Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #596343 > unrolled thread

SR without panties

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity

Contents

  SR without panties beda pietanza <bedapietanza@gmail.com> - 2022-11-27 15:43 -0800
    Re: SR without panties rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2022-11-27 17:38 -0800
    Re: SR without panties rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2022-11-27 17:42 -0800
      Re: SR without panties beda pietanza <bedapietanza@gmail.com> - 2022-11-28 01:43 -0800
      Re: SR without panties Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-11-28 01:53 -0800
    Re: SR without panties Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2022-11-28 01:28 -0500
      Re: SR without panties whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2022-11-28 00:54 -0600
        Re: SR without panties Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-11-29 08:36 +0100
          Re: SR without panties beda pietanza <bedapietanza@gmail.com> - 2022-11-29 02:33 -0800
          Re: SR without panties whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2022-11-29 12:46 -0600
            Re: SR without panties Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-11-30 09:01 +0100
              Re: SR without panties whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2022-11-30 11:43 -0600
                Re: SR without panties Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-12-01 10:33 +0100
                  Re: SR without panties Mitch Leoni <nien@iltcntco.ws> - 2022-12-01 16:15 +0000
                    Re: SR without panties Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-12-02 08:04 +0100
      Re: SR without panties Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-11-27 23:09 -0800
      Re: SR without panties beda pietanza <bedapietanza@gmail.com> - 2022-11-29 02:23 -0800
        Re: SR without panties Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2022-11-29 21:52 -0500
          Re: SR without panties Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-11-29 22:40 -0800
          Re: SR without panties beda pietanza <bedapietanza@gmail.com> - 2022-11-30 03:47 -0800

#596343 — SR without panties

I will here construct the Doppler effect as it take place in the reality:
A source A at speed v1 is relatively moving versus a receiver B at speed v2:
either the A and B have their clock rate of 1 Hz in their own reference frame.
A and B are approaching, both traveling at .5c
what physically happens:
1)the source A clock rate is lowered by its speed to a rate of
rt=sqroot(1-v1^2)=.8660Hz
2)the source A sends in space a Doppler shifted a rate of
r tra.=1*(sqroot(1-v1^2)/(1-v1))=1.732Hz
3)the 1.732Hz rate travels unchanged to the receiver B
4)the receiver B receives the rate of 1.732Hz that is doppler shifted of
r rec.=1.732*(1+v2)/sqroot(1-v2^2)=3Hz
So the normal classic Doppler formula give a Doppler shift of 3
B receives 3Hz from A
Which is the same result given by the nebulous SR formula:
in our case the relative speed is=(.5+.5)/(1+.5*.5)=.8c
the SR Doppler recived rate is
r rec.=sqroot((1+vrel)/(1-vrel.)),=sqroot(1.8/.2)=sqroot(9)=3Hz.

Conclusion the classic formulae gives the same correct result of the
SR formula. 
but the real physics beyond the Doppler effects are the passages above 1)2)3)and4), please look careful at each of them, because that is what really physically happens to source, receiver and in space.

Now an important addendum: neither of the two approach matches perfectly the reality, because the math formulae cannot perfectly reproduce the truly behavior of the physical objects, however they are made, the material rulers or clocks, under the changing circumstances  reacts differently, somehow, from what the math formulae theoretical predicts.
regards
beda

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#596346

On Sunday, November 27, 2022 at 6:44:01 PM UTC-5, bedapi...@gmail.com wrote:
> I will here construct the Doppler effect as it take place in the reality: 
> A source A at speed v1 is relatively moving versus a receiver B at speed v2: 
> either the A and B have their clock rate of 1 Hz in their own reference frame. 
> A and B are approaching, both traveling at .5c 
> what physically happens: 

"physically" ? How do you define that? 
And, irrelevant to physics; its a philosophical concept.

> 1)the source A clock rate is lowered by its speed to a rate of 
> rt=sqroot(1-v1^2)=.8660Hz 

Yes, using normalized units c=1.

> 2)the source A sends in space a Doppler shifted a rate of 
> r tra.=1*(sqroot(1-v1^2)/(1-v1))=1.732Hz 

Correct.

> 3)the 1.732Hz rate travels unchanged to the receiver B 
> 4)the receiver B receives the rate of 1.732Hz that is doppler shifted of 
> r rec.=1.732*(1+v2)/sqroot(1-v2^2)=3Hz 

You jumped a step here. The receiver receives it at 1.732*(1+v2).
And since the receiver is "moving" with speed v2, his
tie is "slow" by its gamma factor. So he measiures the rate of
the incoming signal to be1.732*(1+v2) / sqroot(1-v2^2).


> So the normal classic Doppler formula give a Doppler shift of 3 
> B receives 3Hz from A 
> Which is the same result given by the nebulous SR formula.

Correct.
 
> Conclusion the classic formulae gives the same correct result of the 
> SR formula. 

Yes, this is all well known; it the LET approach. Nothing new here. 


> but the real physics beyond the Doppler effects are the passages above 1)2)3)and4), 
> please look careful at each of them, because that is what really physically happens to source, receiver and in space. 

This is all well known, and physicist have "moved on" from that approach. You know why?

> Now an important addendum: neither of the two approach matches perfectly the reality, ...

They are *models* with each their "axioms". 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#596347

On Sunday, November 27, 2022 at 6:44:01 PM UTC-5, bedapi...@gmail.com wrote:
> I will here construct the Doppler effect as it take place in the reality:
> A source A at speed v1 is relatively moving versus a receiver B at speed v2:
> either the A and B have their clock rate of 1 Hz in their own reference frame.
> A and B are approaching, both traveling at .5c
> what physically happens:

"physically" ? How do you define that?
And, irrelevant to physics; its a philosophical concept.

> 1)the source A clock rate is lowered by its speed to a rate of
> rt=sqroot(1-v1^2)=.8660Hz

Yes, using normalized units c=1.  (*)

> 2)the source A sends in space a Doppler shifted a rate of
> r tra.=1*(sqroot(1-v1^2)/(1-v1))=1.732Hz

Correct.

> 3)the 1.732Hz rate travels unchanged to the receiver B
> 4)the receiver B receives the rate of 1.732Hz that is doppler shifted of
> r rec.=1.732*(1+v2)/sqroot(1-v2^2)=3Hz

You jumped a step here. The receiver receives it at 1.732*(1+v2).
And since the receiver is "moving" with speed v2, his
tie is "slow" by its gamma factor. So he measiures the rate of
the incoming signal to be1.732*(1+v2) / sqroot(1-v2^2).


> So the normal classic Doppler formula give a Doppler shift of 3
> B receives 3Hz from A
> Which is the same result given by the nebulous SR formula.

Correct.

> Conclusion the classic formulae gives the same correct result of the
> SR formula.

Yes, this is all well known; it the LET approach. Nothing new here.


> but the real physics beyond the Doppler effects are the passages above 1)2)3)and4),
> please look careful at each of them, because that is what really physically happens to source, receiver and in space.

This is all well known, and physicist have "moved on" from that approach. You know why?

> Now an important addendum: neither of the two approach matches perfectly the reality, ...

They are *models* with each their "axioms".

(*). There is a little error in there that you omitted; If this were true, you could solve for v1.
However, one can not measure this v1. Why? What did you omit? An exercise for you...

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#596355

Il giorno lunedì 28 novembre 2022 alle 02:42:53 UTC+1 rotchm ha scritto:
> On Sunday, November 27, 2022 at 6:44:01 PM UTC-5, bedapi...@gmail.com wrote: 
> > I will here construct the Doppler effect as it take place in the reality: 
> > A source A at speed v1 is relatively moving versus a receiver B at speed v2: 
> > either the A and B have their clock rate of 1 Hz in their own reference frame. 
> > A and B are approaching, both traveling at .5c 
> > what physically happens:
> "physically" ? How do you define that? 
> And, irrelevant to physics; its a philosophical concept.
beda
In a communicating effort the attempt is to exchange meaningful ideas, during the iterative process of debate is important the final results, terminology used helps,but is less important of the good will of the counterparts.
> > 1)the source A clock rate is lowered by its speed to a rate of 
> > rt=sqroot(1-v1^2)=.8660Hz
> Yes, using normalized units c=1. (*)
> > 2)the source A sends in space a Doppler shifted a rate of 
> > r tra.=1*(sqroot(1-v1^2)/(1-v1))=1.732Hz
> Correct.
> > 3)the 1.732Hz rate travels unchanged to the receiver B 
> > 4)the receiver B receives the rate of 1.732Hz that is doppler shifted of 
> > r rec.=1.732*(1+v2)/sqroot(1-v2^2)=3Hz
> You jumped a step here. The receiver receives it at 1.732*(1+v2). 
> And since the receiver is "moving" with speed v2, his 
> tie is "slow" by its gamma factor. So he measiures the rate of 
> the incoming signal to be1.732*(1+v2) / sqroot(1-v2^2).
beda
I ncopy past my quote
4)the receiver B receives the rate of 1.732Hz that is doppler shifted of
r rec.=1.732*(1+v2)/sqroot(1-v2^2)=3Hz 
> > So the normal classic Doppler formula give a Doppler shift of 3 
> > B receives 3Hz from A
> > Which is the same result given by the nebulous SR formula. 
> 
> Correct.
> > Conclusion the classic formulae gives the same correct result of the 
> > SR formula.
> Yes, this is all well known; it the LET approach. Nothing new here.
> > but the real physics beyond the Doppler effects are the passages above 1)2)3)and4), 
> > please look careful at each of them, because that is what really physically happens to source, receiver and in space.
> This is all well known, and physicist have "moved on" from that approach. You know why? 
> 
> > Now an important addendum: neither of the two approach matches perfectly the reality, ... 
> 
> They are *models* with each their "axioms". 
> 
> (*). There is a little error in there that you omitted; If this were true, you could solve for v1. 
> However, one can not measure this v1. Why? What did you omit? An exercise for you...
beda
to many birds in my head, there are too many whys,so better tel me if you please.
thanks for the attention
beda

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#596357

On Monday, 28 November 2022 at 02:42:53 UTC+1, rotchm wrote:
> On Sunday, November 27, 2022 at 6:44:01 PM UTC-5, bedapi...@gmail.com wrote: 
> > I will here construct the Doppler effect as it take place in the reality: 
> > A source A at speed v1 is relatively moving versus a receiver B at speed v2: 
> > either the A and B have their clock rate of 1 Hz in their own reference frame. 
> > A and B are approaching, both traveling at .5c 
> > what physically happens:
> "physically" ? How do you define that? 
> And, irrelevant to physics; its a philosophical concept.
> > 1)the source A clock rate is lowered by its speed to a rate of 
> > rt=sqroot(1-v1^2)=.8660Hz
> Yes, using normalized units c=1. (*)
> > 2)the source A sends in space a Doppler shifted a rate of 
> > r tra.=1*(sqroot(1-v1^2)/(1-v1))=1.732Hz
> Correct.
> > 3)the 1.732Hz rate travels unchanged to the receiver B 
> > 4)the receiver B receives the rate of 1.732Hz that is doppler shifted of 
> > r rec.=1.732*(1+v2)/sqroot(1-v2^2)=3Hz
> You jumped a step here. The receiver receives it at 1.732*(1+v2). 
> And since the receiver is "moving" with speed v2, his 
> tie is "slow" by its gamma factor. So he measiures the rate of 
> the incoming signal to be1.732*(1+v2) / sqroot(1-v2^2).

