"Dr. Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message
...
On Thu, 31 Jan 2008 09:22:50 GMT, "Ockham" wrote:


"The Ghost In The Machine" wrote in
message
...
| In sci.physics.relativity, Randy Poe
|

| | - If a TWLS be conducted between a source and a moving mirror,
| | then the time taken (as observed by the source) of the
| | light beam from source to mirror and back to source is
| | exactly twice that of the time taken from source to
| | mirror. In other words, t_AB = t_BA.
|
| Not true, the reflected beam will be doppler shifted.
|
| Yes, both wavelength and frequency experience a doppler shift.
|
| Only in SR

Correct.


| (though both have been observed).

That is actually funny since you cannot say by whom, when
and under what circumstances.


| In Newtonian
| math the frequency changes as per the Doppler, but the
| wavelength is unaltered.

Incorrect.

Ghost is correct...as he sometimes is...
The wavelength of any TRAVELING wave is absolute and frame independent.

Doppler effect for a wave from a source moving in a medium affects both
frequency and wavelength though.

The 'wavelength' of an OSCILLATOR (such as a spinning wheel), if defined
as
'the distance it travels in one of its cycles', IS of course frame
dependent.

Yes

Oscillators don't actually possess 'wavelengths'.

But you just defined what its wavelengtth is .. make up your mind

I think that's where your confusion lies.

I think you are showing your own confusion

And now then .. how does light move then .. is it like a moving oscillator,
where the frequency is fixed and the wavelength varies between observers, or
like a moving wave, where the wavelength is fixed and the frequency varies
between observers.

On Jan 31, 12:20 am, HW@....(Dr. Henri Wilson) wrote:
On Wed, 30 Jan 2008 19:36:23 -0800 (PST), Eric Gisse wrote:
On Jan 30, 1:03 pm, HW@....(Dr. Henri Wilson) wrote:
On Wed, 30 Jan 2008 16:02:45 +0100, "Paul B. Andersen"

wrote:
Dr. Henri Wilson wrote:
According to relativists, GPS clocks GAIN 38us per day on the ground clock.
That is due to two components, 45us for gravity and -7us for relative speed.

According to the 'religious jargon' the Schwarzschild metric
GPS clocks should gain 38us per day on the ground clock,
and according to continuous observations during 30+ years,
we know that GPS clocks do indeed gain 38us/day on the ground clock.

No they don't...but that's another matter.

Yes, they do. This is explained in the GPS specifications as well as
the original GPS test satellites which you have been quoted but will
never read.

Accordingly, an observer (OO) in GPS orbit would see the GC LOSING 52us per
day.

I see you are invoking your tick fairies again. :-)

When the ground clock shows X and the orbiting clock shows X+38us,
why do you think an orbiting observer would read that as X-14us and X+38us?
How can anybody disagree about what a clock shows?
What a veird idea. :-)

Well I never did see a plausible explanation or the '-7us/d speed component'.

That's because you are unwilling to understand the explanations given
to you. What you think is irrelevant.

Apparently, according to relativists, the GO is moving wrt the inertial frame
but not the OO.

Actually, according to physicists, neither are in inertial frames.

| to "Paul's tick fairies", please?
|
| Otherwise I will have to remind you about this scenario again.

Henri Wilson wrote:
| OK Paul, I will never refer to PAUL ANDERSEN'S FAMOUS TICK FAIRIES again.......

You are really something, Henry.
Is this scenario really so hard to grasp that
you have to screw it up and invoke your tick fairies
every second day?

Why does the OO not see the GC running 52us'd slow, as Jeckyl so wisely
claimed?

There is no symmetry, idiot. The frames are non-inertial.

Hahahahahahhahaha!

the ultimate SRian escape route. "IT ISN'T INERTIAL''

When you learn what an inertial frame is, you will understand why.


hahahahahaha!

