Doppler effect in light (stationary emitter, moving observer):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bg7O4rtlwEE

Two obvious facts in this particular scenario:

(A) The speed and the frequency of the light pulses vary proportionally for the observer.

(B) The wavelength (distance between light pulses) remains constant.

(A) and (B), valid in ANY scenario (moving emitter, moving observer, presence or absence of gravity), will become basic principles in future, Einstein-free physics.

If the speed of light is assumed constant (Einstein's physics), the formula

(frequency) = (speed of light)/(wavelength)

has absurd corollaries, e.g. "Any frequency shift entails (is caused by) an inversely proportional wavelength shift". In contrast, the formula has revolutionary corollaries if THE WAVELENGTH OF LIGHT IS ASSUMED CONSTANT (future, Einstein-free physics):

Corollary 1: Any frequency shift entails (is caused by) a proportional speed-of-light shift.

Corollary 2: If the emitter and the observer (receiver) travel towards each other with relative speed v, the speed of light as measured by the observer is c' = c+v, as per Newton's theory.

Corollary 3: Spacetime and gravitational waves (ripples in spacetime) don't exist. LIGO's "discoveries" are fake.

Corollary 4: Light falls in a gravitational field with the same acceleration as ordinary falling bodies - near Earth's surface the accelerations of falling photons is g = 9.8 m/s^2. Accordingly, there is no gravitational time dilation: Einstein's general relativity is absurd.

Corollary 5: The Hubble redshift is due to light slowing down as it travels through vacuum. The universe is not expanding.

See more here: https://twitter.com/pentcho_valev

Pentcho Valev

Richard Feynman: "I want to emphasize that light comes in this form - particles. It is very important to know that light behaves like particles, especially for those of you who have gone to school, where you probably learned something about light behaving like waves. I'm telling you the way it does behave - like particles. You might say that it's just the photomultiplier that detects light as particles, but no, every instrument that has been designed to be sensitive enough to detect weak light has always ended up discovering the same thing: light is made of particles." https://www.amazon.com/QED-Strange-Theory-Light-Matter/dp/0691024170

Implication (Feynman would not accept it of course): Variable wavelength of light https://youtube.com/watch?v=xsVxC_NR64M is an unrealistic concept. Actually, it contradicts the principle of relativity. If the wavelength (distance between light pulses) varied with the speed of the emitter, the emitter would measure it inside his spaceship and so would know his speed without looking outside.

The wavelength of light is constant (for a given emitter); the frequency and the speed of light vary proportionally.

More here: https://twitter.com/pentcho_valev

Pentcho Valev

Pentcho Valev <pvalev@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Richard Feynman: "I want to emphasize that light comes in this form -
> particles. It is very important to know that light behaves like
> particles, especially for those of you who have gone to school, where you
> probably learned something about light behaving like waves. I'm telling
> you the way it does behave - like particles. You might say that it's just
> the photomultiplier that detects light as particles, but no, every
> instrument that has been designed to be sensitive enough to detect weak
> light has always ended up discovering the same thing: light is made of
> particles." https://www.amazon.com/QED-Strange-Theory-Light-Matter/dp/0691024170
>
> Implication (Feynman would not accept it of course):

Indeed, and for good reason. At least you’re not claiming that Feynman
supports your idiotic conclusions.

> Variable wavelength of light https://youtube.com/watch?v=xsVxC_NR64M is
> an unrealistic concept. Actually, it contradicts the principle of
> relativity. If the wavelength (distance between light pulses) varied with
> the speed of the emitter, the emitter would measure it inside his
> spaceship and so would know his speed without looking outside.
>
> The wavelength of light is constant (for a given emitter); the frequency
> and the speed of light vary proportionally.
>
> More here: https://twitter.com/pentcho_valev
>
> Pentcho Valev
>

--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

On 8/9/21 9:37 AM, Pentcho Valev wrote:
> Richard Feynman: "I want to emphasize that light comes in this form
> - particles. [...]

Feynman goes on to explain that these are QUANTUM particles -- a point
which Valev studiously ignores, because it destroys his fantasies.

> Implication (Feynman would not accept it of course): Variable
> wavelength of light https://youtube.com/watch?v=xsVxC_NR64M is an
> unrealistic concept.

Nonsense. In the world we inhabit, differently-moving observers can AND
DO measure different values for the wavelength of a given
(monochromatic) light beam. They also measure different frequencies, but
they all obtain the same value for the product wavelength*frequency, the
phase speed of the light beam.

> If the wavelength (distance between light pulses) [...]

That is NOT the wavelength of light, it is something Valev made up and
pretends is true. (How did he change from "particles" to "pulses"?)

The ACTUAL wavelength of a light beam is determined by the phase advance
of the photons that comprise it. But since Valev ignores the quantum
aspects of light, he is unable to understand this simple fact.

Tom Roberts

On Monday, August 9, 2021 at 12:05:42 PM UTC-4, tjrob137 wrote:
> On 8/9/21 9:37 AM, Pentcho Valev wrote:
> > Richard Feynman: "I want to emphasize that light comes in this form
> > - particles. [...]
>
> Feynman goes on to explain that these are QUANTUM particles -- a point
> which Valev studiously ignores, because it destroys his fantasies.
> > Implication (Feynman would not accept it of course): Variable
> > wavelength of light https://youtube.com/watch?v=xsVxC_NR64M is an
> > unrealistic concept.
> Nonsense. In the world we inhabit, differently-moving observers can AND
> DO measure different values for the wavelength of a given
> (monochromatic) light beam. They also measure different frequencies, but
> they all obtain the same value for the product wavelength*frequency, the
> phase speed of the light beam.

No, the incoming light becomes a new light source in the observer’s frame and the observer measure the wavelength for this new light source.
>
> > If the wavelength (distance between light pulses) [...]
>
> That is NOT the wavelength of light, it is something Valev made up and
> pretends is true. (How did he change from "particles" to "pulses"?)
>
> The ACTUAL wavelength of a light beam is determined by the phase advance
> of the photons that comprise it. But since Valev ignores the quantum
> aspects of light, he is unable to understand this simple fact.
>
> Tom Roberts

Ken Seto wrote:

>> Nonsense. In the world we inhabit, differently-moving observers can AND
>> DO measure different values for the wavelength of a given
>> (monochromatic) light beam. They also measure different frequencies,
>> but they all obtain the same value for the product
>> wavelength*frequency, the phase speed of the light beam.
>
> No, the incoming light becomes a new light source in the observer’s
> frame and the observer measure the wavelength for this new light source.

You don't know what a source looks like, and the requirements as such.
You are a faker faking physics. You pull sources out of your arse.

On 8/9/2021 3:41 PM, Ken Seto wrote:
> On Monday, August 9, 2021 at 12:05:42 PM UTC-4, tjrob137 wrote:

>> Nonsense. In the world we inhabit, differently-moving observers can AND
>> DO measure different values for the wavelength of a given
>> (monochromatic) light beam. They also measure different frequencies, but
>> they all obtain the same value for the product wavelength*frequency, the
>> phase speed of the light beam.
>
> No, the incoming light becomes a new light source in the observer’s frame and the observer measure the wavelength for this new light source.

Stupid Ken, your assertions of a new light source are of no value to
this discussion. You've never provided any scientific evidence of this
worthless assertion of yours.

On Monday, 9 August 2021 at 18:05:42 UTC+2, tjrob137 wrote:

> Nonsense. In the world we inhabit, differently-moving observers can AND
> DO measure different values for the wavelength of a given
> (monochromatic) light beam. They also measure different frequencies, but
> they all obtain the same value for the product wavelength*frequency, the
> phase speed of the light beam.

In the world YOU inhabit, in the world of your moronic delusions,
where everyone is FORCED.