In the meantime in the real world, however, forbidden 
by your bunch of idiots GPS and TAI keep measuring t'=t,
just like all the serious clocks always did.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#596350

On 11/27/2022 6:43 PM, beda pietanza wrote:
> I will here construct the Doppler effect as it take place in the reality:
> A source A at speed v1 is relatively moving versus a receiver B at speed v2:
> either the A and B have their clock rate of 1 Hz in their own reference frame.

Hold on, if A is moving relative to B at v1, then B is moving relative 
to A at -v1. You wrote v2.  Or did you mean A moves relative to (some 
unmentioned) C, perhaps an observer, at v1, and B moves relative to C or 
the observer at v2?

<snip rest as ambiguous until this is cleared up>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#596351

On 11/28/2022 12:28 AM, Volney wrote:
> On 11/27/2022 6:43 PM, beda pietanza wrote:
>> I will here construct the Doppler effect as it take place in the reality:
>> A source A at speed v1 is relatively moving versus a receiver B at 
>> speed v2:
>> either the A and B have their clock rate of 1 Hz in their own 
>> reference frame.
> 
> Hold on, if A is moving relative to B at v1, then B is moving relative 
> to A at -v1. You wrote v2.  Or did you mean A moves relative to (some 
> unmentioned) C, perhaps an observer, at v1, and B moves relative to C or 
> the observer at v2?

If you use the term "relative to" then there is no + or -. As a
simple "difference" the number is absolute. There are workarounds
that can get you to arithmetic differences. I realize this is a
sort of nitpick, but I think it is an important one.

> <snip rest as ambiguous until this is cleared up>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#596397

Am 28.11.2022 um 07:54 schrieb whodat:

>> Hold on, if A is moving relative to B at v1, then B is moving relative
>> to A at -v1. You wrote v2.  Or did you mean A moves relative to (some
>> unmentioned) C, perhaps an observer, at v1, and B moves relative to C
>> or the observer at v2?
>
> If you use the term "relative to" then there is no + or -. As a
> simple "difference" the number is absolute. There are workarounds
> that can get you to arithmetic differences. I realize this is a
> sort of nitpick, but I think it is an important one.
???

To me this sounds like nonsense!

It makes a difference if you write 10-1 or 1-10!

You cannot declare negative values positive and ommit the sign, if you 
don't have very good reasons.

Especially in relativity it makes a difference, if an object approaches 
or receedes.

Approach would cause blue-shift and receeding red-shift, which is not 
the same phenomenon.


TH

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#596402

Il giorno martedì 29 novembre 2022 alle 08:36:53 UTC+1 Thomas Heger ha scritto:
> Am 28.11.2022 um 07:54 schrieb whodat: 
> 
> >> Hold on, if A is moving relative to B at v1, then B is moving relative 
> >> to A at -v1. You wrote v2. Or did you mean A moves relative to (some 
> >> unmentioned) C, perhaps an observer, at v1, and B moves relative to C 
> >> or the observer at v2? 
> > 
> > If you use the term "relative to" then there is no + or -. As a 
> > simple "difference" the number is absolute. There are workarounds 
> > that can get you to arithmetic differences. I realize this is a 
> > sort of nitpick, but I think it is an important one.
> ??? 
> 
> To me this sounds like nonsense! 
> 
> It makes a difference if you write 10-1 or 1-10! 
> 
> You cannot declare negative values positive and ommit the sign, if you 
> don't have very good reasons. 
> 
> Especially in relativity it makes a difference, if an object approaches 
> or receedes. 
> 
> Approach would cause blue-shift and receeding red-shift, which is not 
> the same phenomenon. 
> 
> 
> TH
there is a error in my exposition of the scenario:
A and B are moving at an absolute speed of .5c (versus the ether or if you 
prefer relative to a third observer C), and of course their approaching relative speed is 
(v1+v2)/(1+v1*v2)=.8c according to SR.
hope this will help read and follow the content of my post 
let me know
regards 
beda

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#596433

On 11/29/2022 1:36 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:
> Am 28.11.2022 um 07:54 schrieb whodat:
> 
>>> Hold on, if A is moving relative to B at v1, then B is moving relative
>>> to A at -v1. You wrote v2.  Or did you mean A moves relative to (some
>>> unmentioned) C, perhaps an observer, at v1, and B moves relative to C
>>> or the observer at v2?
>>
>> If you use the term "relative to" then there is no + or -. As a
>> simple "difference" the number is absolute. There are workarounds
>> that can get you to arithmetic differences. I realize this is a
>> sort of nitpick, but I think it is an important one.
> ???
> 
> To me this sounds like nonsense!


Of course it does, but then you lack the basic essential skills
essential to understanding such elementary things. Please find
pastimes better suited to your abilities. Thanks.


> It makes a difference if you write 10-1 or 1-10!
> 
> You cannot declare negative values positive and ommit the sign, if you 
> don't have very good reasons.
> 
> Especially in relativity it makes a difference, if an object approaches 
> or receedes.
> 
> Approach would cause blue-shift and receeding red-shift, which is not 
> the same phenomenon.
> 
> 
> TH

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#596493

Am 29.11.2022 um 19:46 schrieb whodat:
> On 11/29/2022 1:36 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:
>> Am 28.11.2022 um 07:54 schrieb whodat:
>>
>>>> Hold on, if A is moving relative to B at v1, then B is moving relative
>>>> to A at -v1. You wrote v2.  Or did you mean A moves relative to (some
>>>> unmentioned) C, perhaps an observer, at v1, and B moves relative to C
>>>> or the observer at v2?
>>>
>>> If you use the term "relative to" then there is no + or -. As a
>>> simple "difference" the number is absolute. There are workarounds
>>> that can get you to arithmetic differences. I realize this is a
>>> sort of nitpick, but I think it is an important one.
>> ???
>>
>> To me this sounds like nonsense!
>
>
> Of course it does, but then you lack the basic essential skills
> essential to understanding such elementary things. Please find
> pastimes better suited to your abilities. Thanks.


What you call 'basic skills' apparently includes to call negative 
numbers 'positive'.

I cannot follow you here, because to me this sounds disgusting.

In physics velocity is always a vector and has always a direction.

If you like to address the amount, you could do so and omit the sign and 
direction by writing |v|.

If you don't, v is a vector.

TH

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#596508

On 11/30/2022 2:01 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:
> Am 29.11.2022 um 19:46 schrieb whodat:
>> On 11/29/2022 1:36 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:
>>> Am 28.11.2022 um 07:54 schrieb whodat:
>>>
>>>>> Hold on, if A is moving relative to B at v1, then B is moving relative
>>>>> to A at -v1. You wrote v2.  Or did you mean A moves relative to (some
>>>>> unmentioned) C, perhaps an observer, at v1, and B moves relative to C
>>>>> or the observer at v2?
>>>>
>>>> If you use the term "relative to" then there is no + or -. As a
>>>> simple "difference" the number is absolute. There are workarounds
>>>> that can get you to arithmetic differences. I realize this is a
>>>> sort of nitpick, but I think it is an important one.
>>> ???
>>>
>>> To me this sounds like nonsense!
>>
>>
>> Of course it does, but then you lack the basic essential skills
>> essential to understanding such elementary things. Please find
>> pastimes better suited to your abilities. Thanks.
> 
> 
> What you call 'basic skills' apparently includes to call negative 
> numbers 'positive'.
> 
> I cannot follow you here, because to me this sounds disgusting.
> 
> In physics velocity is always a vector and has always a direction.

Velocity can be modeled as a vector. The OP problem addresses motion of
one object relative to another. Direction plays no role in the posted
question. To do so now is a fallacy called moving the goalposts.

> If you like to address the amount, you could do so and omit the sign and 
> direction by writing |v|.
> 
> If you don't, v is a vector.
> 
> TH

Speed is never negative. Speed has magnitude and direction.
"-" is not a direction.

The context of the OP problem does not provide direction, only the
arithmetic difference between the speeds of two objects. Two race
cars are on a track. One is moving at 100mph the other at 90mpg.
The difference is 10mph, never -10mph.

Please find pastimes better suited to your abilities

IBID. I'll not go around on this topic again.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#596598

Am 30.11.2022 um 18:43 schrieb whodat:

>>>>> If you use the term "relative to" then there is no + or -. As a
>>>>> simple "difference" the number is absolute. There are workarounds
>>>>> that can get you to arithmetic differences. I realize this is a
>>>>> sort of nitpick, but I think it is an important one.
>>>> ???
>>>>
>>>> To me this sounds like nonsense!
>>>
>>>
>>> Of course it does, but then you lack the basic essential skills
>>> essential to understanding such elementary things. Please find
>>> pastimes better suited to your abilities. Thanks.
>>
>>
>> What you call 'basic skills' apparently includes to call negative
>> numbers 'positive'.
>>
>> I cannot follow you here, because to me this sounds disgusting.
>>
>> In physics velocity is always a vector and has always a direction.
>
> Velocity can be modeled as a vector. The OP problem addresses motion of
> one object relative to another. Direction plays no role in the posted
> question. To do so now is a fallacy called moving the goalposts.

???

You mentioned 'motion of one object relative to another' and that this 
is the topic under consideration.

I would agree and use the usual concept of velocity for this situation.

But you actually flatten me by stating, that direction plays no role.


>> If you like to address the amount, you could do so and omit the sign
>> and direction by writing |v|.
>>
>> If you don't, v is a vector.
>>
>> TH
>
> Speed is never negative. Speed has magnitude and direction.

NO!
'Speed' is the quantity an odometer measures.

This quantity is independent of direction.

> "-" is not a direction.

That depends...

'direction' is a geometrical term, which is usually associated with 
Euclidean space.

But other spaces are thinkable, where only two directions exist: '+' and 
'-'.


...


TH

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#596617

Thomas Heger wrote:

> Am 30.11.2022 um 18:43 schrieb whodat:
>> Velocity can be modeled as a vector. The OP problem addresses motion of
>> one object relative to another. Direction plays no role in the posted
>> question. To do so now is a fallacy called moving the goalposts.
> 
> ??? You mentioned 'motion of one object relative to another' and that
> this is the topic under consideration.
> I would agree and use the usual concept of velocity for this situation.
> But you actually flatten me by stating, that direction plays no role.


EU has no legal way to steal Russian assets – officials 
https://%72%74.com/business/567495-eu-seizure-russian-assets-illegal/

EU officials have said they cannot legally confiscate Russian assets that 
have been frozen as part of Western sanctions, however, they hope to set 
up an international court to prosecute Russian officials for the military 
operation in Ukraine, the Wall Street Journal reported on Wednesday.

According to European Commission officials, the international principle of 
state immunity doesn’t allow the executive body to appropriate the assets 
of the Russian Central Bank, but lawmakers have proposed that EU member 
states and their allies create a fund to manage the liquid assets and lay 
aside profits from those investments for the reconstruction of Ukraine.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#596655

Am 01.12.2022 um 17:15 schrieb Mitch Leoni:
> Thomas Heger wrote:
>
>> Am 30.11.2022 um 18:43 schrieb whodat:
>>> Velocity can be modeled as a vector. The OP problem addresses motion of
>>> one object relative to another. Direction plays no role in the posted
>>> question. To do so now is a fallacy called moving the goalposts.
>>
>> ??? You mentioned 'motion of one object relative to another' and that
>> this is the topic under consideration.
>> I would agree and use the usual concept of velocity for this situation.
>> But you actually flatten me by stating, that direction plays no role.
>
>
> EU has no legal way to steal Russian assets – officials
> https://%72%74.com/business/567495-eu-seizure-russian-assets-illegal/
>
> EU officials have said they cannot legally confiscate Russian assets that
> have been frozen as part of Western sanctions, however, they hope to set
> up an international court to prosecute Russian officials for the military
> operation in Ukraine, the Wall Street Journal reported on Wednesday.
>

As I see it, 'confiscation of assets' is common practise in the USA.

I guess it is called 'Rico-Act' or similar.

This act is based on kind of 'Western-laws' and something alien to 
German laws.

The US would be well advised, if confiscations are well monitored and 
restricted to very specific criminal cases.

In my view, it is in most cases illegal to confiscate assets from 
people, who where not criminals.

I mean: you need to prove for a confiscation, that this particular 
person aquirred this particular asset by illegal activities.

The principle of legality requires, that such activities were illegal in 
the area and at the time, when they were conducted.

For Russians the applicable laws were, of course, Russian laws.

Since the citizens of Russia are subject to Russian jurisdiction, the EU 
had to hand the confiscated assets to the state of Russia.


TH

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#596354

On Monday, 28 November 2022 at 07:28:27 UTC+1, Volney wrote:
> On 11/27/2022 6:43 PM, beda pietanza wrote: 
> > I will here construct the Doppler effect as it take place in the reality: 
> > A source A at speed v1 is relatively moving versus a receiver B at speed v2: 
> > either the A and B have their clock rate of 1 Hz in their own reference frame.
> Hold on, if A is moving relative to B at v1, then B is moving relative 

And do you still believe that your 9 192 631 770 ISO idiocy
is a consequence of Newtonian physics, stupid Mike?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#596401

Il giorno lunedì 28 novembre 2022 alle 07:28:27 UTC+1 Volney ha scritto:
> On 11/27/2022 6:43 PM, beda pietanza wrote: 
> > I will here construct the Doppler effect as it take place in the reality: 
> > A source A at speed v1 is relatively moving versus a receiver B at speed v2: 
> > either the A and B have their clock rate of 1 Hz in their own reference frame.
> Hold on, if A is moving relative to B at v1, then B is moving relative 
> to A at -v1. You wrote v2. Or did you mean A moves relative to (some 
> unmentioned) C, perhaps an observer, at v1, and B moves relative to C or 
> the observer at v2? 
> 
> <snip rest as ambiguous until this is cleared up>
you are right, I wrongly express my intention, I meant that B have a velocity v2
and both of them are traveling at .5c (versus ether)
they are  approaching each other (this means that their relative 
speed is (v1+v2)/(1+v1*v2)=.8c according to SR)
thanks for the correction, (my error come from my way of thinking speed as absolute vs the ether),
of course you can consider those speeds as measured by an observer C, the math doesn't change 
let me know
cheers
beda

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#596479

On 11/29/2022 5:23 AM, beda pietanza wrote:
> Il giorno lunedì 28 novembre 2022 alle 07:28:27 UTC+1 Volney ha scritto:
>> On 11/27/2022 6:43 PM, beda pietanza wrote:
>>> I will here construct the Doppler effect as it take place in the reality:
>>> A source A at speed v1 is relatively moving versus a receiver B at speed v2:
>>> either the A and B have their clock rate of 1 Hz in their own reference frame.

>> Hold on, if A is moving relative to B at v1, then B is moving relative
>> to A at -v1. You wrote v2. Or did you mean A moves relative to (some
>> unmentioned) C, perhaps an observer, at v1, and B moves relative to C or
>> the observer at v2?
>>
>> <snip rest as ambiguous until this is cleared up>

> you are right, I wrongly express my intention, I meant that B have a velocity v2
> and both of them are traveling at .5c (versus ether)
> they are  approaching each other (this means that their relative
> speed is (v1+v2)/(1+v1*v2)=.8c according to SR)
> thanks for the correction, (my error come from my way of thinking speed as absolute vs the ether),

There is no aether in SR. There are a bunch of aether theories, all 
obsolete, and none of which is SR. All speeds are relative in SR.

> of course you can consider those speeds as measured by an observer C, the math doesn't change

But the physics changes! A third observer C is the only way your post 
makes sense in SR, at least initially.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#596492

On Wednesday, 30 November 2022 at 03:52:33 UTC+1, Volney wrote:
> On 11/29/2022 5:23 AM, beda pietanza wrote: 
> > Il giorno lunedì 28 novembre 2022 alle 07:28:27 UTC+1 Volney ha scritto: 
> >> On 11/27/2022 6:43 PM, beda pietanza wrote: 
> >>> I will here construct the Doppler effect as it take place in the reality: 
> >>> A source A at speed v1 is relatively moving versus a receiver B at speed v2: 
> >>> either the A and B have their clock rate of 1 Hz in their own reference frame. 
> 
> >> Hold on, if A is moving relative to B at v1, then B is moving relative 
> >> to A at -v1. You wrote v2. Or did you mean A moves relative to (some 
> >> unmentioned) C, perhaps an observer, at v1, and B moves relative to C or 
> >> the observer at v2? 
> >> 
> >> <snip rest as ambiguous until this is cleared up> 
> 
> > you are right, I wrongly express my intention, I meant that B have a velocity v2 
> > and both of them are traveling at .5c (versus ether) 
> > they are approaching each other (this means that their relative 
> > speed is (v1+v2)/(1+v1*v2)=.8c according to SR) 
> > thanks for the correction, (my error come from my way of thinking speed as absolute vs the ether),
> There is no aether in SR. There are a bunch of aether theories, all 

Renaming something is not a way to get rid 
of it, stupid Mike.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#596499

Il giorno mercoledì 30 novembre 2022 alle 03:52:33 UTC+1 Volney ha scritto:
> On 11/29/2022 5:23 AM, beda pietanza wrote: 
> > Il giorno lunedì 28 novembre 2022 alle 07:28:27 UTC+1 Volney ha scritto: 
> >> On 11/27/2022 6:43 PM, beda pietanza wrote: 
> >>> I will here construct the Doppler effect as it take place in the reality: 
> >>> A source A at speed v1 is relatively moving versus a receiver B at speed v2: 
> >>> either the A and B have their clock rate of 1 Hz in their own reference frame. 
> 
> >> Hold on, if A is moving relative to B at v1, then B is moving relative 
> >> to A at -v1. You wrote v2. Or did you mean A moves relative to (some 
> >> unmentioned) C, perhaps an observer, at v1, and B moves relative to C or 
> >> the observer at v2? 
> >> 
> >> <snip rest as ambiguous until this is cleared up> 
> 
> > you are right, I wrongly express my intention, I meant that B have a velocity v2 
> > and both of them are traveling at .5c (versus ether) 
> > they are approaching each other (this means that their relative 
> > speed is (v1+v2)/(1+v1*v2)=.8c according to SR) 
> > thanks for the correction, (my error come from my way of thinking speed as absolute vs the ether),
> There is no aether in SR. There are a bunch of aether theories, all 
> obsolete, and none of which is SR. All speeds are relative in SR.
> > of course you can consider those speeds as measured by an observer C, the math doesn't change
> But the physics changes! A third observer C is the only way your post 
> makes sense in SR, at least initially.
beda:
The post that started the thread was about the detailed exposition of how the Doppler effect
takes place between two observers. You all  skip the important part of it.
Anyways, in SR all speeds are relative, (?!), but the speed of a given object can be refereed to the frame K, this inertial frame K can be refereed to another frame that includes K, and so on in a ever larger and larger frame, up to the entire universe.
Now what remains unchanged in this framing process from the moving objects and the entire universe, once you take away the framing that cannot change any physical realty???
It is the absoluteness  of the physical object and its physical characteristics, and the absoluteness of the physical characteristics of the entire universe.
You say that they are undetectable and unmeasurable??? So what???, they are there, and all starts from that, the rest is man made framings that don't change anything.
The reality is the unique model of it self, we can approach and grasp its absoluteness gradually.
Being aware, that any wrong modeling drag us down and may take us towards a dead end 
(a cul de sac, in french)

best regards
beda

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity

csiph-web