sci.physics.particle

On Mar 28, 7:42=A0am, "kens...@erinet.com" wrote:
> On Mar 27, 8:41=A0am, PD wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Mar 27, 8:12=A0am, kenseto wrote:
>
> > > On Mar 26, 3:43=A0pm, Randy Poe wrote:
>
> > > > On Mar 26, 4:18 pm, kenseto wrote:
> > > > Ken says:
>
> > > > > Assertion is not a valid arguement.
>
> > > > And then immediately asserts:
>
> > > > > The grating does define a
> > > > > universal wavelength for every light source at rest in its own fra=
me.
>
> > > > Assertion is not a valid argument, Ken. No matter how
> > > > many times you say this, it is not going to cause anybody
> > > > using diffraction gratings to actually use them this way.
>
> > Assertion 1:
>
> > > What I said is not assertion.
>
> > Assertion 2: (This one without any support whatsoever)
>
> No assertion on my part. The grating defines a wavelength for any
> light source in its frame. The incoming light becomes a new light
> source in its frame.

Well, Ken, if you don't have any experimental evidence that the above
is true, what is your independent support (that is, something coming
from OUTSIDE of yourself) for the statement. If you have no
independent support (something from OUTSIDE of yourself) for a
statement, it's an assertion.

>
> Ken Seto
>
>
>
> > > The grating defines a universal
> > > wavelength for every light source at rest wrt it. The incoming light
> > > becomes a new light source in the grating's frame and a new universal
> > > length is defined for it by the grating.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -