Page 51 of 61 FirstFirst ... 414950515253 ... LastLast
Results 1,501 to 1,530 of 1801

Thread: Twin's Paradox revisited.

  1. #1501
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    1,804
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Quote:
    Originally Posted by abcdefg
    LOL, did you say they decided between wave compression and light speed anisotropy based on the actual underlying motion of the earth using only M&M?
    No one in his right mind would say that, what gives you this bright idea?
    If you do not understand what I said here, no wonder you did not comment on all this main stream logic.


    Emission theory
    Walter Ritz's emitter theory (or ballistic theory), was also consistent with the results of the experiment, not requiring aether. The theory postulates that light has always the same velocity in respect to the source.[6] However it also led to several "obvious" optical effects that were not seen in astronomical photographs, notably in observations of binary stars in which the light from the two stars could be measured in an interferometer. If this was correct, the light from the stars should cause fringe shifting due to the velocity of the stars being added to the speed of the light, but again, no such effect could be seen.
    Please note that other experiments are necessary to rule out emission theory. M&M is insufficient.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michels...ley_experiment

    Problems with emission theory
    The simplest form of emission theory says that radiating objects throw off light with a speed of "c" relative to their own state of motion
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emission_theory

    Modern Physics/Michelson-Morley Experiment
    Walter Ritz's emitter theory (or ballistic theory), was also consistent with the results of the experiment
    http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Modern_...ley_Experiment

    This paper shows emission theory is consistent with SR.*
    http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/physics/pd.../0512036v1.pdf

    This rules out any conceptually coherent ballistic theory of light propagation, according to which the speed of light is the vector sum of the velocity of the source plus a vector of magnitude c. Ironically, the original Michelson-Morley experiment was consistent with the ballistic theory, but inconsistent with the na´ve ether theory, whereas the Sagnac effect is consistent with the na´ve ether theory but inconsistent with the ballistic theory. Of course, both results are consistent with fully relativistic theories of Lorentz and Einstein, since according to both theories light is propagated at a speed independent of the state of motion of the source.
    http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s2-07/2-07.htm

  2. #1502
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    1,804
    Quote:
    To correctly calculate the outcome, you must know the actual underlying motion of a frame.
    Originally Posted by macaw
    And you think we don't?
    This is amusing.

  3. #1503
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    1,804

  4. #1504
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    5,398
    Quote Originally Posted by abcdefg View Post
    Let's see, did you knock out this twins paradox?

    No.

    Did you solve the twin spheres paradox?

    No.

    You know what, I never considered making a third paradox based on frequency.

    I think I will try. Thanks for the insight.

    I will even report if I fail.
    In your dreams

  5. #1505
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    1,064
    Quote Originally Posted by abcdefg View Post
    I am not sure what you mean.
    You thought that there was a frequency change in an interferometer when the fringes shifted, not a phase shift, and repeated this assertion. (You wrote "already told you: The M&M class of experiments are only capable of measuring light frequency differentials in the round trip motion of light.")

    I, and others, pointed out that it is a phase shift that causes fringes to move, not a frequency shift. I gave you two simple explanations of why this is so.

    If you can't understand this, and insist on incorrectly insisting that there is a frequency change, then I don't really know what to say. This is basic physics, nothing to do with SR, ether, or length contraction at all, but just the explanation of how an interferometer works.

    You are incorrect about how an interferometer works, and you do not seem to understand the difference between a phase shift, a frequency shift, and a wavelength shift.

    It is annoying that I need to teach you such basic physics as this, but it seems that no-one else did it correctly. Maybe this will help. If you have light travelling through air, then going into glass, and then coming back out into air, the wavelength will be shorter in the glass, but the frequency will be the same throughout.

    If you had an in-phase beam travelling alongside the first one, but going through a hole in the glass, then the beams would be out of phase afterwards, but would both still have the same frequency.

    I suggest that you look this up. I also suggest that you put in some effort to learn basic physics before tackling relativity. You have shown here and elsewhere, that you don't yet know the subject well enough to do this.

    With effort, and a more open attitude when people are trying to teach you, there is no reason why you cannot end up with a reasonable understanding.

  6. #1506
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    1,804
    Quote Originally Posted by NorthernBoy View Post
    You thought that there was a frequency change in an interferometer when the fringes shifted, not a phase shift, and repeated this assertion. (You wrote "already told you: The M&M class of experiments are only capable of measuring light frequency differentials in the round trip motion of light.")

    I, and others, pointed out that it is a phase shift that causes fringes to move, not a frequency shift. I gave you two simple explanations of why this is so.

    If you can't understand this, and insist on incorrectly insisting that there is a frequency change, then I don't really know what to say. This is basic physics, nothing to do with SR, ether, or length contraction at all, but just the explanation of how an interferometer works.

    You are incorrect about how an interferometer works, and you do not seem to understand the difference between a phase shift, a frequency shift, and a wavelength shift.

    It is annoying that I need to teach you such basic physics as this, but it seems that no-one else did it correctly. Maybe this will help. If you have light travelling through air, then going into glass, and then coming back out into air, the wavelength will be shorter in the glass, but the frequency will be the same throughout.

    If you had an in-phase beam travelling alongside the first one, but going through a hole in the glass, then the beams would be out of phase afterwards, but would both still have the same frequency.

    I suggest that you look this up. I also suggest that you put in some effort to learn basic physics before tackling relativity. You have shown here and elsewhere, that you don't yet know the subject well enough to do this.

    With effort, and a more open attitude when people are trying to teach you, there is no reason why you cannot end up with a reasonable understanding.


    I don't know what to tell you.

    I said the M&M fringe pattern implies a constant frequency for the moving frame.

    I then said, this M&M fringe pattern with constant moving frame frequency is insufficient to prove an absolute constant of light.

    I then said M&M does not rule out emission theory aka light speed anisotropy.

    Some folks think light speed anisotropy means the speed of light can be changed within the frame. However, that conception is an impossiblility given M&M results.

    Thus, light speed anisotropy is a change to the speed of light in the absolute sense of in a fixed Euclidian space more specifically.
    Last edited by abcdefg; 2009-Oct-17 at 01:40 PM.

  7. #1507
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    1,804
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by abcdefg
    Let's see, did you knock out this twins paradox?

    No.

    Did you solve the twin spheres paradox?

    No.

    You know what, I never considered making a third paradox based on frequency.

    I think I will try. Thanks for the insight.

    I will even report if I fail.

    Quote Originally Posted by macaw View Post
    In your dreams
    I have thought it through enough to realize I am not going to be able to create a paradox with frequency.

    Everything is consistent with frequency.

    I report a null result to paradox creation concering frequency.

  8. #1508
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    1,804
    Quote Originally Posted by NorthernBoy View Post
    You thought that there was a frequency change in an interferometer when the fringes shifted, not a phase shift, and repeated this assertion. (You wrote "already told you: The M&M class of experiments are only capable of measuring light frequency differentials in the round trip motion of light.")

    I, and others, pointed out that it is a phase shift that causes fringes to move, not a frequency shift. I gave you two simple explanations of why this is so.

    If you can't understand this, and insist on incorrectly insisting that there is a frequency change, then I don't really know what to say. This is basic physics, nothing to do with SR, ether, or length contraction at all, but just the explanation of how an interferometer works.

    You are incorrect about how an interferometer works, and you do not seem to understand the difference between a phase shift, a frequency shift, and a wavelength shift.

    It is annoying that I need to teach you such basic physics as this, but it seems that no-one else did it correctly. Maybe this will help. If you have light travelling through air, then going into glass, and then coming back out into air, the wavelength will be shorter in the glass, but the frequency will be the same throughout.

    If you had an in-phase beam travelling alongside the first one, but going through a hole in the glass, then the beams would be out of phase afterwards, but would both still have the same frequency.

    I suggest that you look this up. I also suggest that you put in some effort to learn basic physics before tackling relativity. You have shown here and elsewhere, that you don't yet know the subject well enough to do this.

    With effort, and a more open attitude when people are trying to teach you, there is no reason why you cannot end up with a reasonable understanding.
    Yes, they would. And they would produce a different type of fringe pattern since the glass slowed ther light.

    However, that has nothing to do with what I was talking about. I said the stable fringe pattern of M&M implies a constant frequency and nothing more. I did not say a constant frequency implies anything.

    I did not use the other direction of the logical implication.

  9. #1509
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    5,398
    Quote Originally Posted by abcdefg View Post
    I have thought it through enough to realize I am not going to be able to create a paradox with frequency.

