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

Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #397084 > unrolled thread

The speed of light is anisotropic

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

Contents

  The speed of light is anisotropic Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-10-28 16:52 -0700
    Re: The speed of light is anisotropic pnalsing@gmail.com - 2016-10-28 17:03 -0700
    Re: The speed of light is anisotropic "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-10-28 17:21 -0700
    Re: The speed of light is anisotropic Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-10-28 20:20 -0700
      Re: The speed of light is anisotropic Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-10-28 21:31 -0700
        Re: The speed of light is anisotropic "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-10-28 21:38 -0700
          Re: The speed of light is anisotropic Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-10-29 01:46 -0700
            Re: The speed of light is anisotropic "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-10-29 06:20 -0700
            Re: The speed of light is anisotropic Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-10-31 08:08 -0500
              Re: The speed of light is anisotropic kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-10-31 08:06 -0700
                Re: The speed of light is anisotropic Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-10-31 10:10 -0500
                  Re: The speed of light is anisotropic kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-10-31 08:17 -0700
                    Re: The speed of light is anisotropic Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-10-31 10:31 -0500
                      Re: The speed of light is anisotropic kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-10-31 08:55 -0700
                Re: The speed of light is anisotropic moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-10-31 16:04 +0000
                  Re: The speed of light is anisotropic kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-10-31 12:26 -0700
                  Re: The speed of light is anisotropic kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-10-31 12:44 -0700
                    Re: The speed of light is anisotropic Python <python@python.invalid> - 2016-10-31 21:03 +0100
                      Re: The speed of light is anisotropic kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-11-01 07:51 -0700
                        Re: The speed of light is anisotropic moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-11-01 16:02 +0000
                    Re: The speed of light is anisotropic moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-10-31 21:12 +0000
                      Re: The speed of light is anisotropic kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-11-01 06:52 -0700
                        Re: The speed of light is anisotropic moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-11-01 14:45 +0000
        Re: The speed of light is anisotropic pnalsing@gmail.com - 2016-10-28 21:57 -0700
        Re: The speed of light is anisotropic Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-10-29 06:34 -0700
        Re: The speed of light is anisotropic Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-10-29 17:11 -0500
        Re: The speed of light is anisotropic Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato <rvalls162@gmail.com> - 2016-11-01 03:44 -0700
    Re: The speed of light is anisotropic alsor@interia.pl - 2016-10-29 08:39 -0700
    Re: The speed of light is anisotropic Alan Folmsbee <omnilobe@gmail.com> - 2016-10-29 10:29 -0700
      Re: The speed of light is anisotropic alsor@interia.pl - 2016-10-29 11:52 -0700
      Re: The speed of light is anisotropic Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-10-29 16:48 -0700
        Re: The speed of light is anisotropic alsor@interia.pl - 2016-10-31 09:45 -0700
    Re: The speed of light is anisotropic Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-10-31 08:08 -0500
      Re: The speed of light is anisotropic mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-10-31 06:28 -0700

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

#397084 — The speed of light is anisotropic

The speed of light is anisotropic

Michelson compared the light path times of the parallel and transverse arms of the interferometer in order to prove  the ether. Michelson's reasoning included a differing speed of light, c-v over the distance from the source to the mirror on the end of the parallel arm as against c+v on the way back. 

The one way speed of light depends on the motion of the target. If the target moves away, the speed of light is reduced by the speed of the target; if the target moves closer, it is increased by the speed of the target.

However, the two way speed   of   light  from a source to a target and back is apparently  c =  ((c-v)+(c+v))/2.

This applies to all light as there are no stationary sources or targets in the universe. The only stationary substance is the aether. 

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#397085

On Friday, October 28, 2016 at 4:52:40 PM UTC-7, Peter Riedt wrote:
> The speed of light is anisotropic
> 
> Michelson compared the light path times of the parallel and transverse arms of the interferometer in order to prove  the ether. Michelson's reasoning included a differing speed of light, c-v over the distance from the source to the mirror on the end of the parallel arm as against c+v on the way back. 
> 
> The one way speed of light depends on the motion of the target. If the target moves away, the speed of light is reduced by the speed of the target; if the target moves closer, it is increased by the speed of the target.
> 
> However, the two way speed   of   light  from a source to a target and back is apparently  c =  ((c-v)+(c+v))/2.
> 
> This applies to all light as there are no stationary sources or targets in the universe. The only stationary substance is the aether.

Completely incorrect.

Where did you receive your physics education? You should demand that your tuition be returned!

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

#397086

On Friday, October 28, 2016 at 4:52:40 PM UTC-7, Peter Riedt wrote:
> The speed of light is anisotropic
> 

No, it isn't. Another cretinism from the resident crank , Peter Riedt



> The one way speed of light depends on the motion of the target.

No, it doesn't . Cretin.

 
> This applies to all light as there are no stationary sources or targets in the universe. The only stationary substance is the aether.

Imbecile. Incurable. 

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

#397095

On Friday, October 28, 2016 at 5:52:40 PM UTC-6, Peter Riedt wrote:
>
> The speed of light is anisotropic

"The work described in this thesis involves the Mössbauer effect in a
precision experiment, which was conducted in a search for a preferred
frame of reference. The experiment, sensitive to anisotropies in the
propagation of light, is a direct test of the fundamental postulates
of the special theory of relativity and the Lorentz transformation.
The limit set on effects arising from a preferred frame of reference,
or a classical aether, is 2.0 + 5.2 cm/sec which represents the most
sensitive test of the theory."

http://lightspeedtest.com/LightSpeed.pdf

And there have been many more experiments since which demonstrate that
your unfounded bullshit is dead wrong.  Why do you make up stuff out of
the vacuum in your head?

> [Remainder of bullshit deleted for sanitary reasons]

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

#397100

On Saturday, October 29, 2016 at 11:20:54 AM UTC+8, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> On Friday, October 28, 2016 at 5:52:40 PM UTC-6, Peter Riedt wrote:
> >
> > The speed of light is anisotropic
> 
> "The work described in this thesis involves the Mössbauer effect in a
> precision experiment, which was conducted in a search for a preferred
> frame of reference. The experiment, sensitive to anisotropies in the
> propagation of light, is a direct test of the fundamental postulates
> of the special theory of relativity and the Lorentz transformation.
> The limit set on effects arising from a preferred frame of reference,
> or a classical aether, is 2.0 + 5.2 cm/sec which represents the most
> sensitive test of the theory."
> 
> http://lightspeedtest.com/LightSpeed.pdf
> 
> And there have been many more experiments since which demonstrate that
> your unfounded bullshit is dead wrong.  Why do you make up stuff out of
> the vacuum in your head?
> 
No one way light speed experiments have been successful in proving isotropy.

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

#397102

On Friday, October 28, 2016 at 9:31:43 PM UTC-7, Peter Riedt wrote:
> On Saturday, October 29, 2016 at 11:20:54 AM UTC+8, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> > On Friday, October 28, 2016 at 5:52:40 PM UTC-6, Peter Riedt wrote:
> > >
> > > The speed of light is anisotropic
> > 
> > "The work described in this thesis involves the Mössbauer effect in a
> > precision experiment, which was conducted in a search for a preferred
> > frame of reference. The experiment, sensitive to anisotropies in the
> > propagation of light, is a direct test of the fundamental postulates
> > of the special theory of relativity and the Lorentz transformation.
> > The limit set on effects arising from a preferred frame of reference,
> > or a classical aether, is 2.0 + 5.2 cm/sec which represents the most
> > sensitive test of the theory."
> > 
> > http://lightspeedtest.com/LightSpeed.pdf
> > 
> > And there have been many more experiments since which demonstrate that
> > your unfounded bullshit is dead wrong.  Why do you make up stuff out of
> > the vacuum in your head?
> > 
> No one way light speed experiments have been successful in proving isotropy.

You are an imbecile:

1. You don't "prove isotropy" , you "constrain anisotropy"
2. There are literally hundreds of such tests.

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

#397110

On Saturday, October 29, 2016 at 12:38:14 PM UTC+8, Dono, wrote:

> 
> 1. You don't "prove isotropy" , you "constrain anisotropy"
> 2. There are literally hundreds of such tests.

Yes but all were negative.

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

#397120

On Saturday, October 29, 2016 at 1:46:17 AM UTC-7, Peter Riedt wrote:
> On Saturday, October 29, 2016 at 12:38:14 PM UTC+8, Dono, wrote:
> 
> > 
> > 1. You don't "prove isotropy" , you "constrain anisotropy"
> > 2. There are literally hundreds of such tests.
> 
> Yes but all were negative.

Imbecile,

An experiment that constrains a value cannot be "negative". You are almost as stupid as your buddy. 

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

#397263

On 10/29/2016 3:46 AM, Peter Riedt wrote:
> On Saturday, October 29, 2016 at 12:38:14 PM UTC+8, Dono, wrote:
>
>>
>> 1. You don't "prove isotropy" , you "constrain anisotropy"
>> 2. There are literally hundreds of such tests.
>
> Yes but all were negative.
>

Peter, if you devise a test to measure anisotropy if it exists, and the 
result of the test is negative, then this is a pretty solid indication 
that there is no anisotropy. Do you understand this?

-- 
Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

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

#397272

On Monday, October 31, 2016 at 9:08:41 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> On 10/29/2016 3:46 AM, Peter Riedt wrote:
> > On Saturday, October 29, 2016 at 12:38:14 PM UTC+8, Dono, wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> 1. You don't "prove isotropy" , you "constrain anisotropy"
> >> 2. There are literally hundreds of such tests.
> >
> > Yes but all were negative.
> >
> 
> Peter, if you devise a test to measure anisotropy if it exists, and the 
> result of the test is negative, then this is a pretty solid indication 
> that there is no anisotropy. Do you understand this?
> 

It's easy to test the anisotropy of the speed of incoming light from a moving source:
c=local speed of light
c'=incoming speed of light
Lambda_o=measured wavelength of specific light source local light.
Lambda_i=measured wavelength of identical moving light source of incoming light.

c'=c(Lambda_o/Lambda_i)

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

#397273

On 10/31/2016 10:06 AM, kenseto wrote:
> On Monday, October 31, 2016 at 9:08:41 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>> On 10/29/2016 3:46 AM, Peter Riedt wrote:
>>> On Saturday, October 29, 2016 at 12:38:14 PM UTC+8, Dono, wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> 1. You don't "prove isotropy" , you "constrain anisotropy"
>>>> 2. There are literally hundreds of such tests.
>>>
>>> Yes but all were negative.
>>>
>>
>> Peter, if you devise a test to measure anisotropy if it exists, and the
>> result of the test is negative, then this is a pretty solid indication
>> that there is no anisotropy. Do you understand this?
>>
>
> It's easy to test the anisotropy of the speed of incoming light from a moving source:
> c=local speed of light
> c'=incoming speed of light
> Lambda_o=measured wavelength of specific light source local light.
> Lambda_i=measured wavelength of identical moving light source of incoming light.
>
> c'=c(Lambda_o/Lambda_i)
>

No need to do it this way. You can do it directly without using 
wavelengths. As you've said many times, it's better to use a direct 
measurement if it does the job with the same precision.

-- 
Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

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

#397274

On Monday, October 31, 2016 at 11:10:22 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> On 10/31/2016 10:06 AM, kenseto wrote:
> > On Monday, October 31, 2016 at 9:08:41 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> >> On 10/29/2016 3:46 AM, Peter Riedt wrote:
> >>> On Saturday, October 29, 2016 at 12:38:14 PM UTC+8, Dono, wrote:
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>> 1. You don't "prove isotropy" , you "constrain anisotropy"
> >>>> 2. There are literally hundreds of such tests.
> >>>
> >>> Yes but all were negative.
> >>>
> >>
> >> Peter, if you devise a test to measure anisotropy if it exists, and the
> >> result of the test is negative, then this is a pretty solid indication
> >> that there is no anisotropy. Do you understand this?
> >>
> >
> > It's easy to test the anisotropy of the speed of incoming light from a moving source:
> > c=local speed of light
> > c'=incoming speed of light
> > Lambda_o=measured wavelength of specific light source local light.
> > Lambda_i=measured wavelength of identical moving light source of incoming light.
> >
> > c'=c(Lambda_o/Lambda_i)
> >
> 
> No need to do it this way. You can do it directly without using 
> wavelengths. As you've said many times, it's better to use a direct 
> measurement if it does the job with the same precision.
> 

Sigh.....There is no direct way of measuring anisotropy using nonmoving local light source. Why? The speed of light locally is isotopic.

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

#397278

On 10/31/2016 10:17 AM, kenseto wrote:
> On Monday, October 31, 2016 at 11:10:22 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>> On 10/31/2016 10:06 AM, kenseto wrote:
>>> On Monday, October 31, 2016 at 9:08:41 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>>>> On 10/29/2016 3:46 AM, Peter Riedt wrote:
>>>>> On Saturday, October 29, 2016 at 12:38:14 PM UTC+8, Dono, wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 1. You don't "prove isotropy" , you "constrain anisotropy"
>>>>>> 2. There are literally hundreds of such tests.
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes but all were negative.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Peter, if you devise a test to measure anisotropy if it exists, and the
>>>> result of the test is negative, then this is a pretty solid indication
>>>> that there is no anisotropy. Do you understand this?
>>>>
>>>
>>> It's easy to test the anisotropy of the speed of incoming light from a moving source:
>>> c=local speed of light
>>> c'=incoming speed of light
>>> Lambda_o=measured wavelength of specific light source local light.
>>> Lambda_i=measured wavelength of identical moving light source of incoming light.
>>>
>>> c'=c(Lambda_o/Lambda_i)
>>>
>>
>> No need to do it this way. You can do it directly without using
>> wavelengths. As you've said many times, it's better to use a direct
>> measurement if it does the job with the same precision.
>>
>
> Sigh.....There is no direct way of measuring anisotropy using nonmoving local
> light source.

Of course there is. And for a nonlocal and moving source too.

> Why? The speed of light locally is isotopic.

Right, because you measured the anisotropy to be consistent with zero.



>


-- 
Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

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

#397284

On Monday, October 31, 2016 at 11:31:48 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> On 10/31/2016 10:17 AM, kenseto wrote:
> > On Monday, October 31, 2016 at 11:10:22 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> >> On 10/31/2016 10:06 AM, kenseto wrote:
> >>> On Monday, October 31, 2016 at 9:08:41 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> >>>> On 10/29/2016 3:46 AM, Peter Riedt wrote:
> >>>>> On Saturday, October 29, 2016 at 12:38:14 PM UTC+8, Dono, wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> 1. You don't "prove isotropy" , you "constrain anisotropy"
> >>>>>> 2. There are literally hundreds of such tests.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Yes but all were negative.
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Peter, if you devise a test to measure anisotropy if it exists, and the
> >>>> result of the test is negative, then this is a pretty solid indication
> >>>> that there is no anisotropy. Do you understand this?
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> It's easy to test the anisotropy of the speed of incoming light from a moving source:
> >>> c=local speed of light
> >>> c'=incoming speed of light
> >>> Lambda_o=measured wavelength of specific light source local light.
> >>> Lambda_i=measured wavelength of identical moving light source of incoming light.
> >>>
> >>> c'=c(Lambda_o/Lambda_i)
> >>>
> >>
> >> No need to do it this way. You can do it directly without using
> >> wavelengths. As you've said many times, it's better to use a direct
> >> measurement if it does the job with the same precision.
> >>
> >
> > Sigh.....There is no direct way of measuring anisotropy using nonmoving local
> > light source.
> 
> Of course there is. 

Of course there is not.....not if the local speed of light is measured to be isotropic.

>And for a nonlocal and moving source too.

For nonlocal and moving light source the incoming speed of light is is anisotropic as I had shown.

> 
> > Why? The speed of light locally is isotopic.

 
> Right, because you measured the anisotropy to be consistent with zero.
> 

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

#397287

kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes:

>On Monday, October 31, 2016 at 9:08:41 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote:

>> Peter, if you devise a test to measure anisotropy if it exists, and the 
>> result of the test is negative, then this is a pretty solid indication 
>> that there is no anisotropy. Do you understand this?
>> 

>It's easy to test the anisotropy of the speed of incoming light from a moving source:
>c=local speed of light
>c'=incoming speed of light
>Lambda_o=measured wavelength of specific light source local light.
>Lambda_i=measured wavelength of identical moving light source of incoming light.

>c'=c(Lambda_o/Lambda_i)

No, Stupid Ken.  The speed is the wavelength divided by the frequency. So
c=Lambda_i/f_i, and c' would be Lambda_o/f_o.

Therefore, c'=c(Lambda_o/Lambda_i)*(f_i/f_o).

It just so happens that lambda and f change by the same amount (inversely) so
that it always happens that c'=c.

This has been known since before Einstein.

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

#397308

On Monday, October 31, 2016 at 12:04:05 PM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote:
> kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes:
> 
> >On Monday, October 31, 2016 at 9:08:41 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> 
> >> Peter, if you devise a test to measure anisotropy if it exists, and the 
> >> result of the test is negative, then this is a pretty solid indication 
> >> that there is no anisotropy. Do you understand this?
> >> 
> 
> >It's easy to test the anisotropy of the speed of incoming light from a moving source:
> >c=local speed of light
> >c'=incoming speed of light
> >Lambda_o=measured wavelength of specific light source local light.
> >Lambda_i=measured wavelength of identical moving light source of incoming light.
> 
> >c'=c(Lambda_o/Lambda_i)
> 
> No, Stupid Ken.  The speed is the wavelength divided by the frequency. So
> c=Lambda_i/f_i, and c' would be Lambda_o/f_o.
> 
> Therefore, c'=c(Lambda_o/Lambda_i)*(f_i/f_o).

No idiot moron:
c'=c(Lambda_o/Lambda_i)=c(f_i/f_o)

> 
> It just so happens that lambda and f change by the same amount (inversely) so
> that it always happens that c'=c.
> 
> This has been known since before Einstein.

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

#397309

On Monday, October 31, 2016 at 12:04:05 PM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote:
> kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes:
> 
> >On Monday, October 31, 2016 at 9:08:41 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> 
> >> Peter, if you devise a test to measure anisotropy if it exists, and the 
> >> result of the test is negative, then this is a pretty solid indication 
> >> that there is no anisotropy. Do you understand this?
> >> 
> 
> >It's easy to test the anisotropy of the speed of incoming light from a moving source:
> >c=local speed of light
> >c'=incoming speed of light
> >Lambda_o=measured wavelength of specific light source local light.
> >Lambda_i=measured wavelength of identical moving light source of incoming light.
> 
> >c'=c(Lambda_o/Lambda_i)
> 
> No, Stupid Ken.  The speed is the wavelength divided by the frequency. So
> c=Lambda_i/f_i, and c' would be Lambda_o/f_o.
> 
> Therefore, c'=c(Lambda_o/Lambda_i)*(f_i/f_o).

OK moron your equation is simplified as follows:
c'=c(Lambda_o*f_o)(Lambda_i*f_i)= c(c)(c)= c^3 = c'
You are so fucking stupid. I suggest that you go off to a corner and commit suicide.

> 
> It just so happens that lambda and f change by the same amount (inversely) so
> that it always happens that c'=c.
> 
> This has been known since before Einstein.

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

#397310

Le 31/10/2016 à 20:44, kenseto a écrit :
> On Monday, October 31, 2016 at 12:04:05 PM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote:
...
>> Therefore, c'=c(Lambda_o/Lambda_i)*(f_i/f_o).
>
> OK moron your equation is simplified as follows:
> c'=c(Lambda_o*f_o)(Lambda_i*f_i)= c(c)(c)= c^3 = c'

O dear... This is worse than ever (coming from you, one couldn't
easily think that it may happen)...

As it appears clearly here, Mr Seto, you do think that this
is a mathematical valid identity:

(a/b) * (c/d) = (a*d) * (b*c)

Really? Mr Seto? Really?

You didn't even notice the dimensional mistake when you
pass from a term without dimension: (Lambda_o/Lambda_i)*(f_i/f_o)
to another one with dimension speed^2?

Mr Seto, there is aboslutely no doubt that you have zero ability in
basic math and quite a negative ability in physics. Why are you
making a fool of yourself for so many years?

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

#397389

On Monday, October 31, 2016 at 4:03:18 PM UTC-4, Python wrote:
> Le 31/10/2016 à 20:44, kenseto a écrit :
> > On Monday, October 31, 2016 at 12:04:05 PM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote:

> 
> You didn't even notice the dimensional mistake when you
> pass from a term without dimension: (Lambda_o/Lambda_i)*(f_i/f_o)
> to another one with dimension speed^2?

 What is wrong is Moron-y's equation: c'= c(lambda_o/Lambda_i)(f_i/f_o)
The correct equations are:
c'= c(Lambda_o/Lambda_i)
c'=c(f_i/f_o)

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

#397392

kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes:

>On Monday, October 31, 2016 at 4:03:18 PM UTC-4, Python wrote:

>> You didn't even notice the dimensional mistake when you
>> pass from a term without dimension: (Lambda_o/Lambda_i)*(f_i/f_o)
>> to another one with dimension speed^2?

> What is wrong is Moron-y's equation: c'= c(lambda_o/Lambda_i)(f_i/f_o)
>The correct equations are:
>c'= c(Lambda_o/Lambda_i)
>c'=c(f_i/f_o)

Admit it, Stupid Ken, you really screwed up when you managed to come up
with "c'=c(Lambda_o*f_o)(Lambda_i*f_i)" from my equation somehow. That's
how you earned the nickname "Stupid Ken".

But let's take a look at your "c'= c(Lambda_o/Lambda_i)" equation.
We can rewrite it as c'=(Lambda_i*f_i)*(Lambda_o/Lambda_i).
This becomes c'=(Lambda_i/Lambda_i)*(Lambda_o*f_i), or just 
c'=(Lambda_o*f_i).  Why do you think you can multiply Lambda_o and
f_i?  You can only multiply Lambda_o*f_o or Lambda_i*f_i.  Lambda_o
and f_i are for different things and you can't just multiply them
together, Stupid Ken.

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

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

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

csiph-web