sci.physics.particle

On Mar 28, 8:15=A0am, PD wrote:
> 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 f=
rame.
>
> > > > > 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.

Sigh....the support is that the grating measures different wavelengths
for different light sources in its frame. The incoming light is a
different light source in the frame of the grating.

Ken Seto
>
>
>
>
>
> > 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 universa=
l
> > > > length is defined for it by the grating.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -