MMX falsifies the Lorentz transformation

[m***@wanadoo.fr]

On Sep 19, 6:33 pm, "Dirk Van de moortel"

On Sep 18, 3:20 pm, "Dirk Van de moortel"

[snip]

uh-oh...

If the star emits a light of frequency f, thus of
wavelength l = c/f, the frequency observed on Earth
is fo = f * (c-v)/c

fo = f sqrt[ (1-v/c)/(1+v/c) ]
= f sqrt[ (c-v)/(c+v) ]
~ f ( 1 - v/c )
= f (c-v)/c

and the observed wavelength is
lo = l * c/(c-v),

using "l" is dangerous. I'll take L.
Lo = L sqrt[ (1+v/c)/(1-v/c) ]
= L sqrt[ (c+v)/(c-v) ]
~ L ( 1 + v/c )
= L (c+v)/c
L * c/(c-v)
= L 1/(1-v/c)
~ L ( 1 + v/c )
= L (c+v)/c

where v is the Earth's orbital velocity.
Clearly, c-v is the relative velocity of light.

What about clearly c+v, Marcel?
The earth can't have +v and -v at the time, can it?
Check with Spaceman, hurry!
Dirk Vdm

Once more, you don't understand what you are
talking about.
Using the relativistic Doppler is wholly unnecessary,
as v/c (which corresponds to z, what you seem to
ignore) is about +/- 0.001 (v is positive or negative
according the season), and (v/c)^2 = 0.000001.
What is much more important is that c +/- v is the
relative velocity of light, meaning that light velocity
is dependent of the oberver's velocity, contrary to
Einstein's postulate. As his derivation of the Lorentz
transformation is based on a OWLS of c, it cannot be
physically right.

Luttgens dictum: "Clearly, c-v is the relative velocity of light."
        fo = f sqrt[ (1-v/c)/(1+v/c) ]
            = f sqrt[ (c-v)/(c+v) ]
        Lo = L sqrt[ (1+v/c)/(1-v/c) ]
            = L sqrt[ (c+v)/(c-v) ]
So, what *about* clearly c+v, Luttgens?
c-v and c+v can't be the relative velocity of light at
the same time, can it, Luttgens?
The earth can't have +v and -v at the same time, can it, Luttgens?
Does it hurt if the only person you must agree with is a sub-imbecile
like Spacemouse, Luttgens?
Dirk Vdm- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

[m***@wanadoo.fr]

On Sep 19, 6:33 pm, "Dirk Van de moortel"

On Sep 18, 3:20 pm, "Dirk Van de moortel"

[snip]

uh-oh...

If the star emits a light of frequency f, thus of
wavelength l = c/f, the frequency observed on Earth
is fo = f * (c-v)/c

fo = f sqrt[ (1-v/c)/(1+v/c) ]
= f sqrt[ (c-v)/(c+v) ]
~ f ( 1 - v/c )
= f (c-v)/c

and the observed wavelength is
lo = l * c/(c-v),

using "l" is dangerous. I'll take L.
Lo = L sqrt[ (1+v/c)/(1-v/c) ]
= L sqrt[ (c+v)/(c-v) ]
~ L ( 1 + v/c )
= L (c+v)/c
L * c/(c-v)
= L 1/(1-v/c)
~ L ( 1 + v/c )
= L (c+v)/c

where v is the Earth's orbital velocity.
Clearly, c-v is the relative velocity of light.

What about clearly c+v, Marcel?
The earth can't have +v and -v at the time, can it?
Check with Spaceman, hurry!
Dirk Vdm

Once more, you don't understand what you are
talking about.
Using the relativistic Doppler is wholly unnecessary,
as v/c (which corresponds to z, what you seem to
ignore) is about +/- 0.001 (v is positive or negative
according the season), and (v/c)^2 = 0.000001.
What is much more important is that c +/- v is the
relative velocity of light, meaning that light velocity
is dependent of the oberver's velocity, contrary to
Einstein's postulate. As his derivation of the Lorentz
transformation is based on a OWLS of c, it cannot be
physically right.

Luttgens dictum: "Clearly, c-v is the relative velocity of light."
        fo = f sqrt[ (1-v/c)/(1+v/c) ]
            = f sqrt[ (c-v)/(c+v) ]
        Lo = L sqrt[ (1+v/c)/(1-v/c) ]
            = L sqrt[ (c+v)/(c-v) ]
So, what *about* clearly c+v, Luttgens?
c-v and c+v can't be the relative velocity of light at
the same time, can it, Luttgens?
The earth can't have +v and -v at the same time, can it, Luttgens?

The sub-imbecile is a mathematician, which cannot
physically interpret the formula he uses.
What represents Lo/L = sqrt[ (c+v)/(c-v) ] ?
A redshift of course, as (c+v) > (c-v).
What is the meaning of a redshift?
Simply that the observer is moving away at v from the
source or that the source is moving away at v from
the observer.
In the scenario, the star (the emitter) is assumed
to be at rest relative to the Sun.
As the Earth orbits the Sun at some velocity v,
a redshift means that the Earth (the receiver) is
moving away at v from the star, hence that for the
Earth observer, the relative velocity of light
is (c-v).

Marcel Luttgens

Does it hurt if the only person you must agree with is a sub-imbecile
like Spacemouse, Luttgens?
Dirk Vdm

[m***@wanadoo.fr]

On Sep 19, 6:33 pm, "Dirk Van de moortel"

On Sep 18, 3:20 pm, "Dirk Van de moortel"

[snip]

uh-oh...

If the star emits a light of frequency f, thus of
wavelength l = c/f, the frequency observed on Earth
is fo = f * (c-v)/c

fo = f sqrt[ (1-v/c)/(1+v/c) ]
= f sqrt[ (c-v)/(c+v) ]
~ f ( 1 - v/c )
= f (c-v)/c

and the observed wavelength is
lo = l * c/(c-v),

using "l" is dangerous. I'll take L.
Lo = L sqrt[ (1+v/c)/(1-v/c) ]
= L sqrt[ (c+v)/(c-v) ]
~ L ( 1 + v/c )
= L (c+v)/c
L * c/(c-v)
= L 1/(1-v/c)
~ L ( 1 + v/c )
= L (c+v)/c

where v is the Earth's orbital velocity.
Clearly, c-v is the relative velocity of light.

What about clearly c+v, Marcel?
The earth can't have +v and -v at the time, can it?
Check with Spaceman, hurry!
Dirk Vdm

Once more, you don't understand what you are
talking about.
Using the relativistic Doppler is wholly unnecessary,
as v/c (which corresponds to z, what you seem to
ignore) is about +/- 0.001 (v is positive or negative
according the season), and (v/c)^2 = 0.000001.
What is much more important is that c +/- v is the
relative velocity of light, meaning that light velocity
is dependent of the oberver's velocity, contrary to
Einstein's postulate. As his derivation of the Lorentz
transformation is based on a OWLS of c, it cannot be
physically right.

Luttgens dictum: "Clearly, c-v is the relative velocity of light."
        fo = f sqrt[ (1-v/c)/(1+v/c) ]
            = f sqrt[ (c-v)/(c+v) ]
        Lo = L sqrt[ (1+v/c)/(1-v/c) ]
            = L sqrt[ (c+v)/(c-v) ]
So, what *about* clearly c+v, Luttgens?
c-v and c+v can't be the relative velocity of light at
the same time, can it, Luttgens?
The earth can't have +v and -v at the same time, can it, Luttgens?
Does it hurt if the only person you must agree with is a sub-imbecile
like Spacemouse, Luttgens?
Dirk Vdm- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

A mathematician who cannot understand the physical signification of
the formulas he uses is not even
a sub-imbecile.

Look at
http://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~bds2/ltsn/planetary.rtf
You will perhaps realize that an observed Doppler implies
a relative velocity between a light emitter and a receiver.

Marcel Luttgens

[m***@wanadoo.fr]

On Sep 19, 6:33 pm, "Dirk Van de moortel"

On Sep 18, 3:20 pm, "Dirk Van de moortel"

[snip]

uh-oh...

If the star emits a light of frequency f, thus of
wavelength l = c/f, the frequency observed on Earth
is fo = f * (c-v)/c

fo = f sqrt[ (1-v/c)/(1+v/c) ]
= f sqrt[ (c-v)/(c+v) ]
~ f ( 1 - v/c )
= f (c-v)/c

and the observed wavelength is
lo = l * c/(c-v),

using "l" is dangerous. I'll take L.
Lo = L sqrt[ (1+v/c)/(1-v/c) ]
= L sqrt[ (c+v)/(c-v) ]
~ L ( 1 + v/c )
= L (c+v)/c
L * c/(c-v)
= L 1/(1-v/c)
~ L ( 1 + v/c )
= L (c+v)/c

where v is the Earth's orbital velocity.
Clearly, c-v is the relative velocity of light.

What about clearly c+v, Marcel?
The earth can't have +v and -v at the time, can it?
Check with Spaceman, hurry!
Dirk Vdm

Once more, you don't understand what you are
talking about.
Using the relativistic Doppler is wholly unnecessary,
as v/c (which corresponds to z, what you seem to
ignore) is about +/- 0.001 (v is positive or negative
according the season), and (v/c)^2 = 0.000001.
What is much more important is that c +/- v is the
relative velocity of light, meaning that light velocity
is dependent of the oberver's velocity, contrary to
Einstein's postulate. As his derivation of the Lorentz
transformation is based on a OWLS of c, it cannot be
physically right.

Luttgens dictum: "Clearly, c-v is the relative velocity of light."
        fo = f sqrt[ (1-v/c)/(1+v/c) ]
            = f sqrt[ (c-v)/(c+v) ]
        Lo = L sqrt[ (1+v/c)/(1-v/c) ]
            = L sqrt[ (c+v)/(c-v) ]
So, what *about* clearly c+v, Luttgens?
c-v and c+v can't be the relative velocity of light at
the same time, can it, Luttgens?
The earth can't have +v and -v at the same time, can it, Luttgens?
Does it hurt if the only person you must agree with is a sub-imbecile
like Spacemouse, Luttgens?
Dirk Vdm-

According to Vdm:

"Luttgens dictum: "Clearly, c-v is the relative velocity of light."
But alas, whether Luttgens likes it or not:
fo = f sqrt[ (1-v/c)/(1+v/c) ]
= f sqrt[ (c-v)/(c+v) ]
Lo = L sqrt[ (1+v/c)/(1-v/c) ]
= L sqrt[ (c+v)/(c-v) ]
So, what about clearly c+v, Luttgens?
c-v and c+v can't be the relative velocity of light at the same time,
can it, Luttgens?
The emitter and the emitter can't have relative velocities +v and -v
at the same time, can they, Luttgens?

The stupid ignorant pseudo-mathematician, pseudo-physicist
and pseudo-relativist Dirk Van de moortel systematically
confuses vr with v, where v is the speed of the source
and vr is the component of v along the direction from
the observer to light source.

He ignores that the basis formula is
fo/f = sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) / (1+vr/c), where
sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) is a pure relativistic
time "slowing" effect, which only depends on the
speed v of the light source, and is independent of vr.

He confuses v with vr, which is a typical IMMORTAL
VAN DE MOORTEL FUMBLE!
No wonder that he redirects his stupidities to
alt.morons!

He should go back to the basics, for instance in
Gravitation and Cosmology, pp 31-32,
Steven Weinberg, 1972

"The ratio of the frequency of the light actually
measured by the observer to the frequency of the
light source at rest is
fo/f = sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) / (1+vr/c), where v is the
speed of the source and vr is the component of v
along the direction from the observer to light source.

If the light source is moving away, then vr > 0,
and this is necessarily a red shift.
If the light source is moving transversely, then
v = 0 and we have the pure time dilation redshift.
If the lightsource is moving *directly* toward
the observer, then vr = -v, and we have a violet
shift by a factor
sqrt(1+v/c) / sqrt(1-v/c).
The transition from violet to red shift occurs
for a source moving at an angle between straight
toward the observer and at right angle to the
line of sight."

Marcel Luttgens