"Dirk Van de moortel"  wrote in message
news:k0qpvq$7pl$1@speranza.aioe.org...

"Vilas Tamhane" <vilastamhane@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:439a924c-7f71-44d6-abfb-f18ec181293c@k3g2000pbr.googlegroups.com

[snip]

> If you demand real situation,

Uh-oh... "real situation"... watch out now...

> still keeping Einstein’s postulates and
> results undisturbed, following should be the case.
> If L is the distance between two pulses, according to source frame,
> then T=L/c.

And what has this time T to do with frequency? Nothing.

===============================================
ROFL!

F = 1/T where T is the period between pulses, which is not nothing.
What does Dork Van de lying faggot know about physics? Nothing.




> Now observer (in the frame O’) is moving towards these two
> pulses.
> O’ will see the two pulses approaching him with the velocity c, as
> velocity of light is unchanged. His clock measures proper time.
> However distance between the two pulses is now reduced. So in the
> frame of O’ length is the only factor that is changed. Not time. We
> now don’t get the equation that was derived by Einstein.
> T’= L* sqrt(1-vv/cc)/c = T * sqrt(1-vv/cc).
> f ' =f /sqrt(1-vv/cc)
> Increase in frequency is neither classical nor according to SR.

> So Tamhame thinks that when you send a light signal from one
> place to another over a distance L, then the "real situation"
> Tamhane frequency of the light is c/L. Nice.
> Tamhane sends a red signal over a distance L, so the Tamhane
> frequency is c/L.
> Tamhane sends a blue signal over a distance L, so the Tamhane
> frequency is c/L.
> Indeed, increase in Tamhane frequency is neither classical nor
> according to SR. It's entirely according to Tamhane.
> Sincere Tamhane congratulations.

====================================
He certainly does, which is more than Dork Van de faggot is capable of.
[snip]

-- Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway