Re: Swift grb satelitte
From: George Dishman (george_at_briar.demon.co.uk)
Date: 02/03/05
- Next message: Uncle Al: "Re: gravitons"
- Previous message: Jack Sarfatti: "Cahill Michelson-Morley Data as Broken Boost Vacuum Symmetry?"
- In reply to: sean: "Re: Swift grb satelitte"
- Next in thread: sean: "Re: Swift grb satelitte"
- Reply: sean: "Re: Swift grb satelitte"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Thu, 3 Feb 2005 19:01:35 -0000
"sean" <jaymoseley@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1107450638.037431.138870@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> Hu George
Hi Sean,
> I think you will have to accept that I am correct to say that reducing
> the shorter
> wavelengths speed willbring its frequency into sync with that of the
> longer
> wavelength contrary to what you are saying in this therad.
Not without finding out why our opinions differ. I
have been working with waveforms of this type for
over 25 years so I know from experience that what
I am saying is correct. I'm sure you also feel what
you are saying is correct.
> Im not
> sure what you are trying to prove with your calculations are but they
> dont prove
> I am wrong. In fact I have twice now posed this
> question to sci.maths and the answers support my point of view
> one below being a sample. Im not sure why you think that reducing the
> speed of
> a wavelength will NOT reduce its observed frequency! What else could it
> do?
For a given wavelength it would, but we aren't
starting with a given wavelength, we start with a
given frequency.
> It doesnt take a great intellectual leap to then realize that my
> argument that
> a shorter and longer wavelengths can be brought into sync by reducing
> the
> shorter wavelengths speed is correct. In fact the answers on sci.maths
> were generally scathing intheir tone that I would even consider
> anything else
> is possible. Please note then that this allows my argument re redshift
> by path length
> rather than dilation to be still a valid model.
> regards
> Sean
>
> below is one reply from sci maths.
>
> You say "Both wavelengths now have the same frequency" as if this is
> surprising but wavelength = velocity / frequency so why would it be
> surprising? I think you may be trying to recreate Zeno's stadium
> paradox but this doesn't seem to do that. Remember, both waves are
> moving so they have the freedom to align with each other if the
> velocity of each is adjusted.
The problem with that answer is that it assumes the
signals are emitted with a given wavelength, and if
that was the case I would agree, the received
frequencies would be the same. However, the problem
is different, the same source emits two different
frequencies which then travel with different speeds.
I'll reply separately to your email as I think your
animation can resolve this. BTW, I wasn't ignoring
you, I just got in from work and this was only posted
an hour ago.
George
- Next message: Uncle Al: "Re: gravitons"
- Previous message: Jack Sarfatti: "Cahill Michelson-Morley Data as Broken Boost Vacuum Symmetry?"
- In reply to: sean: "Re: Swift grb satelitte"
- Next in thread: sean: "Re: Swift grb satelitte"
- Reply: sean: "Re: Swift grb satelitte"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|