User talk:Albert Gartinger

Tips
Albert, as I already hinted in my comment at Talk:Spacetime, please have a look at our guidelines and policies regarding wp:reliable sources, wp:consensus and wp:personal attacks. Cheers. - DVdm (talk) 07:13, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Please do not attack other editors, as you did at Talk:Spacetime. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. - DVdm (talk) 07:46, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Personal attacks
Please stop attacking other editors, as you did on Talk:Spacetime. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people.

Note: comments such as "It is necessary to rid science of people like you" are not acceptable on Wikipedia. - DVdm (talk) 06:45, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you use talk pages for inappropriate discussions, as you did at Talk:Spacetime.

Note: threats like "That's that. I will turn the whole article into a piece of smelly shit" and "I will ask my secretary to prepare a list of target audience. I will send thousand, or tens of thousands of emails. I have enough time" do not belong in Wikipedia. This is a final warning. - DVdm (talk) 18:53, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

Moving observers
Besides all accusations of violating of WP-rules and threatening style of writing, I want to point you to some detail, of which I strongly believe that it would ease the dialogue with your interlocutor, if paid more attention to.

You readily employ the term "moving observer", relying on Einstein having used it in -as you claim- a "clear" meaning. I want to point you to the fact that this saying might rightfully not be "clear" to all. At least to me it seems a contemporary view, that an observer is always at rest in his frame.

Thus the situation, of which you write "... source and observer, moving with the same speed in opposite direction ...", is less misleadingly described as "source and receiver moving with the same speed in opposite direction, as observed by an observer (obviously not co-moving with any of the agents, but intrinsically at rest within his frame)". Please note, how carefully I avoided even the innocent looking word "see".

Summing it up, I suggest you befriend yourself with observers, always at rest, "observing" events in spacetime, "registering" (seeing) signals, and calculating (Lorentz) other spacetime coordinates wrt other observers, also at rest in their frame.

I do not want to discuss this, it is just expressing hope for better communication, and I apologize if bothering. Purgy (talk) 06:25, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Dear Purgy (talk), thank you very much for your kind attention, your valuable message!! I am damn glad that you have joined this discussion with Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog (talk) some way. It is wise to avoid the word "see", it is better to say "measure" or "interpret". Personally I do not understand, why an observer cannot move relatively to something. Maybe in relativity an observer cannot move, but in reality due to our own motion stars change their apparent position on the sky, so aberration of light can only be explained by our own motion (Bradley), since while our earth moves distance vt light passes distance ct, so aberration of light does not depend on the length of the telescope.
 * According to WP policy I do not interpret primary source - Einstein's paper, it is you who does that. I cite this paper as it is. Please note that I cite reliable source of Kevin S Brown Mathpages https://www.mathpages.com/home/kmath587/kmath587.htm - Qualitatively this applies equally to both the classical and the relativistic treatments. (Since both emitter and receiver have the speed v relative to this system of reference, there is no differential time dilation.) Apparently. according to Mr. Brown, the emitter and receiver neither emit nor receive light pulses at points of closest approach. That means, that due to aberration emitter emits photon backward and receiver receives the photon from the front at the same angle. Kind regards, Albert Gartinger (talk) 10:31, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Dear Purgy (talk), please note, that Bradley and his followers did not need to travel into the deep space to have a look from outside so as to see that the Earth rotates around the sun. They made this conclusion by means of observing displacement of the light source from their homes or laboratories. Exactly this way purely inertial observer will see, that at the moment of reception actual position of the light source is different from apparent one. Imagine that there were you. Could you please, how would you explain displacement of apparent position of the source? Albert Gartinger (talk) 11:37, 5 October 2018 (UTC)