Sal the crackpot

Androcles

unread,

Sep 10, 2005, 10:17:58 AM9/10/05

to

sal wrote in:
Message-Id: pan.2005.06.09....@nospam.org

"Emission theory handles MM very nicely. What it doesn't handle so well
is
the redshift detected by the Hubble spectroscopes, which is why the
bandaid is necessary. (Diffraction gratings measure wavelength, not
frequency, and the wavelength doesn't shift if the emission velocity is
fixed _and_ if the frequency is fixed at the source."

So:
a) The wavelength doesn't shift if the emission velocity is fixed at the
source.
b) The frequency doesn't shift if the emission velocity is fixed at the
source.

Therefore it is impossible to measure shift by moving a diffraction
grating
toward or away from the source.

Androcles.

Paul B. Andersen

unread,

Sep 13, 2005, 7:32:07 AM9/13/05

to

Androcles wrote:
> sal wrote in:
> Message-Id: pan.2005.06.09....@nospam.org
>
> "Emission theory handles MM very nicely. What it doesn't handle so well
> is
> the redshift detected by the Hubble spectroscopes, which is why the
> bandaid is necessary. (Diffraction gratings measure wavelength, not
> frequency, and the wavelength doesn't shift if the emission velocity is
> fixed _and_ if the frequency is fixed at the source."
>
>
> So:
> a) The wavelength doesn't shift if the emission velocity is fixed at the
> source.

According to the emission theory.

> b) The frequency doesn't shift if the emission velocity is fixed at the
> source.

Does not follow, but is irrelevant anyway.

>
>
> Therefore it is impossible to measure shift by moving a diffraction
> grating
> toward or away from the source.

According to the emission theory.

> Androcles.

But a wavelength shift is observed.
The emission theory is falsified.

Did I get your point?

Paul

Androcles

unread,

Sep 13, 2005, 8:27:29 AM9/13/05

to

"Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b....@deletethishia.no> wrote in message
news:dg6dbo$1bu$1...@dolly.uninett.no...

According to sal.

|
| > b) The frequency doesn't shift if the emission velocity is fixed at
the
| > source.
|
| Does not follow, but is irrelevant anyway.

You are irrelevant anyway.

According to sal

sal is falsified, like you he has no idea what he is talking about.

| Did I get your point?

No you didn't, you are too stupid to ever get a point.

The wavelength and frequency of sound are fixed at the source.
Move toward a sound source and you'll hear a change in frequency.
According to sal, the wavelength doesn't shift if the emission velocity

is
fixed _and_ if the frequency is fixed at the source.

You, being a tusselader, are too stupid to understand Doppler.
Androcles

Paul B. Andersen

unread,

Sep 16, 2005, 10:05:01 AM9/16/05

to

Right.
According to Sal, this is according to the emission theory.
Sal knows that that is predicted by the emission theory.
Don't you?

> | > b) The frequency doesn't shift if the emission velocity is fixed at
> | > the source.
> |
> | Does not follow, but is irrelevant anyway.
>
> You are irrelevant anyway.
>
>
> | >
> | >
> | > Therefore it is impossible to measure shift by moving a diffraction
> | > grating
> | > toward or away from the source.
> |
> | According to the emission theory.
>
> According to sal

Right again.
According to Sal, this is according to the emission theory.
Sal knows that this is predicted by the emission theory.
Don't you?

> |
> | > Androcles.
> |
> | But a wavelength shift is observed.
> | The emission theory is falsified.
>
> sal is falsified, like you he has no idea what he is talking about.

Sal is talking about the fact that according to the emission
thery, the wavelenght of light should NOT be Doppler shifted.

But it is, so the emission theory is falsified.

> | Did I get your point?
>
> No you didn't, you are too stupid to ever get a point.
>
> The wavelength and frequency of sound are fixed at the source.
> Move toward a sound source and you'll hear a change in frequency.

But the wavelength won't change.

> According to sal, the wavelength doesn't shift if the emission velocity
> is fixed _and_ if the frequency is fixed at the source.
> You, being a tusselader, are too stupid to understand Doppler.

Quite.
But even a stupid tusselad like me understands that according
to the emission theory, the wavelength of the emitted
light should not be Doppler shifted.

So this must certainly be obvious to a wise guy like you?

In source frame:
Speed of light: c
Emitted frequency: f
Emitted wavelength: lambda
lambda = c/f will always apply

Observer frame: (observer moving towards source)
Speed of light: c' = c + v
Observed frequency: f' = f(c+v)/c
Observed wavelength: lambda'
lambda' = c'/f' will always apply

lambda' = (c+v)/(f(c+v)/c) = c/f = lambda
lambda' = lambda

So the observed wavelength is unchanged.
According to the emission theory, that is.
But not in reality.
So the emission theory is not compatible with reality.

Paul, stupid tusselad

Androcles

unread,

Sep 16, 2005, 11:03:14 AM9/16/05

to

"Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b....@deletethishia.no> wrote in message

news:dgejee$86p$1...@dolly.uninett.no...

Stupid tusselad.
The wavelength is fixed at the source for sound, phuckwit.

| Sal knows that that is predicted by the emission theory.
| Don't you?

Stupid tusselad doesn't know how Doppler for sound works.
Come back when you've had some sense knockeed into you.
Androcles

Paul B. Andersen

unread,

Sep 18, 2005, 5:01:01 PM9/18/05

to

Isn't that a bit irrelevant, when the issue is
what the emission theory predicts for light?

> Come back when you've had some sense knockeed into you.
> Androcles

That's the right approach, Androcles.
Don't address the issue when you know I am right.
Run and hide.

You couldn't refute this, could you?
So you fled.
You will make my arguments non existent that way.

Paul

Androcles

unread,

Sep 18, 2005, 7:23:50 PM9/18/05

to

"Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b....@deletethishia.no> wrote in message

news:dgkkid$qdv$1...@dolly.uninett.no...

| Androcles wrote:
| > Stupid tusselad doesn't know how Doppler for sound works.
|
| Isn't that a bit irrelevant, when the issue is
| what the emission theory predicts for light?

Nope. The discussion of Doppler depends on your knowledge
of Doppler and his experiment. There are two forms, the trumpeter
rides the train and the observer is at the station, or the trumpeter
is at the station and the observer rides the train.
Write out the two different equations for homework and explain
the difference.

The other alternative to doing your homework is to fuck off.
Androcles.

Androcles

unread,

Sep 19, 2005, 6:12:35 PM9/19/05

to

"Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b....@deletethishia.no> wrote in message

news:dgn6rp$mao$1...@dolly.uninett.no...

| Androcles wrote:
| > "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b....@deletethishia.no> wrote in
message

| > news:dgmhpf$h37$1...@dolly.uninett.no...

| > | Androcles wrote:
| > | > "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b....@deletethishia.no> wrote in
| > message
| > | > news:dgkkid$qdv$1...@dolly.uninett.no...
| > | > | Androcles wrote:
| > | > | > Stupid tusselad doesn't know how Doppler for sound works.
| > | > |
| > | > | Isn't that a bit irrelevant, when the issue is
| > | > | what the emission theory predicts for light?
| > | >
| > | > Nope. The discussion of Doppler depends on your knowledge
| > | > of Doppler and his experiment. There are two forms, the
trumpeter
| > | > rides the train and the observer is at the station, or the
trumpeter
| > | > is at the station and the observer rides the train.
| > | > Write out the two different equations for homework and explain
| > | > the difference.
| > |

Lost your spelling checker, tusselad?
You've been doing your best to divert from the issue for years,
tusselad,
but you'll alway be ignorant and stupid.
So you didn't know, huh?

That's the right approach, tusselad.

Don't address the issue when you know I am right.
Run and hide.

| > | > | > Come back when you've had some sense knockeed into you.
| > | > | > Androcles
| > | > |
| > | > | That's the right approach, Androcles.
| > | > | Don't address the issue when you know I am right.
| > | > | Run and hide.
| > | >
| > | > The other alternative to doing your homework is to fuck off.
| > | > Androcles.
| > |

| > | But I did do my homework.
| >
| > Good boy. So now that Einstein, you and I agree that the one form
| > of Doppler's equation is to be used for light, the only disagreement
| > being the stupid division he puts everywhere, it follows that sal is
| > a crackpot and the velocity of light, like sound in its one form of
the
| > trumpeter at the station, is source dependent.
|
| I think you have a concentration problem.
| Stay focused, please.
| The issue is what the emission theory predicts
| about the Doppler shift of wavelength.

Is it, tusselad?
I thought I made the issue clear in the thread title, "Sal the
crackpot".
I know you are doing your best to divert the attenTion from the issue.
I think you have a concentration problem.
Stay focusSed, please. (I'm in England now, not the USA, so it is
focuSSed)

| > | Here it is again:

| > |
| > | In source frame:
| > | Speed of light: c
| > | Emitted frequency: f
| > | Emitted wavelength: lambda
| > | lambda = c/f will always apply
| > |
| > | Observer frame: (observer moving towards source)
| > | Speed of light: c' = c + v
| > | Observed frequency: f' = f(c+v)/c
| > | Observed wavelength: lambda'
| > | lambda' = c'/f' will always apply
| > |
| > | lambda' = (c+v)/(f(c+v)/c) = c/f = lambda
| > | lambda' = lambda
| >

| > Well done, tusselad.
| > Speed of light is c' = c+v in the observer's frame.
| > You are promoted from phuckwit to nitwit.
| >
| > For your next homework assignment, calculate
| > t = D/(c+v), where D is the distance to Algol and v
| > is the velocity of the Earth on the frame of the star.
| > 1,000,000 points around the orbit will do, that's what I
| > did 18 years ago. Henri MAY be able to assist you,
| > although his method of generating an orbit is at the
| > halfwit level, he refuses to use Kepler's equation
| > E= M-e.sin(E) and tells people he's proved Einstein wrong.
| >
| > I'm retired now, I don't write code anymore, although I did
| > have a relapse a short while ago and did a 50 point orbit on
| > a spreadsheet for fun. You are welcome to a copy of that if
| > you'd like to see how it's done. It's free and although my
| > copyright, I don't mind who has a copy.
|
| You get very easily distracted, Androcles.

Oh dear... so it still isn't clear and blatantly obvious to you?

| And when you do, you are babbling irrelevancies.

I have to spell it out?

| Just now, you have obviously forgotten what the issue was.

I think indeed you have.

| I will remind you:
| The issue is what the emission theory predicts
| about the Doppler shift of wavelength.

Nooooo..... the issue is "Sal is a crackpot."
You get very easily distracted, tusselad.
And when you do, you are babbling irrelevancies.
I will remind you.

sal wrote in:
Message-Id: pan.2005.06.09....@nospam.org
"Emission theory handles MM very nicely. What it doesn't handle so well
is
the redshift detected by the Hubble spectroscopes, which is why the
bandaid is necessary. (Diffraction gratings measure wavelength, not
frequency, and the wavelength doesn't shift if the emission velocity is
fixed _and_ if the frequency is fixed at the source."

Androcles wrote:
So:
a) The wavelength doesn't shift if the emission velocity is fixed at the
source.

b) The frequency doesn't shift if the emission velocity is fixed at the
source.

Therefore it is impossible to measure shift by moving a diffraction
grating toward or away from the source.

Are we clear now?
I'm having a great time, tusselad.
I knew I would when I unplonked you.
I'm sorry I have to downgrade you to phuckwit again... <snigger>

Is Einstein's equation
f' = f. (1-cos(phi).v/c)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
too complicated for you to unravel, phuckwit?

Let me give you a hint.
There is only one value of v.
There is only one value of c.
Still too much for you, stooopid tusselad?

|
| > | So the observed wavelength is unchanged.
| > | According to the emission theory, that is.
| > | But not in reality.
| >

| > Oh dear, you had a brilliant moment at nitwit level,
| > now you've reverted to phuckwit again.
|
| Trying to
There is only one value of v.
No, tusselad, I'm paying attention to the issue, sal is a crackpot.
Well, not just a crackpot, but rather more. He's a phuckwit, like you.
A nuisance troll, like you. That's what a tusselad is, right?
You and he are tusselader, right?

| Stay focused, please.

Me, tusselad? I started the thead.
Why are you trying to divert the attention from the issue again?
Practicing being a 10-year old, perhaps? Giggling at the girls?

| The issue is that the emission theory predicts:
| lambda' = lambda
| No Doppler shift of wavelength.
| Isn't that so, Androcles?
No, tusselad. The issue is that sal is as stupid as you, tusselad.

|
| But wavelengths _are_ Doppler shifted in the real world.
| Aren't they, Androcles?

Yes, tusselad. And sal thinks they are not, tusselad, because the
wavelength and the frequency are fixed at the source, tusselad.
That's the issue, tusselad.

|
| Since this prediction of the emission theory
| is proven wrong, the emission theory is falsified.
| Isn't it, Androcles?

No tusselad, that's why I had you do your homework, tusselad.
Go and do it again, please, you've forgotten already.
The trumpeter remains at the station, remember?
Let's see if this helps:
"Take, for example, the reciprocal electrodynamic action of a magnet and
a conductor. The observable phenomenon here depends only on the relative
motion of the conductor and the magnet" - Einstein's sole sensible
contribution.
Are you not *supposed* to know this, tusselad?

| > | So the emission theory is not compatible with reality.
| > |

Once again, the issue is:

sal wrote in:
Message-Id: pan.2005.06.09....@nospam.org
"Emission theory handles MM very nicely. What it doesn't handle so well
is
the redshift detected by the Hubble spectroscopes, which is why the
bandaid is necessary. (Diffraction gratings measure wavelength, not
frequency, and the wavelength doesn't shift if the emission velocity is
fixed _and_ if the frequency is fixed at the source."

Androcles wrote:
So:
a) The wavelength doesn't shift if the emission velocity is fixed at the
source.

b) The frequency doesn't shift if the emission velocity is fixed at the
source.

Therefore it is impossible to measure shift by moving a diffraction
grating toward or away from the source.

Desperately trying to divert the attention from
the issue again, tusselad?
Stay focused, please.

| And we won't forget what my achievement was, will we?

Not at all, tusselad. You had brief moment of lucidity, but now
you've reverted to your old phuckwit tusselad self.

| It was pointing out that the emission theory
| predicts no Doppler shift of wavelength.

Does it, tusselad? Well, I suppose it does, in a sense.
The wavelength of the sound waves fronm the trumpeter
don't change either, do they?
So how do they appear to the observer on the train, tusselad?
If he were moving away from the station at the speed of
sound, what wavelength would he measure?
Shall I tell you, tusselad, or can you figure it out?
Let's make it homework question for you.
How does an observer on a train moving away from a
trumpeter (at a station) at Mach 1 measure the wavelength
of the sounded note middle E? You may assume sufficient
amplitude is present to obtain the measurement.

| But wavelength is Doppler shifted.
| Which falsifies the emission theory.
|
| Glad to see you agree.

Me agree with a grinning ape?
You must try harder than that, tusselad.
Androcles

Paul B. Andersen

unread,

Sep 19, 2005, 10:25:50 AM9/19/05

to

Androcles wrote:
> "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b....@deletethishia.no> wrote in message
> news:dgkkid$qdv$1...@dolly.uninett.no...
> | Androcles wrote:
> | > Stupid tusselad doesn't know how Doppler for sound works.
> |
> | Isn't that a bit irrelevant, when the issue is
> | what the emission theory predicts for light?
>
> Nope. The discussion of Doppler depends on your knowledge
> of Doppler and his experiment. There are two forms, the trumpeter
> rides the train and the observer is at the station, or the trumpeter
> is at the station and the observer rides the train.
> Write out the two different equations for homework and explain
> the difference.

My knowledge of Doppler includes that there is only

one form of Doppler in the emission theory.
The trumpeter is always at the station and
the observer is riding the train.

f' = f(c+v)/c
lambda' = lambda

Didn't you know, Androcles?

> | > Come back when you've had some sense knockeed into you.

But I did do my homework.

Here it is again:

In source frame:
Speed of light: c
Emitted frequency: f
Emitted wavelength: lambda
lambda = c/f will always apply

Observer frame: (observer moving towards source)
Speed of light: c' = c + v
Observed frequency: f' = f(c+v)/c
Observed wavelength: lambda'
lambda' = c'/f' will always apply

lambda' = (c+v)/(f(c+v)/c) = c/f = lambda
lambda' = lambda

So the observed wavelength is unchanged.
According to the emission theory, that is.
But not in reality.
So the emission theory is not compatible with reality.

Will the schoolmaster ignore the humble tusselad's
homework yet again?

Paul

Androcles

unread,

Sep 19, 2005, 2:23:22 PM9/19/05

to

"Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b....@deletethishia.no> wrote in message

news:dgmhpf$h37$1...@dolly.uninett.no...

Sure, tusselad. That's the one form Einstein uses as well,

except he has a penchant for dividing everything he sees by
sqrt(1-v^2/c^2).
Somehow he forgot to Lorentz contract the wavelength, though.
There is a cos(phi) to include when the observer moves
transversely to the light or the sound, but never mind, that's
still 30 semesters away.

Didn't you know, tusselad?

| > | > Come back when you've had some sense knockeed into you.

| > | > Androcles
| > |
| > | That's the right approach, Androcles.
| > | Don't address the issue when you know I am right.
| > | Run and hide.
| >
| > The other alternative to doing your homework is to fuck off.
| > Androcles.
|
| But I did do my homework.

Good boy. So now that Einstein, you and I agree that the one form

of Doppler's equation is to be used for light, the only disagreement
being the stupid division he puts everywhere, it follows that sal is
a crackpot and the velocity of light, like sound in its one form of the
trumpeter at the station, is source dependent.

|

Well done, tusselad.

Speed of light is c' = c+v in the observer's frame.
You are promoted from phuckwit to nitwit.

For your next homework assignment, calculate
t = D/(c+v), where D is the distance to Algol and v
is the velocity of the Earth on the frame of the star.
1,000,000 points around the orbit will do, that's what I
did 18 years ago. Henri MAY be able to assist you,
although his method of generating an orbit is at the
halfwit level, he refuses to use Kepler's equation
E= M-e.sin(E) and tells people he's proved Einstein wrong.

I'm retired now, I don't write code anymore, although I did
have a relapse a short while ago and did a 50 point orbit on
a spreadsheet for fun. You are welcome to a copy of that if
you'd like to see how it's done. It's free and although my
copyright, I don't mind who has a copy.

| So the observed wavelength is unchanged.

| According to the emission theory, that is.
| But not in reality.

Oh dear, you had a brilliant moment at nitwit level,

now you've reverted to phuckwit again.

| So the emission theory is not compatible with reality.
|
| Will the schoolmaster ignore the humble tusselad's
| homework yet again?

I thought your homework was excellent, tusselad,

I'm certainly not ignoring it. You scored 2/10.

I'd have given you 9/10 for:
Observed frequency: f' = f(c+v).cos(phi)/c,
and full marks for f' = f. (1-cos(phi).v/c), where of course
phi would be 180 degrees.

f' = f. (1-cos(phi).v/c)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
would score you nothing, so 2/10 is very good in your case.
It was not a bad effort at all.
I'm sorry I had to deduct 5/10 for "But not in reality."

It's only taken you six years to get this far, I doubt I'll live long
enough
to complete your education to halfwit level, but I'll try.

Let me know when you've completed your next assignment.
After that comes magnitude. You'll need logarithms for that.

Once again, congratulations, you can be justly proud of your
remarkable achievement.
Androcles.

Paul B. Andersen

unread,

Sep 19, 2005, 4:25:27 PM9/19/05

to

I know you are doing your best to divert

the attension from the issue.

Let's not forget what we both know:
According to the emission theory, the Doppler shift is:

f' = f(c+v)/c
lambda' = lambda

According to the ballistic theory
wavelength is NOT Doppler shifted.

> | > | > Come back when you've had some sense knockeed into you.
> | > | > Androcles
> | > |
> | > | That's the right approach, Androcles.
> | > | Don't address the issue when you know I am right.
> | > | Run and hide.
> | >
> | > The other alternative to doing your homework is to fuck off.
> | > Androcles.
> |
> | But I did do my homework.
>
> Good boy. So now that Einstein, you and I agree that the one form
> of Doppler's equation is to be used for light, the only disagreement
> being the stupid division he puts everywhere, it follows that sal is
> a crackpot and the velocity of light, like sound in its one form of the
> trumpeter at the station, is source dependent.

I think you have a concentration problem.

Stay focused, please.
The issue is what the emission theory predicts
about the Doppler shift of wavelength.

> | Here it is again:

You get very easily distracted, Androcles.

And when you do, you are babbling irrelevancies.

Just now, you have obviously forgotten what the issue was.

I will remind you:

The issue is what the emission theory predicts
about the Doppler shift of wavelength.

And as we both know and won't forget, it is:

f' = f(c+v)/c
lambda' = lambda

According to the ballistic theory
wavelength is NOT Doppler shifted.

> | So the observed wavelength is unchanged.

> | According to the emission theory, that is.
> | But not in reality.
>
> Oh dear, you had a brilliant moment at nitwit level,
> now you've reverted to phuckwit again.

Trying to divert the attention from the issue again?
Stay focused, please.

The issue is that the emission theory predicts:
lambda' = lambda
No Doppler shift of wavelength.
Isn't that so, Androcles?

But wavelengths _are_ Doppler shifted in the real world.
Aren't they, Androcles?

Since this prediction of the emission theory
is proven wrong, the emission theory is falsified.
Isn't it, Androcles?

> | So the emission theory is not compatible with reality.
> |
> | Will the schoolmaster ignore the humble tusselad's
> | homework yet again?
>
> I thought your homework was excellent, tusselad,
> I'm certainly not ignoring it. You scored 2/10.
>
> I'd have given you 9/10 for:
> Observed frequency: f' = f(c+v).cos(phi)/c,
> and full marks for f' = f. (1-cos(phi).v/c), where of course
> phi would be 180 degrees.
>
> f' = f. (1-cos(phi).v/c)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
> would score you nothing, so 2/10 is very good in your case.
> It was not a bad effort at all.
> I'm sorry I had to deduct 5/10 for "But not in reality."
>
> It's only taken you six years to get this far, I doubt I'll live long
> enough
> to complete your education to halfwit level, but I'll try.
>
> Let me know when you've completed your next assignment.
> After that comes magnitude. You'll need logarithms for that.

Desperately trying to divert the attention from

the issue again, Androcles?
Stay focused, please.
The issue is that the emission theory
predicts no Doppler shift of wavelength.
But wavelength is Doppler shifted.
Which falsifies the emission theory.

> Once again, congratulations, you can be justly proud of your
> remarkable achievement.
> Androcles.

Thanks.

And we won't forget what my achievement was, will we?

It was pointing out that the emission theory
predicts no Doppler shift of wavelength.

But wavelength is Doppler shifted.
Which falsifies the emission theory.

Glad to see you agree.

Paul

Paul B. Andersen

unread,

Sep 23, 2005, 5:55:02 AM9/23/05

to

OK. I will rephrase.

I know you are doing your best to divert

the attention from the issue.

> | Let's not forget what we both know:
> | According to the emission theory, the Doppler shift is:
> | f' = f(c+v)/c
> | lambda' = lambda
> | According to the ballistic theory
> | wavelength is NOT Doppler shifted.
>
>
> That's the right approach, tusselad.
> Don't address the issue when you know I am right.
> Run and hide.

You are still doing your best to divert
the attention from the issue.

Let's not forget what we both know:
According to the emission theory, the Doppler shift is:
f' = f(c+v)/c
lambda' = lambda
According to the ballistic theory
wavelength is NOT Doppler shifted.

Since Doppler shift of the wavelength IS observed,
the ballistic theory is falsified.

You are still doing your best to divert
the attention from the issue.

Let's not forget what we both know:
According to the emission theory, the Doppler shift is:
f' = f(c+v)/c
lambda' = lambda

So according to the ballistic theory

wavelength is NOT Doppler shifted.

Since Doppler shift of the wavelength IS observed,
the ballistic theory is falsified.

You are still doing your best to divert
the attention from the issue.

Let's not forget what we both know:
According to the emission theory, the Doppler shift is:
f' = f(c+v)/c
lambda' = lambda

So according to the ballistic theory

wavelength is NOT Doppler shifted.

Since Doppler shift of the wavelength IS observed,
the ballistic theory is falsified.

> | And when you do, you are babbling irrelevancies.
>
> I have to spell it out?

You did above, when you stated that you know that
according to the emission theory, the Doppler shift is:

f' = f(c+v)/c
lambda' = lambda

So according to the ballistic theory

wavelength is NOT Doppler shifted.

Since Doppler shift of the wavelength IS observed,
the ballistic theory is falsified.

> | Just now, you have obviously forgotten what the issue was.
>
> I think indeed you have.

The issue is that
according to the emission theory, the Doppler shift is:

f' = f(c+v)/c
lambda' = lambda

So according to the ballistic theory

wavelength is NOT Doppler shifted.

Since Doppler shift of the wavelength IS observed,
the ballistic theory is falsified.

> | I will remind you:
> | The issue is what the emission theory predicts
> | about the Doppler shift of wavelength.
>
> Nooooo..... the issue is "Sal is a crackpot."
> You get very easily distracted, tusselad.
> And when you do, you are babbling irrelevancies.
> I will remind you.
> sal wrote in:
> Message-Id: pan.2005.06.09....@nospam.org
> "Emission theory handles MM very nicely. What it doesn't handle so well
> is
> the redshift detected by the Hubble spectroscopes, which is why the
> bandaid is necessary. (Diffraction gratings measure wavelength, not
> frequency, and the wavelength doesn't shift if the emission velocity is
> fixed _and_ if the frequency is fixed at the source."

Right.
So Sal's issue was that according to the ballistic theory

wavelength is NOT Doppler shifted.

Since Doppler shift of the wavelength IS observed,
the ballistic theory is falsified.

>
> Androcles wrote:
> So:
> a) The wavelength doesn't shift if the emission velocity is fixed at the
> source.
> b) The frequency doesn't shift if the emission velocity is fixed at the
> source.
> Therefore it is impossible to measure shift by moving a diffraction
> grating toward or away from the source.
>
> Are we clear now?

It is indeed very clear.
According to the emission theory, it is impossible to measure
shift of the wavelength by moving a diffraction grating toward

or away from the source.

