Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #614915 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Prokaryotic Capase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2023-07-10 10:26 -0700 |
| Last post | 2023-07-16 15:45 +0200 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 113 — 28 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity
Twin paradox article in Wikipedia Prokaryotic Capase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2023-07-10 10:26 -0700
Re: Twin paradox article in Wikipedia Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-07-10 10:33 -0700
Re: Twin paradox article in Wikipedia Richard Hachel <r.hachel@frite.fr> - 2023-07-10 17:56 +0000
Re: Twin paradox article in Wikipedia Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-07-10 11:26 -0700
Re: Twin paradox article in Wikipedia "mitchr...@gmail.com" <mitchrae3323@gmail.com> - 2023-07-10 14:27 -0700
Re: Twin paradox article in Wikipedia Richard Hachel <r.hachel@frite.fr> - 2023-07-10 21:42 +0000
Re: Twin paradox article in Wikipedia Gernaro Close <lcgr@rrlgrane.ne> - 2023-07-10 21:58 +0000
Re: Twin paradox article in Wikipedia Richard Hachel <r.hachel@frite.fr> - 2023-07-10 22:12 +0000
Re: Twin paradox article in Wikipedia Emanuele Pezos <leop@mmpussos.zm> - 2023-07-12 08:34 +0000
Re: Twin paradox article in Wikipedia Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-07-11 11:03 -0400
Re: Twin paradox article in Wikipedia Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-07-11 08:11 -0700
Re: Twin paradox article in Wikipedia Wade Spyridis <didi@drdsippw.ss> - 2023-07-11 20:01 +0000
Re: Twin paradox article in Wikipedia patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2023-07-10 15:14 -0700
Re: Twin paradox article in Wikipedia Richard Hachel <r.hachel@frite.fr> - 2023-07-10 22:28 +0000
Re: Twin paradox article in Wikipedia Harry Angelopoulos <ouse@assapoyr.ug> - 2023-07-10 22:34 +0000
Re: Twin paradox article in Wikipedia patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2023-07-10 15:50 -0700
Re: Twin paradox article in Wikipedia Athel Cornish-Bowden <athel.cb@gmail.com> - 2023-07-11 11:37 +0200
Re: Twin paradox article in Wikipedia Prokaryotic Capase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2023-07-10 19:46 -0700
Re: Twin paradox article in Wikipedia Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-07-10 20:47 -0700
Re: Twin paradox article in Wikipedia The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2023-07-10 21:50 -0700
Re: Twin paradox article in Wikipedia The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2023-07-11 11:07 -0700
Re: Twin paradox article in Wikipedia The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2023-07-11 21:19 -0700
Re: Twin paradox article in Wikipedia "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2023-07-11 08:00 -0700
Re: Twin paradox article in Wikipedia Prokaryotic Capase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2023-07-11 08:29 -0700
Re: Twin paradox article in Wikipedia Maïkel Jacques-Sonne <mjs@frite.fr> - 2023-07-11 16:03 +0000
Re: Twin paradox article in Wikipedia Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-07-11 10:03 -0700
Re: Twin paradox article in Wikipedia wugi <wugi@brol.invalid> - 2023-07-11 18:53 +0200
Re: Twin paradox article in Wikipedia Prokaryotic Capase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2023-07-11 10:18 -0700
Re: Twin paradox article in Wikipedia Richard Hachel <r.hachel@frite.fr> - 2023-07-11 17:38 +0000
Re: Twin paradox article in Wikipedia Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-07-11 10:39 -0700
Re: Twin paradox article in Wikipedia Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-07-12 23:34 -0400
Re: Twin paradox article in Wikipedia Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-07-12 22:29 -0700
Re: Twin paradox article in Wikipedia Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-07-13 09:11 -0400
Re: Twin paradox article in Wikipedia Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-07-13 06:27 -0700
Re: Twin paradox article in Wikipedia wugi <wugi@brol.invalid> - 2023-07-12 17:32 +0200
Re: Twin paradox article in Wikipedia Prokaryotic Capase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2023-07-12 09:05 -0700
Re: Twin paradox article in Wikipedia Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-07-12 09:46 -0700
Re: Twin paradox article in Wikipedia wugi <wugi@brol.invalid> - 2023-07-12 19:07 +0200
Re: Twin paradox article in Wikipedia Richard Hachel <r.hachel@frite.fr> - 2023-07-12 17:36 +0000
Re: Twin paradox article in Wikipedia wugi <wugi@brol.invalid> - 2023-07-12 21:16 +0200
Re: Twin paradox article in Wikipedia wugi <wugi@brol.invalid> - 2023-07-12 21:19 +0200
Re: Twin paradox article in Wikipedia Richard Hachel <r.hachel@frite.fr> - 2023-07-12 19:47 +0000
Re: Twin paradox article in Wikipedia larry harson <larryharson66@gmail.com> - 2023-07-11 11:30 -0700
Re: Twin paradox article in Wikipedia Prokaryotic Capase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2023-07-11 12:02 -0700
Re: Twin paradox article in Wikipedia Lou <noelturntive@live.co.uk> - 2023-07-12 07:19 -0700
Re: Twin paradox article in Wikipedia "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2023-07-12 08:32 -0700
Re: Twin paradox article in Wikipedia Lou <noelturntive@live.co.uk> - 2023-07-12 13:24 -0700
Re: Twin paradox article in Wikipedia "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2023-07-12 20:43 -0700
Re: Twin paradox article in Wikipedia Lou <noelturntive@live.co.uk> - 2023-07-13 01:31 -0700
Re: Twin paradox article in Wikipedia "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2023-07-13 07:14 -0700
Re: Twin paradox article in Wikipedia "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2023-07-13 08:31 -0700
Re: Twin paradox article in Wikipedia Prokaryotic Capase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2023-07-13 09:13 -0700
Re: Twin paradox article in Wikipedia "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2023-07-13 12:16 -0700
Re: Twin paradox article in Wikipedia Prokaryotic Capase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2023-07-13 20:49 -0700
Re: Twin paradox article in Wikipedia "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2023-07-13 21:03 -0700
Re: Twin paradox article in Wikipedia Prokaryotic Capase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2023-07-13 21:33 -0700
Re: Twin paradox article in Wikipedia Lou <noelturntive@live.co.uk> - 2023-07-14 01:09 -0700
Re: Twin paradox article in Wikipedia Prokaryotic Capase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2023-07-24 17:08 -0700
Re: Twin paradox article in Wikipedia Lou <noelturntive@live.co.uk> - 2023-07-13 09:49 -0700
Re: Twin paradox article in Wikipedia Prokaryotic Capase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2023-07-13 04:30 -0700
Re: Twin paradox article in Wikipedia nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2023-07-13 18:21 +0200
Re: Twin paradox article in Wikipedia Prokaryotic Capase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2023-07-13 09:46 -0700
Re: Twin paradox article in Wikipedia nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2023-07-15 21:37 +0200
Re: Twin paradox article in Wikipedia Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> - 2023-07-15 13:37 -0700
Re: Twin paradox article in Wikipedia Prokaryotic Capase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2023-07-15 13:52 -0700
Re: Twin paradox article in Wikipedia nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2023-07-16 12:03 +0200
Re: Twin paradox article in Wikipedia Prokaryotic Capase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2023-07-16 03:54 -0700
Re: Twin paradox article in Wikipedia nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2023-07-16 13:36 +0200
Re: Twin paradox article in Wikipedia Tom Roberts <tjoberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2023-07-16 09:03 -0500
Re: Twin paradox article in Wikipedia Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-07-16 07:18 -0700
Re: Twin paradox article in Wikipedia Elizardo Sklavenitis <otrv@vzoeaioo.tk> - 2023-07-16 19:08 +0000
Re: Twin paradox article in Wikipedia Meredith Adamou <utto@mddaeaem.tt> - 2023-07-16 18:55 +0000
Re: Twin paradox article in Wikipedia RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2023-07-17 11:49 -0700
Re: Twin paradox article in Wikipedia nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2023-07-17 22:07 +0200
Re: Twin paradox article in Wikipedia Lou <noelturntive@live.co.uk> - 2023-07-18 00:41 -0700
Re: Twin paradox article in Wikipedia Tom Roberts <tjoberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2023-07-18 22:49 -0500
Re: Twin paradox article in Wikipedia Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-07-18 21:06 -0700
Re: Twin paradox article in Wikipedia Honorio Christakos <iosi@asrsosch.rc> - 2023-07-19 08:46 +0000
Re: Twin paradox article in Wikipedia Lou <noelturntive@live.co.uk> - 2023-07-19 10:58 -0700
Re: Twin paradox article in Wikipedia Lou <noelturntive@live.co.uk> - 2023-07-16 06:09 -0700
Re: Twin paradox article in Wikipedia Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-07-16 04:35 -0700
Re: Twin paradox article in Wikipedia nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2023-07-15 23:29 +0200
Re: Twin paradox article in Wikipedia Tom Roberts <tjoberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2023-07-15 18:37 -0500
Re: Twin paradox article in Wikipedia nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2023-07-16 12:03 +0200
Re: Twin paradox article in Wikipedia Tom Roberts <tjoberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2023-07-18 23:28 -0500
Re: Twin paradox article in Wikipedia Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-07-18 22:06 -0700
Re: Twin paradox article in Wikipedia Lou <noelturntive@live.co.uk> - 2023-07-18 00:31 -0700
Re: Twin paradox article in Wikipedia Lou <noelturntive@live.co.uk> - 2023-07-13 10:21 -0700
Re: Twin paradox article in Wikipedia Prokaryotic Capase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2023-07-13 11:01 -0700
Re: Twin paradox article in Wikipedia Lou <noelturntive@live.co.uk> - 2023-07-13 13:49 -0700
Re: Twin paradox article in Wikipedia Lou <noelturntive@live.co.uk> - 2023-07-13 14:06 -0700
Re: Twin paradox article in Wikipedia "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2023-07-13 12:18 -0700
Re: Twin paradox article in Wikipedia Lou <noelturntive@live.co.uk> - 2023-07-13 13:51 -0700
Re: Twin paradox article in Wikipedia "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2023-07-13 14:52 -0700
Re: Twin paradox article in Wikipedia Lou <noelturntive@live.co.uk> - 2023-07-14 00:49 -0700
Re: Twin paradox article in Wikipedia "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2023-07-14 08:24 -0700
Re: Twin paradox article in Wikipedia Lou <noelturntive@live.co.uk> - 2023-07-17 10:59 -0700
Re: Twin paradox article in Wikipedia Mike Fontenot <mlfasf@comcast.net> - 2023-07-14 10:32 -0600
Re: Twin paradox article in Wikipedia Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-07-14 09:45 -0700
Re: Twin paradox article in Wikipedia The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2023-07-14 09:48 -0700
Re: Twin paradox article in Wikipedia The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2023-07-14 22:19 -0700
Re: Twin paradox article in Wikipedia Tom Roberts <tjoberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2023-07-15 13:07 -0500
Re: Twin paradox article in Wikipedia Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-07-15 11:15 -0700
Re: Twin paradox article in Wikipedia Mike Fontenot <mlfasf@comcast.net> - 2023-07-16 11:45 -0600
Re: Twin paradox article in Wikipedia whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-07-16 13:36 -0500
Re: Twin paradox article in Wikipedia Tom Roberts <tjoberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2023-07-16 22:19 -0500
Re: Twin paradox article in Wikipedia Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-07-16 21:26 -0700
Re: Twin paradox article in Wikipedia Richard Hachel <r.hachel@frite.fr> - 2023-07-15 19:09 +0000
Re: Twin paradox article in Wikipedia "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2023-07-16 13:23 +0200
Re: Twin paradox article in Wikipedia Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-07-16 04:36 -0700
Re: Twin paradox article in Wikipedia Richard Hachel <r.hachel@frite.fr> - 2023-07-16 13:08 +0000
Re: Twin paradox article in Wikipedia Dallas Anetakis <aske@aaeeatli.as> - 2023-07-16 13:41 +0000
Re: Twin paradox article in Wikipedia Athel Cornish-Bowden <athel.cb@gmail.com> - 2023-07-16 15:45 +0200
Page 3 of 6 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 Next page →
| From | wugi <wugi@brol.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-07-12 21:19 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <u8mube$3bv2l$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #615093 |
Op 12/07/2023 om 21:16 schreef wugi: > Nice! The second resembles indeed my graph correct (I hope:) https://www.wugi.be/MySRT/TravtwinSee%20pt-of-vw.PNG -- guido wugi
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Hachel <r.hachel@frite.fr> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-07-12 19:47 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <VKseuuwEn-QBEJ8rMdFp6E5v7mQ@jntp> |
| In reply to | #615093 |
Le 12/07/2023 à 21:16, wugi a écrit : > Op 12/07/2023 om 19:36 schreef Richard Hachel: >> <http://news2.nemoweb.net/jntp?Obl5o_N0ViHUC80MfpNB5KdJLFc@jntp/Data.Media:1> >> >> <http://news2.nemoweb.net/jntp?Obl5o_N0ViHUC80MfpNB5KdJLFc@jntp/Data.Media:2> >> > > Nice! The red lines correspond to the present moments linking the protagonists. In the first drawing, for example, where we present the vision of things seen by Terrence who remained on earth: When Terrence is 9 years old, Stella is 3 years old. And so on. In the second drawing, for example, where we present the vision of things seen by Stella: When Stella is 6 years old, Terrence is 2 years old. We then understand that in relativity, the nation of the present moment is NOT reciprocal. The highlight of Doctor Hachel's theory happens when Stella turns. Before she fires, she sees her brother who is 3 years old, and after she fires, she still sees her brother who is three years old. Hachel's way of presenting things is of remarkable conceptual beauty, and he is probably the best theoretician of relativistic kinematics. The problem is that half the universe is dying of hatred against his concepts. He himself frequently says: "You guys are all sick, only your navel counts. The rest, the beauty of mathematics and physical concepts, you don't care, and those who say no are mostly liars". R.H.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | larry harson <larryharson66@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-07-11 11:30 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <12bc2b46-2eec-411a-99f9-b79a495261a8n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #614915 |
On Monday, July 10, 2023 at 6:26:54 PM UTC+1, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog wrote: > I've long thought that the Twin Paradox article in > Wikipedia suffered from "too many cooks" syndrome. > The top four authors are all knowledgeable, but the > net results of their efforts has been a rather sprawling, > hard to read conglomeration. > https://xtools.wmcloud.org/articleinfo/en.wikipedia.org/Twin_paradox > > Hence my new section to the Special Relativity article: > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_relativity#Twin_paradox > > I can always use helpful criticism. Thanks in advance! I think your article is unnecessarily complicated: what made you use the relativistic Doppler shift compared to more straight-forward alternatives? For example, the section in the main Twin Paradox article titled *Difference in elapsed time as a result of differences in twins' spacetime paths* is far easier to understand and a far more straight-forward, elegant approach IMO. Larry
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Prokaryotic Capase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-07-11 12:02 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <a0f7a4f6-f8c9-482d-b3e6-b848359e0d51n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #615013 |
