# Proposal: There is no Doppler shift of light reflected from a moving mirror

Discussion in 'Formal debates' started by James R, Nov 8, 2011.

Not open for further replies.
1. ### James RJust this guy, you know?Staff Member

Messages:
32,482
I challange Tach to debate the above topic.

Tach will argue the affirmative. I will argue the negative.

I am happy to abide by the standard rules for debates, as set out in the sticky thread in the Formal debates forum.

Tach: do you accept?

3. ### TachBannedBanned

Messages:
5,265

Your thread is wrong right off the bat since the title reflects incorrect physics and, most likely, your incorrect understanding of this file.
You were challenged to a very precise task, show the errors in this file. You claimed that you read it and that you found errors. Let's see them.
Please close this thread , open a new thread, with the correct title and we will debate.

5. ### PeteIt's not rocket surgeryRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
10,167
[post=2850140]Post 174[/post]:
[post=2850145]Post 177[/post]:
So Tach, since it's your claim that's being disputed, perhaps you could suggest a title for the topic of debate?
What, exactly, do you claim regarding the doppler shift of light reflected from a moving mirror?

I note that the correctness of an off-site document that you can edit isn't a stable topic - the correctness of a malleable document can change at any time.

Last edited: Nov 8, 2011

7. ### James RJust this guy, you know?Staff Member

Messages:
32,482
So, I take it you are declining to debate the thread topic.

You therefore concede that you were wrong, I assume.

This is my challenge to you, not your challenge to me. You appear to have the wrong end of the stick, as usual.

I'm not a mind-reader, Tach. If you wish to alter the topic for debate, then propose an alternative topic.

I have better things to do than to waste my time on you unnecessarily.

I'll give it a day or two. If you have not come up with an alternative by then, I'll assume you concede.

---

I note that the file you keep linking has this as its last line:

It certainly seems to me like you're stating that there's no frequency shift (i.e. no Doppler shift). I also note that the angle $\phi'$ is nowhere indicated on your diagrams or defined in your file, so maybe that's the source of the confusion. You've introduced some imaginary, irrelevant angle, perhaps.

8. ### James RJust this guy, you know?Staff Member

Messages:
32,482
For the record (before Tach edits it), I reproduce the post that prompts this debate proposal:

I note that there are no qualifications or exceptions suggested for this statement of Tach's. It is a blanket claim that "there is no Doppler shift of a moving mirror". Now, ignoring the poor English expression, I take this to mean that Tach claims that there is never a Doppler shift of light reflected off a moving mirror for any observer.

My challenge to Tach remains: debate this claim or withdraw it.

9. ### James RJust this guy, you know?Staff Member

Messages:
32,482
I note that I took a copy of Tach's online document some time ago, precisely to insure myself against Tach's usual ploy of editing out his errors in order to pretend that he never made them.

I will be referring to my copy of Tach's original file in any debate, and will re-post that if necessary - particularly if Tach edits the document in any way in order to cover up more errors of his.

I have seen this kind of dishonesty from Tach many times before.

10. ### TachBannedBanned

Messages:
5,265
Rebuttal of JamesR claims

JamesR has made the claim that this file contains errors. Despite repeated challenges, he has avoided pointing out the errors. I challenge JamesR to prove his claim or to withdraw it.

Last edited: Nov 9, 2011
11. ### James RJust this guy, you know?Staff Member

Messages:
32,482
Tach:

You posted this as a Debate thread in the Formal Debates subforum.

I have not agreed to such a Formal Debate, and there has been no Proposal that we have such a debate.

Please read the thread in the Formal Debates forum titled "How the Formal Debates forum works", since it seems you are unfamiliar with the rules here.

Secondly, I notice that you titled your thread "Rebuttal of JamesR claims". But I have made no claims (other than that your claim is wrong). The current Debate proposal is about YOUR claim that "I can prove this quite easily, there is no Doppler shift of a moving mirror."

If you think that your file proves your claim, then you will have no trouble agreeing to debate me on the topic flagged in the current thread. And yet, you seem to be doing everything in your power to avoid debating me formally on a topic which can include discussion of your file. In any Formal debate on the current topic, you may present your file as "proof" of your claim that there is no Doppler shift from a moving mirror, ever. I will then have to rebut that claim.

This would seem on its face to be no stretch at all, since you previously presented the same file to Pete in another thread, asserting that it proved your claim that "there is no Doppler shift of a moving mirror".

So, why are you so keen to avoid debating me here? If you were right in your assertion against Pete, you'll be equally right making the same assertion against me.

There are several possibilities:

(a) you have read some of my other debates and are afraid of my debating prowess, and thus you are reticent to take me on.
(b) you know your claim was false and overblown and you know you would lose any debate on the topic.
(c) you think that by stretching out the discussion of the debate for long enough, you can avoid ever actually debating the topic. You hope that people will forget this latest in a long string of errors of yours.

---
I'll give it another day or so to see if you will wimp out or not.

My bet is that you will continue to avoid debating me at all costs, because you know you're wrong again.

12. ### TachBannedBanned

Messages:
5,265
I am debating you, the problem is that you cannot and will not prove your false claim. You have had three days since your false claim, ample time to prove it or shut up.

13. ### James RJust this guy, you know?Staff Member

Messages:
32,482
No, you're not. Please review the purpose of a "Proposal" thread in the Formal Debates forum. It is there in the thread I referrred you to earlier.

I have said nothing here to debate the proposed topic. That will occur in the Debate thread, if you do not wimp out on accepting my proposal to debate you formally.

I will prove whatever claims are necessary to win the Formal Debate.

Will you debate me on the topic of this thread or will you wimp out?

Debate or wimp out? Which is it to be, Tach?

