Re: The Nanometre Twin
- From: "Sue..." <suzysewnshow@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 08 Nov 2007 13:19:21 -0800
On Nov 8, 3:28 pm, stevendaryl3...@xxxxxxxxx (Daryl McCullough) wrote:
Sue... says...
On Nov 8, 1:57 pm, bz <bz+...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
"Sue..." <suzysewns...@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in news:1194546462.698019.201940
@k35g2000prh.googlegroups.com:
Your twin's clock is at 1/3f
He sees stayhome's newscast at 1/3 per day.
So he is observing no Doppler shift which is
inconsistant with experience.
Does that double negative indicate that the Doppler shift he observes IS
consistent with experience?
Or do you claim that he sees NO Doppler shift (period)?
AND that the lack of Doppler shift is consistent with experience?
The absence of dopper shift seems incosistance with our experience.
It's been explained to you many times that there is a *huge*
Doppler shift. Dennis observes a Doppler shift factor of 1/3
for images arriving from Sue. The factor of 1/3 means:
1. Sue sends her first signal on day 1 (according to her clock)
Staythome's clock is a light-clock with dielectric between the
mirrors.
2. Dennis receives the first signal from Sue on day 3
(according to his clock).
Travler's clock is a light clock with dielectric *moving* between the
mirrors.
3. Sue sends her second signal on day 2 (by her clock).
4. Dennis receives this signal on day 6 (by his clock).
Now he knows his clock is thrown off by the moving dielectric.
Can he switch to a Rolex ? <rhetorical>
<< The Doppler factor is 1/3. Why are you saying "the absence
of Doppler shift"? >>
You didn't specify a light clock that would respond
to motion through the dielectric and mask the
doppler effect so I compared the rates you gave
as tho the Traveler had a normal clock.
You didn't show moving media will slow a light clock
but I'll stipulate that it does. The rest of your
gyrations *seem* to show that moving a light-clock
through a dielectric doesn't interfere with both
twins receiving all the newscasts.
That was my position anyway.
You are very confused.
Indeed, and you intended to confuse.
Names such as Stella and Terra
are customary in this sort of problem.
I don't know what your beef was with Dennis McCarthy
bet please save your insults and games for him.
In closing this
There is no evidence that the process of moving a
pair of mirrors through a dielectric has any
effect on a twins life or hair growth.
If the twin's body was exposed to the
intestellar media moving at a significant
fraction of the speed of light, I think
I'd bet on it shortening his life and
possibly removing all his hair.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_space
http://www-ssg.sr.unh.edu/ism/what.html
Kind regards,
Sue...
--
Daryl McCullough
Ithaca, NY- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: The Nanometre Twin
- From: Daryl McCullough
- Re: The Nanometre Twin
- References:
- Re: The Nanometre Twin
- From: Sue...
- Re: The Nanometre Twin
- From: Daryl McCullough
- Re: The Nanometre Twin
- Prev by Date: Re: Second time dimension
- Next by Date: Re: The "Venus/Mercury Radar Reflection Conjunction Anomaly", is a firm motive to question Special relativity and a support for the idea of "Planetary lightspeed frame dragging" by a so called LASOF. ( Local Anti-Symmetrical Oscillating vacuum Frame)
- Previous by thread: Re: The Nanometre Twin
- Next by thread: Re: The Nanometre Twin
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|