On Tuesday, July 11, 2023 at 1:30:28 PM UTC-5, larry harson wrote: > On Monday, July 10, 2023 at 6:26:54 PM UTC+1, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog wrote: > > I've long thought that the Twin Paradox article in > > Wikipedia suffered from "too many cooks" syndrome. > > The top four authors are all knowledgeable, but the > > net results of their efforts has been a rather sprawling, > > hard to read conglomeration. > > https://xtools.wmcloud.org/articleinfo/en.wikipedia.org/Twin_paradox > > > > Hence my new section to the Special Relativity article: > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_relativity#Twin_paradox > > > > I can always use helpful criticism. Thanks in advance! > I think your article is unnecessarily complicated: what made you use the relativistic Doppler shift compared to more straight-forward alternatives? > > For example, the section in the main Twin Paradox article titled *Difference in elapsed time as a result of differences in twins' spacetime paths* is far easier to understand and a far more straight-forward, elegant approach IMO. The *essence* of the argument comes from simple consideration of the Minkowski diagram: There can be no disagreement between the stay-at-home twin and the traveling twin as to the number of years that has elapsed for each. Therefore there is no paradox. All the rest of the presentation is if you want to get precise numbers.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lou <noelturntive@live.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-07-12 07:19 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <b3973a27-9a5e-464f-9f94-ac68ec896e2dn@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #614915 |
On Monday, 10 July 2023 at 18:26:54 UTC+1, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog wrote: > I've long thought that the Twin Paradox article in > Wikipedia suffered from "too many cooks" syndrome. > The top four authors are all knowledgeable, but the > net results of their efforts has been a rather sprawling, > hard to read conglomeration. > https://xtools.wmcloud.org/articleinfo/en.wikipedia.org/Twin_paradox > > Hence my new section to the Special Relativity article: > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_relativity#Twin_paradox > > I can always use helpful criticism. Thanks in advance! If you want to correct mistakes, there are some other mistakes on this and other wiki pages that you could edit. The aberration of light section is incorrect in saying any classical non relativistic model cannot explain this effect. In fact they can. Notice critics of any classical model fake this criticism of emission by calculating in the source frame for classical. They have the observer on earth move in the source frame. Obviously this sleight of hand makes it look like a non relativistic model can’t explain abberation. But, If you correctly calculate for a classical model in the *observer frame* the light is already coming in at an angle. And allows a classical model to explain abberation. Ironically relativists actually use this same insight to help vindicate SR.Pretending that it’s OK to calculate for SR correctly like this. But not OK for any classical model to do the same! Another example of how critics of any non relativistic models falsify the calculations for these classical models to make them look like they cannot explain experimental observations, is Ives Stillwell. Long hailed as proof that any classical emission model cannot explain the observations in the experiment. Lies of course. Ives Stillwell deliberately falsified the calculations for a classical emission model by incorrectly using W instead of f in the classical prediction. If one fixes the equation by inserting f, one can then make a correct calculation of offset in Ives Stillwell for any classical emission model. Add this to other fantasies like Sagnac not being consistent with any emmision model (false) and I would say you could do a lot more editing on wiki if you wish.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-07-12 08:32 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <bda40924-44c0-49af-a636-1acde47eee27n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #615080 |
On Wednesday, July 12, 2023 at 7:19:08 AM UTC-7, Lou wrote: > If one fixes the equation by inserting f, one can then make a correct > calculation of offset in Ives Stillwell for any classical emission model. No, it can't. Old crank or newer crank?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lou <noelturntive@live.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-07-12 13:24 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <050edd70-7530-4d53-a137-9dab0353a87fn@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #615083 |
