On Mar 9, 10:19 am, PD <thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 3/9/2012 9:01 AM, ken...@att.net wrote:
> > On Mar 8, 11:31 pm, Sam Wormley<sworml...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On 3/8/12 6:52 PM, ken...@att.net wrote:
> > > > On Mar 8, 12:49 pm, Tom Roberts<tjroberts...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> > > > > On 3/8/12 3/8/12 7:22 AM, ken...@att.net wrote:
> 
> > > > > > The New Definition of Relative Motion: [...]
> 
> > > > > That is incommensurate with the current definition. You need to use a new and
> > > > > different name. You cannot re-define terms in ways that are incompatible with
> > > > > previous meanings. Indeed, NOBODY can unilaterally re-define terms like this,
> > > > > only the physics community as a whole can re-define terms of physics.
> 
> > > > How does observer A measure the relative motion of B wrt him?
> > > > Your naive ranting is noted.
> 
> > > Many ways, Seto--Why don't you look up how astronomer measure the
> > > distance and relative velocity of the moon with respect to an
> > > observer on the rotating earth!
> 
> > Tell us the way to measure the relative motion of jupiter.
> 
> Parallax gives you the distance to Jupiter. The transit rate across the
> sky gives you the speed. That's the usual way.

This assumes that the transit rate is c. In  my theory incoming c' is
variable and wavelength is universal.