(Note: I should add that there is always option 3, which I really urge you to take but which I know you will not. That is to admit that you made a mistake in your overblown claim. Simply admit your were wrong and we can all agree that the matter is settled. Nobody needs to be embarassed any more. Let's face it, the longer you keep up this avoidance, the worse you look.)

14. ### TachBannedBanned

Messages:
5,265
Your "Debate" thread has a false title , making false claims. You were lying three days ago when you claimed you found "errors" in my file. If you really found any errors, you would have gleefully posted them by now, so you have been lying all along. You found no errors. Put up or shut up.

Last edited: Nov 9, 2011
15. ### OnlyMeValued Senior Member

Messages:
3,914
I am confused. I know nothing about the formal debate. But isn't this the thread the debate is to take place in?

16. ### PeteIt's not rocket surgeryRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
10,167
No, this is the thread that establishes what the ground rules are.
See the sticky threads at the top of the Formal Debates forum, particularly [thread=74142]How the Formal Debates forum works[/thread]

17. ### PeteIt's not rocket surgeryRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
10,167
Come on, Tach, this is really easy...

Do you stand by your claim that there is no doppler shift or not?

If you do, then let the debate begin.
If not, then say so and we can all move on.

If you're not saying, then we'll move on anyway, under the understanding that you refuse to even say what you actually meant about mirrors and doppler shift, let alone support your claim... and your credibility will fall even further.

Do you really want to keep digging that hole?

18. ### TachBannedBanned

Messages:
5,265
This is not what we were debating, JamesR and I. What we were debating, before the other thread was closed was his lying claim in post 241 that he found errors in my file. He was simply copying your false claim from post 201 and banking on you that you'll come through with a proof. You never did.... So, I am asking him to prove his claim.

Why are you so dishonest? I have already explained what I meant when I linked in the file that you weren't even able to understand. Come to think of it, you were the first one to lie about finding mistakes in my file, in post 201. You never kept your promise the "find out your mistakes for you". JamesR simply copied blindly your false claims. So, I challenge both of you to point out the "mistakes".

Coming from you, who could even tell the mirrors from windows, let alone the equations of the Doppler effect....I suggest that you sit this one out. Or work with your buddy in lying and point out the errors. Let's see you do it, there are only 5 equations in the file, you made the lying claim 3 days ago and you haven't managed to post even ONE equation being in error .JamesR was also lying three days ago, when he claimed he found errors, he was simply hoping that you will point them out. If he really had, he would have posted them days ago.

Tell you what, you two. Why don't you also try to disprove this as well? Do something useful with yourselves.

Last edited: Nov 9, 2011
19. ### James RJust this guy, you know?Staff Member

Messages:
32,482
Tach:

There is no Debate thread, because you haven't agreed to any debate yet. There's only this Proposal threads, which challenges you to debate a topic.

If you think there are false claims, then you should have no problem debating the topic I have suggested. You can prove that my claims, whatever they are, are wrong in the Formal Debate.

But all this bluff and bluster from you suggests that you do not really want to debate the topic. In fact, you're going out of your way to avoid it.

Do you agree to the debate or not? If you do, THEN we can discuss the errors in your file.

You made a claim. Will you stand by it, or wimp out?

You will have ample opportunity in the Formal Debate to catch me out in any lies or mistakes. Just as I will have in respect of you. There will be two debaters, and nowhere to hide.

But that's exactly what you're afraid of, isn't it? A permanent record of your mistakes.

This is all obfuscation. Moreover, it is an attempt to debate the topic in the Proposal thread.

Debate, or wimp out?

Which is it to be, Tach?

That remains to be seen.

Debate, or wimp out? If you're so confident you're right and I'm lying etc. etc., then debate me!

One thing at a time.

Debate, or wimp out?

Which is it to be, Tach?

20. ### PeteIt's not rocket surgeryRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
10,167
It's a simple question, Tach. Why the dodge?

Do you stand by your claim that there is no doppler shift or not?

Man up and state your claim, Tach. Then you can use your document on your side of the debate, and James will happily point out the problems. Or I will, if you prefer.

Last edited: Nov 9, 2011
21. ### TachBannedBanned

Messages:
5,265
Debate unsubstianted claims by Pete and JamesR

In an earlier thread, both Pete (earlier, in posts 201,202) and JamesR (later, in post 241) made the false claims that they have found errors in this file. I propose to debate both of them at the same time.
The debate is strictly about the claims that they have made in posts 201,202, 241. These are the parameters of the debate that started in the other thread and spilled into this one.

Last edited: Nov 9, 2011
22. ### KittamaruAshes to ashes, dust to dust. Adieu, Sciforums.Valued Senior Member

Messages:
13,938
Mod Hat

Let me just say, as an outside observer, that I'm not sure where the confusion comes in - it would appear, tach, that you claimed there was no frequency (doppler) shift in a moving mirror when you said

Now, the debate proposed here is a challenge for you to argue this point - if you wish to not argue said point, you may concede - if you do wish to maintain the point, accept the debate. If you wish to counter-debate, you may do that as well - however, I fail to see what it is you are attempting to counter - is it the statement that the claim JamesR made is wrong (his claim that there is an error in the linked document) or is it something else?

Just putting my two cents in here as someone coming in from the outside - hopefully it'll help clear the air a little

23. ### PeteIt's not rocket surgeryRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
10,167
Proposal declined.

Firstly, I don't think a team debate will work well in this medium, so I will only do a one-on-one debate.

Secondly, I will not participate in a trivial he-said-she-said debate.
Specifically, I will not engage in a debate where the topic is whether some post or document is right or wrong.

I will debate the specific point that is the subject of said post or document.
I will consider a debate along the lines of "This document proves that [insert statement here]."

So, if you can articulate the point that your file is supposed to prove as a debate proposal, then we can get going.

Last edited: Nov 10, 2011