On Wednesday, 12 July 2023 at 16:32:40 UTC+1, Dono. wrote: > On Wednesday, July 12, 2023 at 7:19:08 AM UTC-7, Lou wrote: > > > > If one fixes the equation by inserting f, one can then make a correct > > calculation of offset in Ives Stillwell for any classical emission model. > No, it can't. Old crank or newer crank? Ives Stillwell incorrectly calculate offset for an emission model using their formula W1=W(1+-v/c). This is wrong. It fails to take into account that under emission the frequency changes for light arriving at the detector at c+-v. Not the wavelength. The wavelength always stays the same in the source frame for emission. It is the frequency of arrival of the waves at the detector which changes. Ives Stillwells incorrect formula for emission says the offset in observed wavelength arriving at the detector is the same length in nm for both +-v. Try doing your own calculation if you don’t believe me. Because if done correctly using f instead of v then the observed offset in nm will be greater for -v than it is for +v. Not equal as I-S pretend. A simple mathematical example showing this is: A source produces waves of 10m length that travel towards a detector at 10ms. The observed f at the detector is 1 wave per second. Now do +-5m/s. This means the arrival f of these at 10+5 m/s waves is 1.5 per second. And the f for 10-5m/s is 0.5 waves per second. Notice when converted back into wavelengths...this gives an apparent observed wavelength at the detector for +v as 0.666m And an apparent observed wavelength at the detector for -v as 20m Notice this correct calculation of offset for emission does not have an equal offset in wavelength as I-S incorrectly assume.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-07-12 20:43 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <cfae0e67-c605-44f9-9747-25648beda524n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #615096 |
On Wednesday, July 12, 2023 at 1:24:12 PM UTC-7, Lou wrote: > On Wednesday, 12 July 2023 at 16:32:40 UTC+1, Dono. wrote: > > On Wednesday, July 12, 2023 at 7:19:08 AM UTC-7, Lou wrote: > > > > > > > If one fixes the equation by inserting f, one can then make a correct > > > calculation of offset in Ives Stillwell for any classical emission model. > > No, it can't. Old crank or newer crank? > Ives Stillwell incorrectly calculate offset for an emission model using > their formula W1=W(1+-v/c). They don't. This is what makes you an idiot.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lou <noelturntive@live.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-07-13 01:31 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <a0ace944-2e93-4cfd-b30f-7c55c46f8c24n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #615127 |
On Thursday, 13 July 2023 at 04:43:50 UTC+1, Dono. wrote: > On Wednesday, July 12, 2023 at 1:24:12 PM UTC-7, Lou wrote: > > On Wednesday, 12 July 2023 at 16:32:40 UTC+1, Dono. wrote: > > > On Wednesday, July 12, 2023 at 7:19:08 AM UTC-7, Lou wrote: > > > > > > > > > > If one fixes the equation by inserting f, one can then make a correct > > > > calculation of offset in Ives Stillwell for any classical emission model. > > > No, it can't. Old crank or newer crank? > > Ives Stillwell incorrectly calculate offset for an emission model using > > their formula W1=W(1+-v/c). > They don't. This is what makes you an idiot. Looks like you can’t read. Here’s a quote from wiki Ives Stillwell page Experiment of 1938: “ When we invert these relationships so that they relate to wavelengths rather than frequencies, "classical theory" predicts redshifted and blueshifted wavelength values of 1 + v/c and 1 − v/c, so if all three wavelengths (redshifted, blueshifted and original) are marked on a linear scale, according to classical theory the three marks should be perfectly evenly spaced:”
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-07-13 07:14 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <5bd42117-6746-4331-81b8-65727c4799b5n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #615146 |
On Thursday, July 13, 2023 at 1:31:39 AM UTC-7, Lou wrote:
> On Thursday, 13 July 2023 at 04:43:50 UTC+1, Dono. wrote:
> > On Wednesday, July 12, 2023 at 1:24:12 PM UTC-7, Lou wrote:
> > > On Wednesday, 12 July 2023 at 16:32:40 UTC+1, Dono. wrote:
> > > > On Wednesday, July 12, 2023 at 7:19:08 AM UTC-7, Lou wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > If one fixes the equation by inserting f, one can then make a correct
> > > > > calculation of offset in Ives Stillwell for any classical emission model.
> > > > No, it can't. Old crank or newer crank?
> > > Ives Stillwell incorrectly calculate offset for an emission model using
> > > their formula W1=W(1+-v/c).
> > They don't. This is what makes you an idiot.
> Looks like you can’t read. Here’s a quote from wiki Ives Stillwell page
> Experiment of 1938:
> “ When we invert these relationships so that they relate to wavelengths rather than frequencies, "classical theory" predicts redshifted and blueshifted wavelength values of 1 + v/c and 1 − v/c, so if all three wavelengths (redshifted, blueshifted and original) are marked on a linear scale, according to classical theory the three marks should be perfectly evenly spaced:”
See right above your quote, crank:
"Under special relativity, the two frequencies will also include an additional Lorentz factor redshift correction represented by the TDE formula
f o /f s = \sqrt{1 − v ^2 /c ^2 )" ?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-07-13 08:31 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <c1b9d9cd-a774-4a34-96cc-8c33b8a81918n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #615154 |
On Thursday, July 13, 2023 at 7:14:22 AM UTC-7, Dono. wrote:
> On Thursday, July 13, 2023 at 1:31:39 AM UTC-7, Lou wrote:
> > On Thursday, 13 July 2023 at 04:43:50 UTC+1, Dono. wrote:
> > > On Wednesday, July 12, 2023 at 1:24:12 PM UTC-7, Lou wrote:
> > > > On Wednesday, 12 July 2023 at 16:32:40 UTC+1, Dono. wrote:
> > > > > On Wednesday, July 12, 2023 at 7:19:08 AM UTC-7, Lou wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > If one fixes the equation by inserting f, one can then make a correct
> > > > > > calculation of offset in Ives Stillwell for any classical emission model.
> > > > > No, it can't. Old crank or newer crank?
> > > > Ives Stillwell incorrectly calculate offset for an emission model using
> > > > their formula W1=W(1+-v/c).
> > > They don't. This is what makes you an idiot.
> > Looks like you can’t read. Here’s a quote from wiki Ives Stillwell page
> > Experiment of 1938:
> > “ When we invert these relationships so that they relate to wavelengths rather than frequencies, "classical theory" predicts redshifted and blueshifted wavelength values of 1 + v/c and 1 − v/c, so if all three wavelengths (redshifted, blueshifted and original) are marked on a linear scale, according to classical theory the three marks should be perfectly evenly spaced:”
> See right above your quote, crank:
>
>
> "Under special relativity, the two frequencies will also include an additional Lorentz factor redshift correction represented by the TDE formula
>
> f o /f s = \sqrt{1 − v ^2 /c ^2 )" ?
Here is a very good explanation of the Ives experiment (much better than wiki, btw):
http://spiff.rit.edu/classes/phys314/lectures/doppler/doppler.html
Prokar, maybe it is time you clean up the wiki entry on I-S, it is really bad.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Prokaryotic Capase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-07-13 09:13 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <e0e74270-3fee-45de-acff-4b7cdafb8cf4n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #615159 |
On Thursday, July 13, 2023 at 10:32:01 AM UTC-5, Dono. wrote: > Here is a very good explanation of the Ives experiment (much better than wiki, btw): > > http://spiff.rit.edu/classes/phys314/lectures/doppler/doppler.html > > Prokar, maybe it is time you clean up the wiki entry on I-S, it is really bad. If I do, I'm counting on your eagle eye to spot any goofs that I make. :-)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-07-13 12:16 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <f7045183-96c0-4cb9-8748-41d4260a8874n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #615161 |
On Thursday, July 13, 2023 at 9:13:21 AM UTC-7, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog wrote: > On Thursday, July 13, 2023 at 10:32:01 AM UTC-5, Dono. wrote: > > > Here is a very good explanation of the Ives experiment (much better than wiki, btw): > > > > http://spiff.rit.edu/classes/phys314/lectures/doppler/doppler.html > > > > Prokar, maybe it is time you clean up the wiki entry on I-S, it is really bad. > If I do, I'm counting on your eagle eye to spot any goofs > that I make. :-) You van count on me
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Prokaryotic Capase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-07-13 20:49 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <8ff71284-f16b-4f11-a3f6-6e03b3310a02n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #615175 |
On Thursday, July 13, 2023 at 2:16:49 PM UTC-5, Dono. wrote: > On Thursday, July 13, 2023 at 9:13:21 AM UTC-7, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog wrote: > > On Thursday, July 13, 2023 at 10:32:01 AM UTC-5, Dono. wrote: > > > Prokar, maybe it is time you clean up the wiki entry on I-S, it is really bad. > > If I do, I'm counting on your eagle eye to spot any goofs > > that I make. :-) > You van count on me 39% of the article was contributed by D.H about 11-12 years ago. My main role in this collaboration was to clean up his German-English into something approximating standard English and to contribute illustrations. Some artistic choices that I made (for instance, the deliberate scale distortion of tube-to-spectrograph in the first illustration) I would *DEFINITELY* reconsider. The middle illustration and caption on why it is difficult to directly measure the TDE is mine, as is the illustration and caption for the Kundig experiment. Let's start with the illustrations. Besides redoing the first illustration to a less grossly distorted scale, is there anything else that I should do? Are there any additional illustrations that I should add?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-07-13 21:03 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <ebd192d3-90a3-4dfd-9f3b-3670cec0f723n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #615212 |
On Thursday, July 13, 2023 at 8:49:53 PM UTC-7, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog wrote: > On Thursday, July 13, 2023 at 2:16:49 PM UTC-5, Dono. wrote: > > On Thursday, July 13, 2023 at 9:13:21 AM UTC-7, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog wrote: > > > On Thursday, July 13, 2023 at 10:32:01 AM UTC-5, Dono. wrote: > > > > > Prokar, maybe it is time you clean up the wiki entry on I-S, it is really bad. > > > If I do, I'm counting on your eagle eye to spot any goofs > > > that I make. :-) > > You van count on me > 39% of the article was contributed by D.H about 11-12 years ago. > My main role in this collaboration was to clean up his German-English > into something approximating standard English and to contribute > illustrations. Some artistic choices that I made (for instance, the > deliberate scale distortion of tube-to-spectrograph in the first illustration) > I would *DEFINITELY* reconsider. The middle illustration and caption on > why it is difficult to directly measure the TDE is mine, as is the illustration > and caption for the Kundig experiment. > > Let's start with the illustrations. Besides redoing the first illustration to > a less grossly distorted scale, is there anything else that I should do? > Are there any additional illustrations that I should add? The formalism describing the experiment needs to be done properly (see the link I sent you). The current formalism is the shits.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Prokaryotic Capase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-07-13 21:33 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <29d55766-d71a-4956-b1d8-1985ef9cffe2n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #615214 |
