Diffraction Gratings Prove SR Wrong.
Henri Wilson
star that is moving towards Earth at v.
As we know, the light is diffracted at certain angles determined by an equation
that contains no light speed term. Relativists have used this fact in arguments
against the BaTh, claiming that a diffraction grating would not work at all if
the BaTh was correct.
The diffracted angles are indicators of doppler shift and are used to determine
v.
If now the grating is moved away at velocity v, so that it is at rest wrt the
star, the question arises as to why these angles should change to indicate zero
doppler shift. The light certainly hasn't been physically affected in any way
by the grating's movement and the angles are supposed to be 'wavelength
dependent' only.
This is just another proof that SR is nothing but a futile circular maths
theory which has no connection with the physical world.
www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm
Einstein's Relativity - the greatest HOAX since jesus christ's virgin mother.
Eric Gisse
> Consider a diffraction grating positioned perpendicular to light coming from a
> star that is moving towards Earth at v.
>
> As we know, the light is diffracted at certain angles determined by an equation
> that contains no light speed term. Relativists have used this fact in arguments
> against the BaTh, claiming that a diffraction grating would not work at all if
> the BaTh was correct.
>
> The diffracted angles are indicators of doppler shift and are used to determine
> v.
>
> If now the grating is moved away at velocity v, so that it is at rest wrt the
> star, the question arises as to why these angles should change to indicate zero
> doppler shift. The light certainly hasn't been physically affected in any way
> by the grating's movement and the angles are supposed to be 'wavelength
> dependent' only.
>
> This is just another proof that SR is nothing but a futile circular maths
> theory which has no connection with the physical world.
Ralph, nobody cares about the misunderstandings of an acknowledged
liar.
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/ForgedDegree.html
Bill Hobba
"Henri Wilson" <HW@....> wrote in message
news:0njf33lo1q5e9s6v0...@4ax.com...
> Consider a diffraction grating positioned perpendicular to light coming
> from a
> star that is moving towards Earth at v.
>
> As we know, the light is diffracted at certain angles determined by an
> equation
> that contains no light speed term. Relativists have used this fact in
> arguments
> against the BaTh, claiming that a diffraction grating would not work at
> all if
> the BaTh was correct.
>
> The diffracted angles are indicators of doppler shift and are used to
> determine
> v.
>
> If now the grating is moved away at velocity v, so that it is at rest wrt
> the
> star, the question arises as to why these angles should change to indicate
> zero
> doppler shift. The light certainly hasn't been physically affected in any
> way
> by the grating's movement and the angles are supposed to be 'wavelength
> dependent' only.
Of course not - but its interaction with the grating has.
Bill
karand...@yahoo.com
We all thought that the greates HOAX is your "diploma".
Tom Roberts
> [...]
This merely proves that Henry Wilson's personal MISUNDERSTANDINGS about
SR are wrong. <shrug>
Note that the angles are measured in the rest frame of the diffraction
grating, and the Doppler shift is determined by the relative velocity of
source and detector (here the diffraction grating). When you change that
relative velocity, the diffraction angles change. <shrug>
Tom Roberts
Jerry
> Consider a diffraction grating positioned perpendicular to light coming from a
> star that is moving towards Earth at v.
>
> As we know, the light is diffracted at certain angles determined by an equation
> that contains no light speed term. Relativists have used this fact in arguments
> against the BaTh, claiming that a diffraction grating would not work at all if
> the BaTh was correct.
>
> The diffracted angles are indicators of doppler shift and are used to determine
> v.
>
> If now the grating is moved away at velocity v, so that it is at rest wrt the
> star, the question arises as to why these angles should change to indicate zero
> doppler shift. The light certainly hasn't been physically affected in any way
> by the grating's movement and the angles are supposed to be 'wavelength
> dependent' only.
>
> This is just another proof that SR is nothing but a futile circular maths
> theory which has no connection with the physical world.
WAR IS PEACE
SAGNAC PROVES BATH
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
DIFFRACTION GRATINGS DISPROVE SR
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH
- from "2007", by George Henri Orwell Wilson
Jerry
Henri Wilson
wrote:
Are you suggesting that the movement of the grating somehow changes the
(absolute) wavelength of the light?....because gratings are sensitive only to
wavelength .....If IT doesn't change, how can the angles change?
>Tom Roberts
Henri Wilson
You don't like the fact that the BaTh is now a complete theory. Even cepheid
velocity curves are in the right phase.
...and anyone who has eric geese on side must be wrong,
>Jerry
Eric Gisse
> On Wed, 02 May 2007 01:22:07 GMT, Tom Roberts <tjroberts...@sbcglobal.net>
> wrote:
>
> >Henri Wilson wrote:
> >> [...]
>
> >This merely proves that Henry Wilson's personal MISUNDERSTANDINGS about
> >SR are wrong. <shrug>
>
> >Note that the angles are measured in the rest frame of the diffraction
> >grating, and the Doppler shift is determined by the relative velocity of
> >source and detector (here the diffraction grating). When you change that
> >relative velocity, the diffraction angles change. <shrug>
>
> Are you suggesting that the movement of the grating somehow changes the
> (absolute) wavelength of the light?....because gratings are sensitive only to
> wavelength .....If IT doesn't change, how can the angles change?
Doppler effect, Ralph.
