Doppler Shift is Evidence for the Varying Speed of Incoming Light

[Strich.9]

On Feb 6, 4:35 pm, "Dirk Van de moortel"
<***@nospAm.hotmail.com> wrote:
> Strich.9 <***@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
>   509b8758-05ef-42a7-a7fb-***@v5g2000pre.googlegroups.com
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Feb 6, 4:19 pm, "Dirk Van de moortel"
> > <***@nospAm.hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> ***@hotmail.com <***@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> >> b0132ff2-10f6-4993-ab5f-***@v5g2000pre.googlegroups.com
>
> >>> On 6 feb, 17:38, "Strich.9" <***@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>> On Feb 6, 3:27 pm, ***@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> >>>>> On 6 feb, 16:54, "Strich.9" <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>>>>> On Feb 6, 2:43 pm, ***@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> >>>>>>> snip profund confusion
>
> >>>>>> Cheech, it is all simple. There are two frames. 1.) Use variables in
> >>>>>> frame F and use LTE to get variables in frame F'. 2.) Second, use
> >>>>>> variables in frame F' and use iLTE to get variables in frame F. Do
> >>>>>> not perform step 1 halfway, go to step 2, do it halfway, then return
> >>>>>> to complete step 1, and then return again to step 2 to complete it.
> >>>>>> Try to stay focused.
>
> >>>> I said stay focused. Let me hold your hand. I'll delete what is
> >>>> wrong so it will be clearer. We are using v=0.866c right?
>
> >>>>> OK then...let us use your wonderful advice:
>
> >>>>> 1) Use variables in frame F and use LTE to get variables in frame F'
>
> >>>>> You said x=0 in frame F, right?
> >>>>> Then the corresponding t' in frame F' can be calculated, right?
>
> >>>>> t’ = gamma*(t - vx/c^2) --> t'=gamma*t, right?
>
> >>>> t' = gamma * t = 2t
>
> >>>> Let us confirm this mentally. At speed of 0.866c, and gamma=2, time
> >>>> slows down to half from the F frame observing the F' frame. So we are
> >>>> correct.
>
> >>>>> 2) Second, use variables in frame F' and use iLTE to get variables in
> >>>>> frame F
>
> >>>>> t = gamma*(t’+ vx’/c^2) --> t=gamma*(gamma*t+v*(-gamma*(vt))/c^2)= t,
> >>>>> right?
>
> >>>> We set x'=0 and obtain t = gamma*t' = 2t'.
>
> >>>> Let us confirm this mentally. At speed of 0.866c, and gamma=2, time
> >>>> slows down to half from the F' frame observing the F frame. So we are
> >>>> again correct.
>
> >>>> So both ways we get a symmetric and equal time dilation as predicted
> >>>> by special relativity. So what were you whining about Cheech?
>
> >>> Well, again a clear demonstration of your ignorance and dishonesty,
> >>> right David?
> >>> You can't even follow a line per line demonstration of how wrong you
> >>> are, so you just snip the relevant material, which contradicts you,
> >>> hoping nobody will notice....
>
> >>> It is a waste of your time, for sure, since you have already provided
> >>> enough material for us to laugh for years!
>
> >>> So have a nice weekend in your cell or cave, where you hide on
> >>> weekends.
>
> >>> Miguel Rios
>
> >> Ha... is his name David? Last name? Don't tell me it's Sepalla :-)
> >> Have I missed something?
> >> In this thread?
> >> As I don't plan to read *every* attempt that has been made here
> >> to talk some sense into his empty skull, can you elaborate on his
> >> identity?
>
> >> Dirk Vdm-
>
> > Dirk, I still remember my first time here in usenet just a few months
> > ago.
>
>  http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/MoreBananas.html
>  http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/ImbecileScienc...
>  http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/StupidPremises...
>  http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/NotDeparting.html
>  http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/CrapReconstruc...
>
> > You were the first person I stumped.
>
> STUMPING PROVOKED BY THE WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT
> OF VETERANS AFFAIRS!
>
> Dirk Vdm- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Dirk, I still remember my first time here in usenet just a few months
ago. You were the first person I stumped. I still remember taunting
you for several days. I hope that did not traumatize you? I believe
the topic was about my step by step analysis of the muon experiment,
like 1 to 5*, and you were supposed to pick one where the error was?
And you could not do it! And none of your friends could help. God,
you must hate me for that. That was the day I knew I had the
relativists eating from the palm of my hand. God, they must hate me
for that.

And things have not changed.

-----
*If I asked the question again, do you think you can answer it now?
(All your buddies can pitch in if they want :-)

[Strich.9]

On Feb 6, 4:05 pm, "Dirk Van de moortel"
<***@nospAm.hotmail.com> wrote:
> lost in space

Let me explain what the mathematics is supposed to mean so you are not
twirling your head unnecessarily. When setting x to 0 in the time
equation, it merely means that the time measurements are made at the
same PLACE. This is a perfectly valid assumption that is meant to
simplify the equation and the ensuing claculation.

Now when you are computing for x in the distance equation, setting t
to 0 means making the distance measurements at the same TIME. Again,
this is a perfectly valid assumption that is meant to simplify the
equation and the ensuing calculation.

Of course you need not do this, but the INVARIANCE of the space-time
interval allows you to do this without any loss of accuracy.