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

Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #457428 > unrolled thread

The Incoming speeds of light are the same as the closing speeds of light

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

Contents

  The Incoming speeds of light are the same as the closing speeds of light kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-05-03 10:42 -0700
    Re: The Incoming speeds of light are the same as the closing speeds of light Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvandemoortel@notmail.com> - 2018-05-03 23:00 +0200
      Re: The Incoming speeds of light are the same as the closing speeds of light kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-05-04 06:09 -0700
      Re: The Incoming speeds of light are the same as the closing speeds of light Ursula Vankeuren <aln@divweo.id> - 2018-05-14 20:02 +0000
    Re:The Incoming speeds of light are the same as the closing speeds of light Libor Striz <poutnik4REMOVEnntp@CAPITALSgmail.com> - 2018-05-04 08:02 +0200
      Re: The Incoming speeds of light are the same as the closing speeds of light kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-05-04 06:12 -0700
        Re: The Incoming speeds of light are the same as the closing speeds of light Libor Striz <poutnik4REMOVEnntp@CAPITALSgmail.com> - 2018-05-04 15:30 +0200
          Re: The Incoming speeds of light are the same as the closing speeds of light kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-05-04 07:07 -0700
            Re: The Incoming speeds of light are the same as the closing speeds of light Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-05-04 07:25 -0700
            Re: The Incoming speeds of light are the same as the closing speeds of light Libor Striz <poutnik4REMOVEnntp@CAPITALSgmail.com> - 2018-05-04 16:35 +0200
    Re: The Incoming speeds of light are the same as the closing speeds of light Steve BH <sbharris@gmail.com> - 2018-05-04 15:15 -0700
      Re: The Incoming speeds of light are the same as the closing speeds of light "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-05-04 16:01 -0700
      Re: The Incoming speeds of light are the same as the closing speeds of light kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-05-04 16:26 -0700
    Re: The Incoming speeds of light are the same as the closing speeds of light kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-05-04 16:22 -0700
      Re: The Incoming speeds of light are the same as the closing speeds of light Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-05-04 18:13 -0700
        Re: The Incoming speeds of light are the same as the closing speeds of light moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-05-05 04:18 +0000
          Re: The Incoming speeds of light are the same as the closing speeds of light Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-05-05 04:49 -0700
        Re: The Incoming speeds of light are the same as the closing speeds of light kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-05-05 05:43 -0700
          Re: The Incoming speeds of light are the same as the closing speeds of light Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-05-05 06:43 -0700
            Re: The Incoming speeds of light are the same as the closing speeds of light kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-05-05 07:06 -0700
              Re: The Incoming speeds of light are the same as the closing speeds of light Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-05-05 09:11 -0700
                Re: The Incoming speeds of light are the same as the closing speeds of light kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-05-06 07:28 -0700
                  Re: The Incoming speeds of light are the same as the closing speeds of light Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-05-06 07:39 -0700
                    Re: The Incoming speeds of light are the same as the closing speeds of light kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-05-06 12:59 -0700
                      Re: The Incoming speeds of light are the same as the closing speeds of light Otto Wahl <tlow@wtiwor.oc> - 2018-05-06 20:01 +0000
                      Re: The Incoming speeds of light are the same as the closing speeds of light Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-05-06 13:33 -0700
                        Re: The Incoming speeds of light are the same as the closing speeds of light kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-05-06 18:57 -0700
                          Re: The Incoming speeds of light are the same as the closing speeds of light Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-05-06 19:45 -0700
                            Re: The Incoming speeds of light are the same as the closing speeds of light kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-05-07 04:57 -0700
                              Re: The Incoming speeds of light are the same as the closing speeds of light Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-05-07 07:15 -0700
              Re: The Incoming speeds of light are the same as the closing speeds of light moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-05-05 16:33 +0000
              Re: The Incoming speeds of light are the same as the closing speeds of light "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-05-05 10:56 -0700
    Re: The Incoming speeds of light are the same as the closing speeds of light Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-05-06 17:54 -0700
      Re: The Incoming speeds of light are the same as the closing speeds of light kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-05-07 07:27 -0700
        Re: The Incoming speeds of light are the same as the closing speeds of light Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-05-07 09:38 -0700
          Re: The Incoming speeds of light are the same as the closing speeds of light "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-05-07 12:22 -0700
            Re: The Incoming speeds of light are the same as the closing speeds of light "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-05-07 14:00 -0700
              Re: The Incoming speeds of light are the same as the closing speeds of light "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-05-07 14:30 -0700
                Re: The Incoming speeds of light are the same as the closing speeds of light "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-05-07 14:55 -0700

