Re: TIME DILATION
From: Androcles (dummy_at_dummy.net)
Date: 11/05/04
- Next message: John C. Polasek: "Re: Is Einstein's Principle of Equivalence true?"
- Previous message: xxein: "Re: Revised Hypothesis"
- In reply to: ande452_at_attglobal.net: "Re: TIME DILATION"
- Next in thread: Dirk Van de moortel: "Re: TIME DILATION"
- Reply: Dirk Van de moortel: "Re: TIME DILATION"
- Reply: TomGee: "Re: TIME DILATION"
- Reply: V ertner Vergon: "Re: TIME DILATION"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Fri, 05 Nov 2004 03:34:03 GMT
<ande452@attglobal.net> wrote in message
news:418B1631.71F5@attglobal.net...
: TomGee wrote:
: >
: > vergon_enterprises@highstream.net (V ertner Vergon) wrote in
message news:<b337f5db.0411040747.4f8cbb2e@posting.google.com>...
: > > lvlus@hotmail.com (TomGee) wrote in message
news:<cc2dde17.0411031902.1b127691@posting.google.com>...
: > > > vergon_enterprises@highstream.net (V ertner Vergon) wrote in
message news:<b337f5db.0411030703.398b0f89@posting.google.com>...
: > > > > lvlus@hotmail.com (TomGee) wrote in message
news:<cc2dde17.0411021646.449202d3@posting.google.com>...
: > >
: > > > > Vergon:
: > > > >
: > > > > Thank you for your comment, Tom.
: > > > >
: > > > > As an answer all I can do is repeat the part of my
monograph that
: > > > > deals with it.
: > > > >
: > > > > "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.
: > > >
: > > >
: > > > I understood it to mean that one must measure very high speeds
with
: > > > the relativistic rate in order to obtain proper results.
Classical
: > > > Doppler distinguishes between the source and receiver motion,
: > > > depending on which one is moving, but relativistic Doppler
doesn't and
: > > > simply provides averages to the classical Doppler
more-specific
: > > > results. AFAIK, it is not claimed that relativistic Doppler
equations
: > > > _confirm_ time dilation. They are used from Einstein's time
dilation
: > > > predictions in order to provide proper results.
: > > >
: > > VERGON:
: > >
: > > Mother Nature likes to play tricks. If you take the non
relativistic
: > > Doppler rate and multiply it by the time dilation rate you get
the
: > > proper Doppler rate.
: > >
: >
: > I may be wrong about this, but as I understand it, when we are
: > measuring light, the shift is relativistic Doppler. When we are
: > measuring objects moving at far less speeds than c, the shift is
: > non-relativistic Doppler.
:
: The two Doppler shifts are the "same". If v << c,
: the relativistic formula reduces to the non-relativistic one.
:
: Your posting seems to imply that these are two different
: expressions that need to be used depending on relative velocity.
:
: They aren't. The relativistic one reduces to the non-relativistic
: one in the the limit that v << c.
:
What ARE you smoking, Anderson? What IS the limit of v << c?
Negative infinity, perhaps?
: John Anderson
- Next message: John C. Polasek: "Re: Is Einstein's Principle of Equivalence true?"
- Previous message: xxein: "Re: Revised Hypothesis"
- In reply to: ande452_at_attglobal.net: "Re: TIME DILATION"
- Next in thread: Dirk Van de moortel: "Re: TIME DILATION"
- Reply: Dirk Van de moortel: "Re: TIME DILATION"
- Reply: TomGee: "Re: TIME DILATION"
- Reply: V ertner Vergon: "Re: TIME DILATION"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|