    Everything is consistent with frequency.

    I report a null result to paradox creation concering frequency.
    This is refreshing. So where does your ATM stand after 1500 posts?
    Last edited by macaw; 2009-Oct-17 at 06:40 PM.

  10. #1510
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    1,064
    Quote Originally Posted by abcdefg View Post
    I said the M&M fringe pattern implies a constant frequency for the moving frame.
    No, it doesn't. Whether the MM experiment was null, or not, the frequency would have been unchanged. Both outcomes would have had an unchanged frequency. You implied that the fringes being shifted would require a change in frequency. It would not.

    Are you genuinely trying to pretend now that you knew that the frequency never changes in an interferometer, whatever the shift in the fringes?

  11. #1511
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    229
    So somebody here has the answer for the light sphere "paradox"?

  12. #1512
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Posts
    13,120
    Quote Originally Posted by macaw View Post
    Macaw, this isn't helpful. If you have no constructive comment then don't leave one
    Rules For Posting To This Board
    All Moderation in Purple

  13. #1513
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    1,804
    Quote Originally Posted by NorthernBoy View Post
    No, it doesn't. Whether the MM experiment was null, or not, the frequency would have been unchanged. Both outcomes would have had an unchanged frequency. You implied that the fringes being shifted would require a change in frequency. It would not.

    Are you genuinely trying to pretend now that you knew that the frequency never changes in an interferometer, whatever the shift in the fringes?
    The earth is moving.

    Assume a constant wavelength in a fixed Euclidian space and a constant speed of light.

    An emitter would emit at f, and the receiver would receive at f1 = ( c - v ) / w
    where w is the absolute wavelength and c is the absolute speed of light and v is the absolute speed of the earth.

    Thus, this is a case in which an unstable pattern produces a change in frequency.

    I am not saying this is the case in nature but this example makes your statement false.

    Whether the MM experiment was null, or not, the frequency would have been unchanged.

    But, what I am saying is given the motion of the earth, for the frequency to be constant throughout the frame, then either the speed of light is boosted in the absolute direction of travel of there exists wavelength compression in the absolute direction of travel and M&M is not able to decision this differential as I showed with the many links that M&M does not rule emission theory aka light speed anisotropy.

  14. #1514
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    5,398
    Quote Originally Posted by abcdefg View Post
    The earth is moving.

    Assume a constant wavelength in a fixed Euclidian space and a constant speed of light.

    An emitter would emit at f, and the receiver would receive at f1 = ( c - v ) / w
    Nope. This is not how the Doppler effect works. You may want to check out the correct formulas.

    Q33: What is the correct Doppler formula?



    But, what I am saying is given the motion of the earth, for the frequency to be constant throughout the frame, then either the speed of light is boosted in the absolute direction of travel
    Nope, this is contradicted by many experiments.


    of there exists wavelength compression in the absolute direction of travel
    There is no wavelength "compression" in the MMX. There is no wavelength change in MMX.

    Q34: Explain why.


    and M&M is not able to decision this differential as I showed with the many links that M&M does not rule emission theory aka light speed anisotropy.
    ...but Ives-Stilwell rules it out.
    So does Sagnac and many others.

  15. #1515
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    1,804
    Quote Originally Posted by macaw View Post
    Nope. This is not how the Doppler effect works. You may want to check out the correct formulas.

    Uhhh, guess what, I do not have two frames. I only have one. The fixed c and fixed wavelength in the absolute sense was the aether theory.

    Quote Originally Posted by macaw View Post
    Q33: What is the correct Doppler formula?
    Not applicable. I do not have two frames only one.


    Quote:
    But, what I am saying is given the motion of the earth, for the frequency to be constant throughout the frame, then either the speed of light is boosted in the absolute direction of travel
    Quote Originally Posted by macaw View Post
    Nope, this is contradicted by many experiments.
    I would think you would realize by now I support an absolute constant speed of light. So, this does not apply to me.
    But, from M&M alone, this statement is a possibility.


    Quote Originally Posted by macaw View Post
    There is no wavelength "compression" in the MMX. There is no wavelength change in MMX.

    Q34: Explain why.
    There is no wavelength "compression" in the MMX
    If the speed of light is an absolute constant, then absolute wave compression is a necessary condition.

    Remember what I told you?

    Assume you have a light receiver in the east from a light source during the day.

    Then that receiver is in the line with the earth's orbit around the sun which is the dominant motion of the earth. A frequency receiver in the east moves away from the light source at 18.55 miles per second. In order for the receiver to match the frequency of the emitter, the wave lenght must be compressed in the absolute direction of travel.



    Quote Originally Posted by macaw View Post
    ...but Ives-Stilwell rules it out.
    So does Sagnac and many others.
    Yea, in my view the Sagnac effect is inconsistent with emission theory.

    Here was one of my links.

    This rules out any conceptually coherent ballistic theory of light propagation, according to which the speed of light is the vector sum of the velocity of the source plus a vector of magnitude c. Ironically, the original Michelson-Morley experiment was consistent with the ballistic theory, but inconsistent with the na´ve ether theory, whereas the Sagnac effect is consistent with the na´ve ether theory but inconsistent with the ballistic theory. Of course, both results are consistent with fully relativistic theories of Lorentz and Einstein, since according to both theories light is propagated at a speed independent of the state of motion of the source.
    http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s2-07/2-07.htm




    Here, you do not seem to get this after all this time.

    I do not believe in emission theory. I believe in an absolute constant for the speed of light regardless of the frame.

  16. #1516
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    5,398
    Quote Originally Posted by abcdefg View Post
    Uhhh, guess what, I do not have two frames. I only have one.
    You are starting to learn.

    The fixed c and fixed wavelength in the absolute sense was the aether theory.
    Word salad.


    Not applicable. I do not have two frames only one.
    Good, you are learning.



    There is no wavelength "compression" in the MMX
    If the speed of light is an absolute constant, then absolute wave compression is a necessary condition.
    Nope, you are contradicting yourself, you just realised that there is no Doppler effect, that is the wavelength is constant.



    Then that receiver is in the line with the earth's orbit around the sun which is the dominant motion of the earth. A frequency receiver in the east moves away from the light source at 18.55 miles per second. In order for the receiver to match the frequency of the emitter, the wave lenght must be compressed in the absolute direction of travel.
    Nope, the wavelength is constant.




    Yea, in my view the Sagnac effect is inconsistent with emission theory.
    So, the ballistic theory is false.

    Q35: What does this mean for your ATM?



    I do not believe in emission theory. I believe in an absolute constant for the speed of light regardless of the frame.
    Congratulations, you are learning slowly! After 1500+ posts you have arrived to a very bad approximation of the SR postulate of light constancy. So, you don't have any ATM.

  17. #1517
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    1,804
    Quote Originally Posted by macaw View Post


    Quote:
    If the speed of light is an absolute constant, then absolute wave compression is a necessary condition.

    Nope, you are contradicting yourself, you just realised that there is no Doppler effect, that is the wavelength is constant
    .

    Nope, the wavelength is constant.
    The wavelength is only constant to a moving receiver. Don't forget, the earth is moving and therefore so is the frequency receiver. As such, looking at the problem from a fixed Euclidian space, the actual underlying wavelength is compressed in the absolute direction of travel.

    You have yet to resolve a problem. The earth is moving and therefore so is a receiver. How does the receiver and emitter register the same frequency when in fact the receiver is actually moving? There is only one way, the wavelength is in reality compressed in the direction of travel.


    Quote Originally Posted by macaw View Post
    So, the ballistic theory is false.

    Q35: What does this mean for your ATM?
    First, this particular ATM survived all attacks. So, this thread is fine.
    For the next one, I wanted to establish light operates in the coords of a fixed Euclidian space and does not proceed spherically from the emission point in the source frame.

    So, it is great news for the next ATM.



    Quote Originally Posted by macaw View Post
    Congratulations, you are learning slowly! After 1500+ posts you have arrived to a very bad approximation of the SR postulate of light constancy. So, you don't have any ATM.
    Well, this thread was about the alternative twins paradox. I feel good about the results of this thread as the conclusions are consistent. So, your 1500+ post comment makes no logical sense.

    But, I understand the light postulate and it only makes sense if light proceeds spherically from a fixed point in space and all frames move relative to a light's emission point.

    You and others have it proceeding spherically in the coords of the source frame such that the center point is the emission point in the frame.

    This frame driven interpretation runs into a contradiction with the twin spheres paradox.

