On Sunday, September 3, 2023 at 2:57:27 AM UTC-7, Lou wrote:

It can correctly model Sagnac, Filipas Fox,
Ives Stillwell etc etc etc.

No , it doesn't. Stop lying

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Sunday, 3 September 2023 at 14:40:46 UTC+1, Dono. wrote:

On Sunday, September 3, 2023 at 2:57:27 AM UTC-7, Lou wrote:

It can correctly model Sagnac, Filipas Fox,
Ives Stillwell etc etc etc.

No , it doesn't. Stop lying

Ives Stillwell has the original rest frame line at 486.1nm. They admit that
a red or blueshifted line will result if the source moves at c+-v.
But they used the wrong formula to calculate Doppler shift for a classical model. The correct calculation is:

For classical model at c+v:
486.1 nm = 616.73001 Hz
616.73001*1.005c=619.81366Hz=483.681nm
For c-v:
616.73001*.0995c= 614.64636Hz=488.542nm
Average of the c+-v is 486.111nm
Which gives a correct predicted offset of 0.11A for classical
Ives Stillwell 1941 experiment observed an offset of 0.11A

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Sunday, 3 September 2023 at 14:40:46 UTC+1, Dono. wrote:

On Sunday, September 3, 2023 at 2:57:27 AM UTC-7, Lou wrote:

It can correctly model Sagnac, Filipas Fox,
Ives Stillwell etc etc etc.

No , it doesn't. Stop lying

(Whoops. I’ll try again and repost with correct MHz hopefully)

Ives Stillwell has the original rest frame line at 486.1nm. They admit that a red or blueshifted line will result if the source moves at c+-v.
They used the wrong formula to calculate Doppler shift for a classical
model. The correct calculation is:

For classical model at c+v:
486.1 nm = 616730010 MHz

616730010*1.005c=619813660Mhz=483.681nm

For c-v:
616730010*.0995c= 613646359Mhz=488.542nm

Average of the c+-v is 486.111nm
Which gives a correct predicted offset of 0.11A for classical
Ives Stillwell 1941 experiment observed an offset of 0.11A

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Sunday, September 3, 2023 at 5:03:20 PM UTC-7, Lou wrote:

On Sunday, 3 September 2023 at 14:40:46 UTC+1, Dono. wrote:

On Sunday, September 3, 2023 at 2:57:27 AM UTC-7, Lou wrote:

It can correctly model Sagnac, Filipas Fox,
Ives Stillwell etc etc etc.

No , it doesn't. Stop lying

(Whoops. I’ll try again and repost with correct MHz hopefully)

Ives Stillwell has the original rest frame line at 486.1nm. They admit that a
red or blueshifted line will result if the source moves at c+-v.

"The source moves at c+v ????!!!!"

You have gone off the deepest end , crank. Ives never "admits" to such imbecility, it is your own imbecility.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Monday, 4 September 2023 at 06:04:37 UTC+1, Dono. wrote:

On Sunday, September 3, 2023 at 5:03:20 PM UTC-7, Lou wrote:

On Sunday, 3 September 2023 at 14:40:46 UTC+1, Dono. wrote:

On Sunday, September 3, 2023 at 2:57:27 AM UTC-7, Lou wrote:

It can correctly model Sagnac, Filipas Fox,
Ives Stillwell etc etc etc.

No , it doesn't. Stop lying

(Whoops. I’ll try again and repost with correct MHz hopefully)

Ives Stillwell has the original rest frame line at 486.1nm. They admit that a
red or blueshifted line will result if the source moves at c+-v.

"The source moves at c+v ????!!!!"

You have gone off the deepest end , crank. Ives never "admits" to such imbecility, it is your own imbecility.

Good try Bob. You got out of having to admit Ives Stillwell
faked the calculation for a classical model.
But thanks for pointing out the Typo. It should have read
“the source moves at +-v”
Which I took from the Wiki page on I-S quoted below ( and probably
written by the notable Ives Stillwell scholar prokaryotic):
“ In the classical Doppler effect, the wavelength of light observed by a stationary observer of light emitted by a source moving at speed v
away from or towards the observer is given by..”

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Monday, September 4, 2023 at 5:45:43 AM UTC-7, Lou wrote:

On Monday, 4 September 2023 at 06:04:37 UTC+1, Dono. wrote:

On Sunday, September 3, 2023 at 5:03:20 PM UTC-7, Lou wrote:

On Sunday, 3 September 2023 at 14:40:46 UTC+1, Dono. wrote:

On Sunday, September 3, 2023 at 2:57:27 AM UTC-7, Lou wrote:

It can correctly model Sagnac, Filipas Fox,
Ives Stillwell etc etc etc.

No , it doesn't. Stop lying

(Whoops. I’ll try again and repost with correct MHz hopefully)

Ives Stillwell has the original rest frame line at 486.1nm. They admit that a
red or blueshifted line will result if the source moves at c+-v.

"The source moves at c+v ????!!!!"

You have gone off the deepest end , crank. Ives never "admits" to such imbecility, it is your own imbecility.

Good try Bob. You got out of having to admit Ives Stillwell
faked the calculation for a classical model.

You are lying again, crank. Ives didn't fake anything.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Wednesday, September 6, 2023 at 5:52:47 AM UTC-7, Lou wrote:

Average of the c+-v is 486.111nm
Which gives a correct predicted offset of 0.11A for a classical model.
Ives Stillwell 1941 experiment observed an offset of 0.11A

Crank

I-S experiment is sensitive to (v/c)^2. So is the Sagnac. Ritz theory passes only tests in (v/c). It fails tests in (v/c)^2.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Wednesday, 6 September 2023 at 17:04:17 UTC+1, Dono. wrote:

On Wednesday, September 6, 2023 at 5:52:47 AM UTC-7, Lou wrote:

Average of the c+-v is 486.111nm
Which gives a correct predicted offset of 0.11A for a classical model. Ives Stillwell 1941 experiment observed an offset of 0.11A

Crank

I-S experiment is sensitive to (v/c)^2. So is the Sagnac. Ritz theory passes only tests in (v/c). It fails tests in (v/c)^2.

Crank

At 0.005 v I-S experiment gets *nowhere near* enough v to test if (v/c)^2 beats F*(c+-v)
Notice at 0.005 Ritz v/c gets as good if not better predictions than (v/c)^2

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Thursday, September 7, 2023 at 5:13:44 AM UTC-7, Lou wrote:

On Wednesday, 6 September 2023 at 17:04:17 UTC+1, Dono. wrote:

On Wednesday, September 6, 2023 at 5:52:47 AM UTC-7, Lou wrote:

Average of the c+-v is 486.111nm
Which gives a correct predicted offset of 0.11A for a classical model. Ives Stillwell 1941 experiment observed an offset of 0.11A

Crank

I-S experiment is sensitive to (v/c)^2. So is the Sagnac. Ritz theory passes only tests in (v/c). It fails tests in (v/c)^2.

At 0.005 v I-S experiment gets *nowhere near* enough v to test if (v/c)^2

Actually, it DOES.
As a final kick in your pants , modern reenactments of I-S are done at (v/c)=0.3
Keep eating shit.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Thursday, 7 September 2023 at 16:58:32 UTC+2, Dono. wrote:

On Thursday, September 7, 2023 at 5:13:44 AM UTC-7, Lou wrote:

On Wednesday, 6 September 2023 at 17:04:17 UTC+1, Dono. wrote:

On Wednesday, September 6, 2023 at 5:52:47 AM UTC-7, Lou wrote:

Average of the c+-v is 486.111nm
Which gives a correct predicted offset of 0.11A for a classical model. Ives Stillwell 1941 experiment observed an offset of 0.11A

Crank

I-S experiment is sensitive to (v/c)^2. So is the Sagnac. Ritz theory passes only tests in (v/c). It fails tests in (v/c)^2.

At 0.005 v I-S experiment gets *nowhere near* enough v to test if (v/c)^2

Actually, it DOES.
As a final kick in your pants , modern reenactments of I-S are done at (v/c)=0.3
Keep eating shit.

And in the meantime in the real world, forbidden by
your bunch of idiots improper clocks keep measuring
t'=t, just like all serious clocks always did. Keep
eating shit.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Dono. <eggy20011951@gmail.com> wrote:

On Thursday, September 7, 2023 at 5:13:44?AM UTC-7, Lou wrote:

On Wednesday, 6 September 2023 at 17:04:17 UTC+1, Dono. wrote:

On Wednesday, September 6, 2023 at 5:52:47?AM UTC-7, Lou wrote:

Average of the c+-v is 486.111nm
Which gives a correct predicted offset of 0.11A for a classical model. Ives Stillwell 1941 experiment observed an offset of 0.11A

Crank

I-S experiment is sensitive to (v/c)^2. So is the Sagnac. Ritz theory passes only tests in (v/c). It fails tests in (v/c)^2.

At 0.005 v I-S experiment gets *nowhere near* enough v to test if (v/c)^2

Actually, it DOES.
As a final kick in your pants, modern reenactments of I-S are done at (v/c)=0.3
Keep eating shit.

Yes. But it is hardly a mere reenactment.

See Phys. Rev. Lett. 113, 120405
Test of Time Dilation Using Stored Li+ Ions as Clocks
at Relativistic Speed, by Benjamin Botermann et al. <https://journals.aps.org/prl/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevLett.113.120405>

Instead of with mirrors the absolute frequency shift
of Li7+ ions in a storage ring at v/c = 0,338
is measured to an absolute accuracy 2.3 * 10^-9,
using double resonance spectroscopy with tunable lasers
directed with, and against the beam. (locked to a frequency standard)

At this accuracy the results are relevant
for testing extensions of the standard model.

Relativity still rules,

Jan

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Thursday, 7 September 2023 at 15:58:32 UTC+1, Dono. wrote:

On Thursday, September 7, 2023 at 5:13:44 AM UTC-7, Lou wrote:

On Wednesday, 6 September 2023 at 17:04:17 UTC+1, Dono. wrote:

On Wednesday, September 6, 2023 at 5:52:47 AM UTC-7, Lou wrote:

Average of the c+-v is 486.111nm
Which gives a correct predicted offset of 0.11A for a classical model. Ives Stillwell 1941 experiment observed an offset of 0.11A

Crank

I-S experiment is sensitive to (v/c)^2. So is the Sagnac. Ritz theory passes only tests in (v/c). It fails tests in (v/c)^2.

And yet at v= 0.005 Ritz theory doesn’t* fail
Because F*(c+-v) predicts a 0.11A offset for Ritz
Which is exactly as observed.
And according to the wiki ‘Relativistic analysis’ page formula,..
SR predicts only a .06A offset . That’s 1/2 of what’s actually observed. Looks like SR screwed up big time with the I-S observations

At 0.005 v I-S experiment gets *nowhere near* enough v to test if (v/c)^2

Actually, it DOES.
As a final kick in your pants , modern reenactments of I-S are done at (v/c)=0.3
Keep eating shit.

Obviously you are obsessed with poop. Makes sense for a relativist.

I presume you refer to something like ‘Novotny et al., Phys. Rev. A 80, 022107 (2009)’ ?
In this case at first glance it seems that SR does better than Ritz! Odd for a wacko theory like SR.

My calculations for Novotny show the following:
Observed offset...31 nm
SR predicted offset...34.2nm
Ritz predicted offset...70.6 nm
Unfortunately for you relativists, if one studies the paper it becomes
clear that it is a significantly different experiment from I-S. Not the same as you pretend. In Ives Stillwell the Doppler shifted wavelengths lines are measured directly off the spectrograph image. And compared to a restframe lines
also measured directly off the photographic image of the observed spectra. Instead the Novotny experiment uses 2 lasers to “measure”😂 the Doppler shifted light. And they are ‘ tuned’ to only measure in and around the wavelengths that special relativity predicts doppler shifting to occur. (‘Tuned’ to 772 and 386 nm)
In other words ALL the Doppler shifted light from the .338 C source is not observed, recorded or measured. Just only PMT data from the specific wavelengths that SR predicts the rest frame light will be Doppler shifted to. Handy bit of snake oil magic from relativist fakers.

Let’s see what happens to the data from your v=.338c versions of I-S, if they tune
their lasers to the *doppler shifted* wavelengths that *RITZ*/predicts
(827 &409nm) instead of just looking for any PMT readings at 772 &386nm
where SR predicts.






--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Friday, September 8, 2023 at 5:38:48 AM UTC-7, Lou wrote:

On Thursday, 7 September 2023 at 15:58:32 UTC+1, Dono. wrote:

On Thursday, September 7, 2023 at 5:13:44 AM UTC-7, Lou wrote:

On Wednesday, 6 September 2023 at 17:04:17 UTC+1, Dono. wrote:

On Wednesday, September 6, 2023 at 5:52:47 AM UTC-7, Lou wrote:

Average of the c+-v is 486.111nm
Which gives a correct predicted offset of 0.11A for a classical model.
Ives Stillwell 1941 experiment observed an offset of 0.11A

Crank

I-S experiment is sensitive to (v/c)^2. So is the Sagnac. Ritz theory passes only tests in (v/c). It fails tests in (v/c)^2.

And yet at v= 0.005 Ritz theory doesn’t* fail

Actually, it does. No matter how much you squirm.

Instead the Novotny experiment uses 2 lasers to “measure”😂 the Doppler
shifted light. And they are ‘ tuned’ to only measure in and around the wavelengths that special relativity predicts doppler shifting to occur.

...which is the same thing as measuring \lambda_approaching+\lambda_receding. Keep squirming

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)