On Feb 14, 3:59*pm, HW@....(Dr. Henri Wilson) wrote:
On Thu, 14 Feb 2008 12:16:46 -0800 (PST), PD wrote:
On Feb 13, 2:29*pm, HW@....(Dr. Henri Wilson) wrote:
On Wed, 13 Feb 2008 06:04:58 -0800 (PST), PD wrote:
On Feb 12, 6:20*pm, HW@....(Dr. Henri Wilson) wrote:
Observer dependence, ie., doppler shift, of anything depends on the speed of
information.
The period of a tin whistle appears different for differently moving observers
simply because of sound's finite travel time.
Its period defines an absolute time interval in its own frame. That period has
the same absolute value in all frames.... but any relatively moving observer
who wishes to use it as a time standard must correct for sound's travel time .

A similar principle applies when light is used to carry information.
For instance the absolute period of a distant pulsar, moving towards earth at v
is given by [observed period]/[c/(c+v)].

If I want to set my watch by a relatively moving pulsar's known period, I have
to apply the doppler correction.

IS THAT CLEAR, NOW, DRAPER.

Why, no, no it's not. Observer dependence is not a strictly Doppler
shift phenomenon. The observer-dependence of linear momentum is in no
way related to Doppler shifting, as there is nothing oscillating
associated with the linear momentum. The observer-dependence of
translational kinetic energy is in no way related to Doppler shifting,
as there is nothing oscillating associated with the translational
kinetic energy. The observer-dependence of length of a rod is in no
way related to Doppler shifting, as there is nothing oscillating
associated with the rod's length. The observer-dependence of the
electric field surrouding a charged ping-pong ball is in no way
related to Doppler shifting, as there is nothing oscillating
associated with the electric field of the ping-pong ball.

These speed dependent quantities are not relevant to the disussion. *We are
talking about time.

Length doesn't have [L]/[T] in its units. Electric field doesn't
either. You made a broad statement that is in fact wrong, as the
counterexamples illustrate. Therefore, your broad statement as applied
to the case at hand is also wrong, because it is in general wrong.


Once again, you are simply spouting idiotic nonsense

hammering in the idiocy by asking in all caps whether the idiotic
nonsense is now clear.

Henri Wilson. ASTC,BSc,DSc(T)www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm

Einstein's *Relativity is easy to understand if one has the IQ of a parrot and a gullibility index 0.95.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -