Are you saying that the relationship between distance, velocity and time as expressed in the equation d' = v't' doesn't hold in the "moving" observer's frame?
Nobody is saying that this isn't true, MacM. I'm simply pointing out that it isn't enough to rule out or prove length contraction. And it isn't.
Fine you are not only a professional distorter of fact but a "Ton of Shit". Happy now.? Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Some what*, but you still did not tell if you mean: (1) Outside the rest frame of the source, photons do not exist. or (2) Photons do not travel at the speed of light, 'c' when "in frames" other than the rest frames of the source When you said: ________________________________________ * I think it only fair that I get full credit for my efforts at making your posts look silly. (At least a "ton of shit" label I have earned.) I have been giving you full credit in that you have been publicly recognized as having come up with 16 "duck and weaves" now. That tops your old record in another field of only 15, but don't worry if you can not do number 17. No one else is even in your class. Your record is safe for years. BTW I have decided to follow the example of spacemonkey - my trying to understand your nonsense will mainly terminate, but I would appreciate your comments on what is the meaning of your concept that photons are "in" some frame is. SEE my last two posts in the thread: "Is time universal?... No (and its proof)" where, as here, you think a photon is either "in the train frame" or "in the embankment frame."
Neither. However, #1 is closer. Photons exist in the other frames but they are not the same photons as in the rest frame. You want them to be the same photons but red or blue shifted. I say you are looking at different photons with different energy due to motion of the observer.
MacM: I post a detailed response to your initial post, and this is the best you can do? Now I remember why I gave up taking you seriously, and stopped responding to your nonsense. Back to your games, MacM.
I certainly disagree and you will continue to disagree but I take this answer to be one of your better ones. You are at least appearing to acknowledge the relationship I am emphasizing.
To clarify, I'm acknowledging that the ship observer sees the markers pass by at a rate of 1.732 per "tick", and the earth observer sees the ship pass by the markers at a rate of 0.866 per "tick".
I'm not sure why you think it's a big deal. It's merely an acknowlegdement of time dilation. You set that down as an assumption, and this is one the consequences.
And a Humungous Stride that crushes the inflation of all the egos now for over a hundred years, dead or alive. DUST TO DUST ASHES TO ASHES
I was being cute. You have no sense of humor either. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
It will be stupid to ignore such a historic moment in Sciforums http://sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=51619 Read it carefully before making any comments.