Look it up.
kanuk
"Henri Wilson" <HW@....> wrote in message
news:0njf33lo1q5e9s6v0...@4ax.com...
"...an equation that contains no light speed term". However, it contains a
wavelength term. And wavelength is stated to be (I don't know, if I should
believe it) c /nu, where nu is frequency. Substitute into the diffraction
equation, and voila, a miracle happens, and light speed appears in the
diffraction equation. A proof, that miracles still do happen by the will of
God.
Jeckyl
> news:0njf33lo1q5e9s6v0...@4ax.com...
>> Consider a diffraction grating positioned perpendicular to light coming
>> from a star that is moving towards Earth at v.
ok
>> As we know, the light is diffracted at certain angles determined by an
>> equation that contains no light speed term. Relativists have used this
>> fact in arguments against the BaTh, claiming that a diffraction
>> grating would not work at all if the BaTh was correct.
Does BaTh even have wave-like properties for photons/light?
If so, why would it not work at all (and what dose that mean)? What is the
argument used there?
>> The diffracted angles are indicators of doppler shift and are used to
>> determine v.
>>
>> If now the grating is moved away at velocity v, so that it is at rest wrt
>> the star, the question arises as to why these angles should change to
>> indicate zero doppler shift.
Why wouldn't they? You should then get the same result in SR and BaTh as
the light would be travelling at c in both, and there would be no doppler
shift.
>> The light certainly hasn't been physically affected in any way by the
>> grating's movement and the angles are supposed to be
>> 'wavelength dependent' only.
But the wavelength is different, because the speed of the source relative to
the grate is different.
>> This is just another proof that SR is nothing but a futile circular maths
>> theory which has no connection with the physical world.
I don't see what you think you've shown here.
Androcles
"kanuk" <sper...@shaw.ca> wrote in message news:qBWZh.151941$DE1.53688@pd7urf2no...
Cars have frequency, roads have wavelength, bump to bump.
A car is a mass on a spring.
http://www.kettering.edu/~drussell/Demos/SHO/damp.html
>And wavelength is stated to be (I don't know, if I should
> believe it) c /nu, where nu is frequency.
An imaginary fixed path. Nothing moves in spacetime, least of
all wavelengths.
> Substitute into the diffraction
> equation, and voila, a miracle happens, and light speed appears in the
> diffraction equation. A proof, that miracles still do happen by the will of
> God.
>
What happens to a diffraction grating if you change the relative velocity?
Hint:
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/PoR/PoR.htm
Jerry
You have not shown any complete fits to multiband luminosity AND
radial velocity data to binary stars or Cepheids. You have not
fit orbiting pulsar data. You have not shown the ability to match
Shapiro delay. You have not shown any equations describing your
theory of diffraction grating behavior. All you have done is make
claims that you "can" fit the data.
Your record of accurate fits still stands at ZERO, and you have
no math to back you up. Your are fantasizing.
Jerry
Dirk Van de moortel
"Jerry" <Cephalobu...@comcast.net> wrote in message news:1178098758....@l77g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
*and* published programs that crash computers.
Dirk Vdm
Androcles
"Jerry" <Cephalobu...@comcast.net> wrote in message news:1178098758....@l77g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
kenseto
Although I agree with you that the wavelength of the incoming length
is not changed. But your arguement based on the Bath is wrong. The
correct arguement is that the speed of the incoming light is varying
due to relative velocity while the wavelength remains universal. The
resulting equation is:
c' = (universal wavelength for specfic light source)(detected incoming
frequency)
The correct equation for the grating is:
universal wavelength (nu) = [(detected frequency)/c'][sin(theta)]
karand...@yahoo.com
> Are you suggesting that the movement of the grating somehow changes the
> (absolute) wavelength of the light?....because gratings are sensitive only to
> wavelength
Ralph,
You and Ken Seto must have gotten your "diplomas" from the same
"university"
Tom Roberts
> On Wed, 02 May 2007 01:22:07 GMT, Tom Roberts <tjrobe...@sbcglobal.net>
> wrote:
>> Note that the angles are measured in the rest frame of the diffraction
>> grating, and the Doppler shift is determined by the relative velocity of
>> source and detector (here the diffraction grating). When you change that
>> relative velocity, the diffraction angles change. <shrug>
>
> Are you suggesting that the movement of the grating somehow changes the
> (absolute) wavelength of the light?
As I keep saying, you have grave MISCONCEPTIONS about very basic
physics. Which is all the more sad because you have wasted enormous
amounts of time posting nonsense to the net, when for a fraction of that
time spent studying you could have learned something -- physics is
INCREDIBLY interesting. Nobody ever learned anything while their mouth
was open.
Wavelength is NOT an intrinsic property of a light wave (neither is
frequency). These properties of a light wave depend upon how they are
measured; specifically: in which inertial frame they are measured. This
is what underlies the Doppler shift of both frequency and wavelength.
So your "(absolute)" is wrong. Yes, when you change the inertial frame
in which the grating is at rest, the diffraction angle will change,
because the grating responds to the wavelength of light in its rest
frame. Different inertial frame -- different wavelength of a given light
wave; this is a difference in measurement, not a "change" in any
intrinsic properties of the light.