On Monday, August 9, 2021 at 3:52:07 PM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote:
> On 8/9/2021 3:41 PM, Ken Seto wrote:
> > On Monday, August 9, 2021 at 12:05:42 PM UTC-4, tjrob137 wrote:
>
> >> Nonsense. In the world we inhabit, differently-moving observers can AND
> >> DO measure different values for the wavelength of a given
> >> (monochromatic) light beam. They also measure different frequencies, but
> >> they all obtain the same value for the product wavelength*frequency, the
> >> phase speed of the light beam.
> > crude that
> > No, the incoming light becomes a new light source in the observer’s frame and the observer measure the wavelength for this new light source. you would con
> Stupid Ken, your assertions of a new light source are of no value to
> this discussion. You've never provided any scientific evidence of this
> worthless assertion of yours.

Stupid moron Mike: If you didn’t know that the incoming light is from a source in another frame then you would conclude that it is a new light source in your frame. Gee you are so stupid.

On Monday, August 9, 2021 at 3:43:20 PM UTC-4, Breda Haanrade wrote:
> Ken Seto wrote:
>
> >> Nonsense. In the world we inhabit, differently-moving observers can AND
> >> DO measure different values for the wavelength of a given
> >> (monochromatic) light beam. They also measure different frequencies,
> >> but they all obtain the same value for the product
> >> wavelength*frequency, the phase speed of the light beam.
> >
> > No, the incoming light becomes a new light source in the observer’s
> > frame and the observer measure the wavelength for this new light source..
> You don't know what a source looks like, and the requirements as such.
> You are a faker faking physics. You pull sources out of your are.

Idiot.

On 8/10/2021 8:30 AM, Ken Seto wrote:
> On Monday, August 9, 2021 at 3:43:20 PM UTC-4, Breda Haanrade wrote:

>>>
>>> No, the incoming light becomes a new light source in the observer’s
>>> frame and the observer measure the wavelength for this new light source.
>> You don't know what a source looks like, and the requirements as such.
>> You are a faker faking physics. You pull sources out of your are.
>
> Idiot.
>

Why yes, Stupid Ken, that's exactly what you are, an idiot! Even the
nymshifting troll knows that. Now quit pulling assertions out of your
ass like that.

On 8/10/2021 8:28 AM, Ken Seto wrote:
> On Monday, August 9, 2021 at 3:52:07 PM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote:
>> On 8/9/2021 3:41 PM, Ken Seto wrote:
>>> On Monday, August 9, 2021 at 12:05:42 PM UTC-4, tjrob137 wrote:
>>
>>>> Nonsense. In the world we inhabit, differently-moving observers can AND
>>>> DO measure different values for the wavelength of a given
>>>> (monochromatic) light beam. They also measure different frequencies, but
>>>> they all obtain the same value for the product wavelength*frequency, the
>>>> phase speed of the light beam.
>>> crude that
>>> No, the incoming light becomes a new light source in the observer’s frame and the observer measure the wavelength for this new light source. you would con
>> Stupid Ken, your assertions of a new light source are of no value to
>> this discussion. You've never provided any scientific evidence of this
>> worthless assertion of yours.
>
> Stupid moron Mike: If you didn’t know that the incoming light is from a source in another frame then you would conclude that it is a new light source in your frame. Gee you are so stupid.
>
Stupid Ken, you never gave any evidence or observations that the light
comes from a new light source and not the original source. It remains
just one of your worthless assertions. Science does not accept
worthless assertions such as that. So stop stating your assertion as if
it was factual, because it isn't.

On Tuesday, 10 August 2021 at 19:17:57 UTC+2, Michael Moroney wrote:

> Stupid Ken, you never gave any evidence or observations that the light
> comes from a new light source and not the original source. It remains
> just one of your worthless assertions. Science does not accept
> worthless assertions such as that.

Unless, of course, they come from Wise Gurus.

On Tuesday, August 10, 2021 at 1:17:57 PM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote:
> On 8/10/2021 8:28 AM, Ken Seto wrote:
> > On Monday, August 9, 2021 at 3:52:07 PM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote:
> >> On 8/9/2021 3:41 PM, Ken Seto wrote:
> >>> On Monday, August 9, 2021 at 12:05:42 PM UTC-4, tjrob137 wrote:
> >>
> >>>> Nonsense. In the world we inhabit, differently-moving observers can AND
> >>>> DO measure different values for the wavelength of a given
> >>>> (monochromatic) light beam. They also measure different frequencies, but
> >>>> they all obtain the same value for the product wavelength*frequency, the
> >>>> phase speed of the light beam.
> >>> crude that
> >>> No, the incoming light becomes a new light source in the observer’s frame and the observer measure the wavelength for this new light source. you would con
> >> Stupid Ken, your assertions of a new light source are of no value to
> >> this discussion. You've never provided any scientific evidence of this
> >> worthless assertion of yours.
> >
> > Stupid moron Mike: If you didn’t know that the incoming light is from a source in another frame then you would conclude that it is a new light source in your frame. Gee you are so stupid.
> >
> Stupid Ken, you never gave any evidence or observations that the light
> comes from a new light source and not the original source. It remains
> just one of your worthless assertions. Science does not accept
> worthless assertions such as that. So stop stating your assertion as if
> it was factual, because it isn’t.

Fucking moron, the telescope in your frame that collects the light and re-emits it, is the new light source in your frame. Gee you are so fucking stupid.

On 8/11/2021 11:21 AM, Ken Seto wrote:
> On Tuesday, August 10, 2021 at 1:17:57 PM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote:
>> On 8/10/2021 8:28 AM, Ken Seto wrote:
>>> On Monday, August 9, 2021 at 3:52:07 PM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote:
>>>> On 8/9/2021 3:41 PM, Ken Seto wrote:
>>>>> On Monday, August 9, 2021 at 12:05:42 PM UTC-4, tjrob137 wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> Nonsense. In the world we inhabit, differently-moving observers can AND
>>>>>> DO measure different values for the wavelength of a given
>>>>>> (monochromatic) light beam. They also measure different frequencies, but
>>>>>> they all obtain the same value for the product wavelength*frequency, the
>>>>>> phase speed of the light beam.
>>>>> crude that
>>>>> No, the incoming light becomes a new light source in the observer’s frame and the observer measure the wavelength for this new light source. you would con
>>>> Stupid Ken, your assertions of a new light source are of no value to
>>>> this discussion. You've never provided any scientific evidence of this
>>>> worthless assertion of yours.
>>>
>>> Stupid moron Mike: If you didn’t know that the incoming light is from a source in another frame then you would conclude that it is a new light source in your frame. Gee you are so stupid.
>>>
>> Stupid Ken, you never gave any evidence or observations that the light
>> comes from a new light source and not the original source. It remains
>> just one of your worthless assertions. Science does not accept
>> worthless assertions such as that. So stop stating your assertion as if
>> it was factual, because it isn’t.
>
> Fucking moron, the telescope in your frame that collects the light and re-emits it, is the new light source in your frame.

You gave no observations nor evidence of this actually happening. You
simply asserted it as if it was a fact. Science does not accept
worthless assertions such as that. So stop stating your assertion as if
it was factual, because it isn’t.

On Wednesday, August 11, 2021 at 11:37:05 AM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote:
> On 8/11/2021 11:21 AM, Ken Seto wrote:
> > On Tuesday, August 10, 2021 at 1:17:57 PM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote:
> >> On 8/10/2021 8:28 AM, Ken Seto wrote:
> >>> On Monday, August 9, 2021 at 3:52:07 PM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote:
> >>>> On 8/9/2021 3:41 PM, Ken Seto wrote:
> >>>>> On Monday, August 9, 2021 at 12:05:42 PM UTC-4, tjrob137 wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>>> Nonsense. In the world we inhabit, differently-moving observers can AND
> >>>>>> DO measure different values for the wavelength of a given
> >>>>>> (monochromatic) light beam. They also measure different frequencies, but
> >>>>>> they all obtain the same value for the product wavelength*frequency, the
> >>>>>> phase speed of the light beam.
> >>>>> crude that
> >>>>> No, the incoming light becomes a new light source in the observer’s frame and the observer measure the wavelength for this new light source. you would con
> >>>> Stupid Ken, your assertions of a new light source are of no value to
> >>>> this discussion. You've never provided any scientific evidence of this
> >>>> worthless assertion of yours.
> >>>
> >>> Stupid moron Mike: If you didn’t know that the incoming light is from a source in another frame then you would conclude that it is a new light source in your frame. Gee you are so stupid.
> >>>
> >> Stupid Ken, you never gave any evidence or observations that the light
> >> comes from a new light source and not the original source. It remains
> >> just one of your worthless assertions. Science does not accept
> >> worthless assertions such as that. So stop stating your assertion as if
> >> it was factual, because it isn’t.
> >
> > Fucking moron, the telescope in your frame that collects the light and re-emits it, is the new light source in your frame.
> You gave no observations nor evidence of this actually happening. You
> simply asserted it as if it was a fact. Science does not accept
> worthless assertions such as that. So stop stating your assertion as if
> it was factual, because it isn’t.

So stupid, the following are not facts?
1. The telescope is not in your frame?
2. The telescope does not collect light and re-emits it?
3. The telescope is not a new light source in your frame?

Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wednesday, August 11, 2021 at 11:37:05 AM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote:
>> On 8/11/2021 11:21 AM, Ken Seto wrote:
>>> On Tuesday, August 10, 2021 at 1:17:57 PM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote:
>>>> On 8/10/2021 8:28 AM, Ken Seto wrote:
>>>>> On Monday, August 9, 2021 at 3:52:07 PM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote:
>>>>>> On 8/9/2021 3:41 PM, Ken Seto wrote:
>>>>>>> On Monday, August 9, 2021 at 12:05:42 PM UTC-4, tjrob137 wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Nonsense. In the world we inhabit, differently-moving observers can AND
>>>>>>>> DO measure different values for the wavelength of a given
>>>>>>>> (monochromatic) light beam. They also measure different frequencies, but
>>>>>>>> they all obtain the same value for the product wavelength*frequency, the
>>>>>>>> phase speed of the light beam.
>>>>>>> crude that
>>>>>>> No, the incoming light becomes a new light source in the observer’s
>>>>>>> frame and the observer measure the wavelength for this new light
>>>>>>> source. you would con
>>>>>> Stupid Ken, your assertions of a new light source are of no value to
>>>>>> this discussion. You've never provided any scientific evidence of this
>>>>>> worthless assertion of yours.
>>>>>
>>>>> Stupid moron Mike: If you didn’t know that the incoming light is from
>>>>> a source in another frame then you would conclude that it is a new
>>>>> light source in your frame. Gee you are so stupid.
>>>>>
>>>> Stupid Ken, you never gave any evidence or observations that the light
>>>> comes from a new light source and not the original source. It remains
>>>> just one of your worthless assertions. Science does not accept
>>>> worthless assertions such as that. So stop stating your assertion as if
>>>> it was factual, because it isn’t.
>>>
>>> Fucking moron, the telescope in your frame that collects the light and
>>> re-emits it, is the new light source in your frame.
>> You gave no observations nor evidence of this actually happening. You
>> simply asserted it as if it was a fact. Science does not accept
>> worthless assertions such as that. So stop stating your assertion as if
>> it was factual, because it isn’t.
>
> So stupid, the following are not facts?
> 1. The telescope is not in your frame?
> 2. The telescope does not collect light and re-emits it?

That one right there is not the fact. Telescopes do not re-emit light. Are
you nuts?

> 3. The telescope is not a new light source in your frame?
>

--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

On 8/11/2021 11:49 AM, Ken Seto wrote:
> On Wednesday, August 11, 2021 at 11:37:05 AM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote:
>> On 8/11/2021 11:21 AM, Ken Seto wrote:

>>> Fucking moron, the telescope in your frame that collects the light and re-emits it, is the new light source in your frame.

>> You gave no observations nor evidence of this actually happening. You
>> simply asserted it as if it was a fact. Science does not accept
>> worthless assertions such as that. So stop stating your assertion as if
>> it was factual, because it isn’t.
>
> So stupid, the following are not facts?
> 1. The telescope is not in your frame?
> 2. The telescope does not collect light and re-emits it?

No, it doesn't. It focuses the light in order to magnify the image.

> 3. The telescope is not a new light source in your frame?
>
Does not follow.

Moore Mansky wrote:

> Buy top grade medications drugs from the best pharmaceutical labs here.
> We provide drugs to our clients with or without prescriptions DM HERE!!!
> Wickr// ryanjacques007 4p.i.l.s,m.e.t.h, .her.oin...

one can just wait be pissed ending up in the tap water anyway, for free.

On Wednesday, August 11, 2021 at 11:52:26 AM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Wednesday, August 11, 2021 at 11:37:05 AM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote:
> >> On 8/11/2021 11:21 AM, Ken Seto wrote:
> >>> On Tuesday, August 10, 2021 at 1:17:57 PM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote:
> >>>> On 8/10/2021 8:28 AM, Ken Seto wrote:
> >>>>> On Monday, August 9, 2021 at 3:52:07 PM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote:
> >>>>>> On 8/9/2021 3:41 PM, Ken Seto wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Monday, August 9, 2021 at 12:05:42 PM UTC-4, tjrob137 wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Nonsense. In the world we inhabit, differently-moving observers can AND
> >>>>>>>> DO measure different values for the wavelength of a given
> >>>>>>>> (monochromatic) light beam. They also measure different frequencies, but
> >>>>>>>> they all obtain the same value for the product wavelength*frequency, the
> >>>>>>>> phase speed of the light beam.
> >>>>>>> crude that
> >>>>>>> No, the incoming light becomes a new light source in the observer’s
> >>>>>>> frame and the observer measure the wavelength for this new light
> >>>>>>> source. you would con
> >>>>>> Stupid Ken, your assertions of a new light source are of no value to
> >>>>>> this discussion. You've never provided any scientific evidence of this
> >>>>>> worthless assertion of yours.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Stupid moron Mike: If you didn’t know that the incoming light is from
> >>>>> a source in another frame then you would conclude that it is a new
> >>>>> light source in your frame. Gee you are so stupid.
> >>>>>
> >>>> Stupid Ken, you never gave any evidence or observations that the light
> >>>> comes from a new light source and not the original source. It remains
> >>>> just one of your worthless assertions. Science does not accept
> >>>> worthless assertions such as that. So stop stating your assertion as if
> >>>> it was factual, because it isn’t.
> >>>
> >>> Fucking moron, the telescope in your frame that collects the light and
> >>> re-emits it, is the new light source in your frame.
> >> You gave no observations nor evidence of this actually happening. You
> >> simply asserted it as if it was a fact. Science does not accept
> >> worthless assertions such as that. So stop stating your assertion as if
> >> it was factual, because it isn’t.
> >
> > So stupid, the following are not facts?
> > 1. The telescope is not in your frame?
> > 2. The telescope does not collect light and re-emits it?
> That one right there is not the fact. Telescopes do not re-emit light. Are
> you nuts?

It certainly is a fact. Like every atom in your frame is a light source, the telescope is in you frame is a source. Gee you are so fucking stupid.
> > 3. The telescope is not a new light source in your frame?
> >ly are so
> --
> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

On Wednesday, August 11, 2021 at 12:19:36 PM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote:
> On 8/11/2021 11:49 AM, Ken Seto wrote:
> > On Wednesday, August 11, 2021 at 11:37:05 AM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote:
> >> On 8/11/2021 11:21 AM, Ken Seto wrote:
>
> >>> Fucking moron, the telescope in your frame that collects the light and re-emits it, is the new light source in your frame.
>
> >> You gave no observations nor evidence of this actually happening. You
> >> simply asserted it as if it was a fact. Science does not accept
> >> worthless assertions such as that. So stop stating your assertion as if
> >> it was factual, because it isn’t.
> >
> > So stupid, the following are not facts?
> > 1. The telescope is not in your frame?
> > 2. The telescope does not collect light and re-emits it?
> No, it doesn't. It focuses the light in order to magnify the image.
> > 3. The telescope is not a new light source in your frame?
> >
> Does not follow.
Hey stupid the telescope is in your frame so it has the same absolute motion as you so any light from it is a light source in your frame. Just light every atom in your frame is a light source.

