On Wed, 28 Nov 2007 01:47:21 +0000 (UTC), bz
wrote:

HW@....(Dr. Henri Wilson) wrote in news:vd4pk3hnaichkankh32efvnuk0df5bfvva@
4ax.com:

Wavelength is absolute and constant in all frames.
Frequency varies as (c+v)/v.

It's all a matter of definition.....

It is demonstrable by experiment (in the microwave region of the spectrum)
that wavelength varies with Doppler shift.
It is demonstrable by experiment (in the microwave region of the spectrum
that frequency varies with Doppler shift.
It is demonstrable by experiment (in the microwave region of the spectrum
that when frequency is multiplied by wavelength, one get the velocity:

v = lambda x frequency

It so happens that v = c, every time.

v has alway been measured as c, from the , regardless of the velocity of the
source

It has NEVER been demonstrated by ANY experiment in any region of the electro
magnetic spectrum that the velocity of the source has any influence on the
velocity of the emission.

The fact that v is always measured to be c relative to any FOR does
not mean that this is the actual relative speed. Relativists keep
forgetting that there are always two things involved in any
measurement, the phenomenon being measured and the instrument used in
the measurement. A change in either will change the result. IOW, a
measurement is always a reflection of two variables. If your
instrument is affected by the very thing that it is measuring (in this
case, the speed of light relative to the instrument's FOR), if follows
that measuring c is like using a ruler to measure itself. You always
get the same result. Therefore the claim by relativists that the speed
of light is constant relative to all FORs is rather specious and
dishonest on the face of it.

Having said, I agree that the actual absolute speed of light is
independent of either source or observer. Photons are particles but
they are not bullets. They are massless particles.

Louis Savain

Why Software Is Bad and What We Can Do to Fix It:
http://www.rebelscience.org/Cosas/Reliability.htm

On Wed, 28 Nov 2007 00:42:15 GMT, Sam Wormley wrote:

Dr. Henri Wilson wrote:
On Tue, 27 Nov 2007 22:19:37 GMT, Sam Wormley wrote:

Dr. Henri Wilson wrote:

Wavelength is absolute and constant in all frames.
Frequency varies as (c+v)/v.

It's all a matter of definition.....

Speaking of definition...
http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/phys...edofLight.html

The Speed of light is a defined constant. :-)

'c' is a universal constant.
It has dimensions of speed.
It also happens to be the speed of EM relative to its source in vacuo.
'WHY?' is a good question, although Maxwell's equation explains it for a
medium..

Doppler Effect
http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/phys...lerEffect.html

Wormy, the doppler equation for sound doesn't apply to light. The 'vs' term
disappears because there is no aether.
As for the 'relativistic equation', it is untested nonsense like the rest of
that theory. For all practical situations the relativistic equation gives
almost the same answer as the BaTh one, anyway.



http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/phys...lerEffect.html
See equation (3-5) Henri

So what?..... that is effectively the same as the BaTh equation.
Can't you do simple algebra, Wormy?



Henri Wilson. ASTC,BSc,DSc(T)

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

On Wed, 28 Nov 2007 00:46:19 GMT, "Androcles"
wrote:


"Dr. Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message
.. .
: Wormy, the doppler equation for sound doesn't apply to light.

Yes it does,

c - v
f' = f ----------
c

for sound from a passing railway station as heard from the train.

c
f' = f ------------
c-u
for sound of a passing train as heard from the station.

c-v
f' = f ------------
c-u

for sound of a train as heard from a car following alongside
the train on PA route 65 between Pittsburgh and Beaver, I've
heard it myself.

Doppler knew, you are an arsehole.

Climb into your burrow and repeat this 10000 times....."ANDROCLES IS A CLOSET
AETHERIST"...."ANDROCLES IS A CLOSET AETHERIST...."......




Henri Wilson. ASTC,BSc,DSc(T)

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

On Wed, 28 Nov 2007 01:47:21 +0000 (UTC), bz
wrote:

HW@....(Dr. Henri Wilson) wrote in news:vd4pk3hnaichkankh32efvnuk0df5bfvva@
4ax.com:

Wavelength is absolute and constant in all frames.
Frequency varies as (c+v)/v.

It's all a matter of definition.....

It is demonstrable by experiment (in the microwave region of the spectrum)
that wavelength varies with Doppler shift.

HAHAHAAH! WHEN WAS THAT EXACTLY?

It is demonstrable by experiment (in the microwave region of the spectrum
that frequency varies with Doppler shift.

That's another funny statement. Can you see why?

It is demonstrable by experiment (in the microwave region of the spectrum
that when frequency is multiplied by wavelength, one get the velocity:

v = lambda x frequency

Congrtatulations, You got something right.

It so happens that v = c, every time.

v has alway been measured as c, from the , regardless of the velocity of the
source

HAHAHAAH! WHEN WAS THAT EXACTLY?

It has NEVER been demonstrated by ANY experiment in any region of the electro
magnetic spectrum that the velocity of the source has any influence on the
velocity of the emission.

Of course not. It has always been too hard to do that...probably still is.....
However variable star evidence shows pretty conclusively that light moves at
c+v wrt an observer moving at v towards the source.




Henri Wilson. ASTC,BSc,DSc(T)

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

On Tue, 27 Nov 2007 20:47:12 -0600, Traveler wrote:

On Wed, 28 Nov 2007 01:47:21 +0000 (UTC), bz
wrote:

HW@....(Dr. Henri Wilson) wrote in news:vd4pk3hnaichkankh32efvnuk0df5bfvva@
4ax.com:

Wavelength is absolute and constant in all frames.
Frequency varies as (c+v)/v.

It's all a matter of definition.....

It is demonstrable by experiment (in the microwave region of the spectrum)
that wavelength varies with Doppler shift.
It is demonstrable by experiment (in the microwave region of the spectrum
that frequency varies with Doppler shift.
It is demonstrable by experiment (in the microwave region of the spectrum
that when frequency is multiplied by wavelength, one get the velocity:

v = lambda x frequency

It so happens that v = c, every time.

v has alway been measured as c, from the , regardless of the velocity of the
source

It has NEVER been demonstrated by ANY experiment in any region of the electro
magnetic spectrum that the velocity of the source has any influence on the
velocity of the emission.

The fact that v is always measured to be c relative to any FOR does
not mean that this is the actual relative speed. Relativists keep
forgetting that there are always two things involved in any
measurement, the phenomenon being measured and the instrument used in
the measurement. A change in either will change the result. IOW, a
measurement is always a reflection of two variables. If your
instrument is affected by the very thing that it is measuring (in this
case, the speed of light relative to the instrument's FOR), if follows
that measuring c is like using a ruler to measure itself. You always
get the same result. Therefore the claim by relativists that the speed
of light is constant relative to all FORs is rather specious and
dishonest on the face of it.

Having said, I agree that the actual absolute speed of light is
independent of either source or observer. Photons are particles but
they are not bullets. They are massless particles.

Gord! ...another closet aetherist....

Louis Savain



Henri Wilson. ASTC,BSc,DSc(T)

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

"Dr. Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message
...
: On Wed, 28 Nov 2007 00:46:19 GMT, "Androcles"

: wrote:
:
:
: "Dr. Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message
: .. .
: : Wormy, the doppler equation for sound doesn't apply to light.
:
: Yes it does,
:
: c - v
: f' = f ----------
: c
:
: for sound from a passing railway station as heard from the train.
:
: c
: f' = f ------------
: c-u
: for sound of a passing train as heard from the station.
:
: c-v
: f' = f ------------
: c-u
:
: for sound of a train as heard from a car following alongside
: the train on PA route 65 between Pittsburgh and Beaver, I've
: heard it myself.
:
: Doppler knew, you are an arsehole.
:
: Climb into your burrow and repeat this 10000 times....."ANDROCLES IS A
CLOSET
: AETHERIST"...."ANDROCLES IS A CLOSET AETHERIST...."......

"That's the kind of argument I'd expect from a desperate
person....completely out of ideas... ahahahaha!" -- Wilson.

"There is no doppler shift in BaTh." -- Wilson
http://tinyurl.com/2rk695

"Light doesn't have a 'frequency'. It has a wavelength." --Wilson.
ups.com


"SPINNING OBJECTS HAVE A FREQUENCY, NOT A BLOODY WAVELENGTH." -- Wilson
news
"Light doesn't have a particuar 'frequency' in the normal sense.
Frequency is the inferred rate at whichABSOLUTE wavecrests leave the
source" -- Wilson.


"THIS DOES NOT MEAN THAT IN GENERAL, THE 'WAVELENGTH' OF AN OSCILLATION IS
THE
SAME IN ALL FRAMES." -- Wilson



"Anyway, this now fits in perfectly with my 'intrinsic oscillation
frequency' idea.
Thankyou Jerry for helping me develop my theory...." -- Wilson,
October 26, 2007 1:03 PM


"For one ray, ct = 2piR+vt , for the other ct = 2piR-vt. This gives t =
2piR/(c+v) and 2piR/(c-v)" -- Wilson.
...
"That's for the nonrotating frame, dopey." -- Wilson.
.


"There is NOT the same number of wavelengths between the STARTPOINT and
the detector" -- Wilson


"plonk" -- Wilson (faced with his own words)




You don't use emission theory and don't know what it is, your
crackpot theory is BaTh; you've been whining that for 6 years, you
invented it when I was in hospital in Florida with a shattered ankle
and I've been in Britain 4.75 years while you've gotten gradually more
senile. In all that time you've only learned to write "Dr" in front of
your name which nobody believes.
You blew it with denying Doppler and your tick fairies, senile old fart.

"Dr. Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message
...
: On Wed, 28 Nov 2007 01:47:21 +0000 (UTC), bz
: wrote:
:
: HW@....(Dr. Henri Wilson) wrote in
news:vd4pk3hnaichkankh32efvnuk0df5bfvva@
: 4ax.com:
:
: Wavelength is absolute and constant in all frames.
: Frequency varies as (c+v)/v.
:
: It's all a matter of definition.....
:
: It is demonstrable by experiment (in the microwave region of the
spectrum)
: that wavelength varies with Doppler shift.
:
: HAHAHAAH! WHEN WAS THAT EXACTLY?

Anytime one does the experiment with microwaves.
Get back on your hillside and repeat 10,000 times
"WILSON IS A ****HEAD" then carry on shagging sheep.

On Nov 27, 11:45 am, dlzc wrote:
On Nov 27, 8:03 am, kenseto wrote:

Doppler Shift is evidence for the varying speed of
incoming light.

Disproven using the Moon as a shutter. The light is travelling at c
prior-to / as encountering the Moon. The Moon eclipses all objects in
its path, leaving no "afterimage" for high-z objects. Delays of up to
6 seconds should be obtained from your premise. Much, much longer
using the CMBR (which has a z greater than 1000).

It is not disproven. Why should there be any delay under my premise?
My premise is as follows:
Incoming speed of light = (measure frequency of incoming light for a
standard light source such as the sodium)(the universal wavelength for
sodium)
Are you saying that the light is frequency shifted after eclipsed by
the moon?


Additionally, your premise will require experiments that use starlight
for MMX to show detectable arm length differences. None obtain.
Unless you want to imagine that light remembers to reflect at c+v,
when it arrives a c-v, but then you'd have to throw away conservation
of momentum...

I have no idea what you are talking about. There is no arm length
difference in My model of the MMX.

Ken Seto

On Nov 27, 11:55 am, Eric Gisse
wrote:
On Tue, 27 Nov 2007 07:03:30 -0800 (PST), kenseto
wrote:

Doppler Shift is evidence for the varying speed of incoming light.
This statement is based on the following assumptions:
1. The wavelength of a source such as the sodium is a defined
universal constant 589 nm in all frames.

Which is obviously not true, but don't let that stop you from assuming
it anyway.

So are you saying that: every observer does not measure his sodium
source to have a wavelength of 589 nm? Do you realize that what you
said violates the PoR.
The PoR says that every observer measures the speed of light is a
constant c. Therefore you SRians conclude that the speed of light is a
universal constant. The PoR also says that every observer measures his
sodium source to have a wavelength of 589 nm. Therefore it is equally
valid to say that the wavelength of sodium is a universal constant.


2. There is nothing that can change the universal wavelength of sodium
during the transit of sodium light from a moving sodium source.

Except doppler shift, gravitational redshift, or expansion of the
universe. Don't let reality determine what is and isn't true, Ken!

That's the point!!!! All these frequency shifts is due to the varying
speed of the incoming light instead of wavelength change as currently
interpreted.


3. The incoming light from a moving sodium source becomes a new light
source in the observer's frame. The grating in the observer's frame
defines a new wavelength for this new light source....much like the
grating defines different wavelengths for different light sources in
the observer's frame.

I swear someone explained the concept of the diffraction grating to you before.

So what is wrong with what I said????


4. The newly defined wavelength for the incoming light can be used to
identify the original source (sodium) of the incoming light as
outlined in the following previous post by PD.

For ****s sake, Ken. Nobody uses "newly defined "wavelength" except
you, in your head.



Based on the above assumptions the varying speed of the incoming
sodium light is calculated as follows:
c' = (the measured incoming frequency of incoming sodium light)(589 nm
universal wavelength for sodium light)

Unsupported by observation, dumbass. Higher frequency light would
arrive more quickly than lower frequency light, which isn't observed.

NO....Higher frequency light would mean that more waves would arrive
at the detector. More waves arriving in combination with constant
wavelength would mean that the arriving speed of light is higher.

Ken Seto

On Nov 27, 1:01 pm, Igor wrote:
On Nov 27, 10:03 am, kenseto wrote:

Doppler Shift is evidence for the varying speed of incoming light.
This statement is based on the following assumptions:
1. The wavelength of a source such as the sodium is a defined
universal constant 589 nm in all frames.

A chain is only as stong as its weakest link and this one has already
been severed. So there's no use going any further. It's all GIGO
from here.

Hey idiot...So are you saying that every observer does not measure his
sodium source to have a wavelength of 589 nm?????