Relativistic Blue or Red Shift?
Koobee Wublee
** dt’ = (dt – B\ * ds\ / c) / sqrt(1 – B^2)
Or dt’ = dt (1 – B\ * v\ / c) / sqrt(1 – B^2)
Where
** B\ c = Velocity vector of the primed frame as observed by the
unprimed
** ds\ = Displacement vector
** v\ = ds\ / dt
** ‘*’ = Dot product operator
Thus, for light,
** f’ = f sqrt(1 – B^2) / (1 – B\ * v\ / c)
Where
** f’ = 1 / dt’, Frequency thing
** f = 1 /dt, Also frequency thing
** v / c = 1, Light propagation itself
Also according to the Lorentz transform, the energy transform is
** E’ = (E – B\ * p\ c) / sqrt(1 – B^2)
Where
** p\ = Momentum vector thing
Thrown in Planck’s discovery,
** f’ = (f – B\ * p\ c / h) / sqrt(1 – B^2)
** f’ = f (1 – B\ * v\ / c) / sqrt(1 – B^2)
Where
** E’ = h f’
** E = h f
** h = Planck’s constant
** p\ = h f v\ / c^2
** v / c = 1, Light propagation itself
The Doppler shift of energy transformation does not agree with time
transformation. So, how does one go around to resolve this apparent
contradiction in special relativity?
Ps. I tried to post this under sci.physics.research. I got a lame
excuse to censor my post of being full of non-standard ASCII
characters.
Eric Gisse
> According to the Lorentz transform of time,
>
> ** dt’ = (dt – B\ * ds\ / c) / sqrt(1 – B^2)
>
> Or dt’ = dt (1 – B\ * v\ / c) / sqrt(1 – B^2)
This is not the Lorentz transform.
When you spend several years harping on an historically insignificant
figure like Voight, the least you could do is correctly attribute the
formula as the _differential form_ of the Lorentz transform. Lorentz
never wrote differential forms, nor did he write the transform for
vectors.
>
> Where
>
> ** B\ c = Velocity vector of the primed frame as observed by the
> unprimed
> ** ds\ = Displacement vector
> ** v\ = ds\ / dt
> ** ‘*’ = Dot product operator
>
> Thus, for light,
>
> ** f’ = f sqrt(1 – B^2) / (1 – B\ * v\ / c)
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/HBASE/Relativ/reldop2.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relativistic_Doppler_effect
No wonder you can never answer basic questions like "where did you
learn this? which book?", because it is clear you _didn't_.
[snip rest]
Dono.
>
>
> Ps. I tried to post this under sci.physics.research. I got a lame
He had one look at your imbecility and decided to relegate you back to
the asylum where you belong.
Michael Moroney
>Ps. I tried to post this under sci.physics.research. I got a lame
>excuse to censor my post of being full of non-standard ASCII
>characters.
Google Groups uses the unofficial although fairly common windows-1252
charset by default, which uses their own quote rather than ascii quotes.
I'm somewhat surprised that a moderator uses this as a reason for
nonposting, but I'd suggest using a real newsreader to post rather than
Google Groups.
Eric Gisse
wrote:
Ten bucks says it was really because he couldn't say "you are a
fucking moron. you will never post here".
Koobee Wublee
> On Jul 10, 11:20 pm, Koobee Wublee wrote:
>
> > According to the Lorentz transform of time,
>
> > ** dt’ = (dt – B\ * ds\ / c) / sqrt(1 – B^2)
>
> > Or dt’ = dt (1 – B\ * v\ / c) / sqrt(1 – B^2)
>
> This is not the Lorentz transform.
What a fvcking idiot. Gisse the college drop-out cannot even
recognize the Lorentz transform.
[... rest of crap snipped]
BURT
What happens to the energy shift if light strikes sideways? or at
right angles to motion?
It dissappears.
Mitch Raemsch
Mitch Raemsch
molly
> > Ps. I tried to post this under sci.physics.research. I got a lame
> > excuse to censor ....
try posting in one newsgroup, why three?
> He had one look at your imbecility and decided to relegate you back to
> the asylum where you belong.
yeh, a moderated newsgroup is the name isn't it? Only for the elite :-).
Just the same censorship as reviewers apply for articles they don't
understand.
The moderator could block spampostings but shouldn't has the rights to
refuse normal postings.
Even 'stupid' people who react to an article have the right to get an answer
and not being blocked by an idiot called the moderator.