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

#457428 — The Incoming speeds of light are the same as the closing speeds of light

In Einstein’s train gedanken he said that according to M, the track observer, the train observer M’ has different closing speeds wrt the light fronts from the ends of the train. He said that M’ is rushing to meet the light front from the front end of the train and thus the closing speed of light between M’ and the light front from the front is c’=c+v. Also M’ is receding away from the light front from the rear of the train and thus the  closing speed is c”=c-v. It turns out that these different closing speeds are just incoming speeds of these incoming light fronts. 

It turns out that Einstein was correct. The different closing speeds arriving at M’ are just different different incoming light speeds arriving at M’. In fact we can calculate these closing speeds (incoming speeds) of light between M’ and light coming from different directions  as follows: 
c’= c(source wavelength/incoming wavelength) 
OR 
c’=c(measured incoming frequency)(source wavelength) 

However, the detection of different closing speeds of light from different directions will refute the SR postulates. Why? Because the SR postulate says that the incoming speed of light from any direction is still isotropic c. This means that we need to have a new theory that can accommodate these new discovery of different measured closing speeds of light and I have found such theory--called IRT and a paper on IRT is available in the following link: 
http://www.modelmechanics.org/2015irt.pdf

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#457441

Op 03-mei-2018 om 19:42 schreef kenseto:
> 
> In Einstein’s train gedanken he said that according to M, the track
> observer, the train observer M’ has different closing speeds wrt the
> light fronts from the ends of the train. He said that M’ is rushing
> to meet the light front from the front end of the train and thus the
> closing speed of light between M’ and the light front from the front
> is c’=c+v. Also M’ is receding away from the light front from the
> rear of the train and thus the  closing speed is c”=c-v. It turns out
> that these different closing speeds are just incoming speeds of these
> incoming light fronts.
> 
> It turns out that Einstein was correct. The different closing speeds
> arriving at M’ are just different different incoming light speeds
> arriving at M’. In fact we can calculate these closing speeds
> (incoming speeds) of light between M’ and light coming from different
> directions  as follows: c’= c(source wavelength/incoming wavelength) 
> OR c’=c(measured incoming frequency)(source wavelength)
> 
> However, the detection of different closing speeds of light from
> different directions will refute the SR postulates. Why? Because the
> SR postulate says that the incoming speed of light from any direction
> is still isotropic c. This means that we need to have a new theory
> that can accommodate these new discovery of different measured
> closing speeds of light and I have found such theory--called IRT and
> a paper on IRT is available in the following link: 
> http://www.stupidimbeciles.org/2015idiot.pdf

That link does not work.

Dirk Vdm

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

#457471

On Thursday, May 3, 2018 at 5:00:19 PM UTC-4, Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
> Op 03-mei-2018 om 19:42 schreef kenseto:
> > 
> > In Einstein’s train gedanken he said that according to M, the track
> > observer, the train observer M’ has different closing speeds wrt the
> > light fronts from the ends of the train. He said that M’ is rushing
> > to meet the light front from the front end of the train and thus the
> > closing speed of light between M’ and the light front from the front
> > is c’=c+v. Also M’ is receding away from the light front from the
> > rear of the train and thus the  closing speed is c”=c-v. It turns out
> > that these different closing speeds are just incoming speeds of these
> > incoming light fronts.
> > 
> > It turns out that Einstein was correct. The different closing speeds
> > arriving at M’ are just different different incoming light speeds
> > arriving at M’. In fact we can calculate these closing speeds
> > (incoming speeds) of light between M’ and light coming from different
> > directions  as follows: c’= c(source wavelength/incoming wavelength) 
> > OR c’=c(measured incoming frequency)(source wavelength)
> > 
> > However, the detection of different closing speeds of light from
> > different directions will refute the SR postulates. Why? Because the
> > SR postulate says that the incoming speed of light from any direction
> > is still isotropic c. This means that we need to have a new theory
> > that can accommodate these new discovery of different measured
> > closing speeds of light and I have found such theory--called IRT and
> > a paper on IRT is available in the following link: 
> > http://www.stupidimbeciles.org/2015idiot.pdf
> 
> That link does not work.

Moron. 

> 
> Dirk Vdm

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

#457907

Dirk Van de moortel wrote:

>> However, the detection of different closing speeds of light from
>> different directions will refute the SR postulates. Why? Because the SR
>> postulate says that the incoming speed of light from any direction is
>> still isotropic c. This means that we need to have a new theory that
>> can accommodate these new discovery of different measured closing
>> speeds of light and I have found such theory--called IRT and a paper on
>> IRT is available in the following link:
>> http://www.stupidimbeciles.org/2015idiot.pdf
> 
> That link does not work. Dirk Vdm

How about now
https://static.independent.co.uk/s3fs-public/styles/article_large/public/thumbnails/image/2017/05/09/11/neo.jpg

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

#457461

You have been convinced many times in past you do not know the
 difference between speed and closing speed.

-- 
Libor Striz aka Poutnik ( a pilgrim/wanderer/wayfarer)

"Humour is the only effective weapon against stupidity."
Miloš Forman


----Android NewsGroup Reader----
http://usenet.sinaapp.com/

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

#457473

On Friday, May 4, 2018 at 2:02:03 AM UTC-4, Libor Striz wrote:
> You have been convinced many times in past you do not know the
>  difference between speed and closing speed.

It just mean that you don’t know that there is no difference between closing speeds and incoming speeds are one of the same. <sad>
> 
> -- 
> Libor Striz aka Poutnik ( a pilgrim/wanderer/wayfarer)
> 
> "Humour is the only effective weapon against stupidity."
> Miloš Forman
> 
> 
> ----Android NewsGroup Reader----
> http://usenet.sinaapp.com/

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

#457475

kenseto <setoken@att.net> Wrote in message:
> On Friday, May 4, 2018 at 2:02:03 AM UTC-4, Libor Striz wrote:
>> You have been convinced many times in past you do not know the
>>  difference between speed and closing speed.
> 
> It just mean that you don’t know that there is no difference between closing speeds and incoming speeds are one of the same. <sad>

Only if one of objects is in rest,
even in classical preSR physics.

2 approaching balls from left and right have ( incoming) speed 150
 km/h, while their closing speed is 300 km/h.

So you say 150=300

Sure, if one of balls were in rest,
the speed of the moving one
and their mutual closing speed
would be equal.

But equal does not mean the same,
the same are just values of the quantities, not quantities  themselves.

-- 
Libor Striz aka Poutnik ( a pilgrim/wanderer/wayfarer)

"Humour is the only effective weapon against stupidity."
Miloš Forman


----Android NewsGroup Reader----
http://usenet.sinaapp.com/

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

#457477

On Friday, May 4, 2018 at 9:30:34 AM UTC-4, Libor Striz wrote:
> kenseto <setoken@att.net> Wrote in message:
> > On Friday, May 4, 2018 at 2:02:03 AM UTC-4, Libor Striz wrote:
> >> You have been convinced many times in past you do not know the
> >>  difference between speed and closing speed.
> > 
> > It just mean that you don’t know that there is no difference between closing speeds and incoming speeds are one of the same. <sad>
> 
> Only if one of objects is in rest,
> even in classical preSR physics.

Moron, no object is at rest. The light front is moving and the observer is moving. The incoming light is the closing speed of light between the observer and light.

> 
> 2 approaching balls from left and right have ( incoming) speed 150
>  km/h, while their closing speed is 300 km/h.

No moron, the incoming speed is 300 km/hr. The 150 km/h is a speed wrt the road.

> 
> So you say 150=300

No, that’s what you say.

> 
> Sure, if one of balls were in rest,
> the speed of the moving one
> and their mutual closing speed
> would be equal.
> 
> But equal does not mean the same,
> the same are just values of the quantities, not quantities  themselves.
> 
> -- 
> Libor Striz aka Poutnik ( a pilgrim/wanderer/wayfarer)
> 
> "Humour is the only effective weapon against stupidity."
> Miloš Forman
> 
> 
> ----Android NewsGroup Reader----
> http://usenet.sinaapp.com/

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

#457479

On Friday, May 4, 2018 at 8:07:44 AM UTC-6, kenseto wrote:
>
> Moron,

Imbecile.

> no object is at rest.

How convenient to claim that when it suits your imbecilic false claims.

> The light front is moving and the observer is moving.

Not according to the observer, imbecile.  Why do you ignore the FIRST
postulate, dishonest ignoramus?

> The incoming light is the closing speed of light between the observer and
> light.

Which proves that you are stupider than dirt.

> > approaching balls from left and right have ( incoming) speed 150
> >  km/h, while their closing speed is 300 km/h.
> 
> No moron,

YES, imbecile.

> the incoming speed is 300 km/hr. The 150 km/h is a speed wrt the road.

Get the bull plop out of your head.  Ooh, that would leave only a vacuum
there.  At least the dirt in my yard can grow grass.

> > So you say 150=300
> 
> No, that’s what you say.
> 
> > 
> > Sure, if one of balls were in rest,
> > the speed of the moving one
> > and their mutual closing speed
> > would be equal.
> > 
> > But equal does not mean the same,

Since when, vacuum head?

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

#457481

kenseto <setoken@att.net> Wrote in message:
> On Friday, May 4, 2018 at 9:30:34 AM UTC-4, Libor Striz wrote:
>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> Wrote in message:
>> > On Friday, May 4, 2018 at 2:02:03 AM UTC-4, Libor Striz wrote:
>> >> You have been convinced many times in past you do not know the
>> >>  difference between speed and closing speed.
>> > 
>> > It just mean that you don’t know that there is no difference between closing speeds and incoming speeds are one of the same. <sad>
>> 
>> Only if one of objects is in rest,
>> even in classical preSR physics.
> 
> Moron, no object is at rest. 

Most of morons call most of others the morons.


"Humour is the only effective weapon against stupidity."
Miloš Forman


----Android NewsGroup Reader----
http://usenet.sinaapp.com/

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

#457494

On Thursday, May 3, 2018 at 10:42:26 AM UTC-7, kenseto wrote:
> In Einstein’s train gedanken he said that according to M, the track observer, the train observer M’ has different closing speeds wrt the light fronts from the ends of the train. He said that M’ is rushing to meet the light front from the front end of the train and thus the closing speed of light between M’ and the light front from the front is c’=c+v. Also M’ is receding away from the light front from the rear of the train and thus the  closing speed is c”=c-v. It turns out that these different closing speeds are just incoming speeds of these incoming light fronts. 
> 
> It turns out that Einstein was correct. The different closing speeds arriving at M’ are just different different incoming light speeds arriving at M’. In fact we can calculate these closing speeds (incoming speeds) of light between M’ and light coming from different directions  as follows: 
> c’= c(source wavelength/incoming wavelength) 
> OR 
> c’=c(measured incoming frequency)(source wavelength) 
> 
> However, the detection of different closing speeds of light from different directions will refute the SR postulates. Why? Because the SR postulate says that the incoming speed of light from any direction is still isotropic c. This means that we need to have a new theory that can accommodate these new discovery of different measured closing speeds of light and I have found such theory--called IRT and a paper on IRT is available in the following link: 
> http://www.modelmechanics.org/2015irt.pdf


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faster-than-light#Closing_speeds

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

#457497

(((c^7) / (hbar * (G^2))) * (planck length^3)) / ((6.524893 ((kg m) / s)) ) = c

The only reason for photons to conform to hbar & the speed of light to always  be measured at c is .....

the Medium Photons are traveling through is Still at Planck Pressure and like fish at the bottom of the sea, we are just not noticing the Pressure 

https://youtu.be/NjPFfT2EyxQ


https://youtu.be/tFq5lCNEZmU

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

#457499

On Friday, May 4, 2018 at 6:15:15 PM UTC-4, Steve BH wrote:
> On Thursday, May 3, 2018 at 10:42:26 AM UTC-7, kenseto wrote:
> > In Einstein’s train gedanken he said that according to M, the track observer, the train observer M’ has different closing speeds wrt the light fronts from the ends of the train. He said that M’ is rushing to meet the light front from the front end of the train and thus the closing speed of light between M’ and the light front from the front is c’=c+v. Also M’ is receding away from the light front from the rear of the train and thus the  closing speed is c”=c-v. It turns out that these different closing speeds are just incoming speeds of these incoming light fronts. 
> > 
> > It turns out that Einstein was correct. The different closing speeds arriving at M’ are just different different incoming light speeds arriving at M’. In fact we can calculate these closing speeds (incoming speeds) of light between M’ and light coming from different directions  as follows: 
> > c’= c(source wavelength/incoming wavelength) 
> > OR 
> > c’=(measured incoming frequency)(source wavelength) 
> > 
> > However, the detection of different closing speeds of light from different directions will refute the SR postulates. Why? Because the SR postulate says that the incoming speed of light from any direction is still isotropic c. This means that we need to have a new theory that can accommodate these new discovery of different measured closing speeds of light and I have found such theory--called IRT and a paper on IRT is available in the following link: 
> > http://www.modelmechanics.org/2015irt.pdf
> 
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faster-than-light#Closing_speeds

Notice that the formulae I posted can also give closing speeds greater than c.
c’= c(source wavelength/incoming wavelength) 
 OR 
c’=(measured incoming frequency)(source wavelength) 

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

#457498

On Thursday, May 3, 2018 at 1:42:26 PM UTC-4, kenseto wrote:
> In Einstein’s train gedanken he said that according to M, the track observer, the train observer M’ has different closing speeds wrt the light fronts from the ends of the train. He said that M’ is rushing to meet the light front from the front end of the train and thus the closing speed of light between M’ and the light front from the front is c’=c+v. Also M’ is receding away from the light front from the rear of the train and thus the  closing speed is c”=c-v. It turns out that these different closing speeds are just incoming speeds of these incoming light fronts. 
> 
> It turns out that Einstein was correct. The different closing speeds arriving at M’ are just different different incoming light speeds arriving at M’. In fact we can calculate these closing speeds (incoming speeds) of light between M’ and light coming from different directions  as follows: 
> c’= c(source wavelength/incoming wavelength) 
> OR 
> c’=c(measured incoming frequency)(source wavelength) 

Sorry, it should be:
 c’=(measured incoming frequency)(source wavelength)

> 
> However, the detection of different closing speeds of light from different directions will refute the SR postulates. Why? Because the SR postulate says that the incoming speed of light from any direction is still isotropic c. This means that we need to have a new theory that can accommodate these new discovery of different measured closing speeds of light and I have found such theory--called IRT and a paper on IRT is available in the following link: 
> http://www.modelmechanics.org/2015irt.pdf

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

#457502

On Friday, May 4, 2018 at 5:22:22 PM UTC-6, kenseto wrote:
>
>  c’=(measured incoming frequency)(source wavelength)

Amazingly and stupidly dead wrong, unbelievably-boned-headed imbecile.

Measuring a speed by taking one term (like frequency) from one frame and
another term (like wavelength) from a different frame is just plain STUPID,
which is what you just proved yourself to be.  I realize that your head
is full of dog poop, but you just reached a new low on the intelligence
scale.

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

#457511

Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> writes:

>On Friday, May 4, 2018 at 5:22:22 PM UTC-6, kenseto wrote:
>>
>>  c'=(measured incoming frequency)(source wavelength)

>Amazingly and stupidly dead wrong, unbelievably-boned-headed imbecile.

>Measuring a speed by taking one term (like frequency) from one frame and
>another term (like wavelength) from a different frame is just plain STUPID,
>which is what you just proved yourself to be.

What do you expect from Stupid Ken? Especially after several people explained
what a closing speed is, yet he insists on using his own made-up definition
of closing speed.

>  I realize that your head
>is full of dog poop, but you just reached a new low on the intelligence
>scale.

You do realize that you are insulting dog poop.

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

#457520

On Friday, May 4, 2018 at 10:18:03 PM UTC-6, Michael Moroney wrote:
>
> Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> writes:
> >
> > On Friday, May 4, 2018 at 5:22:22 PM UTC-6, kenseto wrote:
> > >
> > >  c'=(measured incoming frequency)(source wavelength)
> 
> > Amazingly and stupidly dead wrong, unbelievably-boned-headed imbecile.
> >
> > Measuring a speed by taking one term (like frequency) from one frame and
> > another term (like wavelength) from a different frame is just plain
> > STUPID, which is what you just proved yourself to be.
> 
> What do you expect from Stupid Ken? Especially after several people
> explained what a closing speed is, yet he insists on using his own made-up
> definition of closing speed.
> 
> > I realize that your head is full of dog poop, but you just reached a
> > new low on the intelligence scale.
> 
> You do realize that you are insulting dog poop.

I'm sorry if I offended your dog, too :-)

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

#457522

On Friday, May 4, 2018 at 9:14:00 PM UTC-4, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> On Friday, May 4, 2018 at 5:22:22 PM UTC-6, kenseto wrote:
> >
> >  c’=(measured incoming frequency)(source wavelength)
> 
> Amazingly and stupidly dead wrong, unbelievably-boned-headed imbecile.
> 
> Measuring a speed by taking one term (like frequency) from one frame and
> another term (like wavelength) from a different frame is just plain STUPID,
> which is what you just proved yourself to be.  I realize that your head
> is full of dog poop, but you just reached a new low on the intelligence
> scale.

Moron, the wavelength is not effected during transit. Therefore, the original source wavelength times the number of waves arrived per second (measured frequency) is the closing speed of the arriving waves.

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

#457527

On Saturday, May 5, 2018 at 6:44:00 AM UTC-6, kenseto wrote:
>
> On Friday, May 4, 2018 at 9:14:00 PM UTC-4, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> >
> > On Friday, May 4, 2018 at 5:22:22 PM UTC-6, kenseto wrote:
> > >
> > >  c’=(measured incoming frequency)(source wavelength)
> > 
> > Amazingly and stupidly dead wrong, unbelievably-boned-headed imbecile.
> > 
> > Measuring a speed by taking one term (like frequency) from one frame and
> > another term (like wavelength) from a different frame is just plain
> > STUPID, which is what you just proved yourself to be.  I realize that
> > your head is full of dog poop, but you just reached a new low on the
> > intelligence scale.
> 
> Moron,

Imbecile.

> the wavelength is not effected during transit.

Confused yammering by a dog-poop-infested mind.  Wavelength invariance is
refuted by astronomers, physicists and people who have their heads screwed
on right.  Your, OTOH, is filled with dog poop.

> Therefore, the original source wavelength times the number of waves arrived
> per second (measured frequency) is the closing speed of the arriving waves.

If what you yammer were true, then it would be just fine to measure the
wavelength at the detector, too, so there's no rational excuse to blather
about the source wavelength.  Unfortunately, your butt-headed bull plop
is dead wrong since the wavelength measured by the detector is NOT the
same as the source wavelength, despicable lying weasel.  Gee, you are stupid.

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

#457530

On Saturday, May 5, 2018 at 9:43:15 AM UTC-4, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> On Saturday, May 5, 2018 at 6:44:00 AM UTC-6, kenseto wrote:
> >
> > On Friday, May 4, 2018 at 9:14:00 PM UTC-4, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> > >
> > > On Friday, May 4, 2018 at 5:22:22 PM UTC-6, kenseto wrote:
> > > >
> > > >  c’=(measured incoming frequency)(source wavelength)
> > > 
> > > Amazingly and stupidly dead wrong, unbelievably-boned-headed imbecile.
> > > 
> > > Measuring a speed by taking one term (like frequency) from one frame and
> > > another term (like wavelength) from a different frame is just plain
> > > STUPID, which is what you just proved yourself to be.  I realize that
> > > your head is full of dog poop, but you just reached a new low on the
> > > intelligence scale.
> > 
> > Moron,
> 
> Imbecile.
> 
> > the wavelength is not effected during transit.
> 
> Confused yammering by a dog-poop-infested mind.  Wavelength invariance is
> refuted by astronomers, physicists and people who have their heads screwed
> on right.  Your, OTOH, is filled with dog poop.
> 
> > Therefore, the original source wavelength times the number of waves arrived
> > per second (measured frequency) is the closing speed of the arriving waves.
> 
> If what you yammer were true, then it would be just fine to measure the
> wavelength at the detector, too, so there's no rational excuse to blather
> about the source wavelength.  Unfortunately, your butt-headed bull plop
> is dead wrong since the wavelength measured by the detector is NOT the
> same as the source wavelength, despicable lying weasel.  Gee, you are stupid.

Moron, the incoming light becomes a new light source in the detector’s frame and all light sources in the detector’s frame....measured wavelength in combination with measured frequency for any light source in the same frame will give you c. That’s why you must use the source wavelength to determine the incoming speed of light.

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

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

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

csiph-web