On Wednesday, August 11, 2021 at 12:19:36 PM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote:
> On 8/11/2021 11:49 AM, Ken Seto wrote:
> > On Wednesday, August 11, 2021 at 11:37:05 AM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote:
> >> On 8/11/2021 11:21 AM, Ken Seto wrote:
>
> >>> Fucking moron, the telescope in your frame that collects the light and re-emits it, is the new light source in your frame.
>
> >> You gave no observations nor evidence of this actually happening. You
> >> simply asserted it as if it was a fact. Science does not accept
> >> worthless assertions such as that. So stop stating your assertion as if
> >> it was factual, because it isn’t.
> >
> > So stupid, the following are not facts?
> > 1. The telescope is not in your frame?
> > 2. The telescope does not collect light and re-emits it?
> No, it doesn't. It focuses the light in order to magnify the image.
> > 3. The telescope is not a new light source in your frame?
> >
> Does not follow.

Hey stupid, the telescope is in your frame so it has the same absolute motion as you so any light from it is a light source in your frame. Just as light every atom in your frame is a light source.

On 8/11/2021 4:38 PM, Ken Seto wrote:
> On Wednesday, August 11, 2021 at 11:52:26 AM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Wednesday, August 11, 2021 at 11:37:05 AM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote:
>>>> On 8/11/2021 11:21 AM, Ken Seto wrote:
>>>>> On Tuesday, August 10, 2021 at 1:17:57 PM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote:
>>>>>> On 8/10/2021 8:28 AM, Ken Seto wrote:
>>>>>>> On Monday, August 9, 2021 at 3:52:07 PM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 8/9/2021 3:41 PM, Ken Seto wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Monday, August 9, 2021 at 12:05:42 PM UTC-4, tjrob137 wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Nonsense. In the world we inhabit, differently-moving observers can AND
>>>>>>>>>> DO measure different values for the wavelength of a given
>>>>>>>>>> (monochromatic) light beam. They also measure different frequencies, but
>>>>>>>>>> they all obtain the same value for the product wavelength*frequency, the
>>>>>>>>>> phase speed of the light beam.
>>>>>>>>> crude that
>>>>>>>>> No, the incoming light becomes a new light source in the observer’s
>>>>>>>>> frame and the observer measure the wavelength for this new light
>>>>>>>>> source. you would con
>>>>>>>> Stupid Ken, your assertions of a new light source are of no value to
>>>>>>>> this discussion. You've never provided any scientific evidence of this
>>>>>>>> worthless assertion of yours.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Stupid moron Mike: If you didn’t know that the incoming light is from
>>>>>>> a source in another frame then you would conclude that it is a new
>>>>>>> light source in your frame. Gee you are so stupid.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Stupid Ken, you never gave any evidence or observations that the light
>>>>>> comes from a new light source and not the original source. It remains
>>>>>> just one of your worthless assertions. Science does not accept
>>>>>> worthless assertions such as that. So stop stating your assertion as if
>>>>>> it was factual, because it isn’t.
>>>>>
>>>>> Fucking moron, the telescope in your frame that collects the light and
>>>>> re-emits it, is the new light source in your frame.
>>>> You gave no observations nor evidence of this actually happening. You
>>>> simply asserted it as if it was a fact. Science does not accept
>>>> worthless assertions such as that. So stop stating your assertion as if
>>>> it was factual, because it isn’t.
>>>
>>> So stupid, the following are not facts?
>>> 1. The telescope is not in your frame?
>>> 2. The telescope does not collect light and re-emits it?
>> That one right there is not the fact. Telescopes do not re-emit light. Are
>> you nuts?
>
> It certainly is a fact.

It is? You can create your very own facts now? Could you create another
fact, that I won a $500 million lottery prize? Please?

Seriously, no that is not a fact. You just made that up.

On 8/11/2021 4:42 PM, Ken Seto wrote:
> On Wednesday, August 11, 2021 at 12:19:36 PM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote:
>> On 8/11/2021 11:49 AM, Ken Seto wrote:
>>> On Wednesday, August 11, 2021 at 11:37:05 AM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote:
>>>> On 8/11/2021 11:21 AM, Ken Seto wrote:
>>
>>>>> Fucking moron, the telescope in your frame that collects the light and re-emits it, is the new light source in your frame.
>>
>>>> You gave no observations nor evidence of this actually happening. You
>>>> simply asserted it as if it was a fact. Science does not accept
>>>> worthless assertions such as that. So stop stating your assertion as if
>>>> it was factual, because it isn’t.
>>>
>>> So stupid, the following are not facts?
>>> 1. The telescope is not in your frame?
>>> 2. The telescope does not collect light and re-emits it?
>> No, it doesn't. It focuses the light in order to magnify the image.
>>> 3. The telescope is not a new light source in your frame?
>>>
>> Does not follow.

> Hey stupid the telescope is in your frame

Stationary in the same frame I am stationary in, OK.

> so it has the same absolute motion as you

Here you assert there even is such a thing as "absolute motion" without
evidence or even a definition.

> so any light from it is a light source in your frame.

Except for the incoming light reflected/refracted by the telescope.

I don't know about you, but I would think a telescope made from glowing
material "every atom in your frame is a light source" would be very
useful to an astronomer.

> Just light every atom in your frame is a light source.
>
This is about half of a claim, with the missing other half would be
necessary (if not already made irrelevant by "absolute motion" garbage)

Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wednesday, August 11, 2021 at 11:52:26 AM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Wednesday, August 11, 2021 at 11:37:05 AM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote:
>>>> On 8/11/2021 11:21 AM, Ken Seto wrote:
>>>>> On Tuesday, August 10, 2021 at 1:17:57 PM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote:
>>>>>> On 8/10/2021 8:28 AM, Ken Seto wrote:
>>>>>>> On Monday, August 9, 2021 at 3:52:07 PM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 8/9/2021 3:41 PM, Ken Seto wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Monday, August 9, 2021 at 12:05:42 PM UTC-4, tjrob137 wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Nonsense. In the world we inhabit, differently-moving observers can AND
>>>>>>>>>> DO measure different values for the wavelength of a given
>>>>>>>>>> (monochromatic) light beam. They also measure different frequencies, but
>>>>>>>>>> they all obtain the same value for the product wavelength*frequency, the
>>>>>>>>>> phase speed of the light beam.
>>>>>>>>> crude that
>>>>>>>>> No, the incoming light becomes a new light source in the observer’s
>>>>>>>>> frame and the observer measure the wavelength for this new light
>>>>>>>>> source. you would con
>>>>>>>> Stupid Ken, your assertions of a new light source are of no value to
>>>>>>>> this discussion. You've never provided any scientific evidence of this
>>>>>>>> worthless assertion of yours.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Stupid moron Mike: If you didn’t know that the incoming light is from
>>>>>>> a source in another frame then you would conclude that it is a new
>>>>>>> light source in your frame. Gee you are so stupid.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Stupid Ken, you never gave any evidence or observations that the light
>>>>>> comes from a new light source and not the original source. It remains
>>>>>> just one of your worthless assertions. Science does not accept
>>>>>> worthless assertions such as that. So stop stating your assertion as if
>>>>>> it was factual, because it isn’t.
>>>>>
>>>>> Fucking moron, the telescope in your frame that collects the light and
>>>>> re-emits it, is the new light source in your frame.
>>>> You gave no observations nor evidence of this actually happening. You
>>>> simply asserted it as if it was a fact. Science does not accept
>>>> worthless assertions such as that. So stop stating your assertion as if
>>>> it was factual, because it isn’t.
>>>
>>> So stupid, the following are not facts?
>>> 1. The telescope is not in your frame?
>>> 2. The telescope does not collect light and re-emits it?
>> That one right there is not the fact. Telescopes do not re-emit light. Are
>> you nuts?
>
> It certainly is a fact. Like every atom in your frame is a light source,
> the telescope is in you frame is a source.

For the light that scatters off the painted outside of the tube yes. Not
for the light that it gathers. It’s a tube.

If you pass water through a hose, are you saying that the hose is what
emits the water?

> Gee you are so fucking stupid.
>>> 3. The telescope is not a new light source in your frame?
>>> ly are so
>> --
>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
>

--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables