sci.physics.particle

On Mar 28, 8:11=A0am, "kens...@erinet.com" wrote:
> On Mar 27, 8:51=A0am, PD wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Mar 27, 8:08=A0am, kenseto wrote:
>
> > > On Mar 26, 4:00=A0pm, PD wrote:
>
> > > > On Mar 26, 3:18=A0pm, kenseto wrote:
>
> > > > > On Mar 26, 12:45=A0pm, PD wrote:
>
> > > > Yes. Take a paper towel tube without any lens and point it at the sk=
y.
> > > > Now take a soda straw and point it at the sky. There is nothing in t=
he
> > > > 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.
>
> There is the air in the hole of the paper towel tube that acts as the
> source.

Oh, come on, Ken. You are now desperate and reaching for straws.
Anything to try and save your notions from being wrong. Anything at
all, no matter how ridiculous.

1. Same thing is observed in orbiting diffraction spectrometers, where
there is no air in the hole.
2. If the air were a new source, then the air *above* the tube would
also be a new source, and in fact there would be a whole column of new
sources all the way up to the top of the atmosphere. If the air made a
new source, then this would be an altitude-dependent effect. It is
not.

>
>
>
> > > Ah....so you are saying that the astronomers are using straws to make
> > > diffraction grating readings?
>
> > No, but those astronomers have learned that adding a lens does not
> > change the diffraction pattern or the measured wavelengths, because
> > they've done that lab. See below. (Ken, read first, then talk second.)
>
> The air or the lens act as a light source. So you see the incoming
> light is a new light source after all. :-)
>
>
>
> > > > Now, if you like, you can then *add* a lens to the paper towel tube =
to
> > > > collect more light.
>
> > > Bingo the lens acts as a new source in the observer's frame.
>
> > No, it doesn't do anything of the kind. See below. (Read first, talk
> > second.)
>
> Yes it does.
>
> > > >If you actually do that experiment, you'll find
> > > > that adding the lens does not change the measured wavelength at all.=

>
> > > How do you know? Did you first using straw to make measurement and
> > > then add lens to the straw?
>
> > YES! Read the paragraph below. This is done as an exercise in freshman
> > labs all the time. I know this is the case because I've DONE it, and
> > students in the labs for the classes I've taught have done it, and
> > they've seen it too. And astronomers know it's true, because they did
> > the same exercise when they were students and were learning about
> > spectroscopy. And you should do it too, so that you don't make stupid
> > statements like this. You have so many excellent universities within
> > an hour's drive of your house, and it would take 4 months to bring you
> > up to speed on so many things you simply don't know anything about.
>
> But you failed to realize that any measurement by the grating is a
> measurement of the wavelength for a source at rest in its frame.

Doesn't change a thing. The only question is whether the lens acts as
a new source and whether it changes the diffraction pattern or the
measured wavelength at all. It doesn't. It's been checked for
stationary sources in freshman labs, it's been checked for moving
sources in higher-level labs.

Ken, give it up. Your knowledge of experimental basics is just killing
you here. You've spent YEARS operating in the dark desperately
searching for ways to insist that your answer is the right answer,
when all it would really take is turning on the light and having a
better look. If you had done a basic spectroscopy lab -- EVER -- you
would have been able to convince yourself that none of the nonsense
you're tossing out now makes any difference.

>
> > > > 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 y=
ou
> > > > did), then you would not be making the ridiculous statements you've
> > > > been making about the telescope being a new light source and alterin=
g
> > > > the wavelength.
>
> > > Sigh....I didn't say that the lens is altering the wavelength. I said
> > > that the lens is a new light source in the observer's frame
> > > and the
> > > grating measures the wavelength coming from it.
>
> > But the measured wavelength is IDENTICAL to the wavelength coming
> > through a HOLE. A hole cannot become a new light source, any more than
> > holding up your hands and making a picture frame with your fingers and
> > thumbs will make your hands a new light source for the starlight
> > coming through that. If the wavelength is IDENTICAL between a case
> > with a lens and a case with just a plain hole, then what you are
> > saying is stupid. Think about it again.
>
> That is irrelevant. The grating will define a new wavelength for any
> source at rest wrt it.

Well, if you think that anything other than your assertions is
irrelevant, than please proceed with the enjoyment of your delusion.
Repetition doesn't make it right, and assertion without experimental
knowledge isn't any kind of an argument. Do the labs, learn the
methodology, see why it works.

>
> > > Light from the lens is
> > > like light from a sodium source or hydrogen source at rest wrt the
> > > grating.
>
> > > > > 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 BELO=
NG
> > > > to that source.
>
> > > No that's doing physics the logical way. Remember the example I gave
> > > you:
> > > 1. There is a constant water wave in a pond with a frequency of
> > > N waves/second and the wavelength is L meter.
> > > 2. You are at rest wrt the source of the wave so thew arriving speed
> > > of the waves is L*N meters/second.
> > > 3. You are swimming toward the source. The arrival rate of the waves
> > > is (N+n) and the wavelength remains constant L.Therefore the speed of
> > > arrival of the waves is L(N+n) meters/second
> > > 4. You are swimming away from the source. The arrival rate of the
> > > waves is (N-n)/second and the wavelength remains L meters. Therefore
> > > the arrival speed of the wave is L(N-n) meters/second.
>
> > Sorry, light is KNOWN to be NOT LIKE water. It does NOT behave the
> > same way as water. Repeating the error does not make it right. It is
> > *measured* to be different. Saying it is still the same when it is
> > *measured* to be different is not logic. It is lunacy.
>
> Your statement is based on the bogus assumption that the speed of the
> incoming light is a constant c.

No, it is not based on ANY assumption. It is based on *measurement*.
You are saying that light behaves like water WITHOUT ANY REFERENCE TO
EXPERIMENT that says it does, when in fact experiment shows it does
NOT. You keep insisting that this is about assumptions and arguments
and logic and analogies. It's NOT. It's about what's seen in
EXPERIMENT.

> Light wave is like water wave if the
> universal wavelength of the source is used to determine its arriving
> speed.
>
>
>
> > > >You are removing the *measured* wavelength, and
> > > > replacing it with a wavelength that applies to a *stationary* source=
.
>
> > > The measured wavelength is the wavelength of a new source at rest wrt
> > > the grating. This wavelength is used to determine the original source
> > > of the incoming light.
>
> > There is no new source.
>
> Sure there is new source. Every source the grating measures is a new
> source in its frame.....including the incoming light.
>
>
>
> Ken Seto