Tom Roberts
The Ghost In The Machine
<HW@>
wrote
on Tue, 01 May 2007 23:51:14 GMT
<0njf33lo1q5e9s6v0...@4ax.com>:
Good morning, and welcome to Planet Newtonia. Today we have a light
source (A) moving away from the observer (O) at velocity v, and we want to
determine what happens.
As we have already noted:
x' = x-vt
t' = t
here in Planet Newtonia, and therefore two light impulses (two crests or
troughs of a wave) transform as follows:
(x,t): A => O
(0,0) => (0,0)
(L,0) => (L,0)
Clearly, wavelength is preserved.
This works regardless of time:
(0,t) => (-vt,t)
(L,t) => (L-vt,t)
L-vt-(-vt) = L again.
One can also look at the time delta.
(0,0) => (0,0)
(0,L/c) => (-vL/c,L/c)
Since the observer sees the light coming at velocity c-v, (0,0)
will take (L - vL/c) / (c-v) = L/c seconds for the first impulse
to reach (L,L/c).
Therefore, absent special considerations, wavelength is unaltered
here in Planet Newtonia, even if the source is moving at .999c
(which makes for some interesting observations here regarding
such phenomena as supernova).
Tomorrow, we'll be traveling to the gravityless planet of
Planet Einsteinia, where very strange things happen such as
time dilation. Until then...keep fit, keep traveling...
--
#191, ewi...@earthlink.net
Useless C++ Programming Idea #8830129:
std::set<...> v; for(..:iterator i = v.begin(); i != v.end(); i++)
if(*i == thing) {...}
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
karand...@yahoo.com
<e...@sirius.tg00suus7038.net> wrote:
> In sci.physics.relativity, HW@....(Henri Wilson)
> <HW@>
> wrote
> on Tue, 01 May 2007 23:51:14 GMT
>
> - Show quoted text -
:-) :-)
Eric Gisse
For entertainment, read back in the archive for the time when Henri
acknowledged Ralph's existence.
"They" have the same degrees [that were much different from the
degrees Henri forged, as well], "they" went to the same schools for
their undergraduate and graduate work, etc and etc.
I notice that Henri hasn't replied to a single post of mine, for a
long time now, where I point out his forged degrees or his being Ralph
Rabbidge.
karand...@yahoo.com
:-) :-)
The Ghost In The Machine
<karand...@yahoo.com>
wrote
on 2 May 2007 08:39:53 -0700
<1178120393.4...@e65g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>:
[snip for brevity]
>
>:-) :-)
>
Indeed. However, BaTh also includes a decay parameter of
unknown characteristics to slow down light going at c+v to
(eventually) c, and of course *speed up* light going at
c-v to (again) c. The wavelength from that speedup is not
clear, though one might make a case that one eventually
gets l/l0 = (1 - v/c). (A more logical case gets l/l0 =
(1 + v/c).)
For its part SR predicts l/l0 = sqrt(1-v/c)/sqrt(1+v/c);
the ratio of these two is of course our favorite gamma
factor.
Whether BaTh makes sense may have to be left up to the reader.
SR at least is logically consistent, and, more importantly,
consistent with our interpretation of many observations,
both here on Earth and in space.
And then there's the supernovae, which would look *very*
strange from Planet Newtonia. Whether Planet BaTh would
see similar effects is far from clear; the decay factor
mitigates the effect. It is clear that the decay factor
cannot operate over more than about a light-year, since
AFAIK most supernovae occur over a few weeks and the
outermost shell is estimated to be moving at a speed of
1/10 c.
5 weeks / (1/10) = 1 year, roughly speaking.
--
#191, ewi...@earthlink.net
Useless C++ Programming Idea #12995733:
bool f(bool g, bool h) { if(g) h = true; else h = false; return h;}
PD
I love it when you post things like this. It really helps to isolate
the source of misconceptions and incorrect understandings of fact. It
also points out how little you understand about SR. The reason why
this is useful is not so much you (you appear to be a hopeless cause),
but for the sake of others who will learn from your mistake. there is
an observer now (Nth Complexity) who wonders how SR can be right if
idiots like you so consistently fail to understand it.
But to the point at hand.
Let's take a related hypothetical case.
Suppose there is a stick flying toward you, and you apply a procedure
using a device to measure the length of the stick. Now you move away
so that the stick is no longer moving with respect to you, and you
apply the identical procedure using the same device to measure the
length of the stick, and it comes out with a different answer. You
will certainly say that nothing physical has happened to the stick,
and that is absolutely correct. You will then say that if nothing
physical has happened to the stick then the length of the stick cannot
possibly have changed, and that is absolutely incorrect. You will
perhaps then say that it *must* be so because length is an inherent
property of the stick, and that is also absolutely incorrect.
In a similar vein, when you move the diffraction grating, you say
nothing physical has happened to the light, and that is absolutely
correct. You will perhaps then say that if nothing physical has
happened to the light, then the wavelength cannot possibly have
changed, and that is absolutely incorrect. You will perhaps then say
that it *must* be so because wavelength is an inherent property of the
light, and that is also absolutely incorrect.
PD
PD
>
> Are you suggesting that the movement of the grating somehow changes the
> (absolute) wavelength of the light?
No such thing as (absolute) wavelength of light. That would be the
point.
PD
karand...@yahoo.com
> Suppose there is a stick flying toward you, and you apply a procedure
> using a device to measure the length of the stick. Now you move away
> so that the stick is no longer moving with respect to you, and you
> apply the identical procedure using the same device to measure the
> length of the stick, and it comes out with a different answer. You
> will certainly say that nothing physical has happened to the stick,
> and that is absolutely correct. You will then say that if nothing
> physical has happened to the stick then the length of the stick cannot
> possibly have changed, and that is absolutely incorrect. You will
> perhaps then say that it *must* be so because length is an inherent
> property of the stick, and that is also absolutely incorrect.
>
> In a similar vein, when you move the diffraction grating, you say
> nothing physical has happened to the light, and that is absolutely
> correct. You will perhaps then say that if nothing physical has
> happened to the light, then the wavelength cannot possibly have
> changed, and that is absolutely incorrect. You will perhaps then say
> that it *must* be so because wavelength is an inherent property of the
> light, and that is also absolutely incorrect.
>
> PD
Very nice but will the crackpots "get" it?
kenseto
> > wrote:
> >> Note that the angles are measured in the rest frame of the diffraction
> >> grating, and the Doppler shift is determined by the relative velocity of
> >> source and detector (here the diffraction grating). When you change that
> >> relative velocity, the diffraction angles change. <shrug>
>
> > Are you suggesting that the movement of the grating somehow changes the
> > (absolute) wavelength of the light?
>
> As I keep saying, you have grave MISCONCEPTIONS about very basic
> physics. Which is all the more sad because you have wasted enormous
> amounts of time posting nonsense to the net, when for a fraction of that
> time spent studying you could have learned something -- physics is
> INCREDIBLY interesting. Nobody ever learned anything while their mouth
> was open.
>
> Wavelength is NOT an intrinsic property of a light wave (neither is
> frequency). These properties of a light wave depend upon how they are
> measured; specifically: in which inertial frame they are measured. This
> is what underlies the Doppler shift of both frequency and wavelength.
Wavelength is indeed an intrinsic property of a light wave in an ether
medium. SR replaces the varying speed of incoming light due to
absolute motion with varying wavelength. Doppler shift is due to
varying speed of incoming light.
> So your "(absolute)" is wrong.
Universal wavelength for a standard light source such as the sodium is
not wrong.....everybody measures his sodium source to have a universal
wavelength of 589 nm.
>Yes, when you change the inertial frame
> in which the grating is at rest, the diffraction angle will change,
The diffraction angle change is as follows:
Universal wavelength = [(detected frequency/c')][sin(theta)]
> because the grating responds to the wavelength of light in its rest
> frame. Different inertial frame -- different wavelength of a given light
> wave; this is a difference in measurement, not a "change" in any
> intrinsic properties of the light.
No it is not responding to the wavelength of the incoming light. It is
responding to the varying speed of the incoming light according to the
above formula.
Ken Seto
>
> Tom Roberts
PD
That is not only wrong, it isn't even pertinent. When you say
"everybody measures *his*..." that is no longer a statement about a
universal wavelength. That is a statement about what an arbitrary
observer will measure for a sodium source with a very specific state
of motion (that is, relative velocity of zero). The question is, what
will an arbitrary observer measure *any* sodium source's wavelength to
be, regardless of the source's state of motion. And in that case, it
is simply NOT true that the result will always be 589nm. It simply
isn't.
>
> >Yes, when you change the inertial frame
> > in which the grating is at rest, the diffraction angle will change,
>
> The diffraction angle change is as follows:
> Universal wavelength = [(detected frequency/c')][sin(theta)]
>
> > because the grating responds to the wavelength of light in its rest
> > frame. Different inertial frame -- different wavelength of a given light
> > wave; this is a difference in measurement, not a "change" in any
> > intrinsic properties of the light.
>
> No it is not responding to the wavelength of the incoming light. It is
> responding to the varying speed of the incoming light according to the
> above formula.
No, that is incorrect. It might help to run through how a diffraction
grating works.
>
> Ken Seto
>
karand...@yahoo.com
>
> No it is not responding to the wavelength of the incoming light. It is
> responding to the varying speed of the incoming light according to the
> above formula.
>
> Ken Seto
>
Dr. Seto
Id light speed varied according to the famous IRT formulas you would
be getting very different results from:
1. Ives-Stilwell experiment
2. Sagnac experiment
3. Gagnon experiment
4. Any experiment that deals with two or more light pencils
propagating in different directions.
So, you see, your lack of expermental knowledge and of math betrays
you again. You more than make up these two deficiencies with your very
strong logic but this time you would need to re-examine your
premises.
Could you please try taking any of the experiments 1-3 above and
rework the theory by using the variable speed of light formula from
IRT. Please copy the calculations in this thread. Thank you.
kenseto
"kenseto" <ken...@erinet.com> wrote in message
news:1178133638....@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
> On May 2, 10:26 am, Tom Roberts <tjroberts...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> > Henri Wilson wrote:
> > > On Wed, 02 May 2007 01:22:07 GMT, Tom Roberts
<tjroberts...@sbcglobal.net>
> >
> > frequency). These properties of a light wave depend upon how they are
> > measured; specifically: in which inertial frame they are measured. This
> > is what underlies the Doppler shift of both frequency and wavelength.
>
> Wavelength is indeed an intrinsic property of a light wave in an ether
> medium. SR replaces the varying speed of incoming light due to
> absolute motion with varying wavelength. Doppler shift is due to
> varying speed of incoming light.
>
> > So your "(absolute)" is wrong.
>
> Universal wavelength for a standard light source such as the sodium is
> not wrong.....everybody measures his sodium source to have a universal
> wavelength of 589 nm.
>
> >Yes, when you change the inertial frame
> > in which the grating is at rest, the diffraction angle will change,
>
> The diffraction angle change is as follows:
> Universal wavelength = [(detected frequency/c')][sin(theta)]
Sorry the formula for diffraction angle change should be as follows:
d*sin(theta) = c'(varying speed of incoming light)/(detected incoming
frequency)
Where c'=universal wavelength*detected incoming frequency.
kenseto
Sorry the formula for diffraction angle change should be as follows:
d*sin(theta) = c'(varying speed of incoming light)/(detected incoming
frquency)
Where c'=universal wavelength*detected incoming frequency.
Ken Seto
kenseto
Dirk Van de moortel
<karand...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:1178129819....@l77g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
Extremely.
> but will the crackpots "get" it?
The crackpot will break his alleged mind over the phrase:
"then the length of the stick cannot possibly have changed,
and that is absolutely incorrect".
The crackpot will then not ask PD to be so kind as to explain
and help him understand that phrase though.
That is not how the crackpot is wired.
Dirk Vdm
kenseto
<karand...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1178134313.2...@n59g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
> On May 2, 12:20 pm, kenseto <kens...@erinet.com> wrote:
>
> >
> > No it is not responding to the wavelength of the incoming light. It is
> > responding to the varying speed of the incoming light according to the
> > above formula.
> >
> > Ken Seto
> >
> Dr. Seto
>
> Id light speed varied according to the famous IRT formulas you would
> be getting very different results from:
>
> 1. Ives-Stilwell experiment
> 2. Sagnac experiment
> 3. Gagnon experiment
> 4. Any experiment that deals with two or more light pencils
> propagating in different directions.
Hey idiot.....I said that the arrving speed of incoming light from a
relative source is varying. This is based on that the wavelength is
universal and the detected frequency shift is due to the varying arriving
speed of the incoming light. This interpretation agrees with all the
experiments you listed above.
>
> So, you see, your lack of expermental knowledge and of math betrays
> you again. You more than make up these two deficiencies with your very
> strong logic but this time you would need to re-examine your
> premises.
>
> Could you please try taking any of the experiments 1-3 above and
> rework the theory by using the variable speed of light formula from
> IRT. Please copy the calculations in this thread. Thank you.
>
>
You are a runt of the SR experts.
Definition for a runt of the SR experts:
A moron who thinks that SR is a religion. An idiot who doesn't
know the limitations of SR. A mental midget who can't comprehend
beyond what he was taught in school. An imbecile who follows
the real experts around like a puppy and eats up their shit like
gourmet puppy chow. An Asshole who will attack anybody who
disagrees with SR
Ken Seto
karand...@yahoo.com
> <karandash2...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> news:1178134313.2...@n59g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
> > On May 2, 12:20 pm, kenseto <kens...@erinet.com> wrote:
>
> > > No it is not responding to the wavelength of the incoming light. It is
> > > responding to the varying speed of the incoming light according to the
> > > above formula.
>
> > > Ken Seto
>
> > Dr. Seto
>
> > Id light speed varied according to the famous IRT formulas you would
> > be getting very different results from:
>
> > 1. Ives-Stilwell experiment
> > 2. Sagnac experiment
> > 3. Gagnon experiment
> > 4. Any experiment that deals with two or more light pencils
> > propagating in different directions.
>
> Hey idiot.....I said that the arrving speed of incoming light from a
> relative source is varying. This is based on that the wavelength is
> universal and the detected frequency shift is due to the varying arriving
> speed of the incoming light. This interpretation agrees with all the
> experiments you listed above.
Repeating an idiocy doesn't make it right.
So plug your IRT equation of light speed into any of the experiments I
gave you and show us what you get. Show that you can calculate
>
> > So, you see, your lack of expermental knowledge and of math betrays
> > you again. You more than make up these two deficiencies with your very
> > strong logic but this time you would need to re-examine your
> > premises.
>
> > Could you please try taking any of the experiments 1-3 above and
> > rework the theory by using the variable speed of light formula from
> > IRT. Please copy the calculations in this thread. Thank you.
>
> You are a runt of the SR experts.
When yu are unable to calculate you start insulting. Be careful, you
might get apoplexy from all this venom in your heart and all the
foaming at the mouth.
Could you please try taking any of the experiments 1-3 above and
rework the theory by using the variable speed of light formula from
RT. Please copy the calculations in this thread. Thank you.
<Seto's mouth foam snipped>
karand...@yahoo.com
> "kenseto" <kens...@erinet.com> wrote in message
Dr. Seto
IF light speed varied according to the famous IRT formulas you would
be getting very different results from:
1. Ives-Stilwell experiment
2. Sagnac experiment
3. Gagnon experiment
4. Any experiment that deals with two or more light pencils
propagating in different directions.
So, you see, your lack of expermental knowledge and of math betrays
Henri Wilson
The whole basis of modern metrology is the ABSOLUTE wavelengths of light.
>PD
Henri Wilson
Please don't repost George's messages in your own name..
>Your record of accurate fits still stands at ZERO, and you have
>no math to back you up. Your are fantasizing.
>
>Jerry
>
www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm
Henri Wilson
>
>"Henri Wilson" <HW@....> wrote in message
>news:0njf33lo1q5e9s6v0...@4ax.com...
>> Consider a diffraction grating positioned perpendicular to light coming
>> from a
>> star that is moving towards Earth at v.
>>
>> As we know, the light is diffracted at certain angles determined by an
>> equation
>> that contains no light speed term. Relativists have used this fact in
>> arguments
>> against the BaTh, claiming that a diffraction grating would not work at
>> all if
>> the BaTh was correct.
>>
>> The diffracted angles are indicators of doppler shift and are used to
>> determine
>> v.
>>
>> If now the grating is moved away at velocity v, so that it is at rest wrt
>> the
>> star, the question arises as to why these angles should change to indicate
>> zero
>> doppler shift. The light certainly hasn't been physically affected in any
>> way
>> by the grating's movement and the angles are supposed to be 'wavelength
>> dependent' only.
>>
>> This is just another proof that SR is nothing but a futile circular maths
>> theory which has no connection with the physical world.
>>
>>
>>
>> www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm
>>
>> Einstein's Relativity - the greatest HOAX since jesus christ's virgin
>> mother.
>
>"...an equation that contains no light speed term". However, it contains a
>wavelength term. And wavelength is stated to be (I don't know, if I should
>believe it) c /nu, where nu is frequency. Substitute into the diffraction
>equation, and voila, a miracle happens, and light speed appears in the
>diffraction equation. A proof, that miracles still do happen by the will of
>God.
What defines the frequency of a single photon, clown?
PD
> On 2 May 2007 11:06:20 -0700, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >On May 2, 1:17 am, HW@....(Henri Wilson) wrote:
>
> >> Are you suggesting that the movement of the grating somehow changes the
> >> (absolute) wavelength of the light?
>
> >No such thing as (absolute) wavelength of light. That would be the
> >point.
>
> The whole basis of modern metrology is the ABSOLUTE wavelengths of light.
>
I don't know *where* you would have gotten such a stupid idea.
Modern metrology is based on wavelengths from a source with zero
relative motion. Read the instruction manual that comes with your
metrology standards kit.
PD
karand...@yahoo.com
Correction, your mentor , prof. Seto has said :
The whole basis of modern metrology is the ABSOLUTE VERTICAL motion
wavelengths of light.
Henri Wilson
>On May 1, 7:51 pm, HW@....(Henri Wilson) wrote:
>> Consider a diffraction grating positioned perpendicular to light coming from a
>> star that is moving towards Earth at v.
>>
>> As we know, the light is diffracted at certain angles determined by an equation
>> that contains no light speed term. Relativists have used this fact in arguments
>> against the BaTh, claiming that a diffraction grating would not work at all if
>> the BaTh was correct.
>>
>> The diffracted angles are indicators of doppler shift and are used to determine
>> v.
>>
>> If now the grating is moved away at velocity v, so that it is at rest wrt the
>> star, the question arises as to why these angles should change to indicate zero
>> doppler shift. The light certainly hasn't been physically affected in any way
>> by the grating's movement and the angles are supposed to be 'wavelength
>> dependent' only.
>>
>> This is just another proof that SR is nothing but a futile circular maths
>> theory which has no connection with the physical world.
>>
>> www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm
>>
>> Einstein's Relativity - the greatest HOAX since jesus christ's virgin mother.
>
>Although I agree with you that the wavelength of the incoming length
>is not changed. But your arguement based on the Bath is wrong. The
>correct arguement is that the speed of the incoming light is varying
>due to relative velocity while the wavelength remains universal.
That's exactly what the BaTh says.
Maybe you would like to join us, Ken. We allow for 'local aetherlike frames'.
>The
>resulting equation is:
>c' = (universal wavelength for specfic light source)(detected incoming
>frequency)
>The correct equation for the grating is:
>universal wavelength (nu) = [(detected frequency)/c'][sin(theta)]
Yes, it is a frequency dependent effect.
...but what determines the 'frequency' of an individual photon?
Henri Wilson
Yes OK. I saw your correction.
>Ken Seto
karand...@yahoo.com
> On May 1, 6:51 pm, HW@....(Henri Wilson) wrote:
>
>
>
> > Consider a diffraction grating positioned perpendicular to light coming from a
> > star that is moving towards Earth at v.
>
> > As we know, the light is diffracted at certain angles determined by an equation
> > that contains no light speed term. Relativists have used this fact in arguments
> > against the BaTh, claiming that a diffraction grating would not work at all if
> > the BaTh was correct.
>
> > The diffracted angles are indicators of doppler shift and are used to determine
> > v.
>
> > If now the grating is moved away at velocity v, so that it is at rest wrt the
> > star, the question arises as to why these angles should change to indicate zero
> > doppler shift. The light certainly hasn't been physically affected in any way
> > by the grating's movement and the angles are supposed to be 'wavelength
> > dependent' only.
>
> > This is just another proof that SR is nothing but a futile circular maths
> > theory which has no connection with the physical world.
>
> SAGNAC PROVES BATH
> FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
> DIFFRACTION GRATINGS DISPROVE SR
> IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH
> - from "2007", by George Henri Orwell Wilson
>
Excellent!
Henri Wilson
You're completely out of touch Ghost.
All we see is the Willusion.
Now will you please return to the original question....
>
>5 weeks / (1/10) = 1 year, roughly speaking.
>
>--
>#191, ewi...@earthlink.net
>Useless C++ Programming Idea #12995733:
>bool f(bool g, bool h) { if(g) h = true; else h = false; return h;}
www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm
karand...@yahoo.com
> You don't like the fact that the BaTh is now a complete theory.
Then you shouldn't have any difficulty in employing the BaTh math in
order to explain the result of
1. Ives-Stilwell
2. Sagnac
Take your pick, show the calculations.
Henri Wilson
>On May 1, 6:51 pm, HW@....(Henri Wilson) wrote:
>> Consider a diffraction grating positioned perpendicular to light coming from a
>> star that is moving towards Earth at v.
>>
>>
>> This is just another proof that SR is nothing but a futile circular maths
>> theory which has no connection with the physical world.
>>
>> www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm
>>
>> Einstein's Relativity - the greatest HOAX since jesus christ's virgin mother.
>
>I love it when you post things like this. It really helps to isolate
>the source of misconceptions and incorrect understandings of fact. It
>also points out how little you understand about SR. The reason why
>this is useful is not so much you (you appear to be a hopeless cause),
>but for the sake of others who will learn from your mistake. there is
>an observer now (Nth Complexity) who wonders how SR can be right if
>idiots like you so consistently fail to understand it.
>
>But to the point at hand.
>Let's take a related hypothetical case.
>Suppose there is a stick flying toward you, and you apply a procedure
>using a device to measure the length of the stick. Now you move away
>so that the stick is no longer moving with respect to you, and you
>apply the identical procedure using the same device to measure the
>length of the stick, and it comes out with a different answer. You
>will certainly say that nothing physical has happened to the stick,
>and that is absolutely correct. You will then say that if nothing
>physical has happened to the stick then the length of the stick cannot
>possibly have changed, and that is absolutely incorrect. You will
>perhaps then say that it *must* be so because length is an inherent
>property of the stick, and that is also absolutely incorrect.
This highlights one of the basic flaws in SR.
The truth is, any 'stick' can be used to define an absolute spatial length. It
will not change no matter how it is moved or where it is taken. (apart from
normal elastic effects)
>In a similar vein, when you move the diffraction grating, you say
>nothing physical has happened to the light, and that is absolutely
>correct. You will perhaps then say that if nothing physical has
>happened to the light, then the wavelength cannot possibly have
>changed, and that is absolutely incorrect. You will perhaps then say
>that it *must* be so because wavelength is an inherent property of the
>light, and that is also absolutely incorrect.
You are now contradicting yourself Draper. You haven't a clue...
>PD
Henri Wilson
>On May 2, 9:45 am, Eric Gisse <jowr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On May 2, 6:26 am, karandash2...@yahoo.com wrote:
>>
>> > On May 1, 11:17 pm, HW@....(Henri Wilson) wrote:
>>
>> > > Are you suggesting that the movement of the grating somehow changes the
>> > > (absolute) wavelength of the light?....because gratings are sensitive only to
>> > > wavelength
>>
>> > Ralph,
>>
>> > You and Ken Seto must have gotten your "diplomas" from the same
>> > "university"
>>
>> For entertainment, read back in the archive for the time when Henri
>> acknowledged Ralph's existence.
>>
>> "They" have the same degrees [that were much different from the
>> degrees Henri forged, as well], "they" went to the same schools for
>> their undergraduate and graduate work, etc and etc.
>>
>> I notice that Henri hasn't replied to a single post of mine, for a
>> long time now, where I point out his forged degrees or his being Ralph
>> Rabbidge.
>
>:-) :-)
Geesey doesn't like jokes about virgins because....well, he's already 29 and
still hasn't had his....er....first yet.........not with a female anyway
.........a human female, that is....
Henri Wilson
wrote:
>Henri Wilson wrote:
>> On Wed, 02 May 2007 01:22:07 GMT, Tom Roberts <tjrobe...@sbcglobal.net>
>> wrote:
>>> Note that the angles are measured in the rest frame of the diffraction
>>> grating, and the Doppler shift is determined by the relative velocity of
>>> source and detector (here the diffraction grating). When you change that
>>> relative velocity, the diffraction angles change. <shrug>
>>
>> Are you suggesting that the movement of the grating somehow changes the
>> (absolute) wavelength of the light?
>
>As I keep saying, you have grave MISCONCEPTIONS about very basic
>physics. Which is all the more sad because you have wasted enormous
>amounts of time posting nonsense to the net, when for a fraction of that
>time spent studying you could have learned something -- physics is
>INCREDIBLY interesting. Nobody ever learned anything while their mouth
>was open.
You mean I'm not hopelessly deluded into believing the nonsense Einstein dished
up....
Spatial lengths are absolute Tom. Any rigid rod defines an absolute spatial
interval. It can be taken anywhere, anyhow and will remain the same absolute
length. You can calibrate it and use it to compare other lengths anywhere,
knowing full well that your measurements will be in the same absolute units
that were defined on Earth.
>Wavelength is NOT an intrinsic property of a light wave (neither is
>frequency).
How do you know that?
What intrinsic properties of the light DO NOT change when the grating is moved
away Tom?
>These properties of a light wave depend upon how they are
>measured; specifically: in which inertial frame they are measured. This
>is what underlies the Doppler shift of both frequency and wavelength.
Grating equations don't include light speed.
>So your "(absolute)" is wrong.
Nonsense. You are preaching a particular belief system...a completely wrong one
that has never been tested....
It is trivial to prove that, in the abscence of absolute SPACE, the length of a
rod does not physically change with speed. It is therefore quite obvious that
the concept of absolute length is perfectly legitimate and practical.
>Yes, when you change the inertial frame
>in which the grating is at rest, the diffraction angle will change,
>because the grating responds to the wavelength of light in its rest
>frame. Different inertial frame -- different wavelength of a given light
>wave; this is a difference in measurement, not a "change" in any
>intrinsic properties of the light.
I think you are guessing Tom.
>Tom Roberts
Eric Gisse
> On 2 May 2007 09:55:20 -0700, karandash2...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
>
>
> >On May 2, 9:45 am, Eric Gisse <jowr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On May 2, 6:26 am, karandash2...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> >> > On May 1, 11:17 pm, HW@....(Henri Wilson) wrote:
>
> >> > > Are you suggesting that the movement of the grating somehow changes the
> >> > > (absolute) wavelength of the light?....because gratings are sensitive only to
> >> > > wavelength
>
> >> > Ralph,
>
> >> > You and Ken Seto must have gotten your "diplomas" from the same
> >> > "university"
>
> >> For entertainment, read back in the archive for the time when Henri
> >> acknowledged Ralph's existence.
>
> >> "They" have the same degrees [that were much different from the
> >> degrees Henri forged, as well], "they" went to the same schools for
> >> their undergraduate and graduate work, etc and etc.
>
> >> I notice that Henri hasn't replied to a single post of mine, for a
> >> long time now, where I point out his forged degrees or his being Ralph
> >> Rabbidge.
>
> >:-) :-)
>
> Geesey doesn't like jokes about virgins because....well, he's already 29 and
> still hasn't had his....er....first yet.........not with a female anyway
> .........a human female, that is....
0 for 2, Ralph.
BaTh fails again.
Tom Roberts
> Spatial lengths are absolute Tom. Any rigid rod defines an absolute spatial
> interval. It can be taken anywhere, anyhow and will remain the same absolute
> length. You can calibrate it and use it to compare other lengths anywhere,
> knowing full well that your measurements will be in the same absolute units
> that were defined on Earth.
That means the LENGTH OF THIS ROD is "absolute" (your word, not mine),
not that "spatial lengths" are. But whether or not this last is true
depends crucially on the meanings of your words, and you use a peculiar
vocabulary.
> On Wed, 02 May 2007 09:26:29 -0500, Tom Roberts <tjrobe...@sbcglobal.net>
> wrote:
>> Wavelength is NOT an intrinsic property of a light wave (neither is
>> frequency).
>
> How do you know that?
Because differently-moving observers measure different values for the
wavelength of a given beam of light.
> What intrinsic properties of the light DO NOT change when the grating is moved
> away Tom?
Its helicity (loosely its polarization), and its phase function (i.e.
the mapping from points in the manifold to phase of the light wave); the
latter is equivalent to saying its wave 4-vector is independent of frame.
> [... further nonsense omitted]
Tom Roberts
Henri Wilson
wrote:
>Henri Wilson wrote:
>> Spatial lengths are absolute Tom. Any rigid rod defines an absolute spatial
>> interval. It can be taken anywhere, anyhow and will remain the same absolute
>> length. You can calibrate it and use it to compare other lengths anywhere,
>> knowing full well that your measurements will be in the same absolute units
>> that were defined on Earth.
>
>That means the LENGTH OF THIS ROD is "absolute" (your word, not mine),
>not that "spatial lengths" are. But whether or not this last is true
>depends crucially on the meanings of your words, and you use a peculiar
>vocabulary.
>
>
>> On Wed, 02 May 2007 09:26:29 -0500, Tom Roberts <tjrobe...@sbcglobal.net>
>> wrote:
>>> Wavelength is NOT an intrinsic property of a light wave (neither is
>>> frequency).
>>
>> How do you know that?
>
>Because differently-moving observers measure different values for the
>wavelength of a given beam of light.
No, they measure a different 'wavecrest arrival rate'.
The wavelength cannot be affected by observer movement Tom.
>> What intrinsic properties of the light DO NOT change when the grating is moved
>> away Tom?
>
>Its helicity (loosely its polarization), and its phase function (i.e.
>the mapping from points in the manifold to phase of the light wave); the
>latter is equivalent to saying its wave 4-vector is independent of frame.
Forget your mainfolds and 4-vectors Tom. Let's discuss the real world.
>
>
> > [... further nonsense omitted]
>
>
>Tom Roberts
www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm
Tom Roberts
> Henri Wilson wrote:
>> What intrinsic properties of the light DO NOT change when the grating
>> is moved
>> away Tom?
>
> Its helicity (loosely its polarization), and its phase function (i.e.
> the mapping from points in the manifold to phase of the light wave); the
> latter is equivalent to saying its wave 4-vector is independent of frame.
I forgot to mention the amplitude of the wave, which is related to its
intensity (but be careful, the