But a shift of the wavelength IS observed,
so the emission theory is falsified.

> I'm having a great time, tusselad.
> I knew I would when I unplonked you.
> I'm sorry I have to downgrade you to phuckwit again... <snigger>

I am glad to see that the falsification of the emission
theory doesn't make you too depressed.

You are indeed a good loser.
You have obviously practised a lot.

>
> Is Einstein's equation
> f' = f. (1-cos(phi).v/c)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
> too complicated for you to unravel, phuckwit?
>
> Let me give you a hint.
> There is only one value of v.
> There is only one value of c.
> Still too much for you, stooopid tusselad?

The issue is the predictions of the emission theory,
not Einstein's relativity.
According to the emission theory, it is impossible to measure
shift of the wavelength by moving a diffraction grating toward

or away from the source.

But a shift of the wavelength IS observed,
so the emission theory is falsified.

>
>
> |
> | And as we both know and won't forget, it is:
> | f' = f(c+v)/c
> | lambda' = lambda
> | According to the ballistic theory
> | wavelength is NOT Doppler shifted.
> |
> | > | So the observed wavelength is unchanged.
> | > | According to the emission theory, that is.
> | > | But not in reality.
> | >
> | > Oh dear, you had a brilliant moment at nitwit level,
> | > now you've reverted to phuckwit again.
> |
> | Trying to
> There is only one value of v.

The v obviously varies when you are "moving a diffraction

grating toward or away from the source".

> No, tusselad, I'm paying attention to the issue, sal is a crackpot.

> Well, not just a crackpot, but rather more. He's a phuckwit, like you.
> A nuisance troll, like you. That's what a tusselad is, right?
> You and he are tusselader, right?
>
>
> | Stay focused, please.
>
> Me, tusselad? I started the thead.
> Why are you trying to divert the attention from the issue again?
> Practicing being a 10-year old, perhaps? Giggling at the girls?

The issue is that according to the ballistic theory

wavelength is NOT Doppler shifted.

Since Doppler shift of the wavelength IS observed,
the ballistic theory is falsified.

> | The issue is that the emission theory predicts:
> | lambda' = lambda
> | No Doppler shift of wavelength.
> | Isn't that so, Androcles?
> No, tusselad. The issue is that sal is as stupid as you, tusselad.
>
> |
> | But wavelengths _are_ Doppler shifted in the real world.
> | Aren't they, Androcles?
>
> Yes, tusselad. And sal thinks they are not, tusselad, because the
> wavelength and the frequency are fixed at the source, tusselad.
> That's the issue, tusselad.

Sal's issue was that according to the ballistic theory

wavelength is NOT Doppler shifted.

Since Doppler shift of the wavelength IS observed,
the ballistic theory is falsified.

>
> |
> | Since this prediction of the emission theory
> | is proven wrong, the emission theory is falsified.
> | Isn't it, Androcles?
>
> No tusselad, that's why I had you do your homework, tusselad.
> Go and do it again, please, you've forgotten already.
> The trumpeter remains at the station, remember?

Exactly.
So we both know that
according to the emission theory, the Doppler shift is:

f' = f(c+v)/c
lambda' = lambda

So according to the ballistic theory

wavelength is NOT Doppler shifted.

Since Doppler shift of the wavelength IS observed,
the ballistic theory is falsified.

> Let's see if this helps:
> "Take, for example, the reciprocal electrodynamic action of a magnet and
> a conductor. The observable phenomenon here depends only on the relative
> motion of the conductor and the magnet" - Einstein's sole sensible
> contribution.
> Are you not *supposed* to know this, tusselad?

The issue is the predictions of the emission theory,
not Einstein's relativity.

And as we both know:
according to the emission theory, the Doppler shift is:

f' = f(c+v)/c
lambda' = lambda

So according to the ballistic theory

wavelength is NOT Doppler shifted.

Since Doppler shift of the wavelength IS observed,
the ballistic theory is falsified.

Exactly.
Sal's issue was that according to the ballistic theory

wavelength is NOT Doppler shifted.

Since Doppler shift of the wavelength IS observed,
the ballistic theory is falsified.

>
> Androcles wrote:
> So:
> a) The wavelength doesn't shift if the emission velocity is fixed at the
> source.
> b) The frequency doesn't shift if the emission velocity is fixed at the
> source.
> Therefore it is impossible to measure shift by moving a diffraction
> grating toward or away from the source.
>
>
> Desperately trying to divert the attention from
> the issue again, tusselad?
> Stay focused, please.

Indeed.
Focusing:
Sal's issue was that according to the ballistic theory

wavelength is NOT Doppler shifted.

Since Doppler shift of the wavelength IS observed,
the ballistic theory is falsified.

>
>
> |
> | > Once again, congratulations, you can be justly proud of your
> | > remarkable achievement.
> | > Androcles.
> |
> | Thanks.
> You are welcome.
>
> | And we won't forget what my achievement was, will we?
>
> Not at all, tusselad. You had brief moment of lucidity, but now
> you've reverted to your old phuckwit tusselad self.
>
>
> | It was pointing out that the emission theory
> | predicts no Doppler shift of wavelength.
>
> Does it, tusselad? Well, I suppose it does, in a sense.
> The wavelength of the sound waves fronm the trumpeter
> don't change either, do they?

Exactly.

According to the ballistic theory
wavelength is NOT Doppler shifted.

Since Doppler shift of the wavelength IS observed,
the ballistic theory is falsified.

> So how do they appear to the observer on the train, tusselad?
> If he were moving away from the station at the speed of
> sound, what wavelength would he measure?

The same.

> Shall I tell you, tusselad, or can you figure it out?
> Let's make it homework question for you.
> How does an observer on a train moving away from a
> trumpeter (at a station) at Mach 1 measure the wavelength
> of the sounded note middle E? You may assume sufficient
> amplitude is present to obtain the measurement.

He would measure the same wavelength as the trumpeter
on the station would measure.

But why the do you keep repeating this triviality?

We agree that according to the emission theory,
"the trumpeter is always at the station", and

wavelength is NOT Doppler shifted.

But in the real world, wavelength of light IS Doppler
shifted. So the prediction of the emission theory is wrong,
and the emission theory is falsified.

> | But wavelength is Doppler shifted.
> | Which falsifies the emission theory.
> |
> | Glad to see you agree.
>
> Me agree with a grinning ape?
> You must try harder than that, tusselad.
> Androcles

So what do you NOT agree to?

This?
- According to the emission theory, wavelength
of light is not Doppler shifted.

Or this?
- In the real world, the wavelength of light
is Doppler shifted.

Paul

Androcles

unread,

Sep 23, 2005, 9:07:31 AM9/23/05

to

"Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b....@deletethishia.no> wrote in message

news:dh0jdn$e8f$1...@dolly.uninett.no...

I see you are still attempting to divert the attention
from the issue, tusselad. We both know that, don't we?

|
| > | Let's not forget what we both know:
| > | According to the emission theory, the Doppler shift is:
| > | f' = f(c+v)/c
| > | lambda' = lambda
| > | According to the ballistic theory
| > | wavelength is NOT Doppler shifted.
| >
| >
| > That's the right approach, tusselad.
| > Don't address the issue when you know I am right.
| > Run and hide.
|
| You are still doing your best to divert
| the attention from the issue.

Me? I'd never think to write "Run and hide" to divert attention
from the issue, tusselad. I learned that from you.
Have a nice day.
Androcles.

Paul B. Andersen

unread,

Sep 25, 2005, 1:36:02 PM9/25/05

to

Of course.
And the issue I am trying to divert the attention from, is:

According to the emission theory, the Doppler shift is:
f' = f(c+v)/c
lambda' = lambda
So according to the ballistic theory
wavelength is NOT Doppler shifted.

Since Doppler shift of the wavelength IS observed,

the emission theory is falsified.

We both know that, don't we?

Paul

Androcles

unread,

Sep 25, 2005, 1:52:49 PM9/25/05

to

"Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b....@deletethishia.no> wrote in message

news:dh6n67$of1$1...@dolly.uninett.no...

Ok, so we are done with the conversation, you succeeded.
Now fuck off.
Androcles.

Paul B. Andersen

unread,

Sep 26, 2005, 8:59:46 AM9/26/05

to

So it's settled, then.

The emission theory is falsified.

Paul

Androcles

unread,

Sep 26, 2005, 4:05:26 PM9/26/05

to

"Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b....@deletethishia.no> wrote in message

news:dh8rc2$l8h$1...@dolly.uninett.no...

Go on believing a giant star at the Roche limit of a smaller one
can exist, I don't care what you believe. Now fuck off.
Androcles.

Paul B. Andersen

unread,

Sep 26, 2005, 5:02:53 PM9/26/05

to

And if the Moon were a fluid it would break
apart like droplets of mercury.

Isn't that so, Androcles? :-)

Paul

Androcles

unread,

Sep 26, 2005, 5:23:35 PM9/26/05

to

"Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b....@deletethishia.no> wrote in message

news:dh9nlu$jhn$1...@dolly.uninett.no...

Paul B. Andersen

unread,

Sep 29, 2005, 4:24:42 PM9/29/05

to

> | Androcles wrote:
> | > Go on believing a giant star at the Roche limit of a smaller one
> | > can exist, I don't care what you believe. Now fuck off.
> | > Androcles.

And if the Moon were a fluid it would break

Androcles

unread,

Sep 29, 2005, 6:56:21 PM9/29/05

to

"Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b....@deletethishia.no> wrote in message

news:dhhiic$nsq$2...@dolly.uninett.no...

Yes, that is so, tusselad.

Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity
From: "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b....@hia.no>
Date: Wed, 14 Sep 2005 14:00:34 +0200
Local: Wed, Sep 14 2005 1:00 pm
Subject: Re: Spectrum!
"But the two stars of Algol have different mass, radius and
density, and the B8 is well outside of the Roche limit
of the K2, while the K2 is just at the Roche limit of the B8.
That is, the K2 fills its Roche lobe completely, and mass
is transferred to the B8. So the K2 IS torn apart and there
is an accretion disk around the B8 akin to the rings of Saturn.
(This accretion disk is not stable, though. It is a transient
disk; the mass transferred from the K2 bounces off the surface
of the B8 and eventually falls back to the surface.) "

Being a B8, the surface the accretion disk bounces off looks like this:
http://sohowww.nascom.nasa.gov/hotshots/2003_11_04/c2w.gif

That's smooth bouncy surface, isn't it, hotshot tusselad?
ROFLMAO! Ooops...I farted.
Androcles.

Paul B. Andersen

unread,

Oct 3, 2005, 5:21:51 AM10/3/05

to

Androcles wrote:

> "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b....@deletethishia.no> wrote in message news:dhhiic$nsq$2...@dolly.uninett.no...
> |> | Androcles wrote:
> | > | > Go on believing a giant star at the Roche limit of a smaller one
> | > | > can exist, I don't care what you believe. Now fuck off.
> | > | > Androcles.
> |
> | And if the Moon were a fluid it would break
> | apart like droplets of mercury.
> |
> | Isn't that so, Androcles? :-)
>
> Yes, that is so, tusselad.

Right.
That's why Armstrong flew off the Moon
when he tried to stand on it.
He and the other astronauts are now
forming a ring around the Earth.

> Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity
> From: "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b....@hia.no>
> Date: Wed, 14 Sep 2005 14:00:34 +0200
> Local: Wed, Sep 14 2005 1:00 pm
> Subject: Re: Spectrum!
> "But the two stars of Algol have different mass, radius and
> density, and the B8 is well outside of the Roche limit
> of the K2, while the K2 is just at the Roche limit of the B8.
> That is, the K2 fills its Roche lobe completely, and mass
> is transferred to the B8. So the K2 IS torn apart and there
> is an accretion disk around the B8 akin to the rings of Saturn.
> (This accretion disk is not stable, though. It is a transient
> disk; the mass transferred from the K2 bounces off the surface
> of the B8 and eventually falls back to the surface.) "
>
> Being a B8, the surface the accretion disk bounces off looks like this:
> http://sohowww.nascom.nasa.gov/hotshots/2003_11_04/c2w.gif
>
> That's smooth bouncy surface, isn't it, hotshot tusselad?
> ROFLMAO! Ooops...I farted.
> Androcles.

Whenever Androcles farts, he is making me look like a fool.
He knows no other way to achieve it.

Paul

Paul B. Andersen

unread,

Oct 3, 2005, 5:33:01 AM10/3/05

to

Androcles skrev:

Do you now think you by repeating another
of your stupidities successfully have
diverted the attention from the issue?

Which is that the emission theory predicts:

lambda' = lambda
No Doppler shift of wavelength.

But wavelengths _are_ Doppler shifted in the real world.

Since this prediction of the emission theory
is proven wrong, the emission theory is falsified.

Since you cannot refute this, you will again have
to roll farting on the floor to make a fool of me.

Paul

Androcles

unread,

Oct 3, 2005, 7:50:32 AM10/3/05

to

"Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b....@hia.no> wrote in message
news:1128331311.6...@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

| Androcles wrote:
|
| > "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b....@deletethishia.no> wrote in
message news:dhhiic$nsq$2...@dolly.uninett.no...
| > |> | Androcles wrote:
| > | > | > Go on believing a giant star at the Roche limit of a smaller
one
| > | > | > can exist, I don't care what you believe. Now fuck off.
| > | > | > Androcles.
| > |
| > | And if the Moon were a fluid it would break
| > | apart like droplets of mercury.
| > |
| > | Isn't that so, Androcles? :-)
| >
| > Yes, that is so, tusselad.
|
|
| Right.
| That's why Armstrong flew off the Moon
| when he tried to stand on it.
| He and the other astronauts are now
| forming a ring around the Earth.

If you say so, tusselad. Maybe you believe the Moon is fluid.<shrug>

|
| > Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity
| > From: "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b....@hia.no>
| > Date: Wed, 14 Sep 2005 14:00:34 +0200
| > Local: Wed, Sep 14 2005 1:00 pm
| > Subject: Re: Spectrum!
| > "But the two stars of Algol have different mass, radius and
| > density, and the B8 is well outside of the Roche limit
| > of the K2, while the K2 is just at the Roche limit of the B8.
| > That is, the K2 fills its Roche lobe completely, and mass
| > is transferred to the B8. So the K2 IS torn apart and there
| > is an accretion disk around the B8 akin to the rings of Saturn.
| > (This accretion disk is not stable, though. It is a transient
| > disk; the mass transferred from the K2 bounces off the surface
| > of the B8 and eventually falls back to the surface.) "
| >
| > Being a B8, the surface the accretion disk bounces off looks like
this:
| > http://sohowww.nascom.nasa.gov/hotshots/2003_11_04/c2w.gif
| >
| > That's smooth bouncy surface, isn't it, hotshot tusselad?
| > ROFLMAO! Ooops...I farted.
| > Androcles.
|
|
| Whenever Androcles farts, he is making me look like a fool.
| He knows no other way to achieve it.
|
| Paul
|

You seem to think the moon is a fluid. If it were it would break up like
drops of mercury, so you are wrong and once again have made a fool of
yourself.
Androcles.

Androcles

unread,

Oct 3, 2005, 7:54:26 AM10/3/05

to

"Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b....@hia.no> wrote in message

news:1128331980.9...@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

See thread title for issue.

I thought we did that one. Oh well, do it again.

"wavelengths _are_ Doppler shifted in the real world." - Andersen.
Prove it.
Androcles.

Paul B. Andersen

unread,

Oct 3, 2005, 10:24:10 AM10/3/05

to

Androcles wrote:
> "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b....@hia.no> wrote in message
> news:1128331311.6...@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> | Androcles wrote:
> |

OK.
So you do know of another way to make me look like a fool.
You simply repeat a stupidity, like:
"If the Moon were a fluid it would break

apart like droplets of mercury."

http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/MakeFool.html

Paul

Paul B. Andersen

unread,

Oct 3, 2005, 10:37:11 AM10/3/05

to

Exactly.
The issue is that you called Sal a crackpot because
he pointed out:

> | Which is that the emission theory predicts:
> | lambda' = lambda
> | No Doppler shift of wavelength.
> |
> | But wavelengths _are_ Doppler shifted in the real world.
>
> I thought we did that one. Oh well, do it again.
>
>
> "wavelengths _are_ Doppler shifted in the real world." - Andersen.
> Prove it.
> Androcles.

Why should I bother to prove a well known fact like this?

But by all means, Androcles.
Claim that wavelengths are not Doppler shifted.
That way, you will make me look like a fool.

> |
> | Since this prediction of the emission theory
> | is proven wrong, the emission theory is falsified.
> |
> | Since you cannot refute this, you will again have
> | to roll farting on the floor to make a fool of me.

But you preferred "the other method" this time.
That is, making a fool of me by repeating a stupidity.

Paul

Androcles

unread,

Oct 3, 2005, 10:43:37 AM10/3/05

to

"Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b....@hia.no> wrote in message

news:1128350231.2...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...

It's your claim, you prove it.

| But by all means, Androcles.
| Claim that wavelengths are not Doppler shifted.
| That way, you will make me look like a fool.

I didn't claim that at all.
You stated "wavelengths _are_ Doppler shifted in the real world".
I've asked you to prove it.
Androcles.

Androcles

unread,

Oct 3, 2005, 10:47:24 AM10/3/05

to

"Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b....@hia.no> wrote in message

news:1128349450.3...@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

Your trolling won't succeed, tusselad. You blatantly obviously think
the moon is fluid, which is why you think Armstrong flew off the Moon

when he tried to stand on it.

Androcles.

Paul B. Andersen

unread,

Oct 2, 2005, 5:26:37 PM10/2/05

to

Androcles wrote:
> "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b....@deletethishia.no> wrote in message
> news:dhhiic$nsq$2...@dolly.uninett.no...
> |> | Androcles wrote:
> | > | > Go on believing a giant star at the Roche limit of a smaller one
> | > | > can exist, I don't care what you believe. Now fuck off.
> | > | > Androcles.
> |
> | And if the Moon were a fluid it would break
> | apart like droplets of mercury.
> |
> | Isn't that so, Androcles? :-)
>
> Yes, that is so, tusselad.

Right.

That's why Armstrong flew off the Moon
when he tried to stand on it.
He and the other astronauts are now
forming a ring around the Earth.

> Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity
> From: "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b....@hia.no>
> Date: Wed, 14 Sep 2005 14:00:34 +0200
> Local: Wed, Sep 14 2005 1:00 pm
> Subject: Re: Spectrum!
> "But the two stars of Algol have different mass, radius and
> density, and the B8 is well outside of the Roche limit
> of the K2, while the K2 is just at the Roche limit of the B8.
> That is, the K2 fills its Roche lobe completely, and mass
> is transferred to the B8. So the K2 IS torn apart and there
> is an accretion disk around the B8 akin to the rings of Saturn.
> (This accretion disk is not stable, though. It is a transient
> disk; the mass transferred from the K2 bounces off the surface
> of the B8 and eventually falls back to the surface.) "
>
> Being a B8, the surface the accretion disk bounces off looks like this:
> http://sohowww.nascom.nasa.gov/hotshots/2003_11_04/c2w.gif
>
> That's smooth bouncy surface, isn't it, hotshot tusselad?
> ROFLMAO! Ooops...I farted.
> Androcles.

Whenever Androcles farts, he is making me look like a fool.

Paul B. Andersen

unread,

Oct 4, 2005, 8:18:12 AM10/4/05

to

I see.
While you are at it, why don't you ask me to prove
that 2 + 2 = 4, or other well known facts you haven't
refuted?

> | > | Since this prediction of the emission theory
> | > | is proven wrong, the emission theory is falsified.
> | > |
> | > | Since you cannot refute this, you will again have
> | > | to roll farting on the floor to make a fool of me.
> |
> | But you preferred "the other method" this time.
> | That is, making a fool of me by repeating a stupidity.
> |
> | Paul

So we can sum it thus:
Androcles does not say that wavelengths are not

Doppler shifted in the real world.

So he does not say that the fact that the emission
theory predicts no Doppler shift of wavelengths
does not falsify the emission theory.

So it all depend on whether or not wavelength
are Doppler shifted in the real world.

And you don't know the answer to that, Androcles.
Or do you? :-)

Paul

Androcles

unread,

Oct 4, 2005, 8:58:41 AM10/4/05

to

"Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b....@hia.no> wrote in message

news:1128428292.2...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...

Why are you trying to divert attention from the issue?

You stated "wavelengths _are_ Doppler shifted in the real world".
I've asked you to prove it.

|

| > | > | Since this prediction of the emission theory
| > | > | is proven wrong, the emission theory is falsified.
| > | > |
| > | > | Since you cannot refute this, you will again have
| > | > | to roll farting on the floor to make a fool of me.
| > |
| > | But you preferred "the other method" this time.
| > | That is, making a fool of me by repeating a stupidity.
| > |
| > | Paul
|
| So we can sum it thus:

Tusselad can't prove his claim "wavelengths _are_ Doppler shifted in the
real world".

| Androcles does not say that wavelengths are not
| Doppler shifted in the real world.

Doesn't matter what I say. You made the claim, you prove it.

Of course I know the answer, which is: You cannot prove your claim.

I can do this one:
http://www.kettering.edu/~drussell/Demos/doppler/doppler.html
"Source moving with vsource < vsound ( Mach 0.7 )"
But not this one:
http://www.kettering.edu/~drussell/Demos/doppler/doppler.html
"Stationary Sound Source"
no matter how fast I run toward the source. All I get is frequency
shift,
the wavelength remains constant. That's what happens with light in
a vacuum, tusselad.

Androcles.

Androcles

unread,

Oct 4, 2005, 9:20:10 AM10/4/05

to

| "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b....@hia.no> wrote in message
| news:1128428292.2...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...

|| While you are at it, why don't you ask me to prove
|| that 2 + 2 = 4, or other well known facts you haven't
|| refuted?

w =(u+v)/(1 + uv/c^2)

let u = 2
let v = 2

w = (2+2)/(1 +4/c^2).

Setting c = 1 (according to sal the crackpot relativist)

w = 4/(1+4) = 0.8

Hence 2+2 = 0.8

As a relativist tusselad, please prove 2+2 = 4 (as requested)

Androcles + Androcles = Androcles.

The Ghost In The Machine

unread,

Oct 4, 2005, 10:00:03 AM10/4/05

to

In sci.physics.relativity, Androcles
<Andr...@MyPlace.org>
wrote
on Tue, 04 Oct 2005 12:58:41 GMT
<50v0f.71479$RW.2...@fe2.news.blueyonder.co.uk>:

No proof available; the best we can do is show data consistent
with the hypothesis that wavelenghts Doppler-shift, and
furthermore that the wavelengths dopplershift in accordance
with the theoretical relativistic formula

lambda_r/lambda_0 = sqrt(1-v/c)/sqrt(1+v/c).

A search coughed up

http://www.llnl.gov/str/Goosman.html

which suggests that we do have devices with sufficient
accuracy; the main trick is instead of using explosions and
*assuming* that the velocity is computed, to use a mirror
and/or surface moving at known velocity and measure that.
(Presumably one can use that for calibration of the
device.) To that end, one can use the edge of a spinning
disc of radius about 60 mm rotating at 10,000 RPM -- since
this is about the size of modern drives this wouldn't be
too difficult. The edge velocity of such a disc is about
62.83 m/s.

http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/YBA/M31-velocity/Doppler-shift-2.html

mentions the non-relativistic velocity shift formula

lambda_n/lambda_o = (1+v/c)

which is a bit odd for a government/astronomy website. The
actual derivation is clear as mud:

http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/YBA/M31-velocity/doppler-shift-derive-2.html

Note that lambda_r/lambda_n = gamma. For a v of 62.83 m/s that's
about 1 + 2.1962 * 10^-14; we may need a faster disc.

>
>
> |
> | > | > | Since this prediction of the emission theory
> | > | > | is proven wrong, the emission theory is falsified.
> | > | > |
> | > | > | Since you cannot refute this, you will again have
> | > | > | to roll farting on the floor to make a fool of me.
> | > |
> | > | But you preferred "the other method" this time.
> | > | That is, making a fool of me by repeating a stupidity.
> | > |
> | > | Paul
> |
> | So we can sum it thus:
>
> Tusselad can't prove his claim "wavelengths _are_ Doppler shifted in the
> real world".

No one can.

[rest snipped]

--
#191, ewi...@earthlink.net
It's still legal to go .sigless.

Androcles

unread,

Oct 4, 2005, 11:12:30 AM10/4/05

to

"The Ghost In The Machine" <ew...@sirius.tg00suus7038.net> wrote in
message news:iada13-...@sirius.tg00suus7038.net...

[prattle snipped]

When you've understood Sagnac, which you appear to have completely
ignored, we'll talk about it.

[rest snipped]
Androcles.

The Ghost In The Machine

unread,

Oct 5, 2005, 1:00:08 AM10/5/05

to

In sci.physics.relativity, Androcles
<Andr...@MyPlace.org>
wrote

on Tue, 04 Oct 2005 15:12:30 GMT
<yZw0f.71663$RW.4...@fe2.news.blueyonder.co.uk>:

>
> "The Ghost In The Machine" <ew...@sirius.tg00suus7038.net> wrote in
> message news:iada13-...@sirius.tg00suus7038.net...

[crunch]

>
> When you've understood Sagnac, which you appear to have completely
> ignored, we'll talk about it.

Sagnac is no proof of anything, either. It is merely a theory
on what happens to a turtle within a Ferris Wheel.

[crunch]

Jerry

unread,

Oct 5, 2005, 3:06:17 AM10/5/05

to

Androcles wrote:

> Why are you trying to divert attention from the issue?
> You stated "wavelengths _are_ Doppler shifted in the real world".
> I've asked you to prove it.

1) Spectra from near versus distant galaxies are
differentially shifted by diffraction gratings.
2) Traditional theory on diffraction gratings successfully
explains the diffraction angle as a function of wavelength,
incident angle, and grating spacing.
3) Nobody, including Androcles and Henri, has ever offered
an alternative theory of diffraction grating behavior
explaining the diffraction angle as a function of
frequency, velocity of light, incident angle, and grating
spacing as would be required by the ballistic theory.
4) Until such theory is offered, it must be concluded that
traditional diffraction grating theory is correct.
5) Therefore, all extant theory points to wavelengths
being Doppler shifted in the real world.

