a fuckwit.

Androcles.

rambu...@yahoo.com

unread,

Sep 17, 2006, 11:56:06 PM9/17/06

to

The transverse Doppler effect is a FACT, it has been fully verified by
the experiments of Ives and Stilwell.

The TDE is a second order effect (an effect in (v/c)^2), therefore it
is VERY difficult to detect. Normally, the experiments detecting it
have a differential setup.

Occasionally claims like this resurface . A retired engineer who
doesn't understand the TDE sets up an experiment incorrectly, detects
nothing and goes around making ridiculous claims.

dlzc1 D:cox T:net@nospam.com N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)

unread,

Sep 18, 2006, 9:15:07 AM9/18/06

to

Dear rambus2005:

<rambu...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1158551766.5...@k70g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
...

> The transverse Doppler effect is a FACT, it has been
> fully verified by the experiments of Ives and Stilwell.
>
> The TDE is a second order effect (an effect in (v/c)^2),
> therefore it is VERY difficult to detect. Normally, the
> experiments detecting it have a differential setup.
>
> Occasionally claims like this resurface . A retired
> engineer who doesn't understand the TDE sets up an
> experiment incorrectly, detects nothing and goes
> around making ridiculous claims.

You can ignore this if you like. This is an unmoderated
newsgroup.

Your actions are pretty close to "flaming", which is something
that is not supposed to happen here.

You are altering the titles of the posts, which makes continuity
of posts problematic. Some newsgroup readers depend on the
titles to decide which thread they belong to.

Could you lighten up a little? You've taught them to do the same
thing...

David A. Smith

rambu...@yahoo.com

unread,

Sep 18, 2006, 9:30:55 AM9/18/06

to

I'm ignoring you . If you have nothing to say on a scientific basis why
don't you just shut up?

Paul B. Andersen

unread,

Sep 18, 2006, 2:32:54 PM9/18/06

to

Rudolf Drabek wrote:
> http://www.helmut-hille.de/uni-linz.html
>
> Abstract - An experiment is described showing that a 33 GHz microwave
> signal received by rotating antennas is not exhibiting the frequency
> shift ("transverse Doppler effect") predicted by the relativistic
> Doppler formula. The sensitivity of the apparatus used has been tested
> to be sufficient for detecting frequency shifts as small as 10-3 Hz
> which corresponds to the value of (v/c)2 = 5.10-14 used in the
> transverse Doppler shift experiment reported here. From the observed
> absence of the transverse Doppler shift it is concluded that either the
> time dilation predicted by the standard theory of special relativity
> does not exist in reality or, if it does, is a phenomenon which does
> not depend on relative velocities but may be a function of absolute
> velocities in the fundamental frame of the isotropic microwave
> background radiation.
>
> Can that be true?

This experiment does not test the transverse Doppler shift
predicted by SR. See below.

> Are there measurements that show the transverse Doppler?, e.g GPS.

Yes.
http://hermes.physics.adelaide.edu.au/~dkoks/Faq/Relativity/SR/experiments.html
see:
4. Tests of Time Dilation and Transverse Doppler Effect

> One thing is clear, that many effects can be explained by use of SR,
> e.g lifetime of muons.
> I don't know any source that can explain this with Newton.
> Also there are effects, like Sagnac, that can be explained with SR and
> Newton.
> But let's say it with Sir Popper: truth has to be confirmed if still
> true.
>
> At the moment I'm not sure how to proceed.
> Rudi

This is the paper:
http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/iel5/7883/21718/01007152.pdf

I have read it, and will claim that the experiment cannot
measure the transverse Doppler shift. In fact, according to SR,
there should not be any Doppler shift of the received signal.

To understand what I write below, the reader will have to
read the paper.

The author correctly states that the receiver antennae,
which are at the rim of a rotating disk, should receive
the blue shifted signal f' = f/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
where v is the peripheral speed of the rim (and antennae).
This is because the angle phi in the equation
f' = f*(1-(v/c)cos(phi))/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
is the angle between the direction of wave propagation
and the velocity of the receiver _in the rest frame of
of the transmitter_. This angle is pi/2 in this set-up.

But the problem is that the detector is stationary,
and is not on the rotating disk.

There is a strip line along the rim of the disk, acting
as a transmitter. A stationary pick-up antenna is detecting
this signal.
The author states:
"The picked-up signal should exhibit the same frequency
as the signal present on the circular rim due to the circular
symmetry of the rotating disk and no further Doppler frequency
shift is expected to occur for the waves being transmitted
from the rotating strip line into the pick-up antenna."

This is clearly wrong. There is a moving transmitter, and
a stationary receiver. In this case, the angle between
the direction of wave propagation and the velocity of
the transmitter is pi/2 _in the rest frame of the receiver_.
The angle phi' in the rest frame of the receiver relates
to the angle phi in the rest frame of the transmitter thus:
cos(phi') = (cos(phi)-v/c)/(1 - (v/c)cos(phi))
combining this with:
f' = f*(1-(v/c)cos(phi))/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
yield:
f' = f*sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)/(1+(v/c)cos(phi'))
which, when phi' = pi/2 simplifies to:
f' = f*sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)

Which shows that SR predicts that the two Doppler shifts
should cancel each other.
Thus the experiment does not test the transverse
Doppler shift predicted by SR at all.

Actually, this should be rather obvious. The transmitter
and the detector are stationary to each other.
If the detector should detect a higher frequency than
is emitted by the transmitter, where should all those
extra cycles come from? If SR had predicted such a Doppler
shift, then SR would be inconsistent.

What SR does predict is that if there were a frequency
measuring device on the moving rim of the disk, then
the clock (reference oscillator) of that device
would run slow as seen from the stationary frame.
This frequency measuring device would then measure
a higher (blue shifted) frequency.
(All the cycles transmitted by the stationary transmitter
per rotation of the disk are received by the moving antennae,
but a reference clock on the moving rim would count
fewer cycles per rotation than would an equivalent reference
clock in the stationary frame.)

But this experiment does not measure the frequency
in the rest frame of the moving receiver antennae.

Paul

Paul B. Andersen

unread,

Sep 18, 2006, 2:39:00 PM9/18/06

to

This experiment does not test the transverse Doppler shift
predicted by SR.

See my response to the original poster.

Paul

Dirk Van de moortel

unread,

Sep 18, 2006, 2:53:49 PM9/18/06

to

"Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b....@hiadeletethis.no> wrote in message news:eemp45$flb$1...@dolly.uninett.no...

> Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
>> "The Ghost In The Machine" <ew...@sirius.tg00suus7038.net> wrote in message news:k2vtt3-...@sirius.tg00suus7038.net...

[snip]

>>> Simple. If it violates *GR*, then it's interesting.
>>> SR only works within inertial reference frames; if gravity
>>> or spinning is involved, it gives up and goes home. :-)
>>
>> Um, it does not for the latter.
>> SR does not only work with inertial frames:
>> http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/acceleration.html
>> http://www.geocities.com/slithytove5/AccelClocks.htm
>> etc...
>>
>>> Since you mention rotating antennas this is probably a Sagnac
>>> variant.
>>
>> ... which can be handled by SR perfectly.
>> http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s2-07/2-07.htm
>> http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html
>> (section 7)
>> etc...
>>
>> Dirk Vdm
>
> This experiment does not test the transverse Doppler shift
> predicted by SR.

Indeed, but I wasn't thinking about that.
I was merely reacting to Ghost's remark in general.
I hadn't even read the OP.

Dirk Vdm

Sorcerer

unread,

Sep 18, 2006, 3:47:23 PM9/18/06

to

"Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b....@hiadeletethis.no> wrote in message

news:eemoon$6i5$1...@dolly.uninett.no...

| Rudolf Drabek wrote:
| > http://www.helmut-hille.de/uni-linz.html
| >
| > Abstract - An experiment is described showing that a 33 GHz microwave
| > signal received by rotating antennas is not exhibiting the frequency
| > shift ("transverse Doppler effect") predicted by the relativistic
| > Doppler formula. The sensitivity of the apparatus used has been tested
| > to be sufficient for detecting frequency shifts as small as 10-3 Hz
| > which corresponds to the value of (v/c)2 = 5.10-14 used in the
| > transverse Doppler shift experiment reported here. From the observed
| > absence of the transverse Doppler shift it is concluded that either the
| > time dilation predicted by the standard theory of special relativity
| > does not exist in reality or, if it does, is a phenomenon which does
| > not depend on relative velocities but may be a function of absolute
| > velocities in the fundamental frame of the isotropic microwave
| > background radiation.
| >
| > Can that be true?
|
| This experiment does not test the transverse Doppler shift
| predicted by SR. See below.
|
| > Are there measurements that show the transverse Doppler?, e.g GPS.
|
| Yes.

Idiot.

|
http://hermes.physics.adelaide.edu.au/~dkoks/Faq/Relativity/SR/experiments.html

Koks is fuckhead like you.

| see:
| 4. Tests of Time Dilation and Transverse Doppler Effect

So Koks can copy lists of shit. All the tests failed.

| > One thing is clear, that many effects can be explained by use of SR,
| > e.g lifetime of muons.
| > I don't know any source that can explain this with Newton.
| > Also there are effects, like Sagnac, that can be explained with SR and
| > Newton.
| > But let's say it with Sir Popper: truth has to be confirmed if still
| > true.
| >
| > At the moment I'm not sure how to proceed.
| > Rudi
|
| This is the paper:
| http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/iel5/7883/21718/01007152.pdf
|
| I have read it, and will claim that the experiment cannot
| measure the transverse Doppler shift. In fact, according to SR,
| there should not be any Doppler shift of the received signal.

Ok, so there is NO transverse Doppler shift.

|
| To understand what I write below, the reader will have to
| read the paper.
|
| The author correctly states that the receiver antennae,
| which are at the rim of a rotating disk, should receive
| the blue shifted signal f' = f/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
| where v is the peripheral speed of the rim (and antennae).
| This is because the angle phi in the equation
| f' = f*(1-(v/c)cos(phi))/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
| is the angle between the direction of wave propagation
| and the velocity of the receiver _in the rest frame of
| of the transmitter_. This angle is pi/2 in this set-up.
|
| But the problem is that the detector is stationary,
| and is not on the rotating disk.

That's not a problem. All motion is relative.

|
| There is a strip line along the rim of the disk, acting
| as a transmitter. A stationary pick-up antenna is detecting
| this signal.
| The author states:
| "The picked-up signal should exhibit the same frequency
| as the signal present on the circular rim due to the circular
| symmetry of the rotating disk and no further Doppler frequency
| shift is expected to occur for the waves being transmitted
| from the rotating strip line into the pick-up antenna."
|
| This is clearly wrong.

It is BLATANTLY OBVIOUSLY right, as I've told you LOTS
of times.

| There is a moving transmitter, and
| a stationary receiver.

So?

In this case, the angle between
| the direction of wave propagation and the velocity of
| the transmitter is pi/2 _in the rest frame of the receiver_.
| The angle phi' in the rest frame of the receiver relates
| to the angle phi in the rest frame of the transmitter thus:
| cos(phi') = (cos(phi)-v/c)/(1 - (v/c)cos(phi))
| combining this with:
| f' = f*(1-(v/c)cos(phi))/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
| yield:
| f' = f*sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)/(1+(v/c)cos(phi'))
| which, when phi' = pi/2 simplifies to:
| f' = f*sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
|
| Which shows that SR predicts that the two Doppler shifts
| should cancel each other.
| Thus the experiment does not test the transverse
| Doppler shift predicted by SR at all.
|
| Actually, this should be rather obvious. The transmitter
| and the detector are stationary to each other.

Yes, but Sagnac works.

| If the detector should detect a higher frequency than
| is emitted by the transmitter, where should all those
| extra cycles come from?

Same place as the birthday emails between twins Terence to Stella.

If SR had predicted such a Doppler
| shift, then SR would be inconsistent.

Which it is, fuckwit.

Sorcerer

unread,

Sep 18, 2006, 3:50:22 PM9/18/06

to

"Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b....@hiadeletethis.no> wrote in message

news:eemp45$flb$1...@dolly.uninett.no...

| This experiment does not test the transverse Doppler shift
| predicted by SR.

Yes it does, none found.

| See my response to the original poster.

See my response to your response, fuckwit.
You are a PROVEN LIAR, arsehole.
Androcles

Koobee Wublee

unread,

Sep 18, 2006, 4:50:34 PM9/18/06

to

Paul B. Andersen wrote:
> Rudolf Drabek wrote:

> > Are there measurements that show the transverse Doppler?, e.g GPS.
>
> Yes.
> http://hermes.physics.adelaide.edu.au/~dkoks/Faq/Relativity/SR/experiments.html
> see:
> 4. Tests of Time Dilation and Transverse Doppler Effect

Mr. Thim did acknowledge other experiments that have claimed such a
transverse Doppler shift. So, the question is who do you believe that
has the valid data? Why do you not believe Mr. Thim using modern
technology while Ives and Stilwell had only 1941 technology at their
proposal?

> This is the paper:
> http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/iel5/7883/21718/01007152.pdf
>
> I have read it, and will claim that the experiment cannot
> measure the transverse Doppler shift. In fact, according to SR,
> there should not be any Doppler shift of the received signal.
>

> The author correctly states that the receiver antennae,
> which are at the rim of a rotating disk, should receive
> the blue shifted signal f' = f/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
> where v is the peripheral speed of the rim (and antennae).
> This is because the angle phi in the equation
> f' = f*(1-(v/c)cos(phi))/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
> is the angle between the direction of wave propagation
> and the velocity of the receiver _in the rest frame of
> of the transmitter_. This angle is pi/2 in this set-up.

Or more elegantly expressed,

E' = (E - v * p) / sqrt(1 - v^2 / c^2)

** E' = h f'
** E = h f
** v = velocity vector of the platform as observed
** p = momentum vector of the photon

> The author states:
> "The picked-up signal should exhibit the same frequency
> as the signal present on the circular rim due to the circular
> symmetry of the rotating disk and no further Doppler frequency
> shift is expected to occur for the waves being transmitted
> from the rotating strip line into the pick-up antenna."
>
> This is clearly wrong. There is a moving transmitter, and
> a stationary receiver. In this case, the angle between
> the direction of wave propagation and the velocity of
> the transmitter is pi/2 _in the rest frame of the receiver_.
> The angle phi' in the rest frame of the receiver relates
> to the angle phi in the rest frame of the transmitter thus:
> cos(phi') = (cos(phi)-v/c)/(1 - (v/c)cos(phi))
> combining this with:
> f' = f*(1-(v/c)cos(phi))/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
> yield:
> f' = f*sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)/(1+(v/c)cos(phi'))
> which, when phi' = pi/2 simplifies to:
> f' = f*sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)

Your analysis would violate the very basic principle of Relativity in
which you are secretly wishing for an absolute frame of reference to
bail you out of this one. You cannot change the rules of mathematics
associated with the Lorentz Transformations (plural indicating
symmetrical reverse transform). SR predicts a symmetric result where
only the relative speed matters. Thus, you will have another

f' = f / sqrt(1 - v^2 / c^2)

According to SR, the overall result would be the product of these two
which is

f' = f / (1 - v^2 / c^2)

Sue...

unread,

Sep 18, 2006, 5:21:28 PM9/18/06

to

Paul B. Andersen wrote:
>
<< This is the paper: >>
http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/iel5/7883/21718/01007152.pdf

What was the Ewald extinction used at the
moving structure?

Sue...

[...]

> Paul

rambu...@yahoo.com

unread,

Sep 18, 2006, 5:42:18 PM9/18/06

to

Koobee Wublee wrote:
> Paul B. Andersen wrote:
> > Rudolf Drabek wrote:
>
> > > Are there measurements that show the transverse Doppler?, e.g GPS.
> >
> > Yes.
> > http://hermes.physics.adelaide.edu.au/~dkoks/Faq/Relativity/SR/experiments.html
> > see:
> > 4. Tests of Time Dilation and Transverse Doppler Effect
>
> Mr. Thim did acknowledge other experiments that have claimed such a
> transverse Doppler shift. So, the question is who do you believe that
> has the valid data? Why do you not believe Mr. Thim using modern
> technology while Ives and Stilwell had only 1941 technology at their
> proposal?
>

..because you cretin:

1. the IS experiment has been reprised over the years multiple times
with same results

2. the fact that the loony retired engineer Thim did not detect the
effect is not a proof that the effect does not exists, it is just a
proof that he botched his experiment

rambu...@yahoo.com

unread,

Sep 18, 2006, 5:44:07 PM9/18/06

to

Koobee Wublee wrote:
<cretinisms snipped.

see here, cretinoid:

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html#4.%20tests%20of%20time%20dilation

Sorcerer

unread,

Sep 18, 2006, 7:48:52 PM9/18/06

to

"Dirk Van de moortel" <dirkvand...@ThankS-NO-SperM.hotmail.com> wrote

in message news:1XBPg.83504$Rj5.1...@phobos.telenet-ops.be...

We know that. You couldn't if you tried.

Sorcerer

unread,

Sep 18, 2006, 8:01:01 PM9/18/06

to

"Koobee Wublee" <koobee...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1158612634.3...@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Andersen will LIE and CHEAT in defence of his religion.

The Andersen Transforms:

"That is, we can reverse the directions of the frames
which is the same as interchanging the frames,
which - as I have told you a LOT of times,
OBVIOUSLY will lead to the transform:
t = (tau-xi*v/c^2)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
x = (xi - v*tau)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
or:
tau = (t+xv/c^2)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
xi = (x + vt)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)" -Paul B. Andersen
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Andersen claims computers make sign errors:

http://groups.google.com/groups?q=g:thl842194965d&dq=&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&selm=c278m1%24oo9%241%40dolly.uninett.no&rnum=49

Do not trust Andersen, he is a ***PROVEN*** liar and fraud.

Androcles.

Sorcerer

unread,

Sep 18, 2006, 8:04:38 PM9/18/06

to

"Sue..." <suzyse...@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
news:1158614488.9...@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...

Andersen is a *PROVEN* Fraud, Cheat and LIAR who claims
computers make sign errors.

http://groups.google.com/groups?q=g:thl842194965d&dq=&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&selm=c278m1%24oo9%241%40dolly.uninett.no&rnum=49

Androcles

dlzc1 D:cox T:net@nospam.com N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)

unread,

Sep 18, 2006, 8:34:37 PM9/18/06

to

Dear rambus2005:

<rambu...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1158586255.6...@k70g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

> I'm ignoring you . If you have nothing to say on a
> scientific basis why don't you just shut up?

You are violating the newsgroup charter by flaming, and making
abusive comments to anyone you don't agree with. Further
violations will result in you being reported to your ISP.

Review those of 183 posts that you have authored, where in the
title alone you have named individual names, called them "wacko",
"clown", "moron", "donkey", "kook", "spammer", "imbecile",
"crank", "cretin", and more. This is certainly not Science, and
also does not work to shame them into understanding.

So that you can just "flame on" without hearing further from me,
I will now killfile you. I'll leave your words to be the last.

Goodbye.
<plonk>

David A. Smith

harry

unread,

Sep 19, 2006, 5:22:28 AM9/19/06

to

"N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)" <N: dlzc1 D:cox T:n...@nospam.com> wrote in
message news:pZwPg.3304$nL2.1310@fed1read02...

Well put. Nevertheless, the experimental result (Absence of the transverse
Doppler shift at microwave frequencies) indeed does not disprove "time
dilation". I have met the author and tried (but failed) to make that clear
to him...

Harald

harry

unread,

Sep 19, 2006, 5:59:54 AM9/19/06

to

"Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b....@hiadeletethis.no> wrote in message

news:eemoon$6i5$1...@dolly.uninett.no...

[SNIP long explanation]

> Actually, this should be rather obvious. The transmitter
> and the detector are stationary to each other.
> If the detector should detect a higher frequency than
> is emitted by the transmitter, where should all those
> extra cycles come from? If SR had predicted such a Doppler
> shift, then SR would be inconsistent.

Exactly.

> What SR does predict is that if there were a frequency
> measuring device on the moving rim of the disk, then
> the clock (reference oscillator) of that device
> would run slow as seen from the stationary frame.
> This frequency measuring device would then measure
> a higher (blue shifted) frequency.
> (All the cycles transmitted by the stationary transmitter
> per rotation of the disk are received by the moving antennae,
> but a reference clock on the moving rim would count
> fewer cycles per rotation than would an equivalent reference
> clock in the stationary frame.)

Well put!

Harald

Sorcerer

unread,

Sep 19, 2006, 6:05:41 AM9/19/06

to

"N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)" <N: dlzc1 D:cox T:n...@nospam.com> wrote in

message news:qWGPg.3340$nL2.1459@fed1read02...

| You are violating the newsgroup charter by flaming,

DELIBERATELY LYING is FLAMING!
Stick your charter up your arse, you are a FUCKING HYPOCRITE, you LYING
piece of SHIT.
Androcles

Sorcerer

unread,

Sep 19, 2006, 6:05:41 AM9/19/06

to

"harry" <harald.vanlin...@epfl.ch> wrote in message
news:115865...@sicinfo3.epfl.ch...

Whining toady. You are another hypocritical liar.

Sorcerer

unread,

Sep 19, 2006, 7:10:51 AM9/19/06

to

"harry" <harald.vanlin...@epfl.ch> wrote in message
news:115865...@sicinfo3.epfl.ch...
|

Good idea, he's a better troll than you.

Sue...

unread,

Sep 19, 2006, 7:11:51 AM9/19/06

to

Sorcerer wrote:
> "Sue..." <suzyse...@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
> news:1158614488.9...@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> | Paul B. Andersen wrote:
> | >
> | << This is the paper: >>
> | http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/iel5/7883/21718/01007152.pdf
> |
> | What was the Ewald extinction used at the
> | moving structure?
> |
> | Sue...
> |
> | [...]
> |
> | > Paul
>
> Andersen is a *PROVEN* Fraud, Cheat and LIAR who claims
> computers make sign errors.

Well... if he can't tell us what the paper says he will prove it once
again. ;-)

Sue...

>
> http://groups.google.com/groups?q=g:thl842194965d&dq=&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&selm=c278m1%24oo9%241%40dolly.uninett.no&rnum=49
>
> Androcles

Paul B. Andersen

unread,

Sep 19, 2006, 9:45:34 AM9/19/06

to

In your equation above, E' is the energy of the photon
in the observer's rest frame, while v is the velocity
of the observer in the source's rest frame, and p is
the momentum in the source's rest frame.

The crucial point which you probably missed, is that
if v and p are transverse in the source frame,
they are NOT transverse in the observer's frame,
and vice versa.

>> The author states:
>> "The picked-up signal should exhibit the same frequency
>> as the signal present on the circular rim due to the circular
>> symmetry of the rotating disk and no further Doppler frequency
>> shift is expected to occur for the waves being transmitted
>> from the rotating strip line into the pick-up antenna."
>>
>> This is clearly wrong. There is a moving transmitter, and
>> a stationary receiver. In this case, the angle between
>> the direction of wave propagation and the velocity of
>> the transmitter is pi/2 _in the rest frame of the receiver_.
>> The angle phi' in the rest frame of the receiver relates
>> to the angle phi in the rest frame of the transmitter thus:
>> cos(phi') = (cos(phi)-v/c)/(1 - (v/c)cos(phi))
>> combining this with:
>> f' = f*(1-(v/c)cos(phi))/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
>> yield:
>> f' = f*sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)/(1+(v/c)cos(phi'))
>> which, when phi' = pi/2 simplifies to:
>> f' = f*sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
>
> Your analysis would violate the very basic principle of Relativity in
> which you are secretly wishing for an absolute frame of reference to
> bail you out of this one. You cannot change the rules of mathematics
> associated with the Lorentz Transformations (plural indicating
> symmetrical reverse transform).

If phi' is the angle between the velocity of the source
and the wave vector in the observer's frame, then the unchangeable
rules of mathematics dictates that the Lorentz transform leads to
the following Doppler equation:
f' = f*sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)/(1 + (v/c)*cos(phi'))

In this case, phi' = pi/2 and thus f' = f*sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)

> SR predicts a symmetric result where
> only the relative speed matters.

Nonsense.
SR doesn't predict a "symmetric" result in two different cases.

> Thus, you will have another
>
> f' = f / sqrt(1 - v^2 / c^2)
>
> According to SR, the overall result would be the product of these two
> which is
>
> f' = f / (1 - v^2 / c^2)

Nonsense.
There are two distinct different cases with very different
experimental set-up, so why the hell should SR predict
the same outcome?
In the former case, the radiation is transverse in the source frame,
leading to a blue shift: f' = f/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
In the latter case, the radiation is transverse in the receiver frame,
leading to a red shift: f' = f*sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)

If you don't understand the difference, you should look up aberration.

If you don't agree that the radiation is transverse to the velocity
of the rim in the rest frame of the stationary pick up, I challenge
you to explain why it isn't. General babble about symmetry won't do.
You have to address the specific experimental set-up in the experiment
we are discussing.

But you don't know what we are talking about because
you haven't read the paper we are discussing, have you?

Paul

rambu...@yahoo.com

unread,

Sep 19, 2006, 10:00:03 AM9/19/06

to

Yes, it does shame them (with some pathological exceptions). Especially
if the title is coupled with a sound scientific rebuttal. It also
exposes them to a google search,.

Paul B. Andersen

unread,

Sep 19, 2006, 10:02:38 AM9/19/06

to

Quite.
My statement was indirectly a support of what you said.
SR can handle everything in that experiment perfectly,
there is no need to invoke GR.
The reason why the experiment doesn't contradict SR
is that SR predicts exactly what is observed - no frequency
shift of the detected signal.

An outcome which, BTW, should be pretty obvious.
If a frequency shift had been observed, causality
had been violated.
But causality passed the test. :-)

Paul

dlzc

unread,

Sep 19, 2006, 10:11:28 AM9/19/06

to

Androcles:

You have previously requested that I not show you the honor that you
still deserve...

Sorcerer wrote:
> "N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)" <N: dlzc1 D:cox T:n...@nospam.com> wrote in
> message news:qWGPg.3340$nL2.1459@fed1read02...
>
> | You are violating the newsgroup charter by flaming,
>
> DELIBERATELY LYING is FLAMING!

The word has already been defined, and your lying and shouting do not
change its definition:
http://www.computeruser.com/resources/dictionary/definition.html?lookup=6608
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flame_war
http://searchwebservices.techtarget.com/gDefinition/0,294236,sid26_gci212129,00.html

> Stick your charter up your arse, you are a FUCKING
> HYPOCRITE, you LYING piece of SHIT.

A repeat of this behavior will have you reported to your ISP. I have
not knowingly lied to you or anyone. To the best of my knowledge, a
have never answered questions where I stated things that I did not
believe in, without prefacing with "GR says" or whatever appropriate
disclaimer.

I am not a piece of shit, and until I met you, I did not think anyone
believed that shit could post to the internet. There is a fellow
posting on sci.chem who thinks atoms are animate, perhaps you and he
should get together?

The question is, who removes the thorn from Androcles' paw? You know
you don't like the flavor of soup served here, yet you keep coming back
for more. Why is that?

David A. Smith

Paul B. Andersen

unread,

Sep 19, 2006, 10:22:14 AM9/19/06

to

Koobee Wublee wrote:
> Paul B. Andersen wrote:
>> Rudolf Drabek wrote:
>
>>> Are there measurements that show the transverse Doppler?, e.g GPS.
>> Yes.
>> http://hermes.physics.adelaide.edu.au/~dkoks/Faq/Relativity/SR/experiments.html
>> see:
>> 4. Tests of Time Dilation and Transverse Doppler Effect
>
> Mr. Thim did acknowledge other experiments that have claimed such a
> transverse Doppler shift. So, the question is who do you believe that
> has the valid data? Why do you not believe Mr. Thim using modern
> technology while Ives and Stilwell had only 1941 technology at their
> proposal?

Why do you ask such a silly question when the very posting you
are responding to shows that Mr. Thim used his modern technology
to devise an experiment which doesn't test anything at all?

I don't "believe" Mr. Thim because I have read his paper
and _know_ that his experiment doesn't test what it was
supposed to test.

And I am sure I am not the first one to see that,
it's rather obvious.

But you choose to believe Mr. Thim without having read
his paper because you like his claimed result, right? :-)

Paul

Rudolf Drabek

unread,

Sep 19, 2006, 10:30:05 AM9/19/06

to

Paul B. Andersen schrieb:

Thank's for response. Will study it.
My basis is very pragmatic. As long as SR, GR and Newton can
predict/explain the
various effects, I will accept it. If some effects can be explained by
more than one
theory, that is o.k.

What I can say as a "retired el. engineer" is, that SR is very limited.
It is based on c=const and inertial movement and that's all.
E.g. I start from here to Sirius with v=0.866c, gamma = 2
Why does the universe in direction to Sirius know, that it has to
shrink acc. to Gamma?
But there is some non inertial movement at start included.
So in reality -what is this?- it does not shrink, it makes only the
impression for the traveller.
Therefore, because v_earth = v_traveller it is the only explanation to
be within SR.
Acc. to the ship's clock the speed was 2x0.866c on arrival=stopped.
So, all is clear for me,but not satisfying. This will hold on as long
as we have no good explanation for the behaviour of light not to
behave like Newton thought.
I'm not so convinced as Androcles, Andocles pls forgive me, because I
like you very much upon
your clear standpoint if correct or not.

I have not studied to date if some of the GR effects can be expained
with Newton, e.g. GPS clocks correction.

Rudi

Sorcerer

unread,

Sep 19, 2006, 10:59:20 AM9/19/06

to

"dlzc" <dl...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:1158675088.7...@m7g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...

| Androcles:
|
| You have previously requested that I not show you the honor that you
| still deserve...

Thank you. Your consideration is appreciated.

Accusing me of lying, are you?
That is my accusation against you.
Tut..tut.. and I though we were going to be polite
enemies.
Did you have any physics to discuss?

|
http://searchwebservices.techtarget.com/gDefinition/0,294236,sid26_gci212129,00.html
|
| > Stick your charter up your arse, you are a FUCKING
| > HYPOCRITE, you LYING piece of SHIT.
|
| A repeat of this behavior will have you reported to your ISP.

Then do it. They take my money, not yours.
Did you have any physics to discuss, pompous welcome editor?

| I have
| not knowingly lied to you or anyone.

Ok, so you didn't know you are a liar. You do now, I've told you so.

| To the best of my knowledge,

Knowledge? What knowledge? You don't have any knowledge.

a
| have never answered questions where I stated things that I did not
| believe in, without prefacing with "GR says" or whatever appropriate
| disclaimer.
|
| I am not a piece of shit, and until I met you, I did not think anyone
| believed that shit could post to the internet.

Have a go at your fellow moron then, welcome editor.
You could at least be impartial.

"What is this?
Some kind of quote of some post?
An introduction to the shit you produce later on?
Shit that you expect someone will bother reading?"
-- Dork Van de merde.

The imbecile trying to cover his arse after he's
been told the shit he refers to is Einstein's shit.

"1) What is this?
2) Some kind of quote of some post?
Clarification:
Something you want us to believe you invented?
Something you found somewhere?
Something you want to tell us?
Something you want to tell us something about?
Something you forgot to delete when you started?

3) An introduction to the shit you produce later on?
4) Shit that you expect someone will bother reading?
Clarification:
The 'shit' in question 4 is a reprise of the 'shit' in
question 3. This is what we call a 'style figure'.

Didn't they teach you to write English in Germany?
How old are you?" - Dork Van de merde.

"The man is a malicious troll" - Dork Van de merde.

| There is a fellow
| posting on sci.chem who thinks atoms are animate, perhaps you and he
| should get together?

That's for you, go and be the welcome editor there. You are
certainly a hypocrite, you haven't castigated Dork Van de merde for
calling Einstein's shit "shit". Why pick on me?

| The question is, who removes the thorn from Androcles' paw?

That's not a thorn, that's a claw.

| You know
| you don't like the flavor of soup served here, yet you keep coming back
| for more. Why is that?

To deride and castigate ignorant lying hypocritical morons such as
yourself, I enjoy it. I even pay my ISP to let me do it.

When you've chewed out the dorks (impartially), welcome editor,
perhaps we'll have less shit. Until then I'll continue to regard
you as a hypocrite and a liar.

Now let's get back to physics. I've answered your questions,
answer mine.
The thread title is:
Wrong experiments with incorrect foundations

Is the velocity of light the same in all inertial frames reference?

Androcles.

dlzc

unread,

Sep 19, 2006, 12:46:15 PM9/19/06

to

Androcles:

Sorcerer wrote:
> "dlzc" <dl...@cox.net> wrote in message
> news:1158675088.7...@m7g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
> | Androcles:
> |
> | You have previously requested that I not show you the honor that you
> | still deserve...
>
> Thank you. Your consideration is appreciated.
>
>
>
> | Sorcerer wrote:
> | > "N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)" <N: dlzc1 D:cox T:n...@nospam.com> wrote in
> | > message news:qWGPg.3340$nL2.1459@fed1read02...
> | >
> | > | You are violating the newsgroup charter by flaming,
> | >
> | > DELIBERATELY LYING is FLAMING!
> |
> | The word has already been defined, and your lying and shouting do not
> | change its definition:
> |
> http://www.computeruser.com/resources/dictionary/definition.html?lookup=6608
> | http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flame_war
>
> Accusing me of lying, are you?
> That is my accusation against you.

Unsupported at that. However, your lies are recorded by Google.

> Tut..tut.. and I though we were going to be polite
> enemies.

I have been polite. When I can no longer be polite, I add them to my
killfile. No one learns by shouting or swearing.

> Did you have any physics to discuss?

Pot. Kettle. Black.

> http://searchwebservices.techtarget.com/gDefinition/0,294236,sid26_gci212129,00.html
> |
> | > Stick your charter up your arse, you are a FUCKING
> | > HYPOCRITE, you LYING piece of SHIT.
> |
> | A repeat of this behavior will have you reported to your ISP.
>
> Then do it. They take my money, not yours.
> Did you have any physics to discuss, pompous welcome
> editor?

Pot. Kettle. Black.

> | I have
> | not knowingly lied to you or anyone.
>
> Ok, so you didn't know you are a liar. You do now, I've told
> you so.

Citation?

> | To the best of my knowledge,
>
> Knowledge? What knowledge? You don't have any knowledge.

As empty a statement as you have ever made, another unsubstantiated
lie, and an abusive flame.

> | a
> | have never answered questions where I stated things that I did not
> | believe in, without prefacing with "GR says" or whatever appropriate
> | disclaimer.
> |
> | I am not a piece of shit, and until I met you, I did not think anyone
> | believed that shit could post to the internet.
>
> Have a go at your fellow moron then, welcome editor.
> You could at least be impartial.

I thought your beef was with me? You posted in response to me, and
directed your "verbal" abuse at me. Your problem with Dirk is just
that. I haven't noticed Dirk being abusive, and Dirk isn't inciting a
flame war.

> | There is a fellow
> | posting on sci.chem who thinks atoms are animate,
> | perhaps you and he should get together?
>
> That's for you, go and be the welcome editor there. You
> are certainly a hypocrite, you haven't castigated Dork
> Van de merde for calling Einstein's shit "shit". Why pick
> on me?

You are attacking me. Dirk has nothing to do with this.

> | The question is, who removes the thorn from Androcles' paw?
>
> That's not a thorn, that's a claw.

It is obviously ingrown.

> | You know
> | you don't like the flavor of soup served here, yet you keep
> | coming back for more. Why is that?
>
> To deride and castigate ignorant lying hypocritical morons
> such as yourself, I enjoy it. I even pay my ISP to let me do
> it.

OK. So you will continue flaming. Noted.

> When you've chewed out the dorks (impartially), welcome editor,
> perhaps we'll have less shit. Until then I'll continue to regard
> you as a hypocrite and a liar.

What you "consider" is unimportant. When you call me a hypocrite or
liar without supporting proof, you are flaming. This is an unmoderated
newsgroup, I don't *have* to do anything.

> Now let's get back to physics. I've answered your questions,
> answer mine.
> The thread title is:
> Wrong experiments with incorrect foundations
>
> Is the velocity of light the same in all inertial frames reference?

Caveats:
- in a vacuum
- only two way speed measurements are allowed for verification
Answer:
The question you ask has the answer of "yes". In high speed particle
experiments, where photons are Compton scattered from a high gamma
charged particle beam, the photons are boosted up to e_0 * gamma^2
(depending on angle of exit), and round trip times from emission to
collision to detection are unsurprising at c. Occultations of high-z
objects by the Moon yields a null result... all objects are occulted
apparently simultaneously, even though the sources have non-null and
detectable path-"velocities".

But we have been through this, and your ingrown claw forbids you from
considering that light cannot be ballistic, and agree with experiment.

Your words can be the last. Welcome back to my killfile.

Koobee Wublee

unread,

Sep 19, 2006, 12:50:09 PM9/19/06

to

Paul B. Andersen wrote:
> Koobee Wublee wrote:

> > E' = (E - v * p) / sqrt(1 - v^2 / c^2)
> >
> > ** E' = h f'
> > ** E = h f
> > ** v = velocity vector of the platform as observed
> > ** p = momentum vector of the photon
>
> In your equation above, E' is the energy of the photon
> in the observer's rest frame, while v is the velocity
> of the observer in the source's rest frame, and p is
> the momentum in the source's rest frame.
>
> The crucial point which you probably missed, is that
> if v and p are transverse in the source frame,
> they are NOT transverse in the observer's frame,
> and vice versa.

Stop taking cheap shots. My equation above is the same as yours. If
you have to say silly thing like "...v and p are transverse in the
source frame, they are NOT transverse in the observer's frame...",
you do not understand the very mathematics of the Lorentz transform.

> > SR predicts a symmetric result where
> > only the relative speed matters.
>
> Nonsense.
> SR doesn't predict a "symmetric" result in two different cases.

I never claimed that.

> > Thus, you will have another
> >
> > f' = f / sqrt(1 - v^2 / c^2)
> >
> > According to SR, the overall result would be the product of these two
> > which is
> >
> > f' = f / (1 - v^2 / c^2)
>
> Nonsense.
> There are two distinct different cases with very different
> experimental set-up, so why the hell should SR predict
> the same outcome?

Because the Lorentz transform is symmetrical in mathematics and thus
predicts the same outcome for the receiver and the transmitter.

> In the former case, the radiation is transverse in the source frame,
> leading to a blue shift: f' = f/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
> In the latter case, the radiation is transverse in the receiver frame,
> leading to a red shift: f' = f*sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
>
> If you don't understand the difference, you should look up aberration.

You did not use the Lorentz transform to do the math in the latter
case. You need to understand what the very mathematics of the Lorentz
transform. Forget about SR. It is confusing you.

> If you don't agree that the radiation is transverse to the velocity
> of the rim in the rest frame of the stationary pick up, I challenge
> you to explain why it isn't. General babble about symmetry won't do.
> You have to address the specific experimental set-up in the experiment
> we are discussing.

I do agree that is the case. You just chose not to use the Lorentz
transform to do the math. That is all.

> But you don't know what we are talking about because
> you haven't read the paper we are discussing, have you?

Yes, I have read the paper. Unlike you, I do understand the Lorentz
transform.

> > Mr. Thim did acknowledge other experiments that have claimed such a
> > transverse Doppler shift. So, the question is who do you believe that
> > has the valid data? Why do you not believe Mr. Thim using modern
> > technology while Ives and Stilwell had only 1941 technology at their
> > proposal?
>

> Why do you ask such a silly question when the very posting you
> are responding to shows that Mr. Thim used his modern technology
> to devise an experiment which doesn't test anything at all?

It sounds like you have already believed in a result very different
from Mr. Thim's. Whatever his result is is rejected by you because
of this belief in you. You are no different from Hammond. Is God =
Guv? Instead of your religion belief of SR, you ought to do just like
Dr. Roberts would have done and go through Mr. Thim's data to point
out his observation error as well as error bars.

> I don't "believe" Mr. Thim because I have read his paper
> and _know_ that his experiment doesn't test what it was
> supposed to test.

What is he suppose to test? If moortel predicts 2 pebbles plus 1
pebble equals to 4 pebbles. You go out and conduct the experiment by
adding 2 pebbles and 1 pebble together. The outcome should be 3
pebbles, but you have already believed in the nonsense of 2 pebbles
plus 1 pebble equals to 4 pebbles. So, you reject your own
experimental result.

You may call your approach a fine scholarship, but I would have harsher
name for you.

> And I am sure I am not the first one to see that,
> it's rather obvious.

So far, you seem to be the only one.

> But you choose to believe Mr. Thim without having read
> his paper because you like his claimed result, right? :-)

I have read his paper all right. It is not even that difficult or long
to read.

Dirk Van de moortel

unread,

Sep 19, 2006, 2:04:27 PM9/19/06

to

"Koobee Wublee" <koobee...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:1158684609.2...@m7g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...

> Paul B. Andersen wrote:
>> Koobee Wublee wrote:
>
>> > E' = (E - v * p) / sqrt(1 - v^2 / c^2)
>> >
>> > ** E' = h f'
>> > ** E = h f
>> > ** v = velocity vector of the platform as observed
>> > ** p = momentum vector of the photon
>>
>> In your equation above, E' is the energy of the photon
>> in the observer's rest frame, while v is the velocity
>> of the observer in the source's rest frame, and p is
>> the momentum in the source's rest frame.
>>
>> The crucial point which you probably missed, is that
>> if v and p are transverse in the source frame,
>> they are NOT transverse in the observer's frame,
>> and vice versa.
>
> Stop taking cheap shots. My equation above is the same as yours.

Imbecile.
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/DiffGeoAero.html
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/LorentzTale.html
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/SRBogus.html
You don't even recognize an expensive shot when it hits
you flat in the face.

Dirk Vdm

Sorcerer

unread,

Sep 19, 2006, 2:42:10 PM9/19/06

to

"dlzc" <dl...@cox.net> wrote in message

news:1158684374....@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...

| Androcles:
|
| Sorcerer wrote:
| > "dlzc" <dl...@cox.net> wrote in message
| > news:1158675088.7...@m7g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
| > | Androcles:
| > |
| > | You have previously requested that I not show you the honor that you
| > | still deserve...
| >
| > Thank you. Your consideration is appreciated.
| >
| >
| >
| > | Sorcerer wrote:
| > | > "N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)" <N: dlzc1 D:cox T:n...@nospam.com> wrote
in
| > | > message news:qWGPg.3340$nL2.1459@fed1read02...
| > | >
| > | > | You are violating the newsgroup charter by flaming,
| > | >
| > | > DELIBERATELY LYING is FLAMING!
| > |
| > | The word has already been defined, and your lying and shouting do not
| > | change its definition:
| > |
| >
http://www.computeruser.com/resources/dictionary/definition.html?lookup=6608
| > | http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flame_war
| >
| > Accusing me of lying, are you?
| > That is my accusation against you.
|
| Unsupported at that. However, your lies are recorded by Google.

I know Google records.

|
| > Tut..tut.. and I though we were going to be polite
| > enemies.
|
| I have been polite. When I can no longer be polite, I add them to my
| killfile. No one learns by shouting or swearing.

Ah, well... if you wish the learn you should never have plonked.
Still, if you've seen the errors of your ways I'm glad to teach.
When one teaches, two learn.

|
| > Did you have any physics to discuss?
|
| Pot. Kettle. Black.

No no.. I'm a shiny clean kettle, you are the pot smoker.
Have a go at this:
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/GPS.htm

|
| >
http://searchwebservices.techtarget.com/gDefinition/0,294236,sid26_gci212129,00.html
| > |
| > | > Stick your charter up your arse, you are a FUCKING
| > | > HYPOCRITE, you LYING piece of SHIT.
| > |
| > | A repeat of this behavior will have you reported to your ISP.
| >
| > Then do it. They take my money, not yours.
| > Did you have any physics to discuss, pompous welcome
| > editor?
|
| Pot. Kettle. Black.

Repetitive, aren't you?

Problem with reading? Go back to school, they help illiterates.
Have a go at the polite pictures instead:
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Rocket/Rocket.htm
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Smart/Smart.htm
See if you can fathom what is going on.

Facts are not abusive flames.

|
| > | a
| > | have never answered questions where I stated things that I did not
| > | believe in, without prefacing with "GR says" or whatever appropriate
| > | disclaimer.
| > |
| > | I am not a piece of shit, and until I met you, I did not think anyone
| > | believed that shit could post to the internet.
| >
| > Have a go at your fellow moron then, welcome editor.
| > You could at least be impartial.
|
| I thought your beef was with me?

You and many other idiots who promote Einstein's "shit", as Dork
calls it.

| You posted in response to me, and
| directed your "verbal" abuse at me.

Yes, I did. Why have you put verbal in quotations marks, I haven't
abused you sexually or physically, have I? I've never even met you.

| Your problem with Dirk is just
| that. I haven't noticed Dirk being abusive, and Dirk isn't inciting a
| flame war.

You can turn a blind eye whenever you choose, and that
is what makes you a hypocrite. Nor do I believe that the
welcome editor has never seen Dork's abuse, so you are a liar as well.
(Just politely stating fact).

Sure I am. Do you think the newsgroup welcome editor could
convince a fair jury that he has never seen Dork's or any other
relativist's abuse?
My charge against you is that you are a liar, a hypocrite and a bigot.
You are attempting to defend that charge unsuccessfully, in fact you
are reinforcing it.
Shiny Kettle. Pot. Black.
Clean up your act and I'll clean up mine.
I'd add "fucking imbecile" but I'm being polite.

That's a flame, fuckhead.

|
| > | You know
| > | you don't like the flavor of soup served here, yet you keep
| > | coming back for more. Why is that?
| >
| > To deride and castigate ignorant lying hypocritical morons
| > such as yourself, I enjoy it. I even pay my ISP to let me do
| > it.
|
| OK. So you will continue flaming. Noted.

It can be avoided. Change your ways.

|
| > When you've chewed out the dorks (impartially), welcome editor,
| > perhaps we'll have less shit. Until then I'll continue to regard
| > you as a hypocrite and a liar.
|
| What you "consider" is unimportant.

What you "consider" is less important.

| When you call me a hypocrite or
| liar without supporting proof, you are flaming. This is an unmoderated
| newsgroup, I don't *have* to do anything.

That's right, you don't. Neither do I.
|

Accepted.

| - only two way speed measurements are allowed for verification

Not accepted. I said "velocity", I didn't ask you about speed.

| Answer:
| The question you ask has the answer of "yes".

Proof?

| In high speed particle
| experiments, where photons are Compton scattered from a high gamma
| charged particle beam, the photons are boosted up to e_0 * gamma^2
| (depending on angle of exit), and round trip times from emission to
| collision to detection are unsurprising at c. Occultations of high-z
| objects by the Moon yields a null result... all objects are occulted
| apparently simultaneously, even though the sources have non-null and
| detectable path-"velocities".

That is not an inertial frame of reference.
Let me repeat:

Is the velocity of light the same in all inertial frames reference?

| But we have been through this, and your ingrown claw forbids you from
| considering that light cannot be ballistic, and agree with experiment.

Flaming again.

Fuck off, cunt.
Androcles

|

Sorcerer

unread,

Sep 19, 2006, 3:21:11 PM9/19/06

to

"Dirk Van de moortel" <dirkvand...@ThankS-NO-SperM.hotmail.com> wrote

in message news:LiWPg.85186$3U2.1...@phobos.telenet-ops.be...

We already know you are, and repeating yourself proves it.

shuba

unread,

Sep 19, 2006, 4:24:59 PM9/19/06

to

Rudi wrote:

> What I can say as a "retired el. engineer" is, that SR is very limited.

In other words, your uninformed opinion about relativity is
irrelevant. You earlier said:

> At the moment I'm not sure how to proceed.

Start by taking the "uni-linz.html" off the URL you gave, and
read the ridiculous biases of the people involved in that site.
Try again when you can point to an experiment that's not
published solely on yet another goofball site.

---Tim Shuba---

Dirk Van de moortel

unread,

Sep 19, 2006, 4:38:31 PM9/19/06

to

"shuba" <tim....@lycos.ScPoAmM> wrote in message news:tim.shuba-DE669...@sn-ip.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net...

http://www.helmut-hille.de/uni-linz.html
| JOHANNES KEPLER UNIVERSITÄT LINZ
| INSTITUT FÜR MIKROELEKTRONIK
| Univ.-Prof. Dipl.-Ing. Dr. Hartwig Thim

"The Greatest Living Philostopher Known to Mankind".
This really tells the whole tale I guess ;-)

Sorcerer

unread,

Sep 19, 2006, 5:11:42 PM9/19/06

to

"shuba" <tim....@lycos.ScPoAmM> wrote in message
news:tim.shuba-DE669...@sn-ip.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net...

SR FALSE!
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Smart/Smart.htm
GR FALSE!
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/GPS.htm
(Not published on any other website.)
Androcles

Dirk Van de moortel

unread,

Sep 19, 2006, 5:19:49 PM9/19/06

to

"Sorcerer" <Headm...@hogwarts.physics_b> wrote in message news:i2ZPg.211$1h3...@fe3.news.blueyonder.co.uk...

Dirk Vdm

Sorcerer

unread,

Sep 19, 2006, 5:21:43 PM9/19/06

to

"Dirk Van de moortel" <dirkvand...@ThankS-NO-SperM.hotmail.com> wrote

in message news:bzYPg.85412$i06.1...@phobos.telenet-ops.be...

Dork Van de merde, the greatest living Fuckwit "Philos-T-opher"
known to animal kind.

Didn't they teach you to write English in Belgium?
How old are you?

"The man is a malicious troll" - Dork Van de merde.

This really tells the whole *tail*, you guessed right ;-)

ROFLMAO!
Androcles

Paul B. Andersen

unread,

Sep 19, 2006, 5:31:38 PM9/19/06

to

Koobee Wublee wrote:
> Paul B. Andersen wrote:
>> Koobee Wublee wrote:
>
>>> E' = (E - v * p) / sqrt(1 - v^2 / c^2)
>>>
>>> ** E' = h f'
>>> ** E = h f
>>> ** v = velocity vector of the platform as observed
>>> ** p = momentum vector of the photon
>> In your equation above, E' is the energy of the photon
>> in the observer's rest frame, while v is the velocity
>> of the observer in the source's rest frame, and p is
>> the momentum in the source's rest frame.
>>
>> The crucial point which you probably missed, is that
>> if v and p are transverse in the source frame,
>> they are NOT transverse in the observer's frame,
>> and vice versa.
>
> Stop taking cheap shots. My equation above is the same as yours. If
> you have to say silly thing like "...v and p are transverse in the
> source frame, they are NOT transverse in the observer's frame...",
> you do not understand the very mathematics of the Lorentz transform.

I challenge you to prove that you understand

the very mathematics of the Lorentz transform

by solving the following problem:

In a frame of reference S, a photon with momentum p is moving
along the y -axis. The angle phi is thus pi/2

p
^
| phi
-----|---------------------------> x

A frame of reference S' is moving in the x direction of S
with the speed v.

p
^
| phi'
-----|---------------------------> x'

What is the angle phi' ?

Put up, or shut up.

>>> SR predicts a symmetric result where
>>> only the relative speed matters.
>> Nonsense.
>> SR doesn't predict a "symmetric" result in two different cases.
>
> I never claimed that.
>
>> > Thus, you will have another
>>> f' = f / sqrt(1 - v^2 / c^2)
>>>
>>> According to SR, the overall result would be the product of these two
>>> which is
>>>
>>> f' = f / (1 - v^2 / c^2)
>> Nonsense.
>> There are two distinct different cases with very different
>> experimental set-up, so why the hell should SR predict
>> the same outcome?
>
> Because the Lorentz transform is symmetrical in mathematics and thus
> predicts the same outcome for the receiver and the transmitter.

Which receiver and which transmitter?
There are two sets of them, have you missed that?

Case #1:
We have an emitter A, and a receiver B.

Case #2:
B, which was the receiver in #1, is now the emitter,
transmitting the same signal as it receives.
We have another receiver C.

A and C are stationary to each other, while B
is moving with the speed v relative to both.

Now you claim that because the Lorentz transform is symmetrical,
C must must see the signal from B Doppler shifted by the same
amount as B sees the signal from A Doppler shifted with.

The scenario bellow satisfies the above description:

A B -> v C

If f is the frequency of the signal emitted from A,
B will according to the Lorentz transform measure
the frequency f' = f*sqrt((c-v)/(c+v)) and thus
transmit the same frequency f'.
C will according to the Lorentz transform measure
the frequency f" = f'*sqrt((c+v)/(c-v)) = f

Thus the Lorentz transform predicts that C measures
the same frequency as is emitted from A.
And that is also what a real experiment would show,
if it didn't, we would have a causality violation.

The scenario above is obviously different from that
of the experiment we are discussing, because the velocity
of B is transverse, and not longitudinal.

But the principle is exactly the same; even if
B is moving transversely will the Lorentz transform
predict that C will measure the same frequency as is
emitted from A.

The Lorentz transform does NOT predict the causality
violation you claim it does.

But since you obviously are completely ignorant
of what aberration is, an thus don't understand
that it is the very reason why the two Doppler
shift cancels, you will probably repeat your
mindless claim.

Paul

Dirk Van de moortel

unread,

Sep 19, 2006, 5:36:45 PM9/19/06

to

"Sorcerer" <Headm...@hogwarts.physics_b> wrote in message news:HbZPg.215$1h3...@fe3.news.blueyonder.co.uk...

PhilosTopher:
http://www.oldielyrics.com/lyrics/frank_zappa/the_adventures_of_greggery_peccary.html

Dirk Vdm

Sorcerer

unread,

Sep 19, 2006, 5:59:08 PM9/19/06

to

"Dirk Van de moortel" <dirkvand...@ThankS-NO-SperM.hotmail.com> wrote

in message news:V9ZPg.85466$z43.1...@phobos.telenet-ops.be...

Flattery will get you everywhere. Thanks for the publicity, I'm sure
Pentcho Vulva the Einstein Wussy will enjoy reading it.

Androcles

Sorcerer

unread,

Sep 19, 2006, 6:49:32 PM9/19/06

to

"Dirk Van de moortel" <dirkvand...@ThankS-NO-SperM.hotmail.com> wrote

in message news:NpZPg.85488$1_2.1...@phobos.telenet-ops.be...

Sorry, is this "Zappa" person related to Brahms, Beethoven, Grieg, Wagner,
Sibelius, Delius, Vaughn-Williams, Bach JS or CPE, Handel, Dvorak, Smetana,
Tchaikowski, Borodin, even the diegos or frogs such as Joe Green (Giuseppe
Verdi) or Hector Berlioz? How about Elgar or Holst?

Can't say I've ever heard him or of him. Pianist or penis, was he?
Zappa isn't an English name. Sounds like a book of matches, but I can't
match him. Must be a Belgique low life scum... That's where we deport
thickhead politicians these days. Compared to you, they are genii.

I stand by what I said:
Dork Van de merde, the greatest living Fuckwit "Philos-T-opher"

Androcles

Sorcerer

unread,

Sep 19, 2006, 6:53:14 PM9/19/06

to

"Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b....@hiadeletethis.no> wrote in message

news:eepnjr$acr$1...@dolly.uninett.no...

| I challenge you to prove that you understand
| the very mathematics of the Lorentz transform

Sure.
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Rocket/Rocket.htm
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Smart/Smart.htm
Mission accomplished.

I challenge you to prove that you understand the very mathematics of

the Andersen transform:

"That is, we can reverse the directions of the frames
which is the same as interchanging the frames,
which - as I have told you a LOT of times,
OBVIOUSLY will lead to the transform:
t = (tau-xi*v/c^2)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
x = (xi - v*tau)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
or:
tau = (t+xv/c^2)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
xi = (x + vt)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)" -Paul B. Andersen

Androcles

Koobee Wublee

unread,

Sep 19, 2006, 7:19:08 PM9/19/06

to

Paul B. Andersen wrote:
> Koobee Wublee wrote:

> I challenge you to prove that you understand
> the very mathematics of the Lorentz transform
> by solving the following problem:
>
> In a frame of reference S, a photon with momentum p is moving
> along the y -axis. The angle phi is thus pi/2
>
> p
> ^
> | phi
> -----|---------------------------> x
>
> A frame of reference S' is moving in the x direction of S
> with the speed v.
>
> p
> ^
> | phi'
> -----|---------------------------> x'
>
> What is the angle phi' ?
>
> Put up, or shut up.

OK, since you insist. However, I do reserve the right to make my life
similar that is for me to set the velocity of x as observed by x'
parallel to both x and x' axes. The magnitude of the velocity is
positive going from left to right. I am also defining this angle as 0
when your angle = pi / 2. Also defining clockwise phi as positive, we
have

phi' = - cos^-1(v / c)

> >>> SR predicts a symmetric result where
> >>> only the relative speed matters.
> >> Nonsense.
> >> SR doesn't predict a "symmetric" result in two different cases.
> >
> > I never claimed that.
> >
> >> > Thus, you will have another
> >>> f' = f / sqrt(1 - v^2 / c^2)
> >>>
> >>> According to SR, the overall result would be the product of these two
> >>> which is
> >>>
> >>> f' = f / (1 - v^2 / c^2)
> >> Nonsense.
> >> There are two distinct different cases with very different
> >> experimental set-up, so why the hell should SR predict
> >> the same outcome?
> >
> > Because the Lorentz transform is symmetrical in mathematics and thus
> > predicts the same outcome for the receiver and the transmitter.
>
> Which receiver and which transmitter?

It does not matter which is the receiver and which is the transmitter
to the Lorentz transform.

> There are two sets of them, have you missed that?

No, I did not miss that.

> Case #1:
> We have an emitter A, and a receiver B.
>
> Case #2:
> B, which was the receiver in #1, is now the emitter,
> transmitting the same signal as it receives.
> We have another receiver C.
>
> A and C are stationary to each other, while B
> is moving with the speed v relative to both.
>
> Now you claim that because the Lorentz transform is symmetrical,
> C must must see the signal from B Doppler shifted by the same
> amount as B sees the signal from A Doppler shifted with.

It should not be so in real life. However, under the rules of the
Lorentz transform it is the case.

> The scenario bellow satisfies the above description:
>
> A B -> v C
>
> If f is the frequency of the signal emitted from A,
> B will according to the Lorentz transform measure
> the frequency f' = f*sqrt((c-v)/(c+v)) and thus
> transmit the same frequency f'.
> C will according to the Lorentz transform measure
> the frequency f" = f'*sqrt((c+v)/(c-v)) = f
>
> Thus the Lorentz transform predicts that C measures
> the same frequency as is emitted from A.
> And that is also what a real experiment would show,
> if it didn't, we would have a causality violation.

Yes, this is true. However, this is not transverse Doppler effect.

> The scenario above is obviously different from that
> of the experiment we are discussing, because the velocity
> of B is transverse, and not longitudinal.
>
> But the principle is exactly the same; even if
> B is moving transversely will the Lorentz transform
> predict that C will measure the same frequency as is
> emitted from A.

In the case of Mr. Thim's experiment, we have

** f_B = f_A / sqrt(1 - B^2)
** f_C = f_B / sqrt(1 - B^2)

Thus,

f_C = f_A / (1 - B^2)

> The Lorentz transform does NOT predict the causality
> violation you claim it does.

Thus, the Lorentz transform obeys the principle of Relativity (from
Galileo) but violate the causality. This is the Twin's paradox. In
order to resolve this paradox, we must abandon the principle of
Relativity. That means abandoning the Lorentz transform as well.

> But since you obviously are completely ignorant
> of what aberration is, an thus don't understand
> that it is the very reason why the two Doppler
> shift cancels, you will probably repeat your
> mindless claim.

Your cancellation method violates the very mathematics of the Lorentz
transform. You are totally lost.

Tom Roberts

unread,

Sep 19, 2006, 10:51:13 PM9/19/06

to

Koobee Wublee wrote:
> Paul B. Andersen wrote:

>> Rudolf Drabek wrote:
>>> Are there measurements that show the transverse Doppler?, e.g GPS.

>> Yes.
>> http://hermes.physics.adelaide.edu.au/~dkoks/Faq/Relativity/SR/experiments.html
>> see:
>> 4. Tests of Time Dilation and Transverse Doppler Effect
>

> Mr. Thim did acknowledge other experiments that have claimed such a
> transverse Doppler shift. So, the question is who do you believe that
> has the valid data? Why do you not believe Mr. Thim using modern
> technology while Ives and Stilwell had only 1941 technology at their
> proposal?

Because Mr. Thim's apparatus cannot possibly observe the transverse
Doppler effect, but Ives and Stilwell's can (and did!).

As Paul Anderson pointed out, no measurement is made in the moving
frame, and the source and receiver are at rest relative to each other.
with such a setup it is not possible to observe transverse Doppler.

Moreover, the apparatus has been interpreted naively, as if the signal
propagates in a direct line from transmitting antenna to the receiving
antenna(s). This is not true, and the apparatus is more like a poorly
coupled RF cavity -- there will be a standing wave present throughout
the chamber, with many different modes excited (no competent RF engineer
would design such a thing). This wave necessarily has the frequency of
the source (in the lab frame), and is coupled by the rotating antennas
from region to region within the chamber, but all of those couplings
preserve the frequency of the standing wave (in the lab frame).

Modern technology cannot overcome a poorly designed experiment. <shrug>
And many old experimenters did remarkable things with the technology at
hand!

Tom Roberts

unread,

Sep 19, 2006, 11:00:41 PM9/19/06

to

Rudolf Drabek wrote:
> What I can say as a "retired el. engineer" is, that SR is very limited.

Hmmm. I guess I now qualify as a "retired engineer" too. But then, I
retired from telecom engineering to take a job in physics....

Yes, SR is limited in its applicability to local measurements. Still,
the majority of measurements we make are local, and on earth the
approximation involved in using SR is generally negligible for all lab
experiments not involving gravitation.

> It is based on c=const and inertial movement and that's all.

There's a lot more to SR than that. The essence is that the underlying
manifold must be flat. That is a HUGE requirement, and is one not
realized in the real world (except approximately).

> E.g. I start from here to Sirius with v=0.866c, gamma = 2
> Why does the universe in direction to Sirius know, that it has to
> shrink acc. to Gamma?

That's a very basic misconception. The "universe" isn't "shrinking" at
all, it is your MEASUREMENTS that are affected RELATIVE to the
measurements of an earthbound (or Sirius-bound) observer.

> I have not studied to date if some of the GR effects can be expained
> with Newton, e.g. GPS clocks correction.

They cannot.

Tom Roberts

Koobee Wublee

unread,

Sep 20, 2006, 1:32:20 AM9/20/06

to

Tom Roberts wrote:
> Koobee Wublee wrote:

> > Mr. Thim did acknowledge other experiments that have claimed such a
> > transverse Doppler shift. So, the question is who do you believe that
> > has the valid data? Why do you not believe Mr. Thim using modern
> > technology while Ives and Stilwell had only 1941 technology at their
> > proposal?
>
> Because Mr. Thim's apparatus cannot possibly observe the transverse
> Doppler effect, but Ives and Stilwell's can (and did!).
>
> As Paul Anderson pointed out, no measurement is made in the moving
> frame, and the source and receiver are at rest relative to each other.
> with such a setup it is not possible to observe transverse Doppler.

I do admire you that in your elderly age you still possess a sharp mind
despite having lack of integrity. Yes, I have to swallow hard on the
fact that the initial transmit and the final receive are at rest with
each other. In doing so, there should be no Doppler shift.

However, the very mathematics of the Lorentz transform does indicate a
shift twice in the mathematics. To me, this is a clear violation of
the principles of Relativity established since Galileo. Again to me,
this indicates the principle of Relativity has to be appealed just as
the Lorentz transform tries to correct the short comings of the
Galilean transform. Since the principle of Relativity cannot exist
without either the Lorentz transform or the Galilean transform, both
for the logical point of view have to be declared wrong.

> Moreover, the apparatus has been interpreted naively, as if the signal
> propagates in a direct line from transmitting antenna to the receiving
> antenna(s). This is not true, and the apparatus is more like a poorly
> coupled RF cavity -- there will be a standing wave present throughout
> the chamber, with many different modes excited (no competent RF engineer
> would design such a thing). This wave necessarily has the frequency of
> the source (in the lab frame), and is coupled by the rotating antennas
> from region to region within the chamber, but all of those couplings
> preserve the frequency of the standing wave (in the lab frame).

You don't have the details of Mr. Thim's setup. You cannot accuse
him of neglecting the most basic methodologies employed by a good RF
engineer.

> Modern technology cannot overcome a poorly designed experiment. <shrug>

The inappropriateness of the experiment is again very subjective. The
analogy is that beauty, evilness, emptiness, etc. are all in the eyes
of the beholders. <shrug>

> And many old experimenters did remarkable things with the technology at
> hand!

This cannot be true in general. However, case by case I have no
argument. How much do you know about the exact details of
Ives-Stilwell setup?

Dirk Van de moortel

unread,

Sep 20, 2006, 3:54:51 AM9/20/06

to

"Sorcerer" <Headm...@hogwarts.physics_b> wrote in message news:0u_Pg.15661$wg....@fe1.news.blueyonder.co.uk...

http://www.google.com/search?q=zappa+holst
http://www.google.com/search?q=zappa+nancarrow
http://www.google.com/search?q=zappa+varese
http://www.google.com/search?q=zappa+stravinsky
http://www.google.com/search?q=zappa+webern
http://www.google.com/search?q=zappa+boulez
http://www.google.com/search?q=zappa+LSO
http://www.google.com/search?q=zappa+ensemble+modern
http://www.google.com/search?q=zappa+francesco

> Can't say I've ever heard him or of him.

That doesn't surprise me.

> Pianist or penis, was he?
> Zappa isn't an English name. Sounds like a book of matches, but I can't
> match him. Must be a Belgique low life scum... That's where we deport
> thickhead politicians these days. Compared to you, they are genii.
>
> I stand by what I said:

Yes,we know, you stand by every fart you produce.
It is a known and well documented condition.
Standing by Boolean algebra:

http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/XORWildStab.html
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/Gibberish.html
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/XOROnceMore.html
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/XORrevisited.html
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/XORContinued.html
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/XORpersistence.html
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/LooksBoolean.html

http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/IdiotVectors.html
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/AndroVec.html
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/VectorLength.html
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/VectorSpaces.html

Standing by Polar coordinates:
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/PolarManager.html
Standing by Limits:
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/Limit.html
Standing by Equations:

Standing by Square roots:

Standing by Partial differential equations:

Dirk Van de moortel

unread,

Sep 20, 2006, 3:57:37 AM9/20/06

to

"Koobee Wublee" <koobee...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:1158730340.9...@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...

> Tom Roberts wrote:
>> Koobee Wublee wrote:
>
>> > Mr. Thim did acknowledge other experiments that have claimed such a
>> > transverse Doppler shift. So, the question is who do you believe that
>> > has the valid data? Why do you not believe Mr. Thim using modern
>> > technology while Ives and Stilwell had only 1941 technology at their
>> > proposal?
>>
>> Because Mr. Thim's apparatus cannot possibly observe the transverse
>> Doppler effect, but Ives and Stilwell's can (and did!).
>>
>> As Paul Anderson pointed out, no measurement is made in the moving
>> frame, and the source and receiver are at rest relative to each other.
>> with such a setup it is not possible to observe transverse Doppler.
>
> I do admire you that in your elderly age you still possess a sharp mind
> despite having lack of integrity. Yes, I have to swallow hard on the
> fact that the initial transmit and the final receive are at rest with
> each other. In doing so, there should be no Doppler shift.
>
> However, the very mathematics of the Lorentz transform does indicate a
> shift twice in the mathematics.

This is what you do with the mathematics of the transformation:
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/LorentzTale.html
You haven't got a clue ;-)

Dirk Vdm

Paul B. Andersen

unread,

Sep 20, 2006, 5:15:40 AM9/20/06

to

Almost right.
The correct answer is phi' = arccos(-v/c) (or phi' = cos^-1(-v/c))
I will assume this is what you meant.

\
\ phi'
----\-----------------------------------> x'

So we can conclude that if v and p are transverse S,
they are NOT transverse in S', because the angle between
v and p is arccos(-v/c) in S'.
Conversely we can conclude that if v and p are transverse in S',
they are NOT transverse in S, because the angle between
v and p is arccos(v/c) in S.

We can sum it up thus:
If phi = pi/2, then phi' = arccos(-v/c)
if phi' = pi/2, then phi = arccos(v/c)

The general equation valid for any angle is:
cos(phi') = (cos(phi) - v/c)/(1 - (v/c)*cos(phi))
or:
cos(phi) = (cos(phi') + v/c)/(1 + (v/c)*cos(phi'))

This is aberration.

Now, if the source is stationary in S, and the observer
is stationary in S' we can conclude:

If the velocity of the observer is transverse to the wave vector
in the source frame S, then phi = pi/2, and the observed Doppler shift
will be:
f' = f*(1 - (v/c)*cos(phi))/sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2) = f/sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2)
This is a blue shift

If the velocity of the source is transverse to the wave vector
in the observer frame, then phi' = pi/2 and cos(phi) = v/c,
and the observed Doppler shift will be:
f' = f*(1 - (v/c)*cos(phi))/sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2)
f' = f*(1 - (v/c)^2)/sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2)
f' = f*sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2)
This is a red shift.

Summed up:
----------------------------------------------------------------
# If the velocity of the observer is transverse to the wave vector
# in the source frame, the observed Doppler shift will be:
# f' = f/sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2)
#
# If the velocity of the source is transverse to the wave vector
# in the observer frame, the observed Doppler shift will be:
# f' = f*sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2)
----------------------------------------------------------------

Since this follows from the very mathematics of
the Lorentz transform which you claim to understand,
I will assume you know this is correct.

In the case you don't agree, I challenge you to show that
the above is NOT what the Lorentz transform predicts.
General talk about symmetry won't do.
You will have to do the math.

So you confirm your claim:
"Because the Lorentz transform is symmetrical, it predicts
that C must must see the signal from B Doppler shifted by

the same amount as B sees the signal from A Doppler shifted
with."

This claim is falsified below:

>> The scenario bellow satisfies the above description:
>>
>> A B -> v C
>>
>> If f is the frequency of the signal emitted from A,
>> B will according to the Lorentz transform measure
>> the frequency f' = f*sqrt((c-v)/(c+v)) and thus
>> transmit the same frequency f'.
>> C will according to the Lorentz transform measure
>> the frequency f" = f'*sqrt((c+v)/(c-v)) = f
>>
>> Thus the Lorentz transform predicts that C measures
>> the same frequency as is emitted from A.
>> And that is also what a real experiment would show,
>> if it didn't, we would have a causality violation.
>
> Yes, this is true. However, this is not transverse Doppler effect.

But nevertheless it falsifies your claim:
"Because the Lorentz transform is symmetrical, it predicts
that C must must see the signal from B Doppler shifted by

the same amount as B sees the signal from A Doppler shifted
with."

>

>> The scenario above is obviously different from that
>> of the experiment we are discussing, because the velocity
>> of B is transverse, and not longitudinal.
>>
>> But the principle is exactly the same; even if
>> B is moving transversely will the Lorentz transform
>> predict that C will measure the same frequency as is
>> emitted from A.
>
> In the case of Mr. Thim's experiment, we have
>
> ** f_B = f_A / sqrt(1 - B^2)
> ** f_C = f_B / sqrt(1 - B^2)
>
> Thus,
>
> f_C = f_A / (1 - B^2)

No.

In the case of Mr. Thim's experiment, we have:

v
^
|
A ->p B ->p C

Here the velocity of B is transverse to the wave vector
(or momentum) of the radiation in the stationary frame.

Case #1:
A is the source, B is the observer.
The stationary frame is the source frame.
The velocity of the observer is transverse to the wave vector
in the source frame, and the observed Doppler shift is thus:
f' = f/sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2)

Case #2:
B is the source, C is the observer.
The stationary frame is the observer frame.
The velocity of the source is transverse to the wave vector
in the observer frame, and the observed Doppler shift is thus:
f' = f*sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2)

The Lorentz transform predicts that the two Doppler shifts
will cancel each other, and C will detect the same frequency
as is emitted by A.

>
>> The Lorentz transform does NOT predict the causality
>> violation you claim it does.
>
> Thus, the Lorentz transform obeys the principle of Relativity (from
> Galileo) but violate the causality. This is the Twin's paradox. In
> order to resolve this paradox, we must abandon the principle of
> Relativity. That means abandoning the Lorentz transform as well.
>
>> But since you obviously are completely ignorant
>> of what aberration is, an thus don't understand
>> that it is the very reason why the two Doppler
>> shift cancels, you will probably repeat your
>> mindless claim.
>
> Your cancellation method violates the very mathematics of the Lorentz
> transform. You are totally lost.

I challenge you to point out exactly where I got lost.

Put up, or shut up.

Paul

Sue...

unread,

Sep 20, 2006, 5:30:58 AM9/20/06

to

Paul B. Andersen wrote:
[...]
>
<< This is aberration. >>

Normally associated with dielectric media.
You've been unresponsive to questions about
how that is treated in the experiment.

So are we not pretending the experiment is
what it is not?

<< `What are they doing?' Alice whispered to the Gryphon.
`They can't have anything to put down yet, before
the trial's begun.' >>
http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~rgs/alice-XI.html

[...]

<< I challenge you to point out exactly where I got lost.

Put up, or shut up. >>

IOW... do his homework for him or he'll call you a coward. ;-)

Sue...
>
> Paul

Sue...

unread,

Sep 20, 2006, 5:43:05 AM9/20/06

to

Paul B. Andersen wrote:
[...]

>

> I challenge you to point out exactly where I got lost.
>
> Put up, or shut up.
>
> Paul

BTW... The last time I considered one your 'challenges'
(Actually, homework that you've screwed up )
you were dividing by zero and Tom Roberts was observing
the earth's rotation with a sight line down between
his ankles.

Few would argue that your calculations were not in
agreement with Tom's observations.

Sue...

Sorcerer

unread,

Sep 20, 2006, 6:43:25 AM9/20/06

to

"Dirk Van de moortel" <dirkvand...@ThankS-NO-SperM.hotmail.com> wrote

in message news:Rv6Qg.86156$9k5.1...@phobos.telenet-ops.be...

Should I bother to read that? Nah. <shrug>
Maybe an Einstein dingleberry will.<shrug>
Cant be many left now <shrug>
Hahaha <shrug>
Androcles <shrug>

Sorcerer

unread,

Sep 20, 2006, 8:08:04 AM9/20/06

to

"Sue..." <suzyse...@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
news:1158745385.1...@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...

It is quite hilarious how these idiots ever maintain a position,
although both Roberts and Van de moortel have been forced
to part company with their respective employers. Roberts was
quite proud to be employed by Lucent, although Dork Van de merde
has been too ashamed to admit who he worked for. The
"assistant professor" Andersen shows no degree in the
advertising for his college, the very place where one
would expect to see it emblazoned boldly.

You've gotta love this:
"Our students are motivated to study abroad".
Ref: http://www.hia.no/english/

And this:
"Not all ph.d. courses will be given each year."
http://www.hia.no/realfag/studieinfo/courses_in_english.php3?menu_id=12
^^^^^
(Real fag study in English to do.)
You have to wonder in which years there would be any
Ph.D. courses (or ph.d. courses, for that matter)

http://www.hia.no/realfag/personal/kompetansekatalog.php3#dep_mat
There is an Andersen, Dag Olav, but no Andersen, Paul B.

An uneducated *assistant* professor of a small county
(Vest - Agder, pop 150,000) college *motivates* students
to study outside Norway. Too funny, but you can see why,
given the tusselad's posts.
Androcles

Paul B. Andersen

unread,

Sep 20, 2006, 8:18:03 AM9/20/06

to

Sue... wrote:
>
> BTW... The last time I considered one your 'challenges'
> (Actually, homework that you've screwed up )
> you were dividing by zero and Tom Roberts was observing
> the earth's rotation with a sight line down between
> his ankles.
>
> Few would argue that your calculations were not in
> agreement with Tom's observations.

I will give you a tip, Sue.
All the postings are archived on Google.
Bluffing about the content of a year old discussion
isn't very smart.

http://tinyurl.com/fsovl

But thanks for reminding me of the fact that you
never answered the challenge.
No surprise, you never do.

Since you repeat that my expression:
<<N times per Earth rotation.>>
reduces to division by zero, I suppose you still
are unaware of the fact that the Earth is rotating.
Is it very smart to remind us of the fact?

Here is my last posting in the thread to which you refer:

Paul B. Andersen wrote:

| sue jahn wrote:
| > "Paul B. Andersen" wrote:

| > > sue jahn wrote:
| > > > You are of course welcome to advance an opinion
| > > > about how an axel should behave if it were repeating
| > > > a geosynchronous clock to the ground or if it were
| > > > repeating a ground clock to a geosynchronous satellite.
| > > > Neither you nor Bz seem able to interpret what Einstein's
| > > > relativity say's the shaft should do.
|
| > > Why do you think I should have any problem with this?
| > > This is yet another old non paradox.
|
| > > Let there be a clock A on the ground at equator.
| > > Let there be a clock B in geostationary orbit.
| > > Let both clocks be on the same radius.
|
| > > Let A measure the proper duration of one Earth rotation to be T.
| > > Then, as you now know and have accepted is experimentally
| > > verified for clocks in GPS orbit, B will measure the proper
| > > duration of one Earth rotation to be longer, T + delta_T.
|
| > > Let there be an axle between the two clocks.
| > > Let this axle rotate in such a way that there is no
| > > mechanical stress in the axle.
| > > Let the axle rotate N times during one Earth rotation.
|
| > > A will measure the rotational frequency to be f_g = N/T
| > > while B will measure it to be f_s = N/(T + delta_T).
|
| > > So the ground clock will measure the axle to rotate
| > > faster than the satellite clock will, but both will
| > > agree that the axle rotates N times per Earth rotation.
|
| > > frequency * duration = number_of_rotations
| > > f_g*T = N
| > > f_s*(T + delta_T) = N
|
| > > Loosely said:
| > > "The satellite clock will see the axle rotate slower,
| > > but for a longer time."
|
| Sue, I have responded to your challenge and explained
| "what Einstein's relativity say's the shaft should do."
|
| Now I challenge you to point out an inconsitency in the above.
|
| This response of yours:
| Sue wrote (previously) :
| > <<geosynchronous satellite.>>
| > Neither will see the earth rotate.
| > So your experssion:
|
| > <<N times per Earth rotation.>>
|
| > Reduces to division by zero.
|
| .. is just too silly.
|
| Even you know that the Earth rotates once
| per sidereal day, even if you don't see it.
|
| Or don't you?
|
| Paul

Since you never answered it, the challenge still stands:

I challenge you to point out an inconsitency in the above.
----------------------------------------------------------

I have done my "homework", Sue.
Now it's up to you to show that I screwed up.
But you will flee again, like you always do.

Paul

Paul B. Andersen

unread,

Sep 20, 2006, 8:38:49 AM9/20/06

to

Sue... wrote:
> Paul B. Andersen wrote:
> [...]
> << This is aberration. >>

As in:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aberration_of_light

Which is a completely different phenomenon from:

> Normally associated with dielectric media.

as in:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aberration_in_optical_systems

> You've been unresponsive to questions about
> how that is treated in the experiment.

Because it is utterly irrelevant.

> So are we not pretending the experiment is
> what it is not?

You haven't got the faintest idea of what
this experiment is or is not.
So stop the noise.

Paul

Sorcerer

unread,

Sep 20, 2006, 8:53:36 AM9/20/06

to

"Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b....@hiadeletethis.no> wrote in message

news:eerbhs$oq3$1...@dolly.uninett.no...

"frequency * duration = number_of_rotations" -Andersen.

1/t * t = 1
1/(t+dt) * (t+dt) = 1
1/(t+T) * (t+T) = 1
1/(tau) * (tau) = 1

I challenge you to point out a tautology in the above.
I have done my "homework", Tusselad.

Now it's up to you to show that I screwed up.
But you will flee again, like you always do.

Androcles

Sorcerer

unread,

Sep 20, 2006, 9:17:08 AM9/20/06

to

"Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b....@hiadeletethis.no> wrote in message

news:eercoq$fbe$1...@dolly.uninett.no...

Run away, Tusselad!
Hahahahaha!!

Paul B. Andersen

unread,

Sep 20, 2006, 10:03:35 AM9/20/06

to

The tautology is obvious, isn't it?
So why do I have to point it out to you?
But thanks anyway for pointing out that the following
is an obvious tautology:

| A will measure the rotational frequency to be f_g = N/T
| while B will measure it to be f_s = N/(T + delta_T).
|
| So the ground clock will measure the axle to rotate
| faster than the satellite clock will, but both will
| agree that the axle rotates N times per Earth rotation.
|
| frequency * duration = number_of_rotations
| f_g*T = N
| f_s*(T + delta_T) = N

Again, thanks for the support.
I didn't expect it from you.

Paul

Sorcerer

unread,

Sep 20, 2006, 10:33:15 AM9/20/06

to

"Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b....@hiadeletethis.no> wrote in message

news:eerhno$b26$1...@dolly.uninett.no...

Yes. Therefore a pointless exercise.

| So why do I have to point it out to you?
| But thanks anyway for pointing out that the following
| is an obvious tautology:
|
|| A will measure the rotational frequency to be f_g = N/T
|| while B will measure it to be f_s = N/(T + delta_T).

Nobody disputes one rotation.
What you've failed to prove is delta_T <> 0, you assumed it.

A will measure the rotational frequency to be f_g = N/T

while B will measure it to be f_s = N/T, OBVIOUSLY.

||
|| So the ground clock will measure the axle to rotate
|| faster than the satellite clock will, but both will
|| agree that the axle rotates N times per Earth rotation.

No it won't. The oscillators in question are the identical balance
wheels of the clocks.
They have identical frequencies and cannot show different times,
tautologically. If you deny it, that is against the supposition the
balance wheels are identical.

|
|| frequency * duration = number_of_rotations
|| f_g*T = N

|| f_s*(T + delta_T) = N -- wrong.

f_s*T = N
N = T/f_s

| Again, thanks for the support.
| I didn't expect it from you.

I haven't given you any. You are a fuckhead.

Koobee Wublee

unread,

Sep 20, 2006, 5:08:14 PM9/20/06

to

Paul B. Andersen wrote:
> Koobee Wublee wrote:

> > OK, since you insist. However, I do reserve the right to make my life
> > similar that is for me to set the velocity of x as observed by x'
> > parallel to both x and x' axes. The magnitude of the velocity is
> > positive going from left to right. I am also defining this angle as 0
> > when your angle = pi / 2. Also defining clockwise phi as positive, we
> > have
> >
> > phi' = - cos^-1(v / c)
>
> Almost right.
> The correct answer is phi' = arccos(-v/c) (or phi' = cos^-1(-v/c))
> I will assume this is what you meant.

>From my definition of phi', I actually meant

phi' = - sin^-1(v / c)

In your definition assuming clockwise, it should be

phi' = pi / 2 - cos^-1(v / c)

In your definition assuming counter-clockwise, it should be

phi' = pi / 2 + cos^-1(v / c)

> Now, if the source is stationary in S, and the observer
> is stationary in S' we can conclude:
>
> If the velocity of the observer is transverse to the wave vector
> in the source frame S, then phi = pi/2, and the observed Doppler shift
> will be:
> f' = f*(1 - (v/c)*cos(phi))/sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2) = f/sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2)
> This is a blue shift
>
> If the velocity of the source is transverse to the wave vector
> in the observer frame, then phi' = pi/2 and cos(phi) = v/c,
> and the observed Doppler shift will be:
> f' = f*(1 - (v/c)*cos(phi))/sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2)
> f' = f*(1 - (v/c)^2)/sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2)
> f' = f*sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2)
> This is a red shift.

This is gibberish. See my mistake and your mistake above.

> Since this follows from the very mathematics of
> the Lorentz transform which you claim to understand,
> I will assume you know this is correct.
>
> In the case you don't agree, I challenge you to show that
> the above is NOT what the Lorentz transform predicts.
> General talk about symmetry won't do.
> You will have to do the math.

f' = (f - v * p / h) / sqrt(1 - v^2 / c^2)

In transverse Doppler case, we always have

v * p = 0

So, we always have

f' = f / sqrt(1 - v^2 / c^2)

> >> The scenario bellow satisfies the above description:

> >>
> >> A B -> v C
> >>
> >> If f is the frequency of the signal emitted from A,
> >> B will according to the Lorentz transform measure
> >> the frequency f' = f*sqrt((c-v)/(c+v)) and thus
> >> transmit the same frequency f'.
> >> C will according to the Lorentz transform measure
> >> the frequency f" = f'*sqrt((c+v)/(c-v)) = f
> >>
> >> Thus the Lorentz transform predicts that C measures
> >> the same frequency as is emitted from A.
> >> And that is also what a real experiment would show,
> >> if it didn't, we would have a causality violation.
> >
> > Yes, this is true. However, this is not transverse Doppler effect.
>
> But nevertheless it falsifies your claim:
> "Because the Lorentz transform is symmetrical, it predicts
> that C must must see the signal from B Doppler shifted by
> the same amount as B sees the signal from A Doppler shifted
> with."

In this scenario, we have

** f_B = f_A (1 - B) / sqrt(1 - B^2)
** f_C = f_B (1 + B) / sqrt(1 - B^2)

f_C = f_A (1 - B) (1 + B) / (1 - B^2) = f_A

You just don't understand how to apply the Lorentz transform.

> > In the case of Mr. Thim's experiment, we have
> >
> > ** f_B = f_A / sqrt(1 - B^2)
> > ** f_C = f_B / sqrt(1 - B^2)
> >
> > Thus,
> >
> > f_C = f_A / (1 - B^2)
>
> No.
>
> In the case of Mr. Thim's experiment, we have:
>
> v
> ^
> |
> A ->p B ->p C
>
> Here the velocity of B is transverse to the wave vector
> (or momentum) of the radiation in the stationary frame.
>
> Case #1:
> A is the source, B is the observer.
> The stationary frame is the source frame.
> The velocity of the observer is transverse to the wave vector
> in the source frame, and the observed Doppler shift is thus:
> f' = f/sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2)

Yes.

> Case #2:
> B is the source, C is the observer.
> The stationary frame is the observer frame.
> The velocity of the source is transverse to the wave vector
> in the observer frame, and the observed Doppler shift is thus:
> f' = f*sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2)

Wrong. In SR, there is no distinction between who is dong the moving.
So, your Case #2 should be the same as Case #1. The correct math is
also

f' = f / sqrt(1 - B^2)

> The Lorentz transform predicts that the two Doppler shifts
> will cancel each other, and C will detect the same frequency
> as is emitted by A.

You must have a different version of the Lorentz transform.

> > Your cancellation method violates the very mathematics of the Lorentz
> > transform. You are totally lost.
>
> I challenge you to point out exactly where I got lost.
>
> Put up, or shut up.

I just did point out your error. Are you going to shut up now?

Dirk Van de moortel

unread,

Sep 20, 2006, 5:20:40 PM9/20/06

to

"Koobee Wublee" <koobee...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:1158786494.0...@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...

That is what a neo-Nazi calls pointing out where it goes
wrong ;-)

[snip more junk]

>> I challenge you to point out exactly where I got lost.
>>
>> Put up, or shut up.
>
> I just did point out your error. Are you going to shut up now?

Gee, what a shameless dishonest little stinker you are.
Paul, you could have known in front that he would play it
this way.

Dirk Vdm

Paul B. Andersen

unread,

Sep 20, 2006, 5:36:28 PM9/20/06

to

Sorcerer wrote:
> You've gotta love this:
> "Our students are motivated to study abroad".
> Ref: http://www.hia.no/english/

"Agder University College is one of the most internationally
oriented University Colleges in Norway and emphasises student
exchanges through European and national cooperation programmes
and bilateral agreements.

Our students are motivated to study abroad, either by taking an
integrated part of their study programme with our Socrates/ Nordplus
partners in Europe, with partners in the Unites States Australia and
Asia or by continuing their studies abroad after graduation from
Agder University College."

It works both ways, you know.
The keyword is "exchange".

Funny, eh?

> And this:
> "Not all ph.d. courses will be given each year."
> http://www.hia.no/realfag/studieinfo/courses_in_english.php3?menu_id=12

That is, not all the Ph.D. courses _at the Faculty of Mathematics and Sciences_
are given every year.

The Faculty of Engineering and Science gives all the Ph.D. courses every year.
http://grimstad.hia.no/index.htm?http://grimstad.hia.no/studium/doktorgrad/phd_text.htm&
and so does most of the other faculties.

> You have to wonder in which years there would be any
> Ph.D. courses (or ph.d. courses, for that matter)

So not all equals none? :-)
Androclean logic?

I think you would find that it is like that at most universities.
Not all the courses in all the Ph.D. studies are given every year.
But how are you to know?
You never studied at a university.

> http://www.hia.no/realfag/personal/kompetansekatalog.php3#dep_mat
> There is an Andersen, Dag Olav, but no Andersen, Paul B.

Because I am not at the Faculty of Mathematics and Sciences.
You will find me at the Faculty of Engineering and Science.

> An uneducated *assistant* professor of a small county
> (Vest - Agder, pop 150,000) college *motivates* students
> to study outside Norway. Too funny, but you can see why,
> given the tusselad's posts.
> Androcles

Yes, I am and assistant professor, what are you?
I know you are drunk, but professionally?

We know you are not an electrical engineer with
a degree in mathematics. :-)

Paul

Sorcerer

unread,

Sep 20, 2006, 7:16:02 PM9/20/06

to

"Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b....@hiadeletethis.no> wrote in message

news:eesc8t$m9r$1...@dolly.uninett.no...

| Sorcerer wrote:
| > You've gotta love this:
| > "Our students are motivated to study abroad".
| > Ref: http://www.hia.no/english/
|
| "Agder University College is one of the most internationally
| oriented University Colleges in Norway and emphasises student
| exchanges through European and national cooperation programmes
| and bilateral agreements.
|
| Our students are motivated to study abroad,

Yep, that's what it says. Fuckwits like you are the motivators, they
can't learn anything at Hogskolen, better to learn at Hogwarts.

Yes, very funny. We dump our dunces on you and get your brightest.
Hilarious, in fact. Oh... wait... No mention of Britain being a partner
in your crazy scheme. Send 'em to Wilson in Oz... or Tennessee.
http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/astr162/lect/binaries/algol.html
Have you been to Tennessee? I have. Rednecked hillbillies.
ROFLMAO!

|
| > And this:
| > "Not all ph.d. courses will be given each year."
| > http://www.hia.no/realfag/studieinfo/courses_in_english.php3?menu_id=12
|
| That is, not all the Ph.D. courses _at the Faculty of Mathematics and
Sciences_
| are given every year.

Can't, can you? No qualified staff.

|
| The Faculty of Engineering and Science gives all the Ph.D. courses every
year.
|
http://grimstad.hia.no/index.htm?http://grimstad.hia.no/studium/doktorgrad/phd_text.htm&
| and so does most of the other faculties.

How to engineer paper clips, the famous product of Norway?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johan_Vaaler

You make the inference that NOT(all) = none by Norwegian
paper clipping logic, although correct. Check with a Venn diagram.

|
| I think

Surely not! When did you ever think?

| you would find that it is like that at most universities.
| Not all the courses in all the Ph.D. studies are given every year.
| But how are you to know?
| You never studied at a university.
|
| > http://www.hia.no/realfag/personal/kompetansekatalog.php3#dep_mat
| > There is an Andersen, Dag Olav, but no Andersen, Paul B.
|
| Because I am not at the Faculty of Mathematics and Sciences.
| You will find me at the Faculty of Engineering and Science.
|
| > An uneducated *assistant* professor of a small county
| > (Vest - Agder, pop 150,000) college *motivates* students
| > to study outside Norway. Too funny, but you can see why,
| > given the tusselad's posts.
| > Androcles
|
| Yes, I am and assistant professor, what are you?
| I know you are drunk, but professionally?

Me? I'm only an assistant drunk. I learned that skill
when I studied at university that you know I never did.

| We know you are not an electrical engineer with
| a degree in mathematics. :-)

Of course you do, and we know you are a fuckhead.

Koobee Wublee

unread,

Sep 21, 2006, 1:39:18 AM9/21/06

to

After giving Mr. Thim's experiment a few thoughts, I have to say his
setup cannot have yielded the transverse Doppler effect. The reason is
not the Lorentz transform but the rotating device. It acts like a
conductor regardless if rotating or not.

However, if the movement is linear, we have a different story.

A --->
---> B
---> C

A sends out a photon to B which is traveling at speed = v
perpendicular. A few moments later, B sends out another photon to C.
A and C are stationary to each other.

B will observer a transverse Doppler effect from A by the amount

f_B = f_A / sqrt(1 - v^2 / v^2)

However, the speed v will slow down to v' and changes its direction
to absorb the momentum of the photon received from A.

When B sends out another photon, C will also observe a transverse
Doppler effect of

f_C = (f_B' + v' * p_B' / h) / sqrt(1 - v'^2 / c^2)

Where

** p_B' = Momentum vector of the 2nd photon in which it should be
almost 90 degrees with vector v'

Afterwards, B is going to slow further to v" and changes its course
slightly.

Sorcerer

unread,

Sep 21, 2006, 7:31:39 AM9/21/06

to

"Koobee Wublee" <koobee...@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:1158817157....@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...

| After giving Mr. Thim's experiment a few thoughts, I have to say his
| setup cannot have yielded the transverse Doppler effect.

v is velocity in the x-direction only.
There is no mathematical reason for there to be any transverse
shift.
u = v.cos(phi)
w = c.cos(phi)
gamma = 1/sqrt(1- u^2/w^2) = <undefined>

Androcles

Paul B. Andersen

unread,

Sep 21, 2006, 10:21:08 AM9/21/06

to

Koobee Wublee wrote:
> Paul B. Andersen wrote:
>> Koobee Wublee wrote:
>
>>> OK, since you insist. However, I do reserve the right to make my life
>>> similar that is for me to set the velocity of x as observed by x'
>>> parallel to both x and x' axes. The magnitude of the velocity is
>>> positive going from left to right. I am also defining this angle as 0
>>> when your angle = pi / 2. Also defining clockwise phi as positive, we
>>> have
>>>
>>> phi' = - cos^-1(v / c)
>> Almost right.
>> The correct answer is phi' = arccos(-v/c) (or phi' = cos^-1(-v/c))
>> I will assume this is what you meant.
>
>>From my definition of phi', I actually meant
>
> phi' = - sin^-1(v / c)

That figures.
But I suggest we keep my definition because it is the angle between
the velocity and the wave vector. This is the angle commonly used,
and I see no reason to adopt an unconventional definition.
And the conventional positive direction is counter-clockwise.

I started by defining phi' and I never changed that definition.

So: phi' = pi/2 - your_phi'
And then we agree.

phi' = pi/2 - (-arcsin(v/c)) = arccos(-v/c)

|y'
\ |
ct\ |
\|
---|---|-----------> x'
-vt

No more stupid quarrel over this please.

> In your definition assuming clockwise, it should be
>
> phi' = pi / 2 - cos^-1(v / c)
>
> In your definition assuming counter-clockwise, it should be
>
> phi' = pi / 2 + cos^-1(v / c)

My definition is the conventional one:
phi' is the angle with the x' axis,
positive direction is counter-clockwise.

Then phi' = arccos(-v/c)

We agree about what the actual angle is.
----------------------------------------

So I repeat what you snipped:
| So we can conclude that if v and p are transverse in S,

| they are NOT transverse in S', because the angle between
| v and p is arccos(-v/c) in S'.
| Conversely we can conclude that if v and p are transverse in S',
| they are NOT transverse in S, because the angle between
| v and p is arccos(v/c) in S.

If you don't agree to this, you contradict what you
calculated right above!
So you agree!

Read the following again, please, having the definition
of phi and phi' in mind:

(unsnip)

The general equation valid for any angle is:
cos(phi') = (cos(phi) - v/c)/(1 - (v/c)*cos(phi))
or:
cos(phi) = (cos(phi') + v/c)/(1 + (v/c)*cos(phi'))

This is aberration.

>> Now, if the source is stationary in S, and the observer

>> is stationary in S' we can conclude:
>>
>> If the velocity of the observer is transverse to the wave vector
>> in the source frame S, then phi = pi/2, and the observed Doppler shift
>> will be:
>> f' = f*(1 - (v/c)*cos(phi))/sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2) = f/sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2)
>> This is a blue shift
>>
>> If the velocity of the source is transverse to the wave vector
>> in the observer frame, then phi' = pi/2 and cos(phi) = v/c,
>> and the observed Doppler shift will be:
>> f' = f*(1 - (v/c)*cos(phi))/sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2)
>> f' = f*(1 - (v/c)^2)/sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2)
>> f' = f*sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2)
>> This is a red shift.
>
> This is gibberish. See my mistake and your mistake above.

No, this won't do.
I made no mistake, and I used the conventional definition
of the angle.

If there is anything in the above you think is wrong,
please point it out exactly, chapter and verse.

If you can't do that, it is because it is correct.

>> Since this follows from the very mathematics of
>> the Lorentz transform which you claim to understand,
>> I will assume you know this is correct.
>>
>> In the case you don't agree, I challenge you to show that
>> the above is NOT what the Lorentz transform predicts.
>> General talk about symmetry won't do.

And neither will calling it gibberish.

The challenge stands.
No point in going on before this is settled.

Paul

Sorcerer

unread,

Sep 21, 2006, 10:42:53 AM9/21/06

to

"Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b....@hiadeletethis.no> wrote in message

news:eeu74l$ftu$1...@dolly.uninett.no...
| Koobee Wublee wrote:

| > This is gibberish. See my mistake and your mistake above.
|
| No, this won't do.
| I made no mistake,

Yes you did. v is dx/dt, u =dy/dt, w = dz/dt.
u = v.cos(phi) = v.0
Your stupid gamma gibberish = 1/sqrt(1 - u^2/c^2) = 1, moron.

Androcles

Rudolf Drabek

unread,

Sep 28, 2006, 5:07:54 AM9/28/06

to

Tom Roberts schrieb:

> Rudolf Drabek wrote:
> > What I can say as a "retired el. engineer" is, that SR is very limited.
>
> Hmmm. I guess I now qualify as a "retired engineer" too. But then, I
> retired from telecom engineering to take a job in physics....

So you are for sure younger, I think.
Thank you for your reply.
Rudi

>
> Yes, SR is limited in its applicability to local measurements. Still,
> the majority of measurements we make are local, and on earth the
> approximation involved in using SR is generally negligible for all lab
> experiments not involving gravitation.
>
>
> > It is based on c=const and inertial movement and that's all.
>
> There's a lot more to SR than that. The essence is that the
underlying
> manifold must be flat. That is a HUGE requirement, and is one not
> realized in the real world (except approximately).

Yes, but this fact was not known in 1905.

>
>
> > E.g. I start from here to Sirius with v=0.866c, gamma = 2
> > Why does the universe in direction to Sirius know, that it has to
> > shrink acc. to Gamma?
>
> That's a very basic misconception. The "universe" isn't "shrinking" at
> all, it is your MEASUREMENTS that are affected RELATIVE to the
> measurements of an earthbound (or Sirius-bound) observer.

I said it already:" So in reality -what is this?- it does not shrink,
it makes only the
impression for the traveller" = measurement.
Rudi

> Tom Roberts

Sue...

unread,

Sep 28, 2006, 5:39:47 PM9/28/06

to

Paul B. Andersen wrote:
> Sorcerer wrote:
> > You've gotta love this:
> > "Our students are motivated to study abroad".
> > Ref: http://www.hia.no/english/
>
> "Agder University College is one of the most internationally
> oriented University Colleges in Norway and emphasises student
> exchanges through European and national cooperation programmes
> and bilateral agreements.
>
> Our students are motivated to study abroad, either by taking an
> integrated part of their study programme with our Socrates/ Nordplus
> partners in Europe, with partners in the Unites States Australia and
> Asia or by continuing their studies abroad after graduation from
> Agder University College."

<< The McDonald Laser Ranging Station (MLRS) is a
dedicated laser ranging station capable of measuring
round trip light travel times to a constellation of artificial
earth satellites and lunar retro-reflectors to a precision
of about 1 centimeter and time of laser firing to about
35 picoseconds. Data from this station as well as 30-40
similar satellite-capable systems and one other regularly
contributing lunar-capable system around the world are
used for a variety of scientific pursuits including study
of the earth's gravitational field, plate tectonics, earth's
orientation in space, high precision time transfer, relativity,
lunar and solar system dynamics, and providing high
precision orbits for GPS and ocean top >>
http://www.csr.utexas.edu/mlrs/

<< ...
13. A new set of reduced 2-D fluid equations, O ce of Fusion Energy
Science Re-
mote Theory Seminar, Austin TX 2004.
14. Introduction to magnetic island theory, Center for Multiscale
Plasma Dynam-
ics, Plasma Physics Winter School, UCLA CA 2005.
15. Determining the phase velocity of magnetic islands in two-fluid
plasmas, 9th
Plasma Easter Meeting, Turin, Italy, 2005.
16. External modes and resistive wall modes, International School of
Fusion Reac-
tor Technology, Course on "Global and Local Control of Tokamak
Plasmas",
Erice, Sicily, 2005.>>
http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/cv.pdf
http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/

http://tiger.berkeley.edu/sohrab/cv.html

Course taught
http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching.html

>
> It works both ways, you know.
> The keyword is "exchange".
>
> Funny, eh?

YeaH... Yo purdy funny:
Curriculum Vitae
PDF version

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sohrab Ismail-Beigi
Department of Applied Physics
P.O. Box 208284
New Haven, CT 06520
phone: (203) 432-2107
fax: (203) 432-4283
E-mail: sohrab.is...@yale.edu
Web: http://www.eng.yale.edu/faculty/vita/ismail-beigi.htm
Born: June 14, 1971 in San Francisco, California
Citizenship: USA

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

EDUCATION

A.B. in Physics, Harvard College, Cambridge, Massachusetts. 1989-1993.

DEA degree in Statistical Physics and Non-linear Phenomena, Ecole
Normale Supérieure de Lyon, Lyon, France, 1993-1994.

Ph.D. in Physics, MIT, Cambridge, Massachusetts. Student of Prof.
Tomás Arias, MIT, Dept. of Physics. 1994-2000.

Postdoctoral Researcher in Physics, University of California at
Berkeley and Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Berkeley,
California. Working in the group of Prof. Steven G. Louie, Dept. of
Physics. 2000-2003.

Assistant Professor, Dept. of Applied Physics, Yale University. New
Haven, Connecticut. 2003-present

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

HONORS

Winner of a Certificate of Distinction in Teaching Award (Spring 1992).

Elected to Phi Beta Kappa as a Junior (Spring 1992).
Graduated summa cum laude (highest GPA possible) from Harvard College
(June 1993).
Winner of the Hoopes Prize for excellence in undergraduate research in
Physics: Thesis title: "Development of a New Interatomic Potential for
silicon" under the direction of Prof. Efthimios Kaxiras, Dept. of
Physics (June 1993).
Funding for Studies in Lyon, France provided for by a Rotary
International Ambassadorial Scholarship (September 1993-June 1994).
Winner of best graduate student poster prize at The Workshop On New
Methods In Electronic Structure (May 1999).
Invited paper for special issue of Computer Physics Communications on
``Parallel Computing in Chemical Physics'' (August 1999).
Invited talk at the Workshop on Recent Developments in Electronic
Structure Methods, Atlanta, GA (May 2000).
Invited talk at the Workshop on Recent Developments in Electronic
Structure Methods, Princeton, NJ (June 2001).
Invited talk at the 11th International Workshop on Computational
Physics and Materials Science, Trieste, Italy (January 2003).

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

PUBLICATIONS
``Free energy of concerted-exchange mechanism for self-diffusion in
silicon'', by A. Antonelli, S. Ismail-Beigi, E. Kaxiras, and K. C.
Pandey, Physical Review B, 53 1310 (1996).

``Edge-driven transition in surface structure of nanoscale silicon'',
by S. Ismail-Beigi and T.A. Arias, Physical Review B, 57 11923 (1998).
http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/cond-mat/9805343

``Paramagnetic Structure of the Soliton of the 30o Partial Dislocation
in Silicon'', by G. Csányi, S. Ismail-Beigi, and T. A. Arias, Physical
Review Letters, 80 3984 (1998).
http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/cond-mat/9805328

``Locality of the Density Matrix in Metals, Semiconductors, and
Insulators'', by S. Ismail-Beigi, and T. A. Arias, Physical Review
Letters, 82 2127 (1999). http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/cond-mat/9805147

``Ab Initio Study of Screw Dislocations in Mo and Ta: A new picture of
plasticity in bcc transition metals'', by S. Ismail-Beigi and T. A.
Arias, Physical Review Letters, 84 1499 (2000).
http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/cond-mat/9908110

``New Algebraic Formulation of Density Functional Calculation'',
invited paper for the special issue of Computer Physics Communications
on ``Parallel Computing in Chemical Physics'', by S. Ismail-Beigi and
T. A. Arias, Comp. Phys. Comm., 128 1-45 (June 2000).
http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/cond-mat/9909130

``Ab Initio approach to continuum calculations of solvation energies in
water'', by S. Ismail-Beigi, P. Marrone, M. Reagan, T. A. Arias, and J.
Tester. (Part of Ph.D. thesis) http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/cond-mat/0007514

``New Physics of the 30o Partial Dislocation in Silicon'' by G.
Csányi, T. D. Engeness, S. Ismail-Beigi, and T. A. Arias, Journal of
Physics: Condensed Matter 12 (2000) 10029.
http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/cond-mat/0011147

``Coupling of Nonlocal Potentials to Electromagnetic Fields'', by S.
Ismail-Beigi, E. K. Chang, and S. G. Louie, Physical Review Letters, 87
087402 (2001). http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/cond-mat/0101383

``Elasticity of nanometer-sized objects'', by D. E. Segall, S.
Ismail-Beigi, and T. A. Arias, Physical Review B, 65 214109 (2002).
http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/cond-mat/0004154

``Quasiparticle band structure of ZnS and ZnSe'', by W. Luo, S.
Ismail-Beigi, M. L. Cohen, and S. G. Louie, Phys. Rev. B 66, 195215
(2002).

``Ab Initio and Finite Temperature Molecular Dynamics Studies of
Lattice Resistance in Tantalum'', by D. S. Segall, S. Ismail-Beigi, A.
Strachan, W. A. Goddard III, and T. A., Arias, Phys. Rev. B 68, 014104
(2003).

``Excited-state Forces within the Ab Initio Bethe-Salpeter Formalism'',
by S. Ismail-Beigi and S. G. Louie, Phys. Rev. Lett 90, 076401 (2003).
http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/cond-mat/0207248.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

TALKS AND POSTERS

``Structural Properties, Surface and Edge Effects, and Phase
Transitions in Nanoscale Beams of Silicon'', American Physical Society
March Meeting, Saint Louis, Missouri, March 1996.

``Ab initio calculation of solvation energies for chemical reactions in
water near its critical point'', American Physical Society March
Meeting, Los Angeles, CA, March 1998.

``Locality of the Density Matrix In Metals, Semiconductors, and
Insulators'', Workshop On New Methods In Electronic Structure,
Philadelphia, May 1998.

``Ab initio Cores of <111> Screw Dislocations in Mo'', preliminary
results for work regarding the ASCII project, presented at Lawrence
Livermore National Laboratories, September 1998.

``Locality of the Density Matrix in Solids'', American Physical Society
March Meeting, Atlanta, GA, March 1999.

``Ab Initio Study of Dislocation Cores in BCC Molybdenum'', American
Physical Society Meeting, Atlanta, GA, March 1999.

``Ab Initio Study of [111] Screw Dislocations in Bcc Mo and Ta'',
Workshop On New Methods In Electronic Structure, Urbana-Champaign, IL,
May 1999 (winner of best graduate student poster prize).

``Ab initio Study of [111] Screw Dislocations in Bcc Mo and Ta'',
invited talk for work regarding the ASCII project, presented at
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratories, September 1999.

``Ab Initio Insights into Bcc Plasticity: A Different View of <111>
Screw Dislocations'', American Physical Society March Meeting,
Minneapolis, MN, March 2000.

``New Algebraic Formulation of Ab Initio Calculation: DFT++'', invited
talk at the Workshop on Recent Developments in Electronic Structure
Methods, Atlanta, GA, May 2000.

``Gauge-invariant Coupling of Nonlocal Potentials to Electromagnetic
Fields'', Workshop on Excited State Properties and Response Functions
for Materials (Sponsored by the Computational Materials Sciences
Network), Minneapolis, MN, November 2000.

``Coupling of Nonlocal Potentials to Electromagnetic Fields'', American
Physical Society March Meeting, Seattle, WA, March 2001.

``Coupling of Nonlocal Potentials to Electromagnetic Fields'', invited
talk at the Workshop on Recent Developments in Electronic Structure
Methods, Princeton, NJ, June 2001.

``Forces for Excited States within the Bethe-Salpeter Formalism'',
Workshop on Excited State Properties and Response Functions for
Materials (Sponsored by the Computational Materials Sciences Network),
Berkeley, CA, October 2001.

``Ab Initio Calculation of Forces in Optically Excited States'',
American Physical Society March Meeting, Indianapolis, IN, March 2002.

``Ab Initio Forces in Optically Excited States'', poster presented at
the Workshop for Recent Developments in Electronic Structure Methods,
Berkeley, CA, June 2002.

``Ab Initio Forces in Optically Excited States'', Workshop on Excited
State Properties and Response Functions for Materials (Sponsored by the
Computational Materials Sciences Network), Seattle, WA, September 2002.

``Excited-state Forces and Photoinduced Structural Changes within a
First Principles Green's Function Formalism'', American Physical
Society Meeting, Austin, TX, March 2003.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

RESEARCH EXPERIENCE

Research work with Prof. Wayne Hendrickson in the Dept. of Biochemistry
and Molecular Biophysics, Columbia University, New York (Summers of
1989, 1990, and 1991):

Implementation of fully anisotropic thermal ellipsoids in least squares
refinements programs for high-resolution X-ray crystallographic protein
structure determination; separation and purification of the two strains
of the protein Crambin via HPLC techniques for future crystallization
and high resolution studies; development and testing of various codes
for use in the X-ray crystallographic community to help facilitate and
accelerate the acquisition, processing, and fitting of protein
structure to X-ray diffraction data.

Research work with Prof. Martin Karplus at Harvard College (September
1991-May 1992):

Molecular Dynamics study of dielectric behavior of large collections of
water molecules as a preliminary step in calculation of solvation
energies; development of various system management codes for the
research group.

Research work with Prof. Efthimios Kaxiras at Harvard College (June
1992-June 1993):

Theoretical study of self diffusion in silicon mediated by the
concerted exchange mechanism using finite temperature Monte Carlo
methods and interatomic potentials; development of a new
coordination-dependent interatomic potential for silicon fit to a large
library of bulk structures and the energetics of their deformations.

Research for DEA degree under the direction of Prof. Stefan Fauve at
the Ecole Normale Supérieure de Lyon (September 1993-June 1994):

The study of the distribution of pressure and velocity fluctuations and
correlations in high Reynolds number fluid flows with high shear
stress.

Graduate Student in Physics with Prof. Tomás Arias at MIT (September
1994-2000):

Development, ab ovo, of a fully parallel ab initio code based on the
analytically continued functional technique (DFT++ formalism); work on
ab initio studies of the nature of surfaces, edges, and their
interactions in nano-scale structures of silicon; work on the
analytical decay rate of the electronic density matrix which has
important consequences for O(N) techniques and locality of electronic
perturbations; work on analytical studies and computational tests of
wavelet methods in ab initio calculations; work on the effect of
dielectric polarization on the super critical oxidation of methylene
chloride; ab initio studies of dislocation cores in BCC metals (screw
$\langle 111\rangle$ dislocations in Mo and Ta particular);
implementation of ab initio calculations on distributed memory parallel
architectures.

Postdoctoral work with Prof. Steven G. Louie at Berkeley (June
2000-2003):

Work on the use of many-body methods for study of the electronic
structure of excited states of materials (GW and Bethe-Salpeter
methods); calculation of forces on excited states within the
Bethe-Salpeter formalism geared toward the modeling and understanding
of photoluminescence; work on the coupling of electromagnetic fields to
nonlocal Hamiltonians; ongoing research on exciton trapping in SiO2,
optical properties of carbon nanotubes, and photoisomerization of
azobenzene.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

TEACHING EXPERIENCE

Teaching Assistant for Prof. Dror Bar-Natan for a year long
introductory first year course on Mathematics for students of Physics
and was a winner of a Certificate of Distinction in Teaching Award
(Harvard, September 1991-June 1992).

Teaching Assistantship for Prof. John Belcher in an intermediate level
Electrodynamics course (MIT, Fall 1994).

Teaching Assistantship for Prof. Ulrich Becker as Tutor for
introductory level Electrodynamics course (MIT, Spring 1999).

Substitute teacher and guest lecturer for graduate level introductory
Solid State courses of Profs. Marvin Cohen and Steven G. Louie (U. C.
Berkeley, 2001-present).

Supervision of two graduate students in the Louie group, Murilo Tiago
and Catalin Spataru, working on excited state azobenzene and optical
properties of carbon nanotubes, respectively (U. C. Berkeley
2002-present).

Instructor for Theory of Solids I, graduate level course, Dept. of
Applied Physics, Yale University, Fall 2003.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

REFERENCES
Prof. Tomás Arias
Laboratory of Atomic and Solid State Physics
522 Clark Hall
Cornell University
Ithaca, NY 14853-2501
(607) 255-0450
much...@ccmr.cornell.edu

Prof. Marvin Cohen
Department of Physics
366 Le Conate Hall #7300
University of California
Berkeley, CA 94720
(510) 642-4753
co...@civet.berkeley.edu

Prof. John Joannopoulos
Department of Physics
Room 12-116
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
77 Massachusetts Avenue
Cambridge, MA 02139
(617) 253-4806
joa...@mit.edu

Prof. Efthimios Kaxiras
Department of Physics
Harvard University
Cambridge, MA 02138
(617) 495-7977
kax...@cmt.harvard.edu

Prof. Steven G. Louie
Department of Physics
366 Le Conte Hall #7300
University of California
Berkeley, CA 94720
(510) 642-1709
sgl...@uclink.berkely.edu

Prof. Wayne Hendrickson
Department of Biochemistry and Molecular Biophysics
203 Black Building
Columbia University
New York, NY 10032
(212) 305-3456

BTW...
Neither of those blokes can claim spoonbending experitence...
...so Paul, you are light years ahead of them. ;-)

Sue...

Henri Wilson

unread,

Sep 29, 2006, 5:17:15 AM9/29/06

to

On Mon, 18 Sep 2006 20:32:54 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen"
<paul.b....@hiadeletethis.no> wrote:

>Rudolf Drabek wrote:
>> http://www.helmut-hille.de/uni-linz.html
>>
>> Abstract - An experiment is described showing that a 33 GHz microwave
>> signal received by rotating antennas is not exhibiting the frequency
>> shift ("transverse Doppler effect") predicted by the relativistic
>> Doppler formula. The sensitivity of the apparatus used has been tested
>> to be sufficient for detecting frequency shifts as small as 10-3 Hz
>> which corresponds to the value of (v/c)2 = 5.10-14 used in the
>> transverse Doppler shift experiment reported here. From the observed
>> absence of the transverse Doppler shift it is concluded that either the
>> time dilation predicted by the standard theory of special relativity
>> does not exist in reality or, if it does, is a phenomenon which does
>> not depend on relative velocities but may be a function of absolute
>> velocities in the fundamental frame of the isotropic microwave
>> background radiation.
>>
>> Can that be true?
>
>This experiment does not test the transverse Doppler shift
>predicted by SR. See below.

This experiment is a perfect example of how relativity is about to be exposed
as a complete fraud by modern instruments that can actually detect the very
small changes in light speed that occur around us continually.

The only reason Einsteinian relativity has survived for 100 years is because
until now, the means were not available to test it directly. They now are.

HW.
www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm

(another world-shattering announcement coming soon)

Paul B. Andersen

unread,

Sep 30, 2006, 11:40:45 AM9/30/06

to

I haven't got the foggiest idea of what your point
with this posting was.
But I suppose it wasn't an attempt to answer
the challenge you reminded me about the other day,
when you wrote:

Sue was referring to the following:

About a year ago, Sue challenged me:
http://tinyurl.com/fsovl

sue jahn wrote:
| You are of course welcome to advance an opinion
| about how an axel should behave if it were repeating
| a geosynchronous clock to the ground or if it were
| repeating a ground clock to a geosynchronous satellite.
| Neither you nor Bz seem able to interpret what Einstein's
| relativity say's the shaft should do.

My answer was:

| Why do you think I should have any problem with this?
| This is yet another old non paradox.
|
| Let there be a clock A on the ground at equator.
| Let there be a clock B in geostationary orbit.
| Let both clocks be on the same radius.
|
| Let A measure the proper duration of one Earth rotation to be T.
| Then, as you now know and have accepted is experimentally
| verified for clocks in GPS orbit, B will measure the proper
| duration of one Earth rotation to be longer, T + delta_T.
|
| Let there be an axle between the two clocks.
| Let this axle rotate in such a way that there is no
| mechanical stress in the axle.
| Let the axle rotate N times during one Earth rotation.
|

| A will measure the rotational frequency to be f_g = N/T
| while B will measure it to be f_s = N/(T + delta_T).
|

| So the ground clock will measure the axle to rotate
| faster than the satellite clock will, but both will
| agree that the axle rotates N times per Earth rotation.
|

| frequency * duration = number_of_rotations
| f_g*T = N
| f_s*(T + delta_T) = N
|

| Loosly said:
| "The satellite clock will see the axle rotate slower,
| but for a longer time."

MY challenge to YOU was:
I challenge you to point out an inconsistency in the above.

Here are your attempts so far:

#1:

sue jahn wrote:
| <<geosynchronous satellite.>>
| Neither will see the earth rotate.
| So your experssion:
|

| <<N times per Earth rotation.>>
|

| Reduces to division by zero.
|

| << Why do you think I should have any problem with this?>>
|

| Heal thyself.
| http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&safe=off&q=gear+ratio+calculat...
|
| Sue...

#4:
Sue wrote:
| If want you homework graded then hire a tutor or enroll in
| a physics class.

#5:
Sue wrote:
| If you have already taken a physics course I'll
| be happy to provide any statements or affidavits
| your lawyer might need in recovering your tuition.
|
| You really do deserve your money back.
| Make sure the catalog offered 'Physics' not
| 'Psychics' tho. I couldn't swear that you don't
| have some competance in the latter subject.
| As a matter of fact your spoonbending equations
| appear to be text-book perfect. ;-)

.. and that's it. Nothing but stupidities.

The challenge still is:
Can you to point out an inconsistency in the above?

When you have to flee the challenge, it is because
you cannot find any inconsistencies where none are.

But you aren't honest enough admit that.
Are you? :-)

Paul

Sue...

unread,

Sep 30, 2006, 2:42:44 PM9/30/06

to

Paul B. Andersen wrote:
> Paul
Receedng Clocks !! DORKMUNSTET !!!

<<< As judged from K,

[light path DORKMUNSTER!!!

As judged by ELECTROMAGNETISM over a

LIGHT PATH !!!
]

the clock is moving with the velocity v; as judged from this
reference-body, the time which elapses between two strokes of the clock
is not one second, but

http://www.bartleby.com/173/M5.GIF

seconds, i.e. a somewhat larger time. As a consequence of its motion
the clock goes more slowly than when at rest. Here also the velocity c
plays the part of an unattainable limiting velocity. >>

http://www.bartleby.com/173/12.html

I pity your students.
http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/pseudo.html
Remember the snake bite kit as you go to work.
One of your students could get bit handling snakes.

Sue...
http://web.mit.edu/8.02t/www/802TEAL3D/visualizations/light/index.htm
http://web.mit.edu/8.02t/www/802TEAL3D/teal_tour.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiple_integral

Sorcerer

unread,

Sep 30, 2006, 3:34:51 PM9/30/06

to

"Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b....@hiadeletethis.no> wrote in message
news:efm360$cnm$1...@dolly.uninett.no...

| I haven't got the foggiest idea

As we already know....
What are the three cube roots of 8, Tusselad?

But you aren't honest enough admit that.
Are you? :-)

In fact, you are a proven liar.
Aren't you? :-)
Androcles

Paul B. Andersen

unread,

Oct 1, 2006, 9:44:45 AM10/1/06

to

Sue... wrote:
> Paul B. Andersen wrote:
>> Paul
> Receedng Clocks !! DORKMUNSTET !!!
>
> <<< As judged from K,
>
> [light path DORKMUNSTER!!!
>
> As judged by ELECTROMAGNETISM over a
>
>
> LIGHT PATH !!!
> ]

As judged by Sue?

> the clock is moving with the velocity v; as judged from this
> reference-body, the time which elapses between two strokes of the clock
> is not one second, but
>
> http://www.bartleby.com/173/M5.GIF
>
> seconds, i.e. a somewhat larger time. As a consequence of its motion
> the clock goes more slowly than when at rest. Here also the velocity c
> plays the part of an unattainable limiting velocity. >>
>
> http://www.bartleby.com/173/12.html
>
> I pity your students.
> http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/pseudo.html
> Remember the snake bite kit as you go to work.
> One of your students could get bit handling snakes.
>
> Sue...
> http://web.mit.edu/8.02t/www/802TEAL3D/visualizations/light/index.htm
> http://web.mit.edu/8.02t/www/802TEAL3D/teal_tour.htm
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiple_integral

Did you try to say something?
In that case you didn't succeed.

Try again, and express yourself in an intelligible manner, please.

The challenge is still:

I challenge you to point out an inconsistency in the above.

Paul

Paul B. Andersen

unread,

Oct 1, 2006, 5:23:49 PM10/1/06

to

Henri Wilson wrote:
> On Mon, 18 Sep 2006 20:32:54 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen"
> <paul.b....@hiadeletethis.no> wrote:
>
>> Rudolf Drabek wrote:
>>> http://www.helmut-hille.de/uni-linz.html
>>>
>>> Abstract - An experiment is described showing that a 33 GHz microwave
>>> signal received by rotating antennas is not exhibiting the frequency
>>> shift ("transverse Doppler effect") predicted by the relativistic
>>> Doppler formula. The sensitivity of the apparatus used has been tested
>>> to be sufficient for detecting frequency shifts as small as 10-3 Hz
>>> which corresponds to the value of (v/c)2 = 5.10-14 used in the
>>> transverse Doppler shift experiment reported here. From the observed
>>> absence of the transverse Doppler shift it is concluded that either the
>>> time dilation predicted by the standard theory of special relativity
>>> does not exist in reality or, if it does, is a phenomenon which does
>>> not depend on relative velocities but may be a function of absolute
>>> velocities in the fundamental frame of the isotropic microwave
>>> background radiation.
>>>
>>> Can that be true?
>> This experiment does not test the transverse Doppler shift
>> predicted by SR. See below.

I also wrote:
| To understand what I write below, the reader will have to
| read the paper.
| http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/iel5/7883/21718/01007152.pdf

> This experiment is a perfect example of how relativity is about to be exposed
> as a complete fraud by modern instruments that can actually detect the very
> small changes in light speed that occur around us continually.

Henri, you are babbling again.
Neither did you read the paper, nor did you read what I wrote below.
You don't know what you are talking about.
I suspect this is beyond your abilities anyway.

> The only reason Einsteinian relativity has survived for 100 years is because
> until now, the means were not available to test it directly. They now are.

This isn't true, of course, but it IS true that modern technology
has made it possible to test SR with higher precision.

The Ives-Stilwell experiment (1938) which verified the transverse
Doppler shift predicted by SR, is repeated with modern equipment:
http://www.mpi-hd.mpg.de/ato/rel/
http://tinyurl.com/ftmjq
http://tinyurl.com/zbczk

So indeed, now it is possible to test the SR Doppler prediction
with unprecedented precision.
Which is done.
SR passed the test and is better confirmed than ever.

The technology used in this experiment:
http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/iel5/7883/21718/01007152.pdf
isn't particularly new, it could have been made in the 1960ies.
But anybody with a reasonable knowledge of mathematics, physics
and microwave technology can see that this experiment tests
nothing but causality.
Causality survived. :-)

BTW, Henri:
Did you know that both Ives and Stilwell were anti-relativists?
They expected to falsify SR with their experiment.
But they were honest scientists, and didn't "doctor" their data
to get the result they wanted.
They reported the truth - their experiment confirmed SR.

Paul

Henri Wilson

unread,

Oct 1, 2006, 5:48:52 PM10/1/06

to

On Sun, 01 Oct 2006 23:23:49 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen"
<paul.b....@hiadeletethis.no> wrote:

As John Kennaugh once pinted out, the so called 'SR transverse doppler shift'
is just what the BaTh predicts.

>
>The technology used in this experiment:
>http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/iel5/7883/21718/01007152.pdf
>isn't particularly new, it could have been made in the 1960ies.
>But anybody with a reasonable knowledge of mathematics, physics
>and microwave technology can see that this experiment tests
>nothing but causality.
>Causality survived. :-)

Excellent! It proves the BaTh.

>BTW, Henri:
>Did you know that both Ives and Stilwell were anti-relativists?

I suppose they were aetherists. ...just as bad...

>They expected to falsify SR with their experiment.
>But they were honest scientists, and didn't "doctor" their data
>to get the result they wanted.
>They reported the truth - their experiment confirmed SR.

No, Paul, they supported the BaTh.

You are wrong again...

>Paul

harry

unread,

Oct 2, 2006, 6:31:12 AM10/2/06

to

"Henri Wilson" <HW@..> wrote in message
news:ccoph2htv2caetsa5...@4ax.com...

Why do you think that lightspeed plays a role in this experiment?
Harald

harry

unread,

Oct 2, 2006, 6:35:04 AM10/2/06

to

"Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b....@hiadeletethis.no> wrote in message
news:efpbl7$nft$1...@dolly.uninett.no...
SNIP

> BTW, Henri:
> Did you know that both Ives and Stilwell were anti-relativists?
> They expected to falsify SR with their experiment.
> But they were honest scientists, and didn't "doctor" their data
> to get the result they wanted.
> They reported the truth - their experiment confirmed SR.
>
> Paul

Paul, obviously you should read their paper again! They expected to prove
not only the reality of time dilation but even its value, and they succeeded
(although it is debatable if they really achieved the required precision).

Harald

Paul B. Andersen

unread,

Oct 2, 2006, 4:52:11 PM10/2/06

to

Quite.
If John Kennaugh said so, it must be right even if it is wrong.
Right? :-)

>> The technology used in this experiment:
>> http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/iel5/7883/21718/01007152.pdf
>> isn't particularly new, it could have been made in the 1960ies.
>> But anybody with a reasonable knowledge of mathematics, physics
>> and microwave technology can see that this experiment tests
>> nothing but causality.
>> Causality survived. :-)
>
> Excellent! It proves the BaTh.

Quite.
It tests nothing, but proves the BaTh.

>
>> BTW, Henri:
>> Did you know that both Ives and Stilwell were anti-relativists?
>
> I suppose they were aetherists. ...just as bad...
>
>> They expected to falsify SR with their experiment.
>> But they were honest scientists, and didn't "doctor" their data
>> to get the result they wanted.
>> They reported the truth - their experiment confirmed SR.
>
> No, Paul, they supported the BaTh.
>
> You are wrong again...

I think you know you are babbling, Henri.

Paul

Sue...

unread,

Oct 2, 2006, 5:40:41 PM10/2/06

to

Paul B. Andersen wrote:
> I challenge you to point out an inconsistency in the above.

Paul,

I owe you an apolgy.
That is not to say your argument is wright or wrong.

...but I am wrong to to question your creditentals as
a dedicated educator.

Relativy has plenty of room for ~liquid~

Honesty... I said "I pity your students'

I want those words back.

Teaching is the most honorable profession

http://www.training.sfahq.com/images/crest_animated.gif
Course taught
http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching.html
"Space time"
http://farhttp://web.mit.edu/8.02t/www/802TEAL3D/visualizations/light/index.htmside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/em/lectures/node113.html

I want those words back.
But you can't unring a bell.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Q-factor

Kind regards,

Sue...

>
> Paul

Henri Wilson

unread,

Oct 3, 2006, 3:04:12 AM10/3/06

to

On Mon, 02 Oct 2006 22:52:11 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen"
<paul.b....@hiadeletethis.no> wrote:

>Henri Wilson wrote:
>> On Sun, 01 Oct 2006 23:23:49 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen"
>> <paul.b....@hiadeletethis.no> wrote:
>>
>>> Henri Wilson wrote:

>>> So indeed, now it is possible to test the SR Doppler prediction
>>> with unprecedented precision.
>>> Which is done.
>>> SR passed the test and is better confirmed than ever.
>>
>> As John Kennaugh once pinted out, the so called 'SR transverse doppler shift'
>> is just what the BaTh predicts.
>
>Quite.
>If John Kennaugh said so, it must be right even if it is wrong.
>Right? :-)

It was correct.
The transverse doppler shift of the BaTh is exactly what SR claims as its own
unique discovery.
.

>>> The technology used in this experiment:
>>> http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/iel5/7883/21718/01007152.pdf
>>> isn't particularly new, it could have been made in the 1960ies.
>>> But anybody with a reasonable knowledge of mathematics, physics
>>> and microwave technology can see that this experiment tests
>>> nothing but causality.
>>> Causality survived. :-)
>>
>> Excellent! It proves the BaTh.
>
>Quite.
>It tests nothing, but proves the BaTh.

The BaTh doesn't need any more proof.

>>> They expected to falsify SR with their experiment.
>>> But they were honest scientists, and didn't "doctor" their data
>>> to get the result they wanted.
>>> They reported the truth - their experiment confirmed SR.
>>
>> No, Paul, they supported the BaTh.
>>
>> You are wrong again...
>
>I think you know you are babbling, Henri.

Paul, how can SR be correct? You agree that nothing happens to rods or clocks
because of a velocity change yet you claim that something DOES happen to GPS
clocks, as observed by the original observer in the original frame using the
original time reference?

Tell us what really happens? Do rods and clocks physically change or not?

Paul B. Andersen

unread,

Oct 3, 2006, 7:25:25 AM10/3/06

to

I don't know what you are talking about.
If you ever questioned my credentials, you didn't
get that message above the noise level of your posting.

But I know what you are NOT talking about.
My challenge to you.

The challenge is still:

Rudolf Drabek

unread,

Oct 3, 2006, 8:26:51 AM10/3/06

to

Henri Wilson schrieb:

Nothing happens to your clock and your rod. Your = clock and rod is at
you not moving.
Others, moving, only measure your clock delayed and your rod to be
shorter and vice versa.
That is not in confict with logic.
As I also said in this thread: according to my clock I travelled to
Sirius with 2x0.866c.
That is equal to the 1st part of the Twin paradox. Otherwise he would
not come back aged less.

You need not to accept SR. What I feel is, that as long as SR and GR
can predict/explain what is going on, it is a good tool, state of the
art. Tomorrow there could be an enhanced theory.
Galilei transformation is not valid near c. If c would have another,
higher value, all the formulas would still be valid near the other
value. So you can't get out.
Only in our thoughts we can imagine infinite speed, making us all the
troubles with Einstein.
Rudi

Paul B. Andersen

unread,

Oct 3, 2006, 8:37:16 AM10/3/06

to

Henri, the issue is this paper:
http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/iel5/7883/21718/01007152.pdf

You wrote about it:

| This experiment is a perfect example of how relativity is about to be exposed
| as a complete fraud by modern instruments that can actually detect the very
| small changes in light speed that occur around us continually.

But since you have made no attempt to defend your statement, and have
made no attempt to refute my critique of the paper, I will assume
that you have accepted that the experiment does not test what was
supposed to test.

If you don't agree, read the paper, read my critique,
and point out exactly where I am wrong.

General babble is of no interest.

Paul

Sorcerer

unread,

Oct 3, 2006, 9:45:08 AM10/3/06

to

"Rudolf Drabek" <news...@aon.at> wrote in message
news:1159878411.3...@c28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...

No, of course not, we all see trains move by peristalsis.

That is not in confict with logic.

http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Smart/Smart.htm

Otherwise you will not come back aged less, you MORON!

What I feel is, that as long as SR and GR
| can predict/explain what is going on, it is a good tool, state of the
| art.

Oh definitely, you fuckin' idiot.

| Tomorrow there could be an enhanced theory.
| Galilei transformation is not valid near c. If c would have another,
| higher value, all the formulas would still be valid near the other
| value. So you can't get out.

You wouldn't know what a transformation is, dumbshit.

| Only in our thoughts we can imagine infinite speed, making us all the
| troubles with Einstein.
| Rudi

Thoughts? Did you say thoughts?
You don't have any. You "feel" what you told to "feel", you imbecile.
Fuck off and come back when you can think.
Androcles