SR time dilation on remote objects ?

George Dishman wrote:
[snip]


If the correct formula is sqrt(fR * fS), then obviously
fS would be wrong because it is different. If you had
showed that fS was correct, then SR would be wrong, but
you showed fS was wrong - you got your logic the wrong
way round as well.

He thinks that by showing that the SR formula can be written
as sqrt(fR * fS), where fR and fS are the formulas for *sound*,
not for light, he has shown that the SR formula can't be valid
for light.

And he really thinks that that is a logical argument.

What can one do in the sight of such utter nonsense? Apparently
he is totally impervious to math and logic.



[snip]

Bye,
Bjoern

"Bjoern Feuerbacher" wrote in message
...
George Dishman wrote:
[snip]


If the correct formula is sqrt(fR * fS), then obviously
fS would be wrong because it is different. If you had
showed that fS was correct, then SR would be wrong, but
you showed fS was wrong - you got your logic the wrong
way round as well.

He thinks that by showing that the SR formula can be written
as sqrt(fR * fS), where fR and fS are the formulas for *sound*,
not for light, he has shown that the SR formula can't be valid
for light.

And he really thinks that that is a logical argument.

What can one do in the sight of such utter nonsense? Apparently
he is totally impervious to math and logic.

Small steps. By showing him that he has got
the wrong equation for sound, hopefully some
sense of embarrassment will suggest he checks
what he is going to post before hitting the
send button. I'm leaving you to address the
cosmological aspects because I don't think
he knows the fundamentals well enough even to
understand your posts. I try to get to the
base of a problem - Doppler for sound in this
case - and then build on that. The next step
would be to address the question of symmetry
but that's still a long, long way from using
R(t) and GR so good luck getting anything
across. Still, your thread is the only one
that is even remotely on-topic at the moment
so I hope you keep at it.

best regards
George

"Bjoern Feuerbacher" wrote in message
...
Marcel Luttgens wrote:
Bjoern Feuerbacher wrote in message
...

Marcel Luttgens wrote:

Bjoern Feuerbacher wrote in message
...

I say that for real movements, one should use Nu(o) = Nu
sqrt((1-v/c)/(1+v/c)) (regardless if the source or the observer is
moving, since motion is relative!), and in cosmology, one should use
1+z = R(t0)/R(t) for the red shift (reminder: R is the curvature
radius of the universe).

Yes, with many assumptions, like Omega M, flat universe, etc...

Wrong. Omega_M and the flatness of the universe are *measured*,
not assumed.
....
Or the assumptions were made
a posteriori in order to justify the observations.

Complete utter nonsense.

Actually, I love that reply, the values weren't
measured, they were just assumed because nothing
else fits the observations.

George

On Sun, 26 Sep 2004 15:57:41 +0100, "George Dishman"
wrote:

Complete utter nonsense.

Actually, I love that reply, the values weren't
measured, they were just assumed because nothing
else fits the observations.

George

A common practice in science. Newton's entire workable theory of
gravity for example.

On Sun, 26 Sep 2004 15:51:46 +0100, "George Dishman"
wrote:

Doppler for sound

Wasn't the `Doppler effect' applied to propagation by waves? Was he
particular about what waves it was applied to?

Bjoern Feuerbacher wrote:
Marcel Luttgens wrote:


[snip]


As at least Nu(o)S is wrong for light, Nu(o) is logically wrong,


And exactly here, you make a huge jump in logic!!!

From "a formula can be written as the ratio of two other formulas,
which are *not* valid", it does *******NOT******* follow that the
formula *itself* is not valid!!!!!!!!

Example: Let's say we talk about a container containing one liter of
water, obviously with a mass of 1 kg. The water in that container has
the density 1 kg/l.

So, now, the equations
m = 2 kg
and
V = 2 l
are *not* valid for the water in the container. Nevertheless, the
equation
m/V = 1 kg/l,
which is just the *ratio* of the two equations above, *is* valid for the
water in the container.

Conclusion 1: the ratio of two formulas which are both *not* valid for a
certain situation *can* be valid in that situations.

Conclusion 2: your argument that because you can write the Doppler shift
formula for light as the ratio of two formulas which are only valid for
sound, but not for light, does not prove at all that the resulting
formula is also not valid for light.

Conclusion 3: you don't understand logic.


[snip]


Eagerly waiting for you completely missing the point, as usual,
Bjoern

"vonroach" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 26 Sep 2004 15:57:41 +0100, "George Dishman"
wrote:

Complete utter nonsense.

Actually, I love that reply, the values weren't
measured, they were just assumed because nothing
else fits the observations.

George

A common practice in science. Newton's entire workable theory of
gravity for example.

So you think Newton never _measured_ the acceleration
of gravity to be 32 ft/s^2, he only _assumed_ it had
that value "a posteriori" in order to "justify" the
measurements that a dropped item increased its speed
by 32 ft/s in each second?

George

"vonroach" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 26 Sep 2004 15:51:46 +0100, "George Dishman"
wrote:

Doppler for sound

Wasn't the `Doppler effect' applied to propagation by waves?
Was he particular about what waves it was applied to?

I doubt he was, but we are drawing a distinction
between the general formula for waves in a medium
and light. The formula Marcel used is only
applicable where there is a medium involved
because the speeds in the general formula

Nu(o)/Nu = (c-vo)/(c+vs)

are both relative to the medium and his use of
the non-symmetrical simplification doesn't change
that. It's an important point that he had missed
because his "proof" goes on to assume symmetry.
It still doesn't work and as Bjoern explained,
even his logic is wrong.

Of course I'm sure you are aware even this is an
approximation because the time dilation factor
has been neglected, but since it is second order
and the speed of sound is 6 orders less than that
of light, the error is twelve orders down and
negligible compared to the uncertainty in the
speed of sound due to atmospheric conditions.

George

On Tue, 28 Sep 2004 18:59:07 +0100, "George Dishman"
wrote:


"vonroach" wrote in message
.. .
On Sun, 26 Sep 2004 15:57:41 +0100, "George Dishman"
wrote:

Complete utter nonsense.

Actually, I love that reply, the values weren't
measured, they were just assumed because nothing
else fits the observations.

George

A common practice in science. Newton's entire workable theory of
gravity for example.

So you think Newton never _measured_ the acceleration
of gravity to be 32 ft/s^2, he only _assumed_ it had
that value "a posteriori" in order to "justify" the
measurements that a dropped item increased its speed
by 32 ft/s in each second?

George

He measured what he attributed to the mutual attraction between two
masses - a guess, since he had no other explanation to offer. It has
provided a very workable `idea' extending to the realm of rocketry.
`Gravity' had such a sober weighty ring to the term.

Now it has been ordained that it is a manifestation of undetected
particles and waves and distortions of space.

I wonder if something may one day be found in the dark part of the
universe that may change our views again.

"vonroach" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 28 Sep 2004 18:59:07 +0100, "George Dishman"
wrote:


"vonroach" wrote in message
.. .
On Sun, 26 Sep 2004 15:57:41 +0100, "George Dishman"
wrote:

Complete utter nonsense.

Actually, I love that reply, the values weren't
measured, they were just assumed because nothing
else fits the observations.

George

A common practice in science. Newton's entire workable theory of
gravity for example.

So you think Newton never _measured_ the acceleration
of gravity to be 32 ft/s^2, he only _assumed_ it had
that value "a posteriori" in order to "justify" the
measurements that a dropped item increased its speed
by 32 ft/s in each second?

George

He measured what he attributed to the mutual attraction between two
masses - a guess, since he had no other explanation to offer.

I don't disagree with that, it was a conjecture and
as you say a very workable one. However, what Marcel
said was that the _value_ of Omega M had not been
measured, instead "assumptions were made a posteriori
in order to justify the observations."

How else do you make any measurement in astronomy but
"assume" a value that fits the observations ;-)

I wonder if something may one day be found in the dark part of the
universe that may change our views again.

I certainly hope so, we know QM and GR don't mesh
easily, and dark matter and dark energy aren't
necessarily black, they are dark in the sense of
being as yet unexplained. We still have a lot to
discover.

George