sci.physics.particle

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 that
> > > > is MEASURED is more real than something that is just DEFINED. This i=
s the
> > > > part about physics that you don't seem to get.
>
> > > There is no difference between Meausred and Defined when the Measured
> > > 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 defin=
e
> > > > > sodium to have the same wavelength.
>
> > > > No, they do NOT. I don't know where you got the ridiculous notion th=
at
> > > > 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 motio=
n
> > > > > > 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 and=

> > > > inconsistent with MEASUREMENT. If what you define is inconsistent wi=
th
> > > > 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.

> 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.

>
> >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.

>
> Ken Seto