So, why are you wasting your time trolling this thread? You have quite a bit of catching up to do.
What edits? Are you accusing me of something?
So, why are you wasting your time trolling this thread? You have quite a bit of catching up to do.
Has Tach realized yet that the problem in his interpretation of the problem is the fact that in the rest frame of the camera and the light source, the instaneous velocity of the mirror, and the tangential velocity of the mirror are only paralell at two points on the circumference of the wheel (or tube), and so there are only two locations in the cycle where the mirrors instantaneous velocity is paralell to the tangent plane, and so there are only two locations where there is no doppler shift?
Of course I realize that this claim is false. This is precisely the nature of my debate with pete.
I am not accusing, I am pointing out that you quietly edited the errors that I pointed out.
Tach has been arguing for null Doppler shift around the entire wheel, so it is clear that he does not agree with the last phrase of Trippy's post, "...only two locations where there is no doppler shift..."
But it is a mystery to me how how he can dismiss the rest of Trippy's post out of hand.
Well you are wrong about ''quietly editing then''. If you look back on the thread TACH, you will see I created a post each and everytime something was noted and taken into consideration.
Also, Rpenner hasn't posted errors which are ''unfixable'' like you began to suspiciously claim LOL Actually the mistakes Rpenner pointed out, and suggestions have been noted and taken aboard, unlike you.
A quick examination of the thread shows that you are lying.
Funny, because your essay is the same word salad as before.
Because Trippy has not provided any proof. Last we talked, he was going to work on it.
Rubbish.Yes, I thought that you made this mistake,
Um, no... that document, aside from being incomplete (please define your variables - I'm not going to guess what you're thinking), doesn't appear to present the derivation claimed.Of course I did, this is how I knew you were wrong.
Impatient much?Besides, I notice that for all your bluster, you did no derivation whatsoever.
Nope. Different situation.Yet, if what you were claiming were true , it would apply to the angle between a ray of light (representing vector 1) and the direction source - observer (representing vector 2). The aberration formula preservers angles multiple of $$\pi$$, your erroneous claim would invalidate it.
You thought wrong. I have a life, sciforums is occasional entertainment.Wait a sec, for two days you were chomping at the bit to "show me" how to do the angle transformations, now that I showed you where you made the mistake you need more time "to translate to tex"? I thought you were itching to prove me wrong and that you had all the calculations at your fingertips.
Rubbish.
Please don't presume to know what I'm thinking unless I say it explicitly.
You're reading way too much into things.
Um, no... that document, aside from being incomplete (please define your variables - I'm not going to guess what you're thinking), doesn't appear to present the derivation claimed.
I'm starting a new thread so we can address it without distractions.
I'm starting a new thread so we can address it without distractions.
Nope, not clear at all.The variables are quite clear, arbitrary vectors.
Nope, not clear at all.
Are they displacement vectors? Velocity vectors? Something else?
What exactly do those vectors represent?
Tach, when someone asks for clarification of your work, it's polite to provide some explanation.
Can you explain what r and N represent, or are you just abandoning that document?