  18. #1518
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Posts
    13,120
    You have yet to resolve a problem. The earth is moving and therefore so is a receiver. How does the receiver and emitter register the same frequency when in fact the receiver is actually moving? There is only one way, the wavelength is in reality compressed in the direction of travel.
    Because they are not moving relative to each other. They are in the same frame. 38 pages and you still haven't got it!!! You still seem to insist on some special prefered frame.
    Rules For Posting To This Board
    All Moderation in Purple

  19. #1519
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    5,398
    Quote Originally Posted by abcdefg View Post
    The wavelength is only constant to a moving receiver.
    ...only if the source and the receiver have zero relative speed.So, you have it backwards. You really need to study the Doppler effect.

    Don't forget, the earth is moving and therefore so is the frequency receiver.
    Nope, the receiver is moving with the Earth. You had it right in the previous post, now you are regressing again.

    As such, looking at the problem from a fixed Euclidian space, the actual underlying wavelength is compressed in the absolute direction of travel.
    Wrong.




    How does the receiver and emitter register the same frequency when in fact the receiver is actually moving?
    You still don't get it after 38 pages, they are moving together



    There is only one way, the wavelength is in reality compressed in the direction of travel.
    Persistently wrong.



    First, this particular ATM survived all attacks.
    ...in your dreams. You need to understand that your collection of errors and misunderstandings about mainstream science does not form a valid ATM.


    Well, this thread was about the alternative twins paradox. I feel good about the results of this thread as the conclusions are consistent. So, your 1500+ post comment makes no logical sense.
    You mean, you finally managed to understand your errors? It would be a miracle.


    But, I understand the light postulate and it only makes sense if light proceeds spherically from a fixed point in space and all frames move relative to a light's emission point.
    At least you learned something.


    You and others have it proceeding spherically in the coords of the source frame such that the center point is the emission point in the frame.
    Incomprehensible word salad.


    This frame driven interpretation runs into a contradiction with the twin spheres paradox.
    Q35: How so?
    Last edited by macaw; 2009-Oct-17 at 11:12 PM.

  20. #1520
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    5,398
    Quote Originally Posted by captain swoop View Post
    Because they are not moving relative to each other. They are in the same frame. 38 pages and you still haven't got it!!! You still seem to insist on some special prefered frame.
    At least he's starting to get the light speed invariance. Another 40 pages and he'll get the Doppler effect. Yet another 40 and he'll get the fact that he has no valid ATM. :-)

  21. #1521
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    1,804
    Quote Originally Posted by captain swoop View Post
    Because they are not moving relative to each other. They are in the same frame. 38 pages and you still haven't got it!!! You still seem to insist on some special prefered frame.
    They are moving relative to each other? What are?

    Also, I do not think you see what I do.

    I am permitted to lay out a fixed Euclidian space in the universe and see what I can see. It is called modeling.

    When you attack a problem, you do not put on blinders and exclude any viable logic.

    In particular, SR does not prove there does not exist and "rest" frame, it postulates it.

    That is a far cry from a scientific fact.

    So, a fixed Euclidian space is viable logic.

    Furthermore, how many pages and no one has cracked the twin spheres paradox.

    Further, no one has cracked this alternative twins paradox.

    I think you would be amazed how powerful of a tool this fixed Euclidian space can be.

    Try it sometime.

  22. #1522
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    1,804
    Quote Originally Posted by macaw View Post
    At least he's starting to get the light speed invariance. Another 40 pages and he'll get the Doppler effect. Yet another 40 and he'll get the fact that he has no valid ATM. :-)
    Hey you two, crack the twins sphere paradox and the paradox of this thread.

  23. #1523
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    5,398
    Quote Originally Posted by abcdefg View Post
    Hey you two, crack the twins sphere paradox and the paradox of this thread.
    It doesn't work this way, you propose something, we challenge it and you have to answer. So far, all that you have shown is that you do not understand very basic concepts like: light speed invariance, Doppler effect, proper time calculations, etc.
    Are you still confused as to why both twins see the light wavefront as spheres? I thought that I had you admitting that you don't know how to challenge me on this issue, are you retracting (and regressing)?

  24. #1524
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    1,064
    Quote Originally Posted by abcdefg View Post
    But, what I am saying is given the motion of the earth, for the frequency to be constant throughout the frame, then either the speed of light is boosted in the absolute direction of travel of there exists wavelength compression...
    Yes, you are, and I am deriding you for this, because it shows a very poor misunderstanding of physics.

