On Wed, 26 Nov 2003 16:29:40 +0100, "Rudolf Drabek"
wrote:


"HenriWilson" schrieb im Newsbeitrag
.. .
On Tue, 25 Nov 2003 10:11:41 -0600, Tom Roberts
wrote:

I just happened to see this.

On 11/24/2003 4:38 PM, HenriWilson wrote:
When a remote spaceship fires its engines, does it go faster or slower?
Depends on the observer, eh?

yes, there is no realproblem calculating it.
But I have never found a good definition what is an inertial system. Because
in a rocket acc. to the Twin Paradoxon will show time dilatation observed
from the twin at rest. For the moving twin his clock advances without
possibility to check it without observing the rest of the world.
So the Doppler shift acc. to SR should be symmetrical. But cannot be in this
case.

Not final: if you have one frame and a part of it starts moving away, then
this moving clock will start to dilate.
But the moving frame knows, that it is changing the condition wrt the rest
frame.
SO THE HISTORY OF FRAMES IS OF RELEVANCE. If we dont have the history of 2
frames we cant say what clock is the dilated one. So where was the beginning
of all frames we can observe?
The BB, but there was no time nor space!!

Can anyone help me a little bit if I am confused or not.
Rudi


You have essentialy discoverd that unless space and time have absolute
properties, the Lorentz transforms are purely an illusion and SR is a load of
crap.

Henri Wilson.
See the Stupidity of Relativity.
www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm

"Rudolf Drabek" wrote in message
...

"Androcles" schrieb im Newsbeitrag
...

"Rudolf Drabek" wrote in message
...
[snip].

I have also visited yr Homepage.
I will study your reply and will also make some calculations. Like you
did.
If it turns out (and I hope, because its common sense), that the
movement
of
a far star with e.g. 30km/sec speed in circular orbit is visible with
constant angle/sec at ours ( including the changing distance acc. to
the
radius of orbit) then SR is "waterproof" I think.
If you use a circular orbit, you will fail abysmally. Orbits are
invariably
elliptical and obey the laws of Kepler. Nor are they in general face on
or
edge on to the observer, and hence their projection onto the celestial
sphere is also an ellipse.
Androcles

Dear Androcles
Yes I know and only for simplicity I have in mind an ell. orbit with zero
ecc. seen from the side. So I must measure a Doppler effect whith
sinusodial
change of frequency, but including the changing distance to me
acc. to the orbit data. And then I will take
1. c constant (as is acc. to M&M) and
2. c is variable as you propose. With your assumption I hope to show that
the change in Doppler will not be sinusodial.

Go do it, to your own satisfaction.
Your best teacher is yourself.
All I can do is make suggestions.

Androcles

to Martin: I hold it with Sir Popper. We have to proofe all laws (truth)
constantly.
rgds Rudi