sci.physics.particle

On Mar 26, 12:45=A0pm, PD wrote:
> On Mar 26, 12:34=A0pm, "kens...@erinet.com" wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Mar 26, 8:30=A0am, PD wrote:
>
> > > > > No, not a DEFINED wavelength. A MEASURED wavelength. Something tha=
t
> > > > > is MEASURED is more real than something that is just DEFINED. This=
is the
> > > > > part about physics that you don't seem to get.
>
> > > > There is no difference between Meausred and Defined when the Measure=
d
> > > > value is the same as the Defined value in all frames. This is much
> > > > like the speed of light is a defined constant because its measured
> > > > value for the TWLS is the same in all frames.
>
> > > > > > and this in combination with the measured frequency will
> > > > > > give a constant number c for the speed of light. The defined
> > > > > > wavelength such as sodium is universal because all observers def=
ine
> > > > > > sodium to have the same wavelength.
>
> > > > > No, they do NOT. I don't know where you got the ridiculous notion =
that
> > > > > all observers define sodium to have the same wavelength. Where on
> > > > > earth did you read that? It's just plain wrong, wrong, wrong.
>
> > > > No its not wrong at all.....every observer measures and defines his
> > > > own sodium source to have the same wavelength.
>
> > > > > > Therefore you must use the
> > > > > > universal wavelength of sodium in combination with the measured
> > > > > > frequency to determine the speed of the incoming sodium light.
>
> > > > > > >No amount of "thinking about it" will
> > > > > > > alter that measured fact. It is experimentally determined that=

> > > > > > > relative motion does NOT affect the speed of incoming light.
>
> > > > > > Yes it does when the universal wavelength of the source is used =
to
> > > > > > determine the speed of incoming light.
>
> > > > > > >Dozens of
> > > > > > > experiments designed to look specifically for how relative mot=
ion
> > > > > > > affects the speed of light have *all* shown the reverse.
>
> > > > > > That's because you are not using the universal wavelength of the=

> > > > > > source to determine the speed of incoming light.
>
> > > > > That's because what you claim is the DEFINED wavelength is WRONG a=
nd
> > > > > inconsistent with MEASUREMENT. If what you define is inconsistent =
with
> > > > > its measured value, then it is WRONG. Period.
>
> > > > Sigh....the incoming light is a new source in the observer's frame.
> > > > The observer will define or measure a new wavelength for this new
> > > > light source. This new light source is not sodium....it has a
> > > > different defined or measured wavelength than sodium.
>
> > > You are repeating the same idiocy, Ken. The source IS recognized as
> > > sodium, even though it has a wavelength that is different than what
> > > you think is the "universal" wavelength for sodium.
>
> > No the incoming light is collected by the telescope and send to the
> > grating.


>
> We've been through this before. Your memory is failing you. There is
> no need for a telescope. A hole is sufficient. There being the absence
> of anything in a hole, there is nothing in the hole that can generate
> a new source.

Without the telescope what star is the hole measuring? Are you saying
that you just point the hole in the sky and get a reading for its
wavelength?

>
> > This means that the telescope is a new light source in the
> > observer's frame and the grating defines or measures a new wavelength
> > for this new light source. BTW the grating defines a wavelength for
> > every light source at rest in its frame.
>
> Nope, it does not. It is the *pattern*, the ratio of wavelengths, and
> NOT the wavelengths themselves AT ALL that determine the source. You
> seem to have great difficulty with this and you keep repeating the
> same error.

I know that it is the pattern that determines the source. But once the
source is determined the the speed of the incoming light can be
calculated as follows:
c'=3D (measured frequency)(universal wavelength of the source)

Ken Seto
>
>
>
> > >The attribution to
> > > sodium is NOT based on what the wavelength is. It is based on the
> > > *pattern* of lines and in particular the *ratios* of the wavelengths,
> > > REGARDLESS of what the actual wavelength is.
>
> > That is irrelevant. Every line in a spectrum of an element has a
> > specific defined universal wavelength by every observer.
>
> Nope. Not true. I don't know *where* you read such nonsense. Do you
> remember where you read it?
>
>
>
> > You have this bonehead
>
> > > idea that spectroscopists look at a spectrum and say, "If it has a
> > > line at 589 nm it is sodium, and if it doesn't have a line at 589 nm
> > > it is not sodium."
>
> > That's correct.....the grating defines a universal wavelength for
> > every light source at rest wrt it. The incoming light is a new light
> > source at rest wrt it.
>
> Nope, that is wrong. I don't know where you got such a bonehead idea.
> Do you remember where you learned such nonsense?
>
>
>
> > >This is a mistake on your part, born out of
> > > ignorance of how spectroscopy is done. If you cannot correct this
> > > simple mistake in your head, then you will not ever be able to
> > > understand the physics here.
>
> > ROTFLOL.....it is you who need to understand what the grating is
> > measuring. It is measuring the wavelength of a light source at rest
> > wrt it.....including the incoming light which is a new light source at
> > rest wrt it.

>
> Nope. You are simply repeating bonehead mistakes. You need to unlearn
> some of the dreadful misinformation you're carrying around with you.
>
> It's simply wrong.

Assertion is not a valid arguement. The grating does define a
universal wavelength for every light source at rest in its own frame.

Ken Seto