    The frequency never changes in interferometer experiments. Wavelength can, and phase can, but frequency does not.

    That you do not understand this is very telling, and is to be added to a big list of other misunderstandings.

    I'll ask you again, why have you never studied this? Why do you think that you can make it up as you go along?

  25. #1525
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    1,804
    Quote Originally Posted by NorthernBoy View Post
    Yes, you are, and I am deriding you for this, because it shows a very poor misunderstanding of physics.

    The frequency never changes in interferometer experiments. Wavelength can, and phase can, but frequency does not.

    That you do not understand this is very telling, and is to be added to a big list of other misunderstandings.

    I'll ask you again, why have you never studied this? Why do you think that you can make it up as you go along?
    Thanks for the assertion.

    I wonder how this poor understanding led to the twin spheres paradox and the paradox of this thread.

    Can you explain why this entire place cannot crack these tow paradoxes?

    Did you ever consider I may have some theortical model I am operating from that this allows these paradoxes to be revealed?

  26. #1526
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    5,398
    Quote Originally Posted by abcdefg View Post
    Thanks for the assertion.

    I wonder how this poor understanding led to the twin spheres paradox and the paradox of this thread.
    You realize that these "paradoxes" exist only in your head, right?

  27. #1527
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    1,804
    Quote Originally Posted by macaw;1601258
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    [QUOTE
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by abcdefg
    The wavelength is only constant to a moving receiver.

    ...only if the source and the receiver have zero relative speed.So, you have it backwards. You really need to study the Doppler effect.

    False, that is an illusion.

    Fix a Euclidian space to the problem.

    For a moving receiver that is actually moving to match the frequency of an emitter, the wavelength must be compressed in the absolute direction of travel.

    Einstein told you that you are not permitted to ever use a fixed Euclidian space.

    Guess what, that is false. You are allowed to do it. It is theoretical math and model theory a branch of mathematical logic.

  28. #1528
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    1,804
    Quote Originally Posted by macaw View Post
    You realize that these "paradoxes" exist only in your head, right?

    Of course I realize that, they are theoretical in nature.

    BTW, can you solve them?

  29. #1529
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    1,804
    Quote:
    As such, looking at the problem from a fixed Euclidian space, the actual underlying wavelength is compressed in the absolute direction of travel.
    Quote Originally Posted by macaw View Post
    Wrong.
    You are wrong. Have you tried it. What are you afraid of?
    That is exactly what is going on when you look at it from the persepctive of a fixed Euclidian space.

    In fact, that is the CPT violation everyone has been looking for.

  30. #1530
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    5,398
    Quote Originally Posted by abcdefg View Post

    False, that is an illusion.
    I agree it may be an illusion for you. Then, alas, most of the basic physics is an "illusiion" for you.


    For a moving receiver that is actually moving to match the frequency of an emitter, the wavelength must be compressed in the absolute direction of travel.
    Repeating the same error doesn't fix your "illusion". It only makes it worse.
    You see, lambda=c/f. c is constant, f is also constant (you finally learned that) so :

    Q36: How can lambda be "compressed"?



    Einstein told you that you are not permitted to ever use a fixed Euclidian space.
    Unfortunately I never had the chance to meet Einstein, I was born much after he died. So, he could not have told me anything

    Guess what, that is false. You are allowed to do it. It is theoretical math and model theory a branch of mathematical logic.
    So what, I'm still a rock star.

Similar Threads

  1. New Version of the Twin Paradox: Accelerated Twin Older
    By PraedSt in forum Science and Technology
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 2009-Jun-15, 08:04 PM
  2. the twin paradox
    By surdrawrod in forum Space/Astronomy Questions and Answers
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 2008-Apr-21, 03:51 AM
  3. Twin Paradox HELP
    By normdowling in forum Astronomy
    Replies: 13
    Last Post: 2008-Apr-07, 05:58 PM
  4. Twin paradox resolved
    By ToSeek in forum Science and Technology
    Replies: 200
    Last Post: 2007-Mar-08, 01:35 AM
  5. Twin Paradox
    By Christine112 in forum Against the Mainstream
    Replies: 143
    Last Post: 2002-Sep-04, 07:57 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
here
The forum is sponsored in-part by: