sci.physics.particle

On Mar 26, 3:18=A0pm, kenseto wrote:
> 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 t=
hat
> > > > > > is MEASURED is more real than something that is just DEFINED. Th=
is is the
> > > > > > part about physics that you don't seem to get.
>
> > > > > There is no difference between Meausred and Defined when the Measu=
red
> > > > > 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 d=
efine
> > > > > > > sodium to have the same wavelength.
>
> > > > > > No, they do NOT. I don't know where you got the ridiculous notio=
n that
> > > > > > all observers define sodium to have the same wavelength. Where o=
n
> > > > > > earth did you read that? It's just plain wrong, wrong, wrong.
>
> > > > > No its not wrong at all.....every observer measures and defines hi=
s
> > > > > own sodium source to have the same wavelength.
>
> > > > > > > Therefore you must use the
> > > > > > > universal wavelength of sodium in combination with the measure=
d
> > > > > > > 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 th=
at
> > > > > > > > relative motion does NOT affect the speed of incoming light.=

>
> > > > > > > Yes it does when the universal wavelength of the source is use=
d to
> > > > > > > determine the speed of incoming light.
>
> > > > > > > >Dozens of
> > > > > > > > experiments designed to look specifically for how relative m=
otion
> > > > > > > > affects the speed of light have *all* shown the reverse.
>
> > > > > > > That's because you are not using the universal wavelength of t=
he
> > > > > > > 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 inconsisten=
t 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?

Yes. Take a paper towel tube without any lens and point it at the sky.
Now take a soda straw and point it at the sky. There is nothing in the
hole of the paper towel tube or a soda straw that can generate a new
source. Such an arrangement is perfectly suitable for a diffraction
grating.

Now, if you like, you can then *add* a lens to the paper towel tube to
collect more light. If you actually do that experiment, you'll find
that adding the lens does not change the measured wavelength at all.
This may come as a shock to you, but that is a simple test that is
done in freshman physics labs across the country every semester. Had
you actually done that lab at some point (and I would have thought you
did), then you would not be making the ridiculous statements you've
been making about the telescope being a new light source and altering
the 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)

That is substituting a wavelength for that source that does not BELONG
to that source. You are removing the *measured* wavelength, and
replacing it with a wavelength that applies to a *stationary* source.
That is called data-fudging. Data fudging to produce a result you want
to see is a big bad no-no in science and will get you immediately
castigated and scorned -- possibly complete with newspaper stories
that your grandchildren will read.

>
> 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.

As you say, assertion is not a valid argument. What you assert about
what a grating does is not valid. Anybody who has done any
spectroscopy will correct you in this mistake. If you are unwilling
to acknowledge and correct a mistake, then you have no business
attempting to do science.

PD