Jerry

Paul B. Andersen

unread,

Oct 4, 2005, 5:27:44 PM10/4/05

to

The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
> In sci.physics.relativity, Androcles
> <Andr...@MyPlace.org>

>> You stated "wavelengths _are_ Doppler shifted in the real world".
>> I've asked you to prove it.
>
>
> No proof available;

And you are serious? :-)

Paul

Androcles

unread,

Oct 5, 2005, 9:05:42 AM10/5/05

to

"Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b....@deletethishia.no> wrote in message

news:dhus4i$fv1$1...@dolly.uninett.no...

Of course he is. Provide the proof if you think otherwise.
Androcles

Androcles

unread,

Oct 5, 2005, 9:15:53 AM10/5/05

to

"The Ghost In The Machine" <ew...@sirius.tg00suus7038.net> wrote in

message news:ia0c13-...@sirius.tg00suus7038.net...

| Sagnac is no proof of anything, either. It is merely a theory
| on what happens to a turtle within a Ferris Wheel.

Sagnac devices work in the real world, but they don't make
the user's watch slow down.
http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&q=sagnac+devices&btnG=Google+Search&meta=
In order to show you the most relevant results, we have omitted some
entries very similar to the 775 already displayed.
If you like, you can repeat the search with the omitted results
included.

So why can't you understand Sagnac?
Androcles.

Androcles

unread,

Oct 5, 2005, 9:32:25 AM10/5/05

to

"Jerry" <Cephalobu...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:1128495977....@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...

| Androcles wrote:
|
| > Why are you trying to divert attention from the issue?
| > You stated "wavelengths _are_ Doppler shifted in the real world".
| > I've asked you to prove it.
|
| 1) Spectra from near versus distant galaxies are
| differentially shifted by diffraction gratings.

A proof of frequency shift when combined with the
vector addition of velocities, an axiom.
wavecrest count per second = \nu = (c+v)/ \lambda
See Doppler.

| 2) Traditional theory on diffraction gratings successfully
| explains the diffraction angle as a function of wavelength,
| incident angle, and grating spacing.

Non sequitur, you have not proven a wavelength shift.

| 3) Nobody, including Androcles and Henri, has ever offered
| an alternative theory of diffraction grating behavior
| explaining the diffraction angle as a function of
| frequency, velocity of light, incident angle, and grating
| spacing as would be required by the ballistic theory.

Non sequitur, you didn't ask me, and wouldn't listen anyway.

| 4) Until such theory is offered, it must be concluded that
| traditional diffraction grating theory is correct.

Non sequitur, you have not proven a wavelength shift.

| 5) Therefore, all extant theory points to wavelengths
| being Doppler shifted in the real world.

Non sequitur, you have not proven a wavelength shift.

Androcles.

Jerry

unread,

Oct 5, 2005, 11:02:41 AM10/5/05

to

Androcles wrote:
> "Jerry" <Cephalobu...@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:1128495977....@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
> | Androcles wrote:
> |
> | > Why are you trying to divert attention from the issue?
> | > You stated "wavelengths _are_ Doppler shifted in the real world".
> | > I've asked you to prove it.
> |
> | 1) Spectra from near versus distant galaxies are
> | differentially shifted by diffraction gratings.
>
> A proof of frequency shift when combined with the
> vector addition of velocities, an axiom.
> wavecrest count per second = \nu = (c+v)/ \lambda
> See Doppler.
>
>
> | 2) Traditional theory on diffraction gratings successfully
> | explains the diffraction angle as a function of wavelength,
> | incident angle, and grating spacing.
>
> Non sequitur, you have not proven a wavelength shift.
>
> | 3) Nobody, including Androcles and Henri, has ever offered
> | an alternative theory of diffraction grating behavior
> | explaining the diffraction angle as a function of
> | frequency, velocity of light, incident angle, and grating
> | spacing as would be required by the ballistic theory.
>
> Non sequitur, you didn't ask me, and wouldn't listen anyway.

PRESENT YOUR ALTERNATIVE THEORY!!!
Or admit that you do not have one.

> | 4) Until such theory is offered, it must be concluded that
> | traditional diffraction grating theory is correct.
>
> Non sequitur, you have not proven a wavelength shift.
>
> | 5) Therefore, all extant theory points to wavelengths
> | being Doppler shifted in the real world.
>
> Non sequitur, you have not proven a wavelength shift.

Jerry

Paul B. Andersen

unread,

Oct 5, 2005, 10:10:59 AM10/5/05

to

The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
> In sci.physics.relativity, Androcles
> <Andr...@MyPlace.org>
> wrote
> on Tue, 04 Oct 2005 15:12:30 GMT
> <yZw0f.71663$RW.4...@fe2.news.blueyonder.co.uk>:
>

>>When you've understood Sagnac, which you appear to have completely
>>ignored, we'll talk about it.
>
>
> Sagnac is no proof of anything, either. It is merely a theory
> on what happens to a turtle within a Ferris Wheel.

It is however a falsification of the ballistic theory.

Paul

Androcles

unread,

Oct 5, 2005, 1:01:04 PM10/5/05

to

"Jerry" <Cephalobu...@comcast.net> wrote in message

news:1128521400.2...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...

I've always said I don't have a theory. All I've ever presented is
a logical conclusion based on the theories of others and the axiom
of the vector addition of velocities. I think that's what Einstein
meant when he said the reciprocal electrodynamic action of a magnet
and a conductor was an example of the Principle of Relativity, and
then tried to claim it wasn't quite right, blaming his cuckoo
transformations on Lorentz.
If you want my conclusions regarding wavelength just ask, but
I don't have any theory of my own to offer.
Besides, anything I say cannot be an alternative, you have not
presented anything to be alternative to.
Exasperating, isn't it, dealing with someone logical?
Androcles.

Androcles

unread,

Oct 5, 2005, 1:32:20 PM10/5/05

to

"Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b....@deletethishia.no> wrote in message

news:di0mtj$goq$1...@dolly.uninett.no...

Which Andersen asserts but cannot prove.
According to ballistic theory the light leaves A,
travels to B and C (initally in opposite directions around the ring)
and meets at D.
AB
CD.

Upon spinning the device, ABCD becomes rotated in the frame
of the page, thus.
DC
BA

And so the light still goes from A to D, but one ray remains
at the top left corner while the other completes the ring.
Real Sagnac devices don't move quite that fast, but the
principle is the same and Sagnac proves the ballistic theory
and disproves Einstein's relativity.
If the tusselad can disprove the light goes from A the source
to D the detector, he's welcome to try.
Androcles.

Paul B. Andersen

unread,

Oct 6, 2005, 8:22:32 AM10/6/05

to

Of course you know the answer to the question:
"Are wavelengths Doppler shifted in the real world?"

Diffraction grating spectrometers measure wavelengths,
so any shift of any spectral line in any observed
spectrum proves that wavelengths are Doppler shifted.

There is no way anybody can claim ignorance of the fact
that observations of shifts of spectral lines are
very frequent indeed.

So you know.

> I can do this one:
> http://www.kettering.edu/~drussell/Demos/doppler/doppler.html
> "Source moving with vsource < vsound ( Mach 0.7 )"
> But not this one:
> http://www.kettering.edu/~drussell/Demos/doppler/doppler.html
> "Stationary Sound Source"
> no matter how fast I run toward the source. All I get is frequency
> shift,
> the wavelength remains constant. That's what happens with light in
> a vacuum, tusselad.

Right.
That's what the emission theory predicts.
But wavelengths are Doppler shifted in the real world.
So that's one of the many falsifications of
emission theory.

Paul

Paul B. Andersen

unread,

Oct 6, 2005, 8:36:50 AM10/6/05

to

Androcles wrote:
> "Jerry" <Cephalobu...@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:1128495977....@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
> | Androcles wrote:
> |
> | > Why are you trying to divert attention from the issue?
> | > You stated "wavelengths _are_ Doppler shifted in the real world".
> | > I've asked you to prove it.
> |
> | 1) Spectra from near versus distant galaxies are
> | differentially shifted by diffraction gratings.
>
> A proof of frequency shift when combined with the
> vector addition of velocities, an axiom.
> wavecrest count per second = \nu = (c+v)/ \lambda
> See Doppler.

Diffraction grating spectrometers measure the wavelength
of the light, and nothing else.
So when the same spectral line from two different objects
is measured to have two different wavelengths,
you do not have to assume anything about anything to
know that they are different.

The emission thery predicts that the wavelegth
of a specific spectral line should always be measured
to be the same.

The emission theory is falsified.

Paul

The Ghost In The Machine

unread,

Oct 6, 2005, 9:00:27 AM10/6/05

to

In sci.physics.relativity, Paul B. Andersen
<paul.b....@deletethishia.no>
wrote
on Wed, 05 Oct 2005 16:10:59 +0200
<di0mtj$goq$1...@dolly.uninett.no>:

I wouldn't doubt it; the main problem is that I can't use SR
to analyze it very well (non-inertial reference frame). I
suppose I could throw Dirk's "proper time" method at it and
see what I get; it's the best I can do without tensors.

Since Androcles has previously declared "he doesn't have
a theory", I'm kinda wondering about the inconsistency here. :-)
(I'd have to find his post.)

The page http://www.physicsinsights.org/sagnac_1.html might help
as well; the analysis does have the problem of not compensating
for internal cable reflections, though this is probably a very
minor artifact if the cable is thin enough.

>
> Paul

Androcles

unread,

Oct 6, 2005, 9:18:48 AM10/6/05

to

"Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b....@hia.no> wrote in message

news:1128602210.0...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...

Hmm... let's see. I know of two common ways to measure
length. One is direct comparison with a ruler, read off
the distance by looking at two points; the other is to roll
a wheel between two points as a car odometer does.
Which two points does a diffraction grating measure?

| So when the same spectral line from two different objects
| is measured to have two different wavelengths,
| you do not have to assume anything about anything to
| know that they are different.

The diffraction grating resembles the rolling wheel method,
since diffration gratings are not rulers and essentially stationary.
This is best simulated by rolling mills that measure the
length of wire or strip by turning as the wire or strip
passes a stationary point. We can of course place
markers on the strip to represent "wavelength" as
they do in the newspaper industry before the paper is
cut. Strangely, each newspaper is the same size as the
operator changes the speed of the printing press.

Because newspapers come out different sizes although
the speed of the paper strip is c in all printing frames
of reference, that must falsify emission theory.
Does newspapers-per-minute mean anything to you?

You do know you are a fuckwit, right?
Androcles.

Androcles

unread,

Oct 6, 2005, 9:31:30 AM10/6/05

to

"Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b....@hia.no> wrote in message

news:1128601352.9...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...

Yes, of course, tusselad. Newspapers come out a different size
as you change the speed of the printing press, right?
More newspapers per minute can't happen, can it, tusselad?

| There is no way anybody can claim ignorance of the fact
| that observations of shifts of spectral lines are
| very frequent indeed.

I'm sure you are right, tusselad, my newspaper was printed
at 1 per minute as the press started up and is 1500 feet long.

| So you know.

Yes, I do, tusselad.

Sure they are, you can measure length at one point only,
right, tusselad?
So you know, you are definitely a fuckwit.

Androcles.

Androcles

unread,

Oct 6, 2005, 9:43:31 AM10/6/05

to

"The Ghost In The Machine" <ew...@sirius.tg00suus7038.net> wrote in

message news:70if13-...@sirius.tg00suus7038.net...

The vector addition of velocities is no theory of mine, it's an axiom,
w =u+v.
Einstein had a pet theory that he could disregard the axiom and use
w = (u+v)/(1-uv/c^2)
instead, but he was a phuckwit.

| The page http://www.physicsinsights.org/sagnac_1.html might help
| as well; the analysis does have the problem of not compensating
| for internal cable reflections, though this is probably a very
| minor artifact if the cable is thin enough.

I'm sure that generators will give more electricity for the same
RPM if you switch over the magnet for the conductor...

Androcles.

The Ghost In The Machine

unread,

Oct 6, 2005, 11:00:07 PM10/6/05

to

In sci.physics.relativity, Androcles
<Andr...@MyPlace.org>
wrote

on Thu, 06 Oct 2005 13:43:31 GMT
<7S91f.70878$iW5....@fe3.news.blueyonder.co.uk>:

That's w = (u+v)/(1+uv/c^2) or
w' = (u-v)/(1-uv/c^2).

But you're right, that's not vector addition (or subtraction)
of velocities as such; it's a different problem.

>
> | The page http://www.physicsinsights.org/sagnac_1.html might help
> | as well; the analysis does have the problem of not compensating
> | for internal cable reflections, though this is probably a very
> | minor artifact if the cable is thin enough.
>
> I'm sure that generators will give more electricity for the same
> RPM if you switch over the magnet for the conductor...

Define "electricity". Are you referring to electrical energy,
electrical current, electrical voltage? Also, what precisely
do you mean by "switch over the magnet for the conductor"?
Where is the switch from and where to?

>
> Androcles.

Androcles

unread,

Oct 7, 2005, 8:03:31 AM10/7/05

to

"The Ghost In The Machine" <ew...@sirius.tg00suus7038.net> wrote in

message news:bo0h13-...@sirius.tg00suus7038.net...

The problem I'm addressing is that some people expect me to have
a theory. I don't. I have a few hypotheses, but nothing I'd call a
theory.
The vector addition of velocities and the PoR says the wavelength
of light in a vacuum is invariant. The simple analogy is the newspaper
printing press, which turns out newspapers of the same length
regardless of the speed the paper goes through the press.
The emission frequency of light is invariant, the wavelength is
invariant,
the observed frequency is NOT invariant, it is a function of the
relative
motion of the observer and the source. Diffraction gratings do
NOT measure wavelength, they measure observed frequency.

| >
| > | The page http://www.physicsinsights.org/sagnac_1.html might help
| > | as well; the analysis does have the problem of not compensating
| > | for internal cable reflections, though this is probably a very
| > | minor artifact if the cable is thin enough.
| >
| > I'm sure that generators will give more electricity for the same
| > RPM if you switch over the magnet for the conductor...
|
| Define "electricity".

NO! I deliberately chose that word to be deliberately vague, as you
did with your "probably a minor artifact".
Define "probably", define "minor", define "artifact" or "artefact".

Sagnac still works with two mirrors.

S --* M1
|
|
*

M2

M1 --* D
^
| *
| |
| |
S------>M2

D*------M2
*
|
|
|
M1 S

Light leaves S, arrives at D, speed of light c.

Light leaves TOP LEFT, arrives at TOP LEFT, speed of light 2c one way,
zero
the other.
Sal the crackpot doesn't understand the PoR.

[rest snipped]

Androcles.

The Ghost In The Machine

unread,

Oct 7, 2005, 10:00:12 AM10/7/05

to

In sci.physics.relativity, Androcles
<Andr...@MyPlace.org>
wrote

on Fri, 07 Oct 2005 12:03:31 GMT
<nut1f.59502$VI6....@fe1.news.blueyonder.co.uk>:

I take it these are your hypotheses, then. Can you express them
mathematically?

>
>
> | >
> | > | The page http://www.physicsinsights.org/sagnac_1.html might help
> | > | as well; the analysis does have the problem of not compensating
> | > | for internal cable reflections, though this is probably a very
> | > | minor artifact if the cable is thin enough.
> | >
> | > I'm sure that generators will give more electricity for the same
> | > RPM if you switch over the magnet for the conductor...
> |
> | Define "electricity".
>
> NO! I deliberately chose that word to be deliberately vague, as you
> did with your "probably a minor artifact".
> Define "probably", define "minor", define "artifact" or "artefact".
>
> Sagnac still works with two mirrors.

I would use three, one half-silvered, in the standard
MMX configuration. The half-silvered mirror is at the
rotational apex, and the other two, along with light source
and interferometer, are in their usual places.

However, your system works to some extent, though I'd have
to research interferometers. I'm not aware of one that
has two inputs 90 degrees from each other... :-)

>
> S --* M1
> |
> |
> *
>
> M2
>
> M1 --* D
> ^
> | *
> | |
> | |
> S------>M2
>
> D*------M2
> *
> |
> |
> |
> M1 S
>
> Light leaves S, arrives at D, speed of light c.
>
> Light leaves TOP LEFT, arrives at TOP LEFT, speed of light 2c one way,
> zero
> the other.
> Sal the crackpot doesn't understand the PoR.

OK. What, precisely, did you want explained in SR/GTR?
The delta (showing up as a fringe shift) will occur in
both BaT and SR/GTR.

>
> [rest snipped]

Androcles

unread,

Oct 7, 2005, 10:16:20 AM10/7/05

to

"The Ghost In The Machine" <ew...@sirius.tg00suus7038.net> wrote in

message news:i4bi13...@sirius.tg00suus7038.net...

There you go, jumping to conclusions.
One of hypotheses is that you are a phuckwit. I'm letting you prove
or disprove it.

| Can you express them mathematically?

IF (Ghost = "a phuckwit")
THEN (Ghost will jump to conclusions)

|
| >
| >
| > | >
| > | > | The page http://www.physicsinsights.org/sagnac_1.html might
help
| > | > | as well; the analysis does have the problem of not
compensating
| > | > | for internal cable reflections, though this is probably a very
| > | > | minor artifact if the cable is thin enough.
| > | >
| > | > I'm sure that generators will give more electricity for the same
| > | > RPM if you switch over the magnet for the conductor...
| > |
| > | Define "electricity".
| >
| > NO! I deliberately chose that word to be deliberately vague, as you
| > did with your "probably a minor artifact".
| > Define "probably", define "minor", define "artifact" or "artefact".
| >
| > Sagnac still works with two mirrors.
|
| I would use three, one half-silvered, in the standard
| MMX configuration.

That's up to you.

Define "probably", define "minor", define "artifact" or "artefact".

[rest snipped]
Androcles.

The Ghost In The Machine

unread,

Oct 8, 2005, 1:00:06 AM10/8/05

to

In sci.physics.relativity, Androcles
<Andr...@MyPlace.org>
wrote

on Fri, 07 Oct 2005 14:16:20 GMT
<Uqv1f.79740$RW.5...@fe2.news.blueyonder.co.uk>:

Fine. What are your hypotheses, then? Or don't you want to
commit yourself at this time? Can't be too careful around here;
you might get lambasted by Uncle Al or something.

Not that it matters; I have no hypotheses of my own, either.
I'm not doing science here. I'm doing engineering. Basically,
I'm trying to use existing theories (SR among them) to predict
effects.

As it is, the above is a logical statement, yes. However, my
phuckwittery is probably not in the domain of physics. :-P

>
> |
> | >
> | >
> | > | >
> | > | > | The page http://www.physicsinsights.org/sagnac_1.html might
> help
> | > | > | as well; the analysis does have the problem of not
> compensating
> | > | > | for internal cable reflections, though this is probably a very
> | > | > | minor artifact if the cable is thin enough.
> | > | >
> | > | > I'm sure that generators will give more electricity for the same
> | > | > RPM if you switch over the magnet for the conductor...
> | > |
> | > | Define "electricity".
> | >
> | > NO! I deliberately chose that word to be deliberately vague, as you
> | > did with your "probably a minor artifact".
> | > Define "probably", define "minor", define "artifact" or "artefact".
> | >
> | > Sagnac still works with two mirrors.
> |
> | I would use three, one half-silvered, in the standard
> | MMX configuration.
>
> That's up to you.
> Define "probably", define "minor", define "artifact" or "artefact".
> [rest snipped]

Probably: not with certainty.
Minor: not major.
Art[ie]fact: An item that is not real.

In any event, I want to know what you want explained in
Sagnac. Not that it matters; Sagnac neither proves nor
disproves straight SR; one might be able to work with a
variant of SR, of course, using Dirk's methods. It might
illustrate GTR. I'd have to work out what it does to nBaT
(my strawman theory).

And of course I have no real Sagnac data, either. Some others might.

Androcles

unread,

Oct 8, 2005, 4:51:16 AM10/8/05

to

"The Ghost In The Machine" <ew...@sirius.tg00suus7038.net> wrote in

message news:lotj13-...@sirius.tg00suus7038.net...

Of what?

| Or don't you want to commit yourself at this time?

I've already stated my views in other posts.

| Can't be too careful around here;
| you might get lambasted by Uncle Al or something.

Schwartz is a phuckwit, he doesn't bother me.

What you want is a mathematical analysis of the diffraction
grating, which the phuckwit Andersen says only measures
wavelength.
Standard texts will tell you wavelength is d.sin(theta), d being
the spacing on the comb.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diffraction
This isn't something special that only applies to light, it applies
to water waves as well, and is dependent on the Galilean RELATIVE
velocity of the wave and the comb.
By moving the comb along the water tank, thereby changing
the relative velocity of the wave wrt the comb, you change the
angle of diffraction. Common sense tells you this doesn't change
the wavelength, only the frequency. Therefore diffraction
gratings do not measure wavelength, they show an angle such
that theta = arcsin((c+v)/f'.d) where
f is the emitted freqency.
f' is the OBSERVED frequency (see Doppler)
c is the emission velocity of the wave,
v is the velocity of the comb relative to the source,
d is the comb spacing.
If the value of c+v is known, you can calculate the wavelength.
If the emitted frequency is known you can calculate c+v, the wavelength
is c/f.
Thus blue shift is proof of c+v for water waves, which is not a
"relativistic" velocity as the term is used when discussing Einstein's
crap, but is neverthless Galilean relativistic.

My hypothesis regarding redshift of distant galaxies is beyond
the scope of the present discussion, involving Planck's
E= hf' = h(c+v)/\lambda which I can address when you've
absorbed and understood diffraction and Sagnac; the
phuckwit trolls Andersen, Lawrence, moortel and similar ilk
will only confuse you with their textbook utterances and stupid
attempts to trip me up.

| Not that it matters; I have no hypotheses of my own, either.
| I'm not doing science here.

Ok, don't do science.

| I'm doing engineering. Basically,
| I'm trying to use existing theories (SR among them) to predict
| effects.

SR can't work, never has, never will. I've already explained why.
Maxwell's equations will work if you accept that they were
written by people that believed in aether, and will work in other
media as well. They fail when the permittivity and permeability
of aether vanishes with the aether, c = 1/sqrt(0*0) is undefined
and becomes source dependent.
w = u+v, not (u+v)/(1-vu/c^2), and c' = c+v, not (1+1)/(1+1/1)

| As it is, the above is a logical statement, yes. However, my
| phuckwittery is probably not in the domain of physics. :-P

Your choice. You asked me for explanation, I've given it.
Listen to reasoned mathematics or listen to phuckwits with
textbook answers.

I'm a crank, relativity must be right, because of these carefully
thought out and highly intelligent utterances:
1) "Androcles isn't paying any attention to what you are saying. He's
only calling you names and ignoring what you say."
2) "This is simply insane. You know practically zero about the subject
and yet you write... THIS?? Why even do you waste your time on this?"
3) "An error in Relativity "would be like Stephen Hawking dividing by
zero or something equally trivial."
4) "It's WAY too simple-minded."
5) "[Any error] would have been caught immediately by the AdP reviewer."
6) "Diffraction gratings only measure wavelength"
7) "Sagnac only works because relativity is correct".

A speck of dust under a microscope is an artefact. It is also real.
Time dilation is an artefact of symbol shuffling and an incorrect
definition of time. It is NOT real.

Artifact: something created by humans usually for a practical purpose
In general, artefacts are unwanted, caused by accident, artifacts are
deliberately created.

|
| In any event, I want to know what you want explained in
| Sagnac.

Then there is little point in discussing physics with you.
If you are unable to understand the PoR and only wish
to play the troll I'll quickly remedy that. Learn bullshit from
the phuckwits instead.
Androcles.

Not that it matters; Sagnac neither proves nor
| disproves straight SR; one might be able to work with a
| variant of SR, of course, using Dirk's methods.

Dinky is the ultimate phuckwit troll, worse than Andersen.

It might
| illustrate GTR. I'd have to work out what it does to nBaT
| (my strawman theory).
|
| And of course I have no real Sagnac data, either. Some others might.

Learn it from Dinky.
Androcles.

Sue...

unread,

Oct 8, 2005, 8:02:09 AM10/8/05

to

You see...
real ammeters lie when you try to measure the current of
the magnetic monopoles at the ends of an EM coupling
structure. So Androcles has invented the single terminal
ammeter. It has an adjustment screw you turn to make
its indication match his double-star theory.

Another invention is the photon-phone. When interferometers
show a coherence unexplainable by corpuscular propagation
models, the phones are installed between crucial points
on the path. That opens the possibility of a conspiricy
theory.
...And nobody doubts that conspiracy theories are faster
than light. :o)

Sue...

Androcles

unread,

Oct 8, 2005, 8:55:31 AM10/8/05

to

"Sue..." <suzyse...@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
news:1128772929.2...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...

| You see...
| real ammeters lie when you try to measure the current of
| the magnetic monopoles at the ends of an EM coupling
| structure. So Androcles has invented the single terminal
| ammeter. It has an adjustment screw you turn to make
| its indication match his double-star theory.
|
| Another invention is the photon-phone. When interferometers
| show a coherence unexplainable by corpuscular propagation
| models, the phones are installed between crucial points
| on the path. That opens the possibility of a conspiricy
| theory.
| ...And nobody doubts that conspiracy theories are faster
| than light. :o)

The E-fields of four photons in a train as you travel alongside them:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/8/8c/Standing_wave.gif
The B-fields of four photons in a train as you travel alongside them:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/8/8c/Standing_wave.gif
The combination B-field and E-field at right-angles:
http://campus.umr.edu/physics/alab/polar/circular_wave.gif
What happens when the photons hit the slits:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/4/46/Diffraction2vs5.jpg
Why it happens:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/9/9e/Doubleslitdiffraction.png

The conspiracy to murder physics is underway by a group of phuckwits
hell bent on spreading lies initiated by Einstein, and includes a
second group of conspirators hell bent on promoting Maxwell's
aether as an alternative to anyone sensible enough to reject the
phuckwittery of Einstein, replacing one form of phuckwittery with
another, older version. This secondary group make assinine comments
about ammeters telling lies.
Androcles.

Sue...

unread,

Oct 8, 2005, 10:10:12 AM10/8/05

to

Androcles wrote:
> "Sue..." <suzyse...@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
> news:1128772929.2...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
>
> | You see...
> | real ammeters lie when you try to measure the current of
> | the magnetic monopoles at the ends of an EM coupling
> | structure. So Androcles has invented the single terminal
> | ammeter. It has an adjustment screw you turn to make
> | its indication match his double-star theory.
> |
> | Another invention is the photon-phone. When interferometers
> | show a coherence unexplainable by corpuscular propagation
> | models, the phones are installed between crucial points
> | on the path. That opens the possibility of a conspiricy
> | theory.
> | ...And nobody doubts that conspiracy theories are faster
> | than light. :o)
>
> The E-fields of four photons in a train as you travel alongside them:
> http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/8/8c/Standing_wave.gif
> The B-fields of four photons in a train as you travel alongside them:
> http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/8/8c/Standing_wave.gif

OK those the same URLs.
Which brings your delusions somewhat more in line with
those party-hardy frat-fumblers in New England:
http://web.mit.edu/8.02t/www/802TEAL3D/visualizations/light/Thumbnails/eblightthumb.jpg
from:
http://web.mit.edu/8.02t/www/802TEAL3D/visualizations/light/index.htm

> The combination B-field and E-field at right-angles:

They are at right angles by definition.
> http://campus.umr.edu/physics/alab/polar/circular_wave.gif
Yes... E plane only tho. Unless you want to give up the three
points you just scored.

> What happens when the photons hit the slits:

Ahhem! HIT the slits? Such violent language!
I perfer the term 'interact'.
http://www.ph.unimelb.edu.au/~ssk/fresnel/edge.html

http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/Half-InfiniteScreenDiffraction.html

Not exactly Eric W. Weisstein's ballywick Eh?

> http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/4/46/Diffraction2vs5.jpg
> Why it happens:
> http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/9/9e/Doubleslitdiffraction.png

Looks good to me. :o)

The 'slit' exist in you corpuscular mind. The patterns
are the sum of four knive edge radiators. You may know
some armchair nanofabricators that can tell you different
but the proof seem to be in the pudding.
http://dsa.dimes.tudelft.nl/usage/techno_intro/Introduction_technology.htm

>
> The conspiracy to murder physics is underway by a group of phuckwits
> hell bent on spreading lies initiated by Einstein, and includes a
> second group of conspirators hell bent on promoting Maxwell's
> aether as an alternative to anyone sensible enough to reject the
> phuckwittery of Einstein, replacing one form of phuckwittery with
> another, older version. This secondary group make assinine comments
> about ammeters telling lies.

Charges have long arms. You can call 'em ethanol if
you like but don't claim they don't exist unless you're
prepared to demonstrate a comb and pithball experiment failing.

Sue...

> Androcles.

Androcles

unread,

Oct 8, 2005, 1:37:25 PM10/8/05

to

"Sue..." <suzyse...@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message

news:1128780612.1...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

|
| Androcles wrote:
| > "Sue..." <suzyse...@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
| > news:1128772929.2...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
| >
| > | You see...
| > | real ammeters lie when you try to measure the current of
| > | the magnetic monopoles at the ends of an EM coupling
| > | structure. So Androcles has invented the single terminal
| > | ammeter. It has an adjustment screw you turn to make
| > | its indication match his double-star theory.
| > |
| > | Another invention is the photon-phone. When interferometers
| > | show a coherence unexplainable by corpuscular propagation
| > | models, the phones are installed between crucial points
| > | on the path. That opens the possibility of a conspiricy
| > | theory.
| > | ...And nobody doubts that conspiracy theories are faster
| > | than light. :o)
| >
| > The E-fields of four photons in a train as you travel alongside
them:
| > http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/8/8c/Standing_wave.gif
| > The B-fields of four photons in a train as you travel alongside
them:
| > http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/8/8c/Standing_wave.gif
|
| OK those the same URLs.

NAH nana NAH na! Gotcha! :o)

| Which brings your delusions somewhat more in line with
| those party-hardy frat-fumblers in New England:
|
http://web.mit.edu/8.02t/www/802TEAL3D/visualizations/light/Thumbnails/eblightthumb.jpg
| from:
| http://web.mit.edu/8.02t/www/802TEAL3D/visualizations/light/index.htm

Fart-fumblers is right. Gotta be 90 degree phase shift in TIME as well
as being 90 degrees to each other. Can't plot both position zero
(potential energy) and velocity zero (kinetic energy) at the SAME TIME
in this picture, the wave of which is ONLY in time.
http://www.kettering.edu/~drussell/Demos/SHO/damp.html

|
| > The combination B-field and E-field at right-angles:
| They are at right angles by definition.
| > http://campus.umr.edu/physics/alab/polar/circular_wave.gif

| Yes... E plane only tho. Unless you want to give up the three
| points you just scored.

Nope. The fart fumblers only got the phase wrong.

| > What happens when the photons hit the slits:
| Ahhem! HIT the slits? Such violent language!
| I perfer the term 'interact'.

Tut tut...dear-oh-dear, such sexual overtones...
Next you'll want the photons to penetrate the slits and make baby
photons.

| http://www.ph.unimelb.edu.au/~ssk/fresnel/edge.html

Hmmm... Curly piggy wiggles... nice, I guess. Might interest Gaasenbeek.
I see no significance though, each of my four photons are discrete, I
didn't
have a picture of one photon to ride alongside.

|
|
http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/Half-InfiniteScreenDiffraction.html
|
| Not exactly Eric W. Weisstein's ballywick Eh?

Who? Never heard of any white stone called Eric.

|
| > http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/4/46/Diffraction2vs5.jpg
| > Why it happens:
| >
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/9/9e/Doubleslitdiffraction.png
|
| Looks good to me. :o)
|
| The 'slit' exist in you corpuscular mind.

Yeah... I've got this strange concept of corpuscular atoms emitting
energy
quanta, can't seem to shake it off and get them to play regular waves
properly like a good radio should, the quanta arrive sorta higgly piggly
wiggly.
Maybe if I had some aether I could get them to behave and march in line
but Michelson and Morley raided the aether cupbord and used up the
entire universe's supply, so they are more like a mob coming out if a
London
tube station at tea time than the Coldstream Guards. No discipline, it's
terrible.

| The patterns
| are the sum of four knive edge radiators. You may know
| some armchair nanofabricators that can tell you different
| but the proof seem to be in the pudding.
|
http://dsa.dimes.tudelft.nl/usage/techno_intro/Introduction_technology.htm
|

Yeah, that's what I mean. Corporate corpses confounding Coldstream
corporals.
http://www.army.mod.uk/img/CGB_Buck_Palace.jpg
Bet you can't diffract that lot with your black puddings.

|
| >
| > The conspiracy to murder physics is underway by a group of phuckwits
| > hell bent on spreading lies initiated by Einstein, and includes a
| > second group of conspirators hell bent on promoting Maxwell's
| > aether as an alternative to anyone sensible enough to reject the
| > phuckwittery of Einstein, replacing one form of phuckwittery with
| > another, older version. This secondary group make assinine comments
| > about ammeters telling lies.
|
| Charges have long arms. You can call 'em ethanol if
| you like but don't claim they don't exist unless you're
| prepared to demonstrate a comb and pithball experiment failing.
|

I can never get them to work.
I have 1 eV electrons, not 511,000 eV electrons.
I was robbed.
Androcles.

Sue...

unread,

Oct 8, 2005, 2:30:12 PM10/8/05

to

Again... :-(
You are interchanging field intensity for spatial displacement
where none exist. You are making argument against a mechanical
medium, then offering diagrams to show us how it moves. :-/

>
> |
> | > The combination B-field and E-field at right-angles:
> | They are at right angles by definition.
> | > http://campus.umr.edu/physics/alab/polar/circular_wave.gif
>
> | Yes... E plane only tho. Unless you want to give up the three
> | points you just scored.
>
> Nope. The fart fumblers only got the phase wrong.
>
>
> | > What happens when the photons hit the slits:
> | Ahhem! HIT the slits? Such violent language!
> | I perfer the term 'interact'.
>
> Tut tut...dear-oh-dear, such sexual overtones...
> Next you'll want the photons to penetrate the slits and make baby
> photons.
>
> | http://www.ph.unimelb.edu.au/~ssk/fresnel/edge.html
>
> Hmmm... Curly piggy wiggles... nice, I guess. Might interest Gaasenbeek.
> I see no significance though, each of my four photons are discrete, I
> didn't
> have a picture of one photon to ride alongside.

Is there a conspiracy of atoms in the works on
your double-stars to launch 8 rather than 4 synchronized
corpuscles toward our planet, just in case VLTI adds
four more mirrors? ;-)

>
> |
> |
> http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/Half-InfiniteScreenDiffraction.html
> |
> | Not exactly Eric W. Weisstein's ballywick Eh?
>
> Who? Never heard of any white stone called Eric.
> |
> | > http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/4/46/Diffraction2vs5.jpg
> | > Why it happens:
> | >
> http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/9/9e/Doubleslitdiffraction.png
> |
> | Looks good to me. :o)
> |
> | The 'slit' exist in you corpuscular mind.
>
> Yeah... I've got this strange concept of corpuscular atoms emitting
> energy
> quanta, can't seem to shake it off and get them to play regular waves
> properly like a good radio should, the quanta arrive sorta higgly piggly
> wiggly.

Here is how humankind tries to mimic nature:
http://www.nicomusa.com/specials/LPFMOf1.jpg
http://www.nicomusa.com/specials/LPFMOf4.jpg

> Maybe if I had some aether I could get them to behave and march in line
> but Michelson and Morley raided the aether cupbord and used up the
> entire universe's supply, so they are more like a mob coming out if a
> London
> tube station at tea time than the Coldstream Guards. No discipline, it's
> terrible.
>
>
> | The patterns
> | are the sum of four knive edge radiators. You may know
> | some armchair nanofabricators that can tell you different
> | but the proof seem to be in the pudding.
> |
> http://dsa.dimes.tudelft.nl/usage/techno_intro/Introduction_technology.htm
> |
> Yeah, that's what I mean. Corporate corpses confounding Coldstream
> corporals.
> http://www.army.mod.uk/img/CGB_Buck_Palace.jpg
> Bet you can't diffract that lot with your black puddings.

Send some to the U.S. for 'Prince George'.
He would like that. ;-)

> |
> | >
> | > The conspiracy to murder physics is underway by a group of phuckwits
> | > hell bent on spreading lies initiated by Einstein, and includes a
> | > second group of conspirators hell bent on promoting Maxwell's
> | > aether as an alternative to anyone sensible enough to reject the
> | > phuckwittery of Einstein, replacing one form of phuckwittery with
> | > another, older version. This secondary group make assinine comments
> | > about ammeters telling lies.
> |
> | Charges have long arms. You can call 'em ethanol if
> | you like but don't claim they don't exist unless you're
> | prepared to demonstrate a comb and pithball experiment failing.
> |
> I can never get them to work.
> I have 1 eV electrons, not 511,000 eV electrons.
> I was robbed.

You need a double headed PET scanner to see them.
http://www.ananova.com/images/news/twoheadedsnakeAP344x500.jpg

Sue...
> Androcles.

Androcles

unread,

Oct 8, 2005, 5:02:58 PM10/8/05

to

"Sue..." <suzyse...@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message

news:1128796212.7...@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

Nonsense. I can put an iron bar 6 inches from a wrecking yard
magnet on a crane, crank the voltage up and make the bar jump
onto the magnet. Field intensity is proportional to spatial
displacement.

| You are making argument against a mechanical
| medium, then offering diagrams to show us how it moves. :-/

I'm showing a wave in TIME with that demo. If you want a wave
in the x-axis, move it across the screen or drive your car.
The two waves, one the t-axis and one on the x-axis are quite
independent. Same is true for a photon.

| > |
| > | > The combination B-field and E-field at right-angles:
| > | They are at right angles by definition.
| > | > http://campus.umr.edu/physics/alab/polar/circular_wave.gif
| >
| > | Yes... E plane only tho. Unless you want to give up the three
| > | points you just scored.
| >
| > Nope. The fart fumblers only got the phase wrong.
| >
| >
| > | > What happens when the photons hit the slits:
| > | Ahhem! HIT the slits? Such violent language!
| > | I perfer the term 'interact'.
| >
| > Tut tut...dear-oh-dear, such sexual overtones...
| > Next you'll want the photons to penetrate the slits and make baby
| > photons.
| >
| > | http://www.ph.unimelb.edu.au/~ssk/fresnel/edge.html
| >
| > Hmmm... Curly piggy wiggles... nice, I guess. Might interest
Gaasenbeek.
| > I see no significance though, each of my four photons are discrete,
I
| > didn't
| > have a picture of one photon to ride alongside.
|
| Is there a conspiracy of atoms in the works on
| your double-stars to launch 8 rather than 4 synchronized
| corpuscles toward our planet, just in case VLTI adds
| four more mirrors? ;-)

Were you born silly or was it acquired?

| >
| > |
| > |
| >
http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/Half-InfiniteScreenDiffraction.html
| > |
| > | Not exactly Eric W. Weisstein's ballywick Eh?
| >
| > Who? Never heard of any white stone called Eric.
| > |
| > | >
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/4/46/Diffraction2vs5.jpg
| > | > Why it happens:
| > | >
| >
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/9/9e/Doubleslitdiffraction.png
| > |
| > | Looks good to me. :o)
| > |
| > | The 'slit' exist in you corpuscular mind.
| >
| > Yeah... I've got this strange concept of corpuscular atoms emitting
| > energy
| > quanta, can't seem to shake it off and get them to play regular
waves
| > properly like a good radio should, the quanta arrive sorta higgly
piggly
| > wiggly.
| Here is how humankind tries to mimic nature:
| http://www.nicomusa.com/specials/LPFMOf1.jpg
| http://www.nicomusa.com/specials/LPFMOf4.jpg

So what? <shrug>

You've got black pudding?

Sue...

unread,

Oct 8, 2005, 5:26:51 PM10/8/05

to

If you are trying to make a case for corpuscular light
with a wrecking magnet... I have never seen one glow
or heard one a radio receiver.

If you are trying to justify why o'scope traces go up and
down instead of brighter and dimmer with the ole' wrecking
magnet analogy... I would suggest you move any scopes within
your reach, to a wrecking yard,
...so they will feel useful. :o)

Sue...

Androcles

unread,

Oct 9, 2005, 7:06:28 AM10/9/05

to

"Sue..." <suzyse...@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message

news:1128806811.9...@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

Perhaps you don't have an AM radio or haven't visited a
scrapyard.
Androcles.

bz

unread,

Oct 9, 2005, 10:56:56 AM10/9/05

to

"Jerry" <Cephalobu...@comcast.net> wrote in
news:1128521400.2...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com:

Run experiments in a wave tank using different density liquids in the tank.

The velocity of the waves will vary with the density.

Vary the emitters frequency to maintain the same wavelength.

One will quickly see that the diffraction grating's angle of diffraction
depends ONLY on the wavelength, as predicted by the formula.

One can even use a moving source and verify that the angle depends the
wavelength of the signal that reaches the grating, not the emitted signal's
wavelength.

This, of course, does not PROVE that light would behave the same way,
because waves in a tank are not photons, but it is a strong indication that
diffraction depends only on wavelength.

Science can never PROVE anything, but it can disprove things. The wavetank
experiments DISPROVE the theory that a grating is frequency sensitive
instead of wavelength sensitive.

Also, radio signals from orbiting satelites are doppler shifted in both
frequency and wavelength, as anyone with a receiver and a good synthetic
apperture directional antenna could observe.

A synthetic apperature antenna can be thought of as an adjustable grating
used as a lense to focus a particular wavelength on the detector.

An antenna's directional characteristics are dependent on the wavelength of
the signal.

As the wavelength of the incoming signal varies it would be necessary to
adjust the antenna's characteristics to maintain the directional
characteristics of the antenna.

In fact, synthetic apperature radar provides high resolution images of
things and doppler shift is one of the parameters it must take into
account.

If the doppler shift changed frequency but not wavelength, then the whole
process would be different and someone would have noticed by now.

http://www.sandia.gov/RADAR/whatis.html gives a brief explanation of one
kind of synthetic apperature radar where the large antenna needed for high
resolution is simulated by the motion of the aircraft.

--
bz

please pardon my infinite ignorance, the set-of-things-I-do-not-know is an
infinite set.

bz...@ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu remove ch100-5 to avoid spam trap

Paul B. Andersen

unread,

Oct 11, 2005, 7:49:42 AM10/11/05

to

Androcles wrote:
> "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b....@hia.no> wrote in message
> news:1128602210.0...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> | Androcles wrote:
> | > "Jerry" <Cephalobu...@comcast.net> wrote in message
> | > news:1128495977....@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
> | > | Androcles wrote:
> | > |
> | > | > Why are you trying to divert attention from the issue?
> | > | > You stated "wavelengths _are_ Doppler shifted in the real
> world".
> | > | > I've asked you to prove it.
> | > |
> | > | 1) Spectra from near versus distant galaxies are
> | > | differentially shifted by diffraction gratings.
> | >
> | > A proof of frequency shift when combined with the
> | > vector addition of velocities, an axiom.
> | > wavecrest count per second = \nu = (c+v)/ \lambda
> | > See Doppler.
> |
> | Diffraction grating spectrometers measure the wavelength
> | of the light, and nothing else.
>
> Hmm... let's see. I know of two common ways to measure
> length. One is direct comparison with a ruler, read off
> the distance by looking at two points; the other is to roll
> a wheel between two points as a car odometer does.
> Which two points does a diffraction grating measure?

It's simple geometry.
lambda = d sin(theta)

http://www.ccmr.cornell.edu/education/modules/documents/BuildingaSpectroscope.pdf

> | So when the same spectral line from two different objects
> | is measured to have two different wavelengths,
> | you do not have to assume anything about anything to
> | know that they are different.
>
> The diffraction grating resembles the rolling wheel method,
> since diffration gratings are not rulers and essentially stationary.
> This is best simulated by rolling mills that measure the
> length of wire or strip by turning as the wire or strip
> passes a stationary point. We can of course place
> markers on the strip to represent "wavelength" as
> they do in the newspaper industry before the paper is
> cut. Strangely, each newspaper is the same size as the
> operator changes the speed of the printing press.

You are raving.

> |
> | The emission thery predicts that the wavelegth
> | of a specific spectral line should always be measured
> | to be the same.
> |
> | The emission theory is falsified.
>
> Because newspapers come out different sizes although
> the speed of the paper strip is c in all printing frames
> of reference, that must falsify emission theory.
> Does newspapers-per-minute mean anything to you?
>
> You do know you are a fuckwit, right?

Sure.
I also know that wavelengths are Doppler shifted
in the real world, which falsifies the emission theory.

Paul

Androcles

unread,

Oct 11, 2005, 10:31:49 AM10/11/05

to

"Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b....@deletethishia.no> wrote in message
news:dig8t7$agi$1...@dolly.uninett.no...

Then prove your claim.
Androcles.

Paul B. Andersen

unread,

Oct 11, 2005, 10:37:43 AM10/11/05

to

Androcles wrote:
> What you want is a mathematical analysis of the diffraction
> grating, which the phuckwit Andersen says only measures
> wavelength.
> Standard texts will tell you wavelength is d.sin(theta), d being
> the spacing on the comb.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diffraction
> This isn't something special that only applies to light, it applies
> to water waves as well, and is dependent on the Galilean RELATIVE
> velocity of the wave and the comb.
> By moving the comb along the water tank, thereby changing
> the relative velocity of the wave wrt the comb, you change the
> angle of diffraction.

No, you don't.

> Common sense tells you this doesn't change
> the wavelength, only the frequency. Therefore diffraction
> gratings do not measure wavelength, they show an angle such
> that theta = arcsin((c+v)/f'.d) where
> f is the emitted freqency.
> f' is the OBSERVED frequency (see Doppler)
> c is the emission velocity of the wave,
> v is the velocity of the comb relative to the source,
> d is the comb spacing.

f' = f(c+v)/c
(c+v)/f' = c/f = lambda
theta = arcsin((c+v)/f'.d) = arcsin(lambda/d)
lambda = d sin(theta)

> If the value of c+v is known, you can calculate the wavelength.

As you can see from your own equation, theta depend only on
the wavelength, not on the speed.

Paul

Androcles

unread,

Oct 11, 2005, 11:44:39 AM10/11/05

to

"Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b....@hia.no> wrote in message

news:1129041463.2...@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

|
| Androcles wrote:
| > What you want is a mathematical analysis of the diffraction
| > grating, which the phuckwit Andersen says only measures
| > wavelength.
| > Standard texts will tell you wavelength is d.sin(theta), d being
| > the spacing on the comb.
| > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diffraction
| > This isn't something special that only applies to light, it applies
| > to water waves as well, and is dependent on the Galilean RELATIVE
| > velocity of the wave and the comb.
| > By moving the comb along the water tank, thereby changing
| > the relative velocity of the wave wrt the comb, you change the
| > angle of diffraction.
|
| No, you don't.

Yes you do.
Androcles.

Paul B. Andersen

unread,

Oct 11, 2005, 4:31:39 PM10/11/05

to

I note with interest that you snipped the part
of the posting where YOU showed that the angle does
not change with the speed of the comb.

But (c+v)/f' does NOT depend on v because:

Doppler: f' = f(c+v)/c
So: (c+v)/f' = c/f = lambda
Thus: theta = arcsin((c+v)/f'.d) = arcsin(lambda/d)

lambda = d sin(theta) independent of v

Don't you agree with yourself, Androcles? :-)

Paul

Androcles

unread,

Oct 11, 2005, 5:46:33 PM10/11/05

to

"Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b....@hia.no> wrote in message

news:1129062699.0...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

Silly phuckwit tusselad, the angle changes with the observed frequency,
theta = arcsin((c+v)/f'.d)
and the observed frequency changes with the speed of the comb.
There's no change in the wavelength.
See Professor Doppler.
Androcles.

Paul B. Andersen

unread,

Oct 12, 2005, 5:24:02 PM10/12/05

to

So you had to snip it again?

Here it is:
theta = arcsin((c+v)/f'.d)

(C+v)/f' does NOT change with the speed of the comb,

because:
Doppler: f' = f(c+v)/c
So: (c+v)/f' = c/f = lambda
Thus: theta = arcsin((c+v)/f'.d) = arcsin(lambda/d)

YOUR equation show that theta doesn't change with

the speed of the comb.

You have proven yourself wrong, and the proof
won't go away even if you snip it.

Paul

Androcles

unread,

Oct 12, 2005, 8:28:34 PM10/12/05

to

"Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b....@deletethishia.no> wrote in message
news:dijutk$cl4$1...@dolly.uninett.no...

Thank you, tusselad. You've just proved \lambda does not change.
Well done, that's what I told you.

| Thus: theta = arcsin((c+v)/f'.d) = arcsin(lambda/d)

|
| YOUR equation show that theta doesn't change with
| the speed of the comb.

Confused between theta and lambda, tusselad?

theta = arcsin(c/f.d)... no lambda there.
theta' = arcsin((c+v)/f'.d)... no lambda there either.

theta has changed to theta'.
Speed has changed from c to c+v.
As a by-product, f has changed to f'.
However,
arcsin(c/f.d) =arcsin((c+v)/f'.d) = arcsin(lambda/d)
and lambda is constant.

This isn't SR, tusselad, this happens with water waves.

| You have proven yourself wrong, and the proof
| won't go away even if you snip it.

I don't want the proof to go away, tusselad. It stands out as
a shining example of your stupidity. I want you to go away.
I'm not going to snip it, I'm going to copy it to my desktop
in case I ever forget how stupid you really are.

Androcles:

By moving the comb along the water tank, thereby changing
the relative velocity of the wave wrt the comb, you change the
angle of diffraction.

Tusselad:
No, you don't.
Androcles:
Yes you do.

Randy Poe

unread,

Oct 13, 2005, 9:36:09 AM10/13/05

to

This is pretty funny, one of your best. Do you write your own
material, or do you have a professional comedy writer on
staff?

Here's a little hint for you.

> theta = arcsin(c/f.d)... no lambda there.

Really? You forgot already that c/f is another way of
writing lambda?

> theta' = arcsin((c+v)/f'.d)... no lambda there either.

Really? You forgot already that (c+v)/f' is another way
of writing lambda?

If c/f = (c+v)/f', do you think theta and theta' can be
different?

- Randy

Paul B. Andersen

unread,

Oct 13, 2005, 10:27:51 AM10/13/05

to

The following is something of the best you ever have produced:

> theta = arcsin(c/f.d)... no lambda there.
> theta' = arcsin((c+v)/f'.d)... no lambda there either.
>
> theta has changed to theta'.
> Speed has changed from c to c+v.
> As a by-product, f has changed to f'.
> However,
> arcsin(c/f.d) =arcsin((c+v)/f'.d) = arcsin(lambda/d)
> and lambda is constant.

It leaves you breathless, doesn't it? :-)

>
> This isn't SR, tusselad, this happens with water waves.
> | You have proven yourself wrong, and the proof
> | won't go away even if you snip it.
>
> I don't want the proof to go away, tusselad. It stands out as
> a shining example of your stupidity. I want you to go away.
> I'm not going to snip it, I'm going to copy it to my desktop
> in case I ever forget how stupid you really are.
>
>
> Androcles:
> By moving the comb along the water tank, thereby changing
> the relative velocity of the wave wrt the comb, you change the
> angle of diffraction.
> Tusselad:
> No, you don't.
> Androcles:
> Yes you do.

Indeed.
As you so elegantly demonstrated above, it changes from:
theta = arcsin(c/f.d) = arcsin(lambda/d)
to

theta' = arcsin((c+v)/f'.d) = arcsin(lambda/d)

"and lambda is constant."

Well done. :-)

Paul

Androcles

unread,

Oct 13, 2005, 11:50:05 AM10/13/05

to

"Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b....@deletethishia.no> wrote in message

news:dilqt8$961$1...@dolly.uninett.no...

You ceased to make me breathless a long time ago, tusselad.

Thank you, but there was nothing to it, tusselad.
I always knew that newspapers didn't change size with the speed
of the press, but the frequency did.
Although I have never operated a newspaper press I was called
in to repair the electronics of one some 40 years ago.
A thyristor controlling the main motor had popped.
There is no substitute for practical experience.
Those that can, do.
Those that can't, teach.
Now be a good little phuckwit and fuck off, indeed, quite, prove me
wrong.
Androcles.