Re: SR false?


"Dirk Van de moortel" <dirkvandemoortel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote
in message news:Rv6Qg.86156$9k5.1271914@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
|
| "Koobee Wublee" <koobee.wublee@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1158730340.903000.267690@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
| > 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

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




.

Relevant Pages
Quantcast