Henri Wilson. ASTC,BSc,DSc(T)

www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm

On Thu, 31 Jan 2008 20:52:23 +1100, "Jeckyl" wrote:

"Dr. Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message
.. .
On Thu, 31 Jan 2008 16:08:15 +1100, "Jeckyl" wrote:

"The Ghost In The Machine" wrote in
message
...
In sci.physics.relativity, Randy Poe


Not true, the reflected beam will be doppler shifted.

Yes, both wavelength and frequency experience a doppler shift.

Only in SR (though both have been observed). In Newtonian
math the frequency changes as per the Doppler, but theany waves
wavelength is unaltered.

It depends on who is moving relative to the medium (assuming we are
talking
about doppler shifting of waves in a medium) .. the source or the
observer.

In ballistic theory, there aren't really any waves in a medium (so how
*does* ballistic theory account for the wave-like behaviour of light?)

Hey, idiot, in SR there aren't really any waves in a medium.

SR says nothing about how light propagates other than its speed. It could
be waves in a medium ..

Ah! So you want to become an aetherist?

it could be particles ..

Ah! So you want to become a BaThist now?

it doesn't matter to SR as
long as it travels at speed c, as SR is not a theory about how light
propagates.

SR is not a theory about anything.

So .. what does BaTH say light is and how it travels?

It appears to behave like an 'oscillating package of energy'.



Henri Wilson. ASTC,BSc,DSc(T)

www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm

On Thu, 31 Jan 2008 21:12:48 +1100, "Jeckyl" wrote:

"Dr. Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message
.. .
On Thu, 31 Jan 2008 09:22:50 GMT, "Ockham" wrote:


Correct.


| (though both have been observed).

That is actually funny since you cannot say by whom, when
and under what circumstances.


| In Newtonian
| math the frequency changes as per the Doppler, but the
| wavelength is unaltered.

Incorrect.

Ghost is correct...as he sometimes is...
The wavelength of any TRAVELING wave is absolute and frame independent.

Doppler effect for a wave from a source moving in a medium affects both
frequency and wavelength though.

Of course....but that's not what we're talking about...

The 'wavelength' of an OSCILLATOR (such as a spinning wheel), if defined
as
'the distance it travels in one of its cycles', IS of course frame
dependent.

Yes

Oscillators don't actually possess 'wavelengths'.

But you just defined what its wavelengtth is .. make up your mind

Idiot, did you notice I wrote 'wavelength' and not wavelength.
....which implies that this is not a true wavelength but a commonly defined one.

I think that's where your confusion lies.

I think you are showing your own confusion

And now then .. how does light move then .. is it like a moving oscillator,
where the frequency is fixed and the wavelength varies between observers, or
like a moving wave, where the wavelength is fixed and the frequency varies
between observers.

.....this is how light moves around a ring gyro.

http://www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/rayphases.exe (now upgraded)

You might be able to deduce a few facts about light from this.


Henri Wilson. ASTC,BSc,DSc(T)

www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm

On Thu, 31 Jan 2008 20:49:52 +1100, "Jeckyl" wrote:

"Dr. Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message
.. .
I think the problem lies in the fact that students are taught Einstein's
relativity by someone they respect and trust and feel naturally obliged to
accept it.

No .. unlike you, we understand it.

Now another sacred relativist cow has been slaughtered....the fictitious
GPS
'GR correction'.

Gees .. you just don't accept facts do you .. the correction is real .. it
is an observed and tested fact.

Jeckyl, are you aware that you have now completely outclassed Eric Geese and
Dinky the Morbid in the race to become the biggest moron on this NG?



Henri Wilson. ASTC,BSc,DSc(T)

www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm

"Dr. Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message
...
On Thu, 31 Jan 2008 20:52:23 +1100, "Jeckyl" wrote:

"Dr. Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message
. ..
On Thu, 31 Jan 2008 16:08:15 +1100, "Jeckyl" wrote:

"The Ghost In The Machine" wrote in
message
...
In sci.physics.relativity, Randy Poe


Not true, the reflected beam will be doppler shifted.

Yes, both wavelength and frequency experience a doppler shift.

Only in SR (though both have been observed). In Newtonian
math the frequency changes as per the Doppler, but theany waves
wavelength is unaltered.

It depends on who is moving relative to the medium (assuming we are
talking
about doppler shifting of waves in a medium) .. the source or the
observer.

In ballistic theory, there aren't really any waves in a medium (so how
*does* ballistic theory account for the wave-like behaviour of light?)

Hey, idiot, in SR there aren't really any waves in a medium.

SR says nothing about how light propagates other than its speed. It could
be waves in a medium ..
Ah! So you want to become an aetherist?

Why would you think that?

it could be particles ..
Ah! So you want to become a BaThist now?

Why would you think that?

it doesn't matter to SR as
long as it travels at speed c, as SR is not a theory about how light
propagates.

SR is not a theory about anything.

More lies from Dr Hlaf Witt

So .. what does BaTH say light is and how it travels?
It appears to behave like an 'oscillating package of energy'.

So .. if that is what it is .. explain how you get a frequency and
wavelength from it, and how Doppler shift results in the observed changes in
both wavelength and frequency?

"Dr. Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message
...
On Thu, 31 Jan 2008 21:12:48 +1100, "Jeckyl" wrote:
"Dr. Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message
. ..
On Thu, 31 Jan 2008 09:22:50 GMT, "Ockham"
wrote:
Correct.


| (though both have been observed).

That is actually funny since you cannot say by whom, when
and under what circumstances.


| In Newtonian
| math the frequency changes as per the Doppler, but the
| wavelength is unaltered.

Incorrect.

Ghost is correct...as he sometimes is...
The wavelength of any TRAVELING wave is absolute and frame independent.
Doppler effect for a wave from a source moving in a medium affects both
frequency and wavelength though.
Of course....but that's not what we're talking about...

Well.. yes we were .. you were talking about a travelling wave always having
the same wavelength .. it doesn't if the source is in motion wrt the medium
... it is not absolute and frame independant then

The 'wavelength' of an OSCILLATOR (such as a spinning wheel), if defined
as
'the distance it travels in one of its cycles', IS of course frame
dependent.
Yes
Oscillators don't actually possess 'wavelengths'.
But you just defined what its wavelengtth is .. make up your mind

Idiot, did you notice I wrote 'wavelength' and not wavelength.

Yes .. in both cases .. first you said it had a 'wavelength' and then that
is did not have a 'wavelength'. Which is it?

...which implies that this is not a true wavelength but a commonly defined
one.

Any sort of wavelength is a defined wavelength

I think that's where your confusion lies.
I think you are showing your own confusion
And now then .. how does light move then .. is it like a moving
oscillator,
where the frequency is fixed and the wavelength varies between observers,
or
like a moving wave, where the wavelength is fixed and the frequency varies
between observers.
....this is how light moves around a ring gyro.
http://www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/rayphases.exe (now upgraded)

You might be able to deduce a few facts about light from this.

Your animation shows two completely different frequencies of light (whether
you look at it from the inertial or the rotating frame) .. but that is not
the case in a real ring gyro. As per usualy, you do your analysis and
animation on something that is NOT what you claim it to be. That makes you
a liar.

And you've still not said how light moves .. is it like a moving oscilator,
or like a wave?

"Dr. Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message
...
On Thu, 31 Jan 2008 20:49:52 +1100, "Jeckyl" wrote:

"Dr. Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message
. ..
I think the problem lies in the fact that students are taught Einstein's
relativity by someone they respect and trust and feel naturally obliged
to
accept it.

No .. unlike you, we understand it.

Now another sacred relativist cow has been slaughtered....the fictitious
GPS
'GR correction'.

Gees .. you just don't accept facts do you .. the correction is real .. it
is an observed and tested fact.

Jeckyl, are you aware that you have now completely outclassed Eric Geese
and
Dinky the Morbid in the race to become the biggest moron on this NG?

But how can we ever compete with the likes of you? You've already beaten us
there. And you keep jumping up and down yelling "Henri is a moron" with
every post you make. It is incredibly funny watching you do so.

On Jan 31, 1:54 am, "Jeckyl" wrote:
"bambuu" wrote in message

...







On Jan 31, 12:32 am, "Jeckyl" wrote:
"bambuu" wrote in message

...

On Jan 31, 12:05 am, "Jeckyl" wrote:
"bambuu" wrote in message

...

On Jan 30, 3:38 am, "Jeckyl" wrote:
Just as in the so-called twins paradox .. both twins watches are
correct
for
the relevant twin. One twin really is older than the other.

what is tha difference between
really older and just older?

None, of course, I was just emphasising that it is a *real* difference
..
not just some sort of optical illusion, or an error in the ticking of
a
clock.
thanks, so if clock is good, he becomes
really older for no reason
And how did you conclude that nonsense from what I said? No wonder you
have
problems with physics .. you can't even comprehend written language, let
alone the mathematics and logic involved.
you said clock no error, but he really gets older

Yes .. he really gets older (the twin that stays at home compared to the
twin the travels).

You really are incredibly slow understanding things

my bad, sorry for thar


In the so-called twins paradox, the travelling twin has experienced less
elapsed time because its path through space-time (which involves changes
how would you know about others experiences

When they reunit they can have a nice little chat over some coffee .. that

but when thay reunit is too late, becus their internal
clocks clocks synchronously

and therfore you cant put your finger on his clock
and say "look, his clock si clocking slower than
tha other clock" you put yuor other finger on

is assuming the stay-at-home twin is still alive .. the travlling twin may
end up having to talk to the stay-at-home-twins great great grandchildren
instead.

why that when their clocks are equal?


in
frame of reference) is different to that of the stay-at-home twin. One
can
say that more simply: the stay at home twin is older than the travelling
twin.
why, entropy goes faster staying home?

Why are you suddenly discussing entropy.

how not doing that?

explain


It is very simple .. less time has elapsed for the travelling twin compared
to the stay at home twin,

becus slower clock? you cant prove that his clock is
clocking slower than another standard clock

elapsing time makes no sense without a standard clock

because the travelling twin has taken a different
path through space-time

different from what path?

than the stay-at-home twin (from the event where

it says itself, he dident took any path becus
he stayed at home

they separate, to the event where they reunite).

they both had the same event?

you can not do that according to fluid dynamics

On Fri, 1 Feb 2008 10:36:35 +1100, "Jeckyl" wrote:

"Dr. Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message
.. .
On Thu, 31 Jan 2008 21:12:48 +1100, "Jeckyl" wrote:
"Dr. Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message
...
On Thu, 31 Jan 2008 09:22:50 GMT, "Ockham"
wrote:
Correct.


| (though both have been observed).

That is actually funny since you cannot say by whom, when
and under what circumstances.




Idiot, did you notice I wrote 'wavelength' and not wavelength.

Yes .. in both cases .. first you said it had a 'wavelength' and then that
is did not have a 'wavelength'. Which is it?

...which implies that this is not a true wavelength but a commonly defined
one.

Any sort of wavelength is a defined wavelength

I think that's where your confusion lies.
I think you are showing your own confusion
And now then .. how does light move then .. is it like a moving
oscillator,
where the frequency is fixed and the wavelength varies between observers,
or
like a moving wave, where the wavelength is fixed and the frequency varies
between observers.
....this is how light moves around a ring gyro.
http://www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/rayphases.exe (now upgraded)

You might be able to deduce a few facts about light from this.

Your animation shows two completely different frequencies of light (whether
you look at it from the inertial or the rotating frame)

Poor boy....can't click 'pause' and count the wavelengths in the source
frame.....

.. but that is not
the case in a real ring gyro. As per usualy, you do your analysis and
animation on something that is NOT what you claim it to be. That makes you
a liar.

And you've still not said how light moves .. is it like a moving oscilator,
or like a wave?

both



Henri Wilson. ASTC,BSc,DSc(T)

www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm