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.

On Mar 15, 8:11 am, Albertito wrote:
I'm going to show a fallacy in Einstein's Relativity.

Well, let's see. Every time you reveal a "problem" in
relativity, it turns out that you've misunderstood something
and are completely ineducable on the subject.

I wonder if this time will be different. Think, think....

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.

OK, you seem to be commenting on the phenomenon called
aliasing.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aliasing

Also related to the Nyquist Sampling Theorem:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nyquist...mpling_theorem

And lacking any mention or relevance to relativity at
all. It's pure information theory.

- Randy

On Mar 15, 8:11*am, Albertito wrote:
[pseudo-math...]

Other than un-necessary complexity, how does this differ from
de Sitter's binary stars, a *real* observation which supports
the notion that the free-space speed of light is independent
of the motion of the emitter?

Sue...

On Mar 15, 1:18 pm, Randy Poe wrote:
On Mar 15, 8:11 am, Albertito wrote:

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

Well, let's see. Every time you reveal a "problem" in
relativity, it turns out that you've misunderstood something
and are completely ineducable on the subject.

I wonder if this time will be different. Think, think....



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.

OK, you seem to be commenting on the phenomenon called
aliasing.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aliasing


Yes, that's true. Exactly, it is the stroboscopic effect
(i.e. temporal aliasing) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stroboscopic_effect

Also related to the Nyquist Sampling Theorem:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nyquist...mpling_theorem

And lacking any mention or relevance to relativity at
all. It's pure information theory.

- Randy

How is this effect related to relativity? Continuous motion of a
body can't be measured, you need light reflecting off or being
emitted by that body towards you. What is the highest frequency
of that light you can use to see that body in motion? Information
theory is related to measurements. What is a measurement but
information?

On Mar 15, 3:11 am, Albertito wrote:
[snip idiocy]

Do you ever get bored trying to falsify subjects you do not
understand?

Supertroll Eric Gisse trolled:

Do you ever get bored trying to falsify subjects you do not understand?

http://www.albinoblacksheep.com/flash/youare


--
Dono is concubine Lady Chacha

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yodo-Dono

On Mar 15, 10:38*am, Albertito wrote:
On Mar 15, 1:18 pm, Randy Poe wrote:



On Mar 15, 8:11 am, Albertito wrote:

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

Well, let's see. Every time you reveal a "problem" in
relativity, it turns out that you've misunderstood something
and are completely ineducable on the subject.

I wonder if this time will be different. Think, think....

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.

OK, you seem to be commenting on the phenomenon called
aliasing.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aliasing

Yes, that's true. Exactly, it is the stroboscopic effect
(i.e. temporal aliasing)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stroboscopic_effect

Also related to the Nyquist Sampling Theorem:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nyquist...mpling_theorem

And lacking any mention or relevance to relativity at
all. It's pure information theory.


How is this effect related to relativity?

That was my question.

Continuous motion of a
body can't be measured, you need light reflecting off or being
emitted by that body towards you. What is the highest frequency
of that light you can use to see that body in motion?

There is no limit.

Information
theory is related to measurements. What is a measurement but
information?

How is this related to relativity?

- Randy

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.

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)
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.a...fd80a3d337178f

"Randy Poe" wrote in message
...


Information
theory is related to measurements. What is a measurement but
information?

| How is this related to relativity?

Why do you answer a question with a question, stupid?