On Thursday, July 13, 2023 at 11:03:57 PM UTC-5, Dono. wrote: > On Thursday, July 13, 2023 at 8:49:53 PM UTC-7, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog wrote: > > On Thursday, July 13, 2023 at 2:16:49 PM UTC-5, Dono. wrote: > > > On Thursday, July 13, 2023 at 9:13:21 AM UTC-7, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog wrote: > > > > On Thursday, July 13, 2023 at 10:32:01 AM UTC-5, Dono. wrote: > > > > > > > Prokar, maybe it is time you clean up the wiki entry on I-S, it is really bad. > > > > If I do, I'm counting on your eagle eye to spot any goofs > > > > that I make. :-) > > > You van count on me > > 39% of the article was contributed by D.H about 11-12 years ago. > > My main role in this collaboration was to clean up his German-English > > into something approximating standard English and to contribute > > illustrations. Some artistic choices that I made (for instance, the > > deliberate scale distortion of tube-to-spectrograph in the first illustration) > > I would *DEFINITELY* reconsider. The middle illustration and caption on > > why it is difficult to directly measure the TDE is mine, as is the illustration > > and caption for the Kundig experiment. > > > > Let's start with the illustrations. Besides redoing the first illustration to > > a less grossly distorted scale, is there anything else that I should do? > > Are there any additional illustrations that I should add? > The formalism describing the experiment needs to be done properly (see the link I sent you). The current formalism is the shits. The math and the crappy ascii art pre-dated D.H. So long as the prior math wasn't actually *wrong*, D.H usually would improve the explanations accompanying the math rather than re-write the math itself. On the other hand, there are several articles in which D.H provided extensive de novo derivations, skirting the Wikipedia rules against "original research". Ives-Stilwell wasn't one of them. I'm sure that he should have. He would have done a much better job. Let me see about the illustrations first. Then, since my main interest is in the history of science, let me see about the introduction next. I'll deal with the math last.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lou <noelturntive@live.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-07-14 01:09 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <d3391776-f54d-4f31-9747-c163797e9986n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #615217 |
On Friday, 14 July 2023 at 05:33:14 UTC+1, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog wrote: > On Thursday, July 13, 2023 at 11:03:57 PM UTC-5, Dono. wrote: > > On Thursday, July 13, 2023 at 8:49:53 PM UTC-7, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog wrote: > > > On Thursday, July 13, 2023 at 2:16:49 PM UTC-5, Dono. wrote: > > > > On Thursday, July 13, 2023 at 9:13:21 AM UTC-7, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog wrote: > > > > > On Thursday, July 13, 2023 at 10:32:01 AM UTC-5, Dono. wrote: > > > > > > > > > Prokar, maybe it is time you clean up the wiki entry on I-S, it is really bad. > > > > > If I do, I'm counting on your eagle eye to spot any goofs > > > > > that I make. :-) > > > > You van count on me > > > 39% of the article was contributed by D.H about 11-12 years ago. > > > My main role in this collaboration was to clean up his German-English > > > into something approximating standard English and to contribute > > > illustrations. Some artistic choices that I made (for instance, the > > > deliberate scale distortion of tube-to-spectrograph in the first illustration) > > > I would *DEFINITELY* reconsider. The middle illustration and caption on > > > why it is difficult to directly measure the TDE is mine, as is the illustration > > > and caption for the Kundig experiment. > > > > > > Let's start with the illustrations. Besides redoing the first illustration to > > > a less grossly distorted scale, is there anything else that I should do? > > > Are there any additional illustrations that I should add? > > The formalism describing the experiment needs to be done properly (see the link I sent you). The current formalism is the shits. > The math and the crappy ascii art pre-dated D.H. So long > as the prior math wasn't actually *wrong*, D.H usually > would improve the explanations accompanying the math > rather than re-write the math itself. > > On the other hand, there are several articles in which D.H > provided extensive de novo derivations, skirting the > Wikipedia rules against "original research". Ives-Stilwell > wasn't one of them. I'm sure that he should have. He would > have done a much better job. > > Let me see about the illustrations first. Then, since my main > interest is in the history of science, let me see about the > introduction next. I'll deal with the math last. W1=W(1+-v/c) not “wrong”?! it’s so bad it’s not even wrong. If you had any brains you would understand this just by looking at it. It clearly has the wavelength stretching or contracting in the source frame. Not only is this not posited in any emission theory it’s not even physically or mathematically possible. After all, Big Bang supporters have gone on for years saying that “tired light” isn’t possible for the very same reason... They quite rightly point out that it is impossible for a wave to propagate away from a source in the vacuum of space and increase its wavelength as it travels. So you are still in denial. Not surprising considering you don’t also realise that when I-S and others refer to “classical” theory they mean any emission theory. As if there were any other theories of light ever considered by theorists aside from emission and SR.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Prokaryotic Capase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-07-24 17:08 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <29f252fb-877e-4dc2-8794-92f57fbfbfffn@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #615217 |
On Thursday, July 13, 2023 at 11:33:14 PM UTC-5, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog wrote: > On Thursday, July 13, 2023 at 11:03:57 PM UTC-5, Dono. wrote: > > The formalism describing the experiment needs to be done properly (see the link I sent you). The current formalism is the shits. > The math and the crappy ascii art pre-dated D.H. So long > as the prior math wasn't actually *wrong*, D.H usually > would improve the explanations accompanying the math > rather than re-write the math itself. > > On the other hand, there are several articles in which D.H > provided extensive de novo derivations, skirting the > Wikipedia rules against "original research". Ives-Stilwell > wasn't one of them. I'm sure that he should have. He would > have done a much better job. > > Let me see about the illustrations first. Then, since my main > interest is in the history of science, let me see about the > introduction next. I'll deal with the math last. OK, I've replaced my original illustrations with two. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ives%E2%80%93Stilwell_experiment I have another illustration or two in mind, but they will be produced hand-in-hand with rewriting the math presentation. The ascii art is really offensive. It *HAS* to go.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lou <noelturntive@live.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-07-13 09:49 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <7c0c174f-d940-4883-9a52-57dc0e5ad0e7n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #615154 |
On Thursday, 13 July 2023 at 15:14:22 UTC+1, Dono. wrote:
> On Thursday, July 13, 2023 at 1:31:39 AM UTC-7, Lou wrote:
> > On Thursday, 13 July 2023 at 04:43:50 UTC+1, Dono. wrote:
> > > On Wednesday, July 12, 2023 at 1:24:12 PM UTC-7, Lou wrote:
> > > > On Wednesday, 12 July 2023 at 16:32:40 UTC+1, Dono. wrote:
> > > > > On Wednesday, July 12, 2023 at 7:19:08 AM UTC-7, Lou wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > If one fixes the equation by inserting f, one can then make a correct
> > > > > > calculation of offset in Ives Stillwell for any classical emission model.
> > > > > No, it can't. Old crank or newer crank?
> > > > Ives Stillwell incorrectly calculate offset for an emission model using
> > > > their formula W1=W(1+-v/c).
> > > They don't. This is what makes you an idiot.
> > Looks like you can’t read. Here’s a quote from wiki Ives Stillwell page
> > Experiment of 1938:
> > “ When we invert these relationships so that they relate to wavelengths rather than frequencies, "classical theory" predicts redshifted and blueshifted wavelength values of 1 + v/c and 1 − v/c, so if all three wavelengths (redshifted, blueshifted and original) are marked on a linear scale, according to classical theory the three marks should be perfectly evenly spaced:”
> See right above your quote, crank:
>
>
> "Under special relativity, the two frequencies will also include an additional Lorentz factor redshift correction represented by the TDE formula
>
> f o /f s = \sqrt{1 − v ^2 /c ^2 )" ?
Fortunately I wasn’t referring to any relativistic explanation of Ives Stillwell .
In case you haven’t noticed emission theory has nothing to do with
any Lorentz fakery. That’s SR.
So you are stuck with the unfortunate fact that I-S falsified the predictions
for emission theory vis a vis their experimental observations of an offset.
It’s obvious their fantasy formula and it’s W1=W(1+-v/c) is complete
nonsense.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Prokaryotic Capase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-07-13 04:30 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <add03251-7093-48f4-96ed-9c8e474375d9n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #615096 |
On Wednesday, July 12, 2023 at 3:24:12 PM UTC-5, Lou wrote: > Ives Stillwell incorrectly calculate offset for an emission model using > their formula W1=W(1+-v/c). > This is wrong. It fails to take into account that under emission the > frequency changes for light arriving at the detector at c+-v. Ives-Stillwell was ***NOT*** concerned with distinguishing between emission models of light versus other models. Naïve emission models had *ALREADY* been disproven up, down and sideways by experiments such as those by Michelson (1913), Majorana (1918/19), Tomaschek (1924), Miller (1925-6), by astronomical observation (de Sitter, 1913) and so on and so forth. Ives-Stillwell was concerned with answering the question, "does transverse Doppler effect exist"? Your complaints about what emission theory supposedly predicts are totally irrelevant. The mere fact that their spectrograph worked at all disproves your assumption of constant wavelength, unless you want to invent some new fantasy theory of how diffraction gratings work (which measure wavelength, not frequency).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 3 of 6 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web