Actually, I made the topic very precise. Now, we'll see which one of the two is the pretender. We already know who the troll is. So, it is time for you to stop trolling and to start the debate. Are you ready?
Proposal: There is no Doppler shift of light reflected from a moving mirror
- Thread starter James R
- Start date
- Status
Actually, I made the topic very precise. Now, we'll see which one of the two is the pretender. We already know who the troll is. So, it is time for you to stop trolling and to start the debate. Are you ready?
No, it is not, knowing what sort of weasel you are, we set it to be precise. Are you ready?
Tach:
Why the diversion onto wheels?
Recall your original claim once more:
Since your reflective wheel simply stands in for a mirror, how about:
"That there is proof that the light reflected off a mirror shows zero Doppler effect between the source and the receiver in the case of the mirror moving"
?
Why the diversion onto wheels?
Recall your original claim once more:
Tach said:
Since your reflective wheel simply stands in for a mirror, how about:
"That there is proof that the light reflected off a mirror shows zero Doppler effect between the source and the receiver in the case of the mirror moving"
?
So, are you wimping out? You were chomping at the bit, why are you backing out. I am making an even bolder claim, this gives you an even better chance to prove me wrong.
Because I like precision and because I don't trust you
We don't, that's true. It just makes my life more difficult and the claim bolder. So, I'll drop the "relativistic speeds" from the title. OK?
Tach:
Ok, I have thought about this some more.
I am willing to debate you on the topic:
"That that the light reflected off the circular rim of a mirror-like wheel shows zero Doppler effect between the source and the receiver in the case of the wheel rolling without slipping"
You will take the affirmative side. I will take the negative side.
Standard rules will apply.
Since you have been dithering around for days on this, I will probably be short of time for the next week or so. I ask that the Standard rules be modified to allow for a 4-day respond time limit instead of 2 days.
Do you accept the title and terms of the debate?
If you accept, then you may open a Debate thread on the topic. As the affirmative, you get to go first.
Ok, I have thought about this some more.
I am willing to debate you on the topic:
"That that the light reflected off the circular rim of a mirror-like wheel shows zero Doppler effect between the source and the receiver in the case of the wheel rolling without slipping"
You will take the affirmative side. I will take the negative side.
Standard rules will apply.
Since you have been dithering around for days on this, I will probably be short of time for the next week or so. I ask that the Standard rules be modified to allow for a 4-day respond time limit instead of 2 days.
Do you accept the title and terms of the debate?
If you accept, then you may open a Debate thread on the topic. As the affirmative, you get to go first.
You're on.
- Status