--
This message is brought to you by Androcles
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/

"Paul B. Andersen" wrote in message
...
| Albertito skrev:
| On May 2, 9:16 am, "Paul B. Andersen"
| wrote:
| Albertito wrote:
| On May 1, 7:39 pm, "Paul B. Andersen"
| wrote:
| Albertito skrev:
| This the correct addition of velocities
| w = u + v,
| and this is the correct Doppler formula for all moving
| bodies,
| f' = Exp(-v/c) f
| From these two equations we can prove time dilation and
| length contraction are nonsensical artifacts of Einstein's
| relativity.
| Please explain how 'we' by writing two equations can falsify
| a theory of physics.
| --
| Paul
| http://home.c2i.net/pb_andersen/
| You are right, 'we' can't. 'We' need one equation.
| this one: f' = Exp(-v/c) f, plus one experimental test.
| "Pluss one experimental test".
| I see.
| It is "one experimental test" that falsifies SR.
| So this "one experimental test" proves the SR prediction
| for Doppler f' = sqrt ((c+v)/c-v)) f to be wrong.
| Which experimental test are you referring to?
|
| Any experimental test that could measure the observed
| frequency f' with enough accuracy, given that the
| original frequency f and speed v are assumed to be known.
|
| Am I to read this as "I, Albertito, am convinced that
| any test where the observed frequency f' is measured with
| enough accuracy would prove the equation f' = sqrt ((c+v)/c-v)) f
| wrong, but no such experiment is ever actually performed."?

Of course it has, now we have "dark" forces acting on Pioneer
to explain it.

On May 4, 9:41 pm, "Androcles" wrote:
--
This message is brought to you by Androcles
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/

"Paul B. Andersen" wrote in ...
| Albertito skrev:
| On May 2, 9:16 am, "Paul B. Andersen"| wrote:
| Albertito wrote:

| On May 1, 7:39 pm, "Paul B. Andersen"| wrote:

| Albertito skrev:
| This the correct addition of velocities
| w = u + v,
| and this is the correct Doppler formula for all moving
| bodies,
| f' = Exp(-v/c) f
| From these two equations we can prove time dilation and
| length contraction are nonsensical artifacts of Einstein's
| relativity.
| Please explain how 'we' by writing two equations can falsify
| a theory of physics.
| --
| Paul
| http://home.c2i.net/pb_andersen/
| You are right, 'we' can't. 'We' need one equation.
| this one: f' = Exp(-v/c) f, plus one experimental test.
| "Pluss one experimental test".
| I see.
| It is "one experimental test" that falsifies SR.
| So this "one experimental test" proves the SR prediction
| for Doppler f' = sqrt ((c+v)/c-v)) f to be wrong.
| Which experimental test are you referring to?
|
| Any experimental test that could measure the observed
| frequency f' with enough accuracy, given that the
| original frequency f and speed v are assumed to be known.
|
| Am I to read this as "I, Albertito, am convinced that
| any test where the observed frequency f' is measured with
| enough accuracy would prove the equation f' = sqrt ((c+v)/c-v)) f
| wrong, but no such experiment is ever actually performed."?

Of course it has, now we have "dark" forces acting on Pioneer
to explain it.

Good one, I forgot that anomaly!
Anyway, don't panic. If it results that's not a systematic,
but new physics, then there are always the imaginative
relativists, to the rescue of GR, proposing a new "dark stuff"
to explain it :-)

Albertito skrev:
On May 4, 8:41 pm, "Paul B. Andersen"
wrote:
Albertito skrev:



On May 2, 9:16 am, "Paul B. Andersen"
wrote:
Albertito wrote:
On May 1, 7:39 pm, "Paul B. Andersen"
wrote:
Albertito skrev:
This the correct addition of velocities
w = u + v,
and this is the correct Doppler formula for all moving
bodies,
f' = Exp(-v/c) f
From these two equations we can prove time dilation and
length contraction are nonsensical artifacts of Einstein's
relativity.
Please explain how 'we' by writing two equations can falsify
a theory of physics.
--
Paul
http://home.c2i.net/pb_andersen/
You are right, 'we' can't. 'We' need one equation.
this one: f' = Exp(-v/c) f, plus one experimental test.
"Pluss one experimental test".
I see.
It is "one experimental test" that falsifies SR.
So this "one experimental test" proves the SR prediction
for Doppler f' = sqrt ((c+v)/c-v)) f to be wrong.
Which experimental test are you referring to?
Any experimental test that could measure the observed
frequency f' with enough accuracy, given that the
original frequency f and speed v are assumed to be known.
Am I to read this as "I, Albertito, am convinced that
any test where the observed frequency f' is measured with
enough accuracy would prove the equation f' = sqrt ((c+v)/c-v)) f
wrong, but no such experiment is ever actually performed."?

In other words, you are not referring any "one experimental test"
that falsifies SR, because you don't know about any such test.

And if this "one experimental test" really falsifies SR,
what is then the significance of the equation
f' = Exp(-v/c) f?
The significance of f' = Exp(-v/c) f, is that bodies can move
relatively without any upper bound for their relative speeds.
The only equations that can prove SR wrong are obviously
the equations of SR which are used when calculating
the predictions of SR. Any other equations you might devise
are utterly irrelevant when it comes to falsify SR.

It is very simple.
As long as no measurement is done which prove a prediction of SR
wrong, SR isn't falsified.

[..]

"
| This the correct addition of velocities
| w = u + v,
| and this is the correct Doppler formula for all moving
| bodies,
| f' = Exp(-v/c) f
| From these two equations we can prove time dilation and
| length contraction are nonsensical artifacts of Einstein's
| relativity.
"

No, from these two equations we can't prove SR wrong.
What a crazy idea? :-)

--
Paul

http://home.c2i.net/pb_andersen/

"Your theory is crazy, but it's not crazy enough
to be true" [Niels Bohr, to a young physicist]

There is a better way to falsify SR.

There is but one way to falsify any theory.
That is to show that the predictions of the theory
are not compatible with experimental evidence.

Find a theory
that can do the same predictions that SR. A theory
that could even predict phenomena SR can't. Test
that theory with success, proving that it can predict
the same observable phenomena SR can, but with
better accuracy.

OTOH, if your experimental tests only intend to falsify
SR, then if SR is actually falsified, what theory is ready
to replace it?

Certainly not a theory which is falsified by other experiments.

An experiment doesn't have to "intend to falsify" any particular theory.
You do the experiment.
Then you can test different theories to see if their predictions
are compatible with the the outcome of the experiment.
If it is, the theory is confirmed (_not_ proven), if it isn't,
the theory is falsified.
Most experiments confirm several different theories, but it is more
interesting which theories it falsifies.

For example:
MMX confirms SR and the emission theory, but falsifies "Galilean ether".
Sagnac confirms SR and "Galilean ether", but falsifies the emission theory.
Fizeau confirms SR and falsifies your theory.

What is the point with proposing a theory which is falsified
by experiments done more than a century ago?

--
Paul

http://home.c2i.net/pb_andersen/

On May 1, 7:47*am, Albertito wrote:
This the correct addition of velocities

* * * * *w = u + v,

Well, there's a problem here. This formula appears to be incorrect,
according to experimental evidence.
Have you done a literature search of the experimental evidence?


and this is the correct Doppler formula for all moving
bodies,

* * * * f' = Exp(-v/c) f

Well, there's a problem here. This formula appears to be incorrect,
according to experimental evidence.
Have you done a literature search of the experimental evidence?

PD

On May 5, 11:33 am, "Paul B. Andersen"
wrote:


What is the point with proposing a theory which is falsified
by experiments done more than a century ago?



It is called "native antirelativistic cretinism".
Incurable :-)

On May 6, 3:06 pm, PD wrote:
On May 1, 7:47 am, Albertito wrote:

This the correct addition of velocities

w = u + v,

Well, there's a problem here. This formula appears to be incorrect,
according to experimental evidence.
Have you done a literature search of the experimental evidence?


Well, there's a problem for you. This formula,
w = u + v, appears to be incorrect, according
to experimental evidence, when used with the
relativistic Doppler furmula f' = sqrt((1 - v/c)/(1 +v/c))f,
but it is still waiting for a test when used with this
Doppler formula, f' = Exp(-v/c) f



and this is the correct Doppler formula for all moving
bodies,

f' = Exp(-v/c) f

Well, there's a problem here. This formula appears to be incorrect,
according to experimental evidence.
Have you done a literature search of the experimental evidence?


Well, there's a problem for you. This formula,
f' = Exp(-v/c) f , appears to be incorrect, according
to experimental evidence, when used with the
relativistic addition of velocities, but it is still
waiting for a test when used with this addition formula
w = u + v.

On May 6, 2:40*pm, Albertito wrote:
On May 6, 3:06 pm, PD wrote:

On May 1, 7:47 am, Albertito wrote:

This the correct addition of velocities

* * * * *w = u + v,

Well, there's a problem here. This formula appears to be incorrect,
according to experimental evidence.
Have you done a literature search of the experimental evidence?

Well, there's a problem for you. This formula,
w = u + v, appears to be incorrect, according
to experimental evidence, when used with the
relativistic Doppler furmula *f' = sqrt((1 - v/c)/(1 +v/c))f,
but it is still waiting for a test when used with this
Doppler formula, f' = Exp(-v/c) f

No, that's not the problem. It appears to be incorrect when u, v, and
w are independently and directly measured, well outside the parochial
application of Doppler frequency shifting. Did you imagine that the
only test of this formula was Doppler frequency shifting?


and this is the correct Doppler formula for all moving
bodies,

* * * * f' = Exp(-v/c) f

Well, there's a problem here. This formula appears to be incorrect,
according to experimental evidence.
Have you done a literature search of the experimental evidence?

Well, there's a problem for you. This formula,
f' = Exp(-v/c) f , appears to be incorrect, according
to experimental evidence, when used with the
relativistic addition of velocities, but it is still
waiting for a test when used with this addition formula
w = u + v.

No, it appears to be incorrect according to experimental evidence,
when f, f' and v are all independently and directly measured.

Again I ask you, have you done a literature search of the experimental
evidence?

PD

On May 6, 8:56 pm, PD wrote:
On May 6, 2:40 pm, Albertito wrote:



On May 6, 3:06 pm, PD wrote:

On May 1, 7:47 am, Albertito wrote:

This the correct addition of velocities

w = u + v,

Well, there's a problem here. This formula appears to be incorrect,
according to experimental evidence.
Have you done a literature search of the experimental evidence?

Well, there's a problem for you. This formula,
w = u + v, appears to be incorrect, according
to experimental evidence, when used with the
relativistic Doppler furmula f' = sqrt((1 - v/c)/(1 +v/c))f,
but it is still waiting for a test when used with this
Doppler formula, f' = Exp(-v/c) f

No, that's not the problem. It appears to be incorrect when u, v, and
w are independently and directly measured, well outside the parochial
application of Doppler frequency shifting. Did you imagine that the
only test of this formula was Doppler frequency shifting?





and this is the correct Doppler formula for all moving
bodies,

f' = Exp(-v/c) f

Well, there's a problem here. This formula appears to be incorrect,
according to experimental evidence.
Have you done a literature search of the experimental evidence?

Well, there's a problem for you. This formula,
f' = Exp(-v/c) f , appears to be incorrect, according
to experimental evidence, when used with the
relativistic addition of velocities, but it is still
waiting for a test when used with this addition formula
w = u + v.

No, it appears to be incorrect according to experimental evidence,
when f, f' and v are all independently and directly measured.

Again I ask you, have you done a literature search of the experimental
evidence?

PD

Yes, I've done a literature search of the experimental evidence.
And no experimental tests have been found for that specific
set of equations. Nothing is said about that, neither that's wrong
nor right. OTOH, how do you intend to accomplish f, f' and v are
all independently and directly measured? Please, provide me a
reference/paper describing experiments where those three
parameters are all independently and directly measured, without
the assumption that the speed of light is invariant.

On May 6, 12:14*pm, Albertito wrote:
On May 6, 8:56 pm, PD wrote:



On May 6, 2:40 pm, Albertito wrote:

On May 6, 3:06 pm, PD wrote:

On May 1, 7:47 am, Albertito wrote:

This the correct addition of velocities

* * * * *w = u + v,

Well, there's a problem here. This formula appears to be incorrect,
according to experimental evidence.
Have you done a literature search of the experimental evidence?

Well, there's a problem for you. This formula,
w = u + v, appears to be incorrect, according
to experimental evidence, when used with the
relativistic Doppler furmula *f' = sqrt((1 - v/c)/(1 +v/c))f,
but it is still waiting for a test when used with this
Doppler formula, f' = Exp(-v/c) f

No, that's not the problem. It appears to be incorrect when u, v, and
w are independently and directly measured, well outside the parochial
application of Doppler frequency shifting. Did you imagine that the
only test of this formula was Doppler frequency shifting?

and this is the correct Doppler formula for all moving
bodies,

* * * * f' = Exp(-v/c) f

Well, there's a problem here. This formula appears to be incorrect,
according to experimental evidence.
Have you done a literature search of the experimental evidence?

Well, there's a problem for you. This formula,
f' = Exp(-v/c) f , appears to be incorrect, according
to experimental evidence, when used with the
relativistic addition of velocities, but it is still
waiting for a test when used with this addition formula
w = u + v.

No, it appears to be incorrect according to experimental evidence,
when f, f' and v are all independently and directly measured.

Again I ask you, have you done a literature search of the experimental
evidence?

PD

Yes, I've done a literature search of the experimental evidence.
And no experimental tests have been found for that specific
set of equations. Nothing is said about that, neither that's wrong
nor right. OTOH, how do you intend to accomplish f, f' and v are
all independently and directly measured? Please, provide me a
reference/paper describing experiments where those three
parameters are all independently and directly measured, without
the assumption that the speed of light is invariant.

Why don't you do your own research since you are interested enough to
spend hours a week posting about relativity?

On May 6, 3:14*pm, Albertito wrote:
On May 6, 8:56 pm, PD wrote:



On May 6, 2:40 pm, Albertito wrote:

On May 6, 3:06 pm, PD wrote:

On May 1, 7:47 am, Albertito wrote:

This the correct addition of velocities

* * * * *w = u + v,

Well, there's a problem here. This formula appears to be incorrect,
according to experimental evidence.
Have you done a literature search of the experimental evidence?

Well, there's a problem for you. This formula,
w = u + v, appears to be incorrect, according
to experimental evidence, when used with the
relativistic Doppler furmula *f' = sqrt((1 - v/c)/(1 +v/c))f,
but it is still waiting for a test when used with this
Doppler formula, f' = Exp(-v/c) f

No, that's not the problem. It appears to be incorrect when u, v, and
w are independently and directly measured, well outside the parochial
application of Doppler frequency shifting. Did you imagine that the
only test of this formula was Doppler frequency shifting?

and this is the correct Doppler formula for all moving
bodies,

* * * * f' = Exp(-v/c) f

Well, there's a problem here. This formula appears to be incorrect,
according to experimental evidence.
Have you done a literature search of the experimental evidence?

Well, there's a problem for you. This formula,
f' = Exp(-v/c) f , appears to be incorrect, according
to experimental evidence, when used with the
relativistic addition of velocities, but it is still
waiting for a test when used with this addition formula
w = u + v.

No, it appears to be incorrect according to experimental evidence,
when f, f' and v are all independently and directly measured.

Again I ask you, have you done a literature search of the experimental
evidence?

PD

Yes, I've done a literature search of the experimental evidence.
And no experimental tests have been found for that specific
set of equations. Nothing is said about that, neither that's wrong
nor right. OTOH, how do you intend to accomplish f, f' and v are
all independently and directly measured? Please, provide me a
reference/paper describing experiments where those three
parameters are all independently and directly measured, without
the assumption that the speed of light is invariant.

Clock signals sent from Voyager. f is set by the oscillator prior to
launch and whose stability is engineered, v is known by time-separated
surveying to landmarks (like planets) by the satellite, and f' is
measured on the ground. Resolution is 18% of v/c, certainly capable of
distinguishing between your expression and the correct one.

This is but ONE of hundreds of examples.

I thought you said you did a literature search.

Do you know HOW to do a literature search?

PD