"John Smith I" wrote in message
...
Cecil Moore wrote:

...
to a frequency of zero? to a negative frequency?

Negative frequency?

Wouldn't you just see a phase reversal and a "climb" in frequency in
reverse phasing? Perhaps I miss something?

Regards,
JS

No oproblem with 0 frequency or 0 energy being released from a particle
traveling at the speed of light relative to that partcle.Negative frequency?
all our current laws of physics have just been trashed if we can do that.

Jimmie D wrote:
My total message was not so
long that it needed to be snipped , it is obvious why you did. If you just
want to argue and do so by taking what somone says out of context please put
me on your kill file .

It is obvious that honoring netnews guidelines requires
snipping the part of the message to which I am not replying.
Have you read the netnews guidelines?
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

Jimmie D wrote:
The mistake is the concept that Space is nothing ...

I'm glad you agree. That is exactly the mistake that was
made when scientists falsely assumed that EM waves could
flow through nothing. *Every* wave needs a medium in which
to flow.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

Jimmie D wrote:

...
No oproblem with 0 frequency or 0 energy being released from a particle
traveling at the speed of light relative to that partcle.Negative frequency?
all our current laws of physics have just been trashed if we can do that.



Jimmie:

Yanno, Cecil is like that, just when you think you have a handle on
things--HE chucks a monkey wrench in it!

If you are traveling away from me, at the speed of light, and you are
transmitting to me--wouldn't you be "stretching" that rf wave "flat."
In effect, what I see is a DC signal (well, actually I don't see
anything.) Owing to the doppler effect?

Now, if you exceed that speed of light, what happens to that rf you are
emitting? I'll have to think on that one a bit ...

Warmest regards,
JS

Jimmie D wrote:
No problem with 0 frequency or 0 energy being released from a particle
traveling at the speed of light relative to that partcle.Negative frequency?
all our current laws of physics have just been trashed if we can do that.

Not at all. Assume two planets are traveling in opposite
directions away from a reference point in space. With
respect to that reference point, each is traveling at
3/4 the speed of light in opposite directions. Calculate
the red shift from one planet to the other and one comes
up with a negative frequency.

We are likely to discover some day that gravity is a
function of the relative velocity of the Earth through
the ether. At least that's what my alien buddies say.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

John Smith I wrote:
Now, if you exceed that speed of light, what happens to that rf you are
emitting? I'll have to think on that one a bit ...

Consider that the relative velocity between you two
could exceed the speed of light without either one
of you actually exceeding the speed of light referenced
to a point midway between you, which is thought to be
impossible except, of course, at warp 1.1 on Star Trek.
Tom Paris actually managed 10^10 times the speed of
light but it had severe side-effects. (He was forced
to mate with Captain Janeway) :-(.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

John Smith I wrote:

...
Jimmie:

Yanno, Cecil is like that, just when you think you have a handle on
things--HE chucks a monkey wrench in it!

If you are traveling away from me, at the speed of light, and you are
transmitting to me--wouldn't you be "stretching" that rf wave "flat." In
effect, what I see is a DC signal (well, actually I don't see
anything.) Owing to the doppler effect?

Now, if you exceed that speed of light, what happens to that rf you are
emitting? I'll have to think on that one a bit ...

Warmest regards,
JS

Yanno, an analogy has stuck me.

If I know what speed waves travel in water and I stand on the shore of a
lake and have a boat, making waves, travel away from me, I should be
able to see the first case. Then, when the boat exceeds that speed, I
should also be able to see the results ...

Trouble right now is, I don't know the speed of waves in water and I
don't have a boat. To tell you the truth, can't even remember what the
waves looked like when I have had past opportunities ...

Regards,
JS

Cecil Moore wrote:

Jimmie D wrote:

Units of measurement are totally arbitrary, what they are measuring isnt.


So a standard unit of measurement can change value
daily in an unknown fashion and still yield non-arbirtary
results?

You'd have to be able to demonstrate that relativistic effects single
out particular units of measurement to the exclusion of others without
having an effect on the observed phenomena and all within the same
reference frame before being able to substantiate any claim that the
result of a particular measurement is arbitrary. Can you demonstrate
that?

jk

John Smith I wrote:
Trouble right now is, I don't know the speed of waves in water and I
don't have a boat. To tell you the truth, can't even remember what the
waves looked like when I have had past opportunities ...

Assume you remember WWII. An Atlantic City newscaster
once reported that a Marine had been sucked under the
boardwalk by a big Wave.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

Cecil Moore wrote:
John Smith I wrote:
Now, if you exceed that speed of light, what happens to that rf you
are emitting? I'll have to think on that one a bit ...

Consider that the relative velocity between you two
could exceed the speed of light without either one
of you actually exceeding the speed of light referenced
to a point midway between you, which is thought to be
impossible except, of course, at warp 1.1 on Star Trek.
Tom Paris actually managed 10^10 times the speed of
light but it had severe side-effects. (He was forced
to mate with Captain Janeway) :-(.

Cecil:

Exactly, we COULD exceed the speed of light and greater, in relationship
to each other! And, then the behavior of the rf, transmitted between
us, could be observed at greater than light speeds.

NOW. Don't knock Capt. Janeway--I kinda like strong women

Warmest regards,
JS