................................................................
Posted via TITANnews - Uncensored Newsgroups Access
>>>> at http://www.TitanNews.com <<<<
-=Every Newsgroup - Anonymous, UNCENSORED, BROADBAND Downloads=-
Peter Webb
> transformation.
You must read a lot of comic books.
Marvin the Martian
Indeed! SR is based on energy conservation. I don't think the OP
understands SR enough to comment on it.
John Park
> On Jul 11, 6:47=A0am, moro...@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney)>> >Ps. =A0I tried to post this under sci.physics.research. =A0I got a lame
>> >excuse to censor my post of being full of non-standard ASCII
>> >characters.
>>
>> Google Groups uses the unofficial although fairly common windows-1252
> =A0
>> I'm somewhat surprised that a moderator uses this as a reason for
>> nonposting, but I'd suggest using a real newsreader to post rather than
>> Google Groups.
>
> Ten bucks says it was really because he couldn't say "you are a
> fucking moron. you will never post here".
I'm certainly not going to take your bet, but his message is a real mess on
my newsreader, viz:
----------------
According to the Lorentz transform of time,
** dt=92 =3D (dt =96 B\ * ds\ / c) / sqrt(1 =96 B^2)
Or dt=92 =3D dt (1 =96 B\ * v\ / c) / sqrt(1 =96 B^2)
[&c]
----------------
--John Park
Androcles
"John Park" <af...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote in message
news:h3dsjc$gs6$1...@theodyn.ncf.ca...
> Eric Gisse (jow...@gmail.com) writes:
>> On Jul 11, 6:47=A0am, moro...@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney)
>> wrote:
>>> Koobee Wublee <koobee.wub...@gmail.com> writes:
>>> >Ps. =A0I tried to post this under sci.physics.research. =A0I got a lame
>>> >excuse to censor my post of being full of non-standard ASCII
>>> >characters.
>>>
>>> Google Groups uses the unofficial although fairly common windows-1252
>>> charset by default, which uses their own quote rather than ascii quotes.
>>> =
>> =A0
>>> I'm somewhat surprised that a moderator uses this as a reason for
>>> nonposting, but I'd suggest using a real newsreader to post rather than
>>> Google Groups.
>>
>> Ten bucks says it was really because he couldn't say "you are a
>> fucking moron. you will never post here".
>
> I'm certainly not going to take your bet, but his message is a real mess
> on
> my newsreader, viz:
>
> ----------------
> According to the Lorentz transform of time,
There isn't one. Lorentz hadn't read H.G. Wells' "Time Machine".
'Really, this is what is meant by the Fourth Dimension, though some people
who talk about the Fourth Dimension do not know they mean it. It is only
another way of looking at Time. There is no difference between Time and any
of the three dimensions of Space except that our consciousness moves along
with it.' -- Herbert George Wells - "The Time Machine" - 1895.
"The secret to creativity is knowing how to hide your sources." --Einstein
Next, some real science:
Koobee Wublee
> Eric Gisse (jowr...@gmail.com) writes:
> > Ten bucks says it was really because he couldn't say "you are a
> > fucking moron. you will never post here".
>
> I'm certainly not going to take your bet,
That is indeed a wise decision.
> but his message is a real mess on
> my newsreader, viz:
I posted all news messages through Google. You known about Google,
right?
> ----------------
> According to the Lorentz transform of time,
>
> ** dt=92 =3D (dt =96 B\ * ds\ / c) / sqrt(1 =96 B^2)
>
> Or dt=92 =3D dt (1 =96 B\ * v\ / c) / sqrt(1 =96 B^2)
>
> [&c]
> ----------------
Your news reader screwed up big time. Toss it out and use a free one
from Google. Your newsreader replaced the following:
** =92 with ASCII character 39 or 96, single quote
** =3D with ASCII character 61, equal sign
** =96 with ASCII character 45, minus sign
Hope this helps.
Koobee Wublee
> Indeed! SR is based on energy conservation. I don't think the OP
> understands SR enough to comment on it.
Is MM serious that he does not know what equations I had to establish
that conclusion?
Hint:
** E’ = m’ c^2 / sqrt(1 – B^2)
** E’ = h f’
** E = h f
See the blue shift? Ahahaha...
zzbu...@netscape.net
Well, the simplest way is to recognoize that the Special Theory of
Relativity
is as much a Philosophic Doctrime as it is a Theory.
And then you just proceed to build Atomic Clock Wristwatches,
Optical Computers, Micocomputers, Distributed Processing Software,
Fiber Optic Systems, DSP Systems, Flat Screen Software Debuggers, C+
+,
PGP, XML, USB, GPS, Digital Terrain Mapping, Holograms,
Laser Disk Libraries, Blue Ray, HDTV, All-In-One Printers, On-Line
Banking,
On-Line Publishing, UAVs, AAVs, Self-Replcating Machines, Self-
Assembling
Robots, Electronic Books, Pv Cell Energy, and Light Sticks for
Xerox Cranks like Scientists and Philosophers.
Musatov
Juan R.
sci.physics.research is kind of special regarding character encoding,
strict 72 characters per line, and other software odd requirements...
It is not censorship, just ancient moderators software/hardware.
Eric Gisse
Energy conservation? Are you sure?
Eric Gisse
Ok. Produce one reference in which Lorentz writes the Lorentz
transform in differential form. Or with a vector.
If you can be a pedantic moron, I can be too.
Koobee Wublee
> On Jul 11, 9:11 pm, Koobee Wublee wrote:
> > What a fvcking idiot. Gisse the college drop-out cannot even
> > recognize the Lorentz transform.
>
> Ok. Produce one reference in which Lorentz writes the Lorentz
> transform in differential form. Or with a vector.
I will not show you, and you will continue to fail your exams. That
is why you remain a college dropout today. <shrug>
dt’ = (dt – B\ * ds\ / c) / sqrt(1 – B^2)
Even your gay pal moortel the nitwit, the troll, and the liar
understands that so but refuses to help you to understand it.
Ahahaha... Hey, college dropout, you are on your own. <shrug>
> If you can be a pedantic moron, I can be too.
You are always a pedantic moron. <shrug>
Eric Gisse
> On Jul 13, 5:35 am, Eric Gisse <jowr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Jul 11, 9:11 pm, Koobee Wublee wrote:
> > > What a fvcking idiot. Gisse the college drop-out cannot even
> > > recognize the Lorentz transform.
>
> > Ok. Produce one reference in which Lorentz writes the Lorentz
> > transform in differential form. Or with a vector.
>
You confuse "will not" with "can not".
You know you are wrong so you throw out your boilerplate insults. I'll
have my degree when I pay the parking ticket I got 15 minutes before
leaving campus - if you want to see it, you can pay the 30 dollars.
Koobee Wublee
> On Jul 13, 12:44 pm, Koobee Wublee wrote:
> > I will not show you [...]
>
> You confuse "will not" with "can not".
I know I am right. If I were wrong about the time transformation of
the Lorentz transform. Your gal pal moortel, professors Roberts and
Draper, and aunt Al would come down on me hard. You are alone in
claiming that $hit. <shrug>
> You know you are wrong so you throw out your boilerplate insults. I'll
> have my degree when I pay the parking ticket I got 15 minutes before
> leaving campus - if you want to see it, you can pay the 30 dollars.
With your ignorance, it is better that you remain a college dropout.
<shrug>
Eric Gisse
> On Jul 13, 8:15 pm, Eric Gisse <jowr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Jul 13, 12:44 pm, Koobee Wublee wrote:
> > > I will not show you [...]
>
> > You confuse "will not" with "can not".
>
> I know I am right. If I were wrong about the time transformation of
> the Lorentz transform. Your gal pal moortel, professors Roberts and
> Draper, and aunt Al would come down on me hard. You are alone in
> claiming that $hit. <shrug>
I never claimed it was wrong, I just claimed that the _differential
form_ of the Lorentz transformation is not _THE_ Lorentz
transformation. As someone who has written tens of thousands of words
on the subject, I would figure you'd appreciate the correctness.
This is why your ignorant barking is so hilarious. You ramble
endlessly about historical irrelevancies like Voigt but you don't even
recognize aspects of special relativity when it is thrown in your
face.
>
> > You know you are wrong so you throw out your boilerplate insults. I'll
> > have my degree when I pay the parking ticket I got 15 minutes before
> > leaving campus - if you want to see it, you can pay the 30 dollars.
>
> With your ignorance, it is better that you remain a college dropout.
> <shrug>
You sure do talk big for someone with no college education and not
enough balls to post his various anti-semitic rants under his real
name.
Koobee Wublee
> On Jul 13, 8:56 pm, Koobee Wublee wrote:
>
> > I know I am right. If I were wrong about the time transformation of
> > the Lorentz transform. Your gal pal moortel, professors Roberts and
> > Draper, and aunt Al would come down on me hard. You are alone in
> > claiming that $hit. <shrug>
>
> I never claimed it was wrong, I just claimed that the _differential
> form_ of the Lorentz transformation is not _THE_ Lorentz
> transformation.
Oh, a different but still idiotic ranting. <shrug>
> [... snipped the rest of ranting crap unread]
The bottom line is that there are several contradictions in the very
mathematics of the Lorentz transform in which SR is merely an
interpretation to it. The self-styled physicists hypnotize (if they
understand), ignore (if they believe), or close their eyes (if they do
not understand). The outcome is the same. They all worship a
speculation that is internally and fatally flawed right from the very
beginning. Wouldn’t that qualify them to be losers? Ahahaha...
* * * * *
Most people are ignorant. They rely on these so-called “experts” to
think for them. When these so-called “experts” tell them that
Einstein was a god, they then BELIEVE IN the lies. In truth, Einstein
was nothing more than a nitwit, a plagiarist, and a liar. In the
past, I have explained very clearly why Einstein was a nitwit, a
plagiarist, and a liar. A few of the zealous type would start to
bully me around instead of attacking what I have said. Please note.
I am not easily intimidated by bullies. <shrug>
So, here are the Q-and-A’s to help someone learn about the history of
relativity.
Q: Who first came up with the principle of relativity?
A: Not Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar but Galileo.
Q: Who first came up with the invariant speed of light thing?
A: Not Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar but Voigt.
Q: Who first came up with the Lorentz transform?
A: Not Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar but Voigt.
Q: Who first discovered relative simultaneity?
A: Not Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar but Poincare
despite relative simultaneity thing being completely illogical and
thus wrong.
Q: Who first interpreted the Lorentz transform in SR?
A: Not Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar but
Poincare. SR is the interpretation to the Lorentz transform with
relative simultaneity as the property of the Lorentz transform.
Q: Who first came up with the principle of equivalence?
A: Not Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar but Galileo
again.
Q: Who first came up with the mathematical description of curved
space?
A: Not Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar but Riemann.
Q: Who first came up with the geodesic equations?
A: Not Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar but
Christoffel.
Q: Who first came up with the Riemann curvature tensor?
A: Not Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar but Ricci.
Q: Who first came up with the Ricci curvature tensor?
A: Not Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar but Levi-
Civita.
Q: Who first came up with a set of field equations that satisfy only
the Laplace equations (in vacuum)?
A: Not Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar but
Nordstrom.
Q: Who first came up with the set of field equations that satisfy the
Poison equation?
A: Not Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar but Hilbert.
Q: Who first came up with the photo-electric effect?
A: Not Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar but Planck.
Q: So, what did Einstein do?
A: Nothing, Einstein was merely a nitwit, a plagiarist, a liar.
<shrug>
Q: On the subject of differential geometry, is it not the geometry
invariant regardless whichever observer using whichever coordinate
system describing this geometry?
A: The answer must be yes. Or else, there is no need to continue.
<shrug>
Q: Can a series of coordinates sufficiently describe an invariant
geometry?
A: No, you still need to find out what the metric is. The invariant
geometry can only be described mathematically by the presence of both
the metric and the coordinates. <shrug>
Q: Can the metric alone describe the invariant geometry with knowing
what coordinate system is utilized?
A: No, again for the benefit of the retarded, it takes both the
metric and the coordinate system to describe the geometry. <shrug>
Q: Are there any more questions?
A: Oh, yes. Koobee Wublee raises his hand.
Q: What are solutions to the field equations that are static,
spherically symmetric, and asymptotically flat?
A: There was Schwarzschild’s original solution. He knew that by
selecting a metric with a determinant of -1, the Ricci curvature
tensor can be drastically reduced. In doing so, he had to transform
his coordinate to another one that results in the metric with a
determinant of -1. After he obtained the solution, to comply with the
rules of mathematics, he must covert his solution back to the original
spherically symmetric polar coordinate system. Although his original
solution has nothing like the Schwarzschild metric and does not
manifest any black holes, nevertheless his solution before the
transformation resembles the Schwarzschild metric in some way.
Q: Then, who actually came up with the Schwarzschild metric?
A: It was none other than the wizard himself --- Hilbert.
Q: So, why do the self-styled physicists insist on the Schwarzschild
metric (which manifest black holes) as the true solution while others
such as Schwarzschild’s original solution as a mere coordinate
transform of the Schwarzschild metric itself?
A: It is mostly the fact of the self-styled physicists do not
understand the mathematics involved despite it being very straight
forward. There was this guy Birkhoff who one day out of the blues
started singing the song the self-styled physicists love to hear.
That is the Birkhoff’s theorem in which it states that all solutions
that are static, spherically symmetric, and asymptotically flat must
be the Schwarzschild metric.
Q: What is the support to the Birkhoff’s theorem?
A: There is none. When confronted, the self-styled physicists are so
embarrassed to show any works related to the phony claim of the
Birkhoff’s theorem. It is not even funny but fraud. <shrug>
Q: Without Birkhoff’s theorem (which is a fraud that is proven false
by examples), what is other basis for the self-styled physicists to
claim all the infinite number of static, spherically symmetric,
asymptotically flat solutions to the field equations as a mere
transformation of the divine Schwarzschild metric?
A: There is none besides more bullying. <shrug>
Q: So, the following is also a solution that does not manifest any
black holes, to the field equations, that is static, spherically
symmetric, and asymptotically flat. What is the basis that it is a
coordinate transformation of the Schwarzschild metric but not the
other way around?
ds^2 = c^2 T dt^2 / (1 + 2 K / r) – (1 + 2 K / r) dr^2 – (r + K)^2
dO^2
Where
** K, T = Integration constants
** dO^2 = cos^2(Latitude) dLongitude^2 + dLatitude^2
Recall the Schwarzschild metric:
ds^2 = c^2 T (1 - 2 K / r) dt^2 – dr^2 / (1 - 2 K / r) – r^2 dO^2
A: Beats me. It is a religious belief thing. <shrug>
Orwellian education is already here deeply rooted in the minds of the
self-styled physicists aka Einstein Dingleberries:
** FAITH IS THEORY
** LYING IS TEACHING
** NITWIT IS GENIUS
** OCCULT IS SCIENCE
** PARADOX IS KOSHER
** BULLSHIT IS TRUTH
** BELIEVING IS LEARNING
** IGNORANCE IS KNOWLEDGE
** MYSTICISM IS WISDOM
** CONJECTURE IS REALITY
** PLAGIARISM IS CREATIVITY
** MATHEMAGICS IS MATHEMATICS
<shrug>
Dono.
> According to the Lorentz transform of time,
>
> ** dt’ = (dt – B\ * ds\ / c) / sqrt(1 – B^2)
>
> Or dt’ = dt (1 – B\ * v\ / c) / sqrt(1 – B^2)
>
> Where
>
> ** B\ c = Velocity vector of the primed frame as observed by the
> unprimed
> ** ds\ = Displacement vector
> ** v\ = ds\ / dt
> ** ‘*’ = Dot product operator
>
> Thus, for light,
>
> ** f’ = f sqrt(1 – B^2) / (1 – B\ * v\ / c)
>
Kooby,
You had the choice of two formulas:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relativistic_Doppler_effect#Motion_in_an_arbitrary_direction
As expected, you chose the wron one to make your point (you chose eq.1
when you should have chosen eq.2). Eq.2 and the result of the energy-
momentum transformation are in agreement:
i.e. f'=f*\gamma*(1-B\*v/c)
Note that I used your exact demented notation, such that you don't get
fucking confused.
This is what happens when yo try to disprove what you don't
understand, eminent imbecile.
Koobee Wublee
> On Jul 11, 12:20 am, Koobee Wublee wrote:
> > According to the Lorentz transform of time,
>
> > ** dt’ = (dt – B\ * ds\ / c) / sqrt(1 – B^2)
>
> > Or dt’ = dt (1 – B\ * v\ / c) / sqrt(1 – B^2)
>
> > Where
>
> > ** B\ c = Velocity vector of the primed frame as observed by the
> > unprimed
> > ** ds\ = Displacement vector
> > ** v\ = ds\ / dt
> > ** ‘*’ = Dot product operator
>
> > Thus, for light,
>
> > ** f’ = f sqrt(1 – B^2) / (1 – B\ * v\ / c)
>
> You had the choice of two formulas:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relativistic_Doppler_effect#Motion_in_an...
>
> As expected, you chose the wron one to make your point (you chose eq.1
> when you should have chosen eq.2). Eq.2 and the result of the energy-
> momentum transformation are in agreement:
>
> i.e. f'=f*\gamma*(1-B\*v/c)
Is this a joke? I am not amused.
Why do I get all these idiots to reply on something that is so
trivial?
This says a lot about the population base of these self-styled
physicists. They cannot even do any elementary mathematics.
This proves why the self-styled physicists have remained mystified in
the past one hundred years. They are a bunch of morons who are not
even experts in their own fields. Sad.
<shrug>
> [... More whining nonsense snipped]
Dono.
>
>
> Is this a joke? I am not amused.
>
Yes, the joke's on you, Kooker. If you really want to find fault with
relativity, you need to learn it first. So far, you haven't managed
<shrug>
Eric Gisse
[snip sad, pathetic rant]
http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/1921/
Nobel prize, asshole.
Koobee Wublee
So what if Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar received
a Nobel Prize in 1921? Einstein remains a nitwit, a plagiarist, and a
liar. The fact is undeniable. It is all in history as well as in
mathematics. <shrug>
I have pointed out a contradiction within SR, and yet no self-styled
physicists dare to take up the challenge to resolve this
contradiction. The self-styled physicists (Professors Carlip,
Roberts, and Draper) cannot resolve this contradiction. The self-
styled physicists want-to-be (Uncle Al and Professor Andersen) cannot
resolve this contradiction. The college dropout bunch who like to
play house pretending to be self-styled physicists (Gisse, moortel,
Dono, Whoever, Webb, and many others) just have no clues at all.
Well, the self-styled physicists can choose to close their eyes and
pretend this contradiction does not exist. Remember what asked with
the question why a stupid lie can last for more than a hundred years,
this is how. <shrug>
Dono.
>
> I have pointed out a contradiction within SR,
No, "Kookie", you just pointed out a "rookie" mistake (yet another
one) in your "knowledge" of SR.
Pretty elementary, you picked the wrong formula for the relativistic
Doppler effect.
Yep, "Kookie", you did a "rookie" :-)
Kind of deflating revelation for the balloon filled with ass-gas that
you are , eh?
Koobee Wublee
> On Jul 14, 9:41 pm, Koobee Wublee wrote:
> > I have pointed out a contradiction within SR,
>
> [... illiterate ranting crap snipped]
>
> Kind of deflating revelation for the balloon filled with ass-gas that
> you are , eh?
So, Dono spends all day along sniffing out of balloons filled with ass-
gas. That would certainly explain the low-level intellectual might in
Dono. Ahahaha... Thanks for the laughs.
Sam Wormley
Can't articulate a physics argument, Koobee?
Koobee Wublee
> Can't articulate a physics argument, Koobee?
Try this, Sam.
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/6dcc831b6ae84dd5?hl=en
Musatov
Blue shift:
Results 1 - 10 for blue shift musatov. (0.23 seconds)
1.
Relativistic Blue or Red Shift? - sci.math | Google Groups
Jul 12, 2009 ... Message from discussion Relativistic Blue or
Red Shift? ... See the blue shift? Ahahaha... Yes. -- MM. (Martin
Musatov) http://MeAmI.org ...
groups.google.com/group/sci.math/msg/bcd7392ae672b69d
2.
Math Forum Discussions
Jul 13, 2009 ... Re: Relativistic Blue or Red Shift? Posted: Jul
13, 2009 1:57 AM ... See the blue shift? Ahahaha... Yes. -- MM (Martin
Musatov) ...
mathforum.org/kb/message.jspa?messageID=6782446&tstart=105
3.
Relativistic Blue or Red Shift? - sci.physics | Google Groups
17 posts - 7 authors - Last post: yesterday
The Doppler shift of energy transformation does not agree with
time ..... See the blue shift? Ahahaha... Yes. -- MM. (Martin
Musatov) ...
groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse.../c007c33984225d7a?
lnk...
4.
Math Forum Discussions
Topic: Relativistic Blue or Red Shift? Replies: 4 Last Post: Jul
13, 2009 8:34 AM ... Martin Michael Musatov. 7/13/09 ...
mathforum.org/kb/message.jspa?messageID=6782412&tstart=60
5.
Discussions - sci.physics.relativity | Google Groups
10 posts - 9 authors - Last post: 2 days ago
Relativistic Blue or Red Shift? 28 new of 28 - Jul 14 ... Google
Groups Alert for: Musatov proof michelson morley experiment
questions ...
groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity?lnk=rgh
6.
Math Forum Discussions
Topic: Relativistic Blue or Red Shift? Replies: 3 Last Post: Jul
13, 2009 1:57 AM ... Martin Michael Musatov ...
mathforum.org/kb/message.jspa?messageID=6782412&tstart=15
7.
Specific cation binding site in mammalian cytochrome oxidase ...
However, at acidic pH, Na+ brings about a blue shift of ferrous
heme a ... with Drs. A. Musatov and V. Berka in the Institute of
Experimental Physics, ...
linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0014579398001173
by A Kirichenko - 1998 - Cited by 16 - Related articles - All 6
versions
8.
Math Forum Discussions
Jul 13, 2009 ... Registered: 2/3/05. Re: Relativistic Blue or
Red Shift? Posted: Jul 13, 2009 8:34 AM ... Blue or Red Shift? Martin
Michael Musatov. 7/13/09 ...
mathforum.org/kb/message.jspa?messageID=6782699&tstart=105
9.
Gross Confusion in Differential Geometry - sci.physics | Google
Groups
7 posts - 3 authors - Last post: 2 days ago
mathematics of GR indicates gravitational blue shift rather than
red shift. To most learned scholars ... From: "Musatov"
<qu...@nutsack.com> ...
groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse.../83ca054b570adb3a?
lnk...
10.
Phospholipase Digestion of Bound Cardiolipin Reversibly ...
Analytical ultracentrifuge studies were performed according to
Musatov and Robinson .... resulting in a small blue shift of about
1.5-1.7 nm in λmax of the ...
pubs.acs.org/cgi-bin/jtext?bichaw/38/i28/abs/bi990603r
by B Gomez Jr - 1999 - Cited by 62 - Related articles - All 4
versions
Eric Gisse
> On Jul 14, 5:19 pm, Eric Gisse <jowr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Jul 14, 2:29 pm, Koobee Wublee <koobee.wub...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/1921/
>
> > Nobel prize, asshole.
>
> So what if Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar received
> a Nobel Prize in 1921? Einstein remains a nitwit, a plagiarist, and a
> liar. The fact is undeniable. It is all in history as well as in
> mathematics. <shrug>
"SO WHAT if the man was honored by the most prestigious organization
in science?", the retired engineer sniffed...
>
> I have pointed out a contradiction within SR, and yet no self-styled
> physicists dare to take up the challenge to resolve this
> contradiction. The self-styled physicists (Professors Carlip,
> Roberts, and Draper)
...all of whom have something you do not: A PhD in physics, and the
balls to post under their real name.
[...]
Please continue to fight the brave fight by whining about Einstein for
another decade. Surely 15 years of another pseudononymous idiot
slinging feces at Einstein will _finally_ change the world's
perception of the man!
Androcles
"Koobee Wublee" <koobee...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:537642a9-a78e-4c7b...@j32g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...
There is no Lorentz transform of time. Can't articulate a physics argument,
Koobee?
Musatov
Born bright and blue:
Google Groups Alert for: Martin Musatov
" <http://www.google.com/url?sa=X&q=http://groups.google.com/
g/2757fef6/t/c8de8ee33f5ceb07/d/
7e036990b2b80266&ct=ga&cd=SykNXikfpnQ&usg=AFQjCNEdFO4-
p7TCrJjppqHpe2lfta0qIg> Musatov"...
http://plms.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/reprint/s3-53/1/143.pdf by TW
Korner - 1986 - Cited by 7 Respectfully, ++ Martin Musatov Los
Angeles, ...
<http://groups.google.com/group/sci.math?hl=en> sci.math - Jul 15,
2009 by - 79 message - 15 author
Dono.
> On Jul 14, 10:26 pm, "Dono." <sa...@comcast.net> wrote:
> Kind of deflating revelation for the balloon filled with ass-gas that
> you are , eh?
>
"Kookie" "Rookie" mistake:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/38cd05682a083896
You need to run into a corner and lick your wounds, Kookie
Koobee Wublee
Let me remind you that I was talking about a contradiction in the
Lorentz transform of SR. Here is the original post.
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/6dcc831b6ae84dd5?hl=en
Let’s see. The group of college dropouts including Gisse and Dono
brought us Nobel Prize and licking wounds. Yet, none of these craps
has anything to do with my original post above. So, I am not
interested in whining crap but only counter-contradiction to my above
discovery.
Let’s see. The self-styled physicists choose not to confront this
subject but encouraging these stupid college dropouts to disrupt the
discussion. Well, next time anyone claims how a fraud can perpetuate
for almost a century. Here is a finest example. The self-styled
physicists merely choose to ignore any contradictions to their
BELIEVES in the nonsense of SR and GR. <shrug>
Thus, by ignoring the contradictions, there are no more problems to
report. However, this is not science but a fraud. <shrug>
Dono.
>
> Let me remind you that I was talking about a contradiction in the
> Lorentz transform of SR. Here is the original post.
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/6dcc831b6ae...
>
> Let’s see. The group of college dropouts including Gisse and Dono
> brought us Nobel Prize and licking wounds.
Yes, "Kookie" , you made a "rookie" mistake
In your Alzheimer-pickled brain, you think that you refuted SR when,
in reality, you picked the wrong formula for the relativistic Doppler
effect :
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/38cd05682a083896
Rookie mistake, Kookie .....
Eric Gisse
[snip all, unread]
Repetition doesn't equal correctness. Ken Seto has been saying the
same stupid shit for 15 years now and nobody takes him seriously.
If you don't like it when I respond to you, you shouldn't respond.
Koobee Wublee
Dono.
> Let me remind you that I was talking about a contradiction in the
> Lorentz transform of SR. Here is the original post.
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/6dcc831b6ae...
>
> Let’s see. The group of college dropouts including Gisse and Dono
> brought us Nobel Prize and licking wounds.
Rookie mistake, Kookie
Go hide in the corner and lick your wounds :-)
Koobee Wublee
following Q and A.
Eleaticus
View:
1.
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.math/search?group=sci.math&q=sci.physics
Specifically:
2.
Musatov marty.musa...@gmail.com sci physics relativity sci physics sci
math On
Jul 14, 11:53 pm, Koobee Wublee <koobee.wub...@gmail.com> wrote: On
Jul 14, 11:
01 pm, ... sci.physics | Google Groups 17 posts - 7 authors - Last
post:
yesterday The Doppler shift of energy transformation does not agree
with time .
...
Jul 15 by Musatov - 44 messages - 14 authors
The Theorem of M-Time (suggests)
4 1 44 1 4
30 / 2
1 4 5
Dooppler Shift @ )(<0) = 1
--Musatov
Vindicator2009
Math Guru
> Nobel prize, yes, claim it I will despite the sad, pathetic rants have we witnessed! MMM
Sue...
> According to the Lorentz transform of time,
>
> ** dt’ = (dt – B\ * ds\ / c) / sqrt(1 – B^2)
>
> Or dt’ = dt (1 – B\ * v\ / c) / sqrt(1 – B^2)
>
> Where
>
> ** B\ c = Velocity vector of the primed frame as observed by the
> unprimed
> ** ds\ = Displacement vector
> ** v\ = ds\ / dt
> ** ‘*’ = Dot product operator
>
> Thus, for light,
>
> ** f’ = f sqrt(1 – B^2) / (1 – B\ * v\ / c)
>
>
> ** f’ = 1 / dt’, Frequency thing
> ** f = 1 /dt, Also frequency thing
> ** v / c = 1, Light propagation itself
>
> Also according to the Lorentz transform, the energy transform is
>
> ** E’ = (E – B\ * p\ c) / sqrt(1 – B^2)
>
> Where
>
> ** p\ = Momentum vector thing
>
> Thrown in Planck’s discovery,
>
> ** f’ = (f – B\ * p\ c / h) / sqrt(1 – B^2)
>
> ** f’ = f (1 – B\ * v\ / c) / sqrt(1 – B^2)
>
> Where
>
> ** E’ = h f’
> ** E = h f
> ** h = Planck’s constant
> ** p\ = h f v\ / c^2
> ** v / c = 1, Light propagation itself
>
==========
> The Doppler shift of energy transformation does not agree with time
> transformation. So, how does one go around to resolve this apparent
> contradiction in special relativity?
Model the motion of a electron in a moving conductive
reflector. Then it will work out.
~Doppler~
http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s2-04/2-04.htm
~Retarded potentials~
http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/em/lectures/node50.html
Sue...
>
> Ps. I tried to post this under sci.physics.research. I got a lame
> excuse to censor my post of being full of non-standard ASCII
> characters.