On Mar 15, 7:11*am, Albertito wrote:
I'm going to show a fallacy in Einstein's Relativity.
Consider a spinning plate of radius R, with its rotation
axis oriented perpendicularly to our line of sight, and
placed at a distance d from us. All this experiment is
conducted in darkness, but there is a point P at the
edge of the plate that emits visible sharp EM pulses
with regular frequency f_p. Our aim is to deduce the
angular speed of the plate, measuring those EM pulses.
We realize that our aim can't be achieved. We will be
unable to measure the absolute angular speed of the plate
if all the data available we have are those regular pulses,
and how we see the point P evolving in its circular orbit.
Actually, the motion of that point P is seen as 'quantized' for
that specific frequency f_p. We can compute the period for
one apparent revolution of P in the plate. If after each T=1/f_p
seconds, we see the point P stationary (at rest) in our frame
of reference, we only can conclude that either the plate's
rotation frequency, f, *is a multiple of f_p, *or that f is zero.
We can discard the latter case, because in our experiment
a zero frequency f hasn't been provided. If the plate is spinning
clock wise, but we see the point P rotating counterclock wise,
we should conclude the plate's frequency f is slightly higher than
a multiple of f_p. But, if we see the point P rotating clock wise, we
should conclude the plate's frequency f is slightly lower than a
multiple of f_p. The point P can even be rotating at a superluminal
tangent speed yet we may observe P stationary, we should only
conclude f is a multiple of f_p. In any case, we end our experiment
without deducing an absolute angular speed for the plate, and that
speaking of an upper limit for any speed is nonsense. All we can
claim is that there is a cyclical phenomenon relating two
frequencies,
f and f_p. But, if you know f_p absolutely, you only can know f
relatively,
and vice versa.

Well, first of all, let's distinguish the frequency f_p of the pulses
and the frequency f_o of the light emitted in each pulse. Unless the
axis of rotation of the plate is aimed directly at the observer, one
will have the additional information of f_o as well as f_p. The
Doppler shifting of f_o will be more than enough to resolve the
stroboscopic ambiguity imposed by f_p. And in fact, this is frequently
used in determining the tangential velocity of a pulsar in a binary
system.

PD

On Mar 16, 12:38*pm, Albertito wrote:
On Mar 16, 12:22 pm, Johnnie In The Billows

wrote:
On Mar 15, 12:11 pm, Albertito wrote:

I'm going to show a fallacy in Einstein's Relativity.

This may be the phallic sea through which transmit the spermatazoa of
gravitational radiation, battering progressively one against the next
till they burst in crests of dry semen.

Yeah, that's true. But,

* *"The tiny **** emits a burp
* * Expected to reveal a twerp.
* * Sourced anal to remit its dart
* * Results in little but a fart.
* * The mouth moves faster than its mind
* * All accrues not front but hind.

* * Close the window can't you see
* * Daylight was not meant for me.
* * I will vomit on yout grave. " (Uncle Al)

This will be handy for you, coz you're in the plot next to mine.

May I say that your poetry is well worth repeating. Don't be
discouraged by the nasty 14 people (or is it one person with 14
accounts?) who awarded you a lone star.

And can you fix the "yout" typo, please? It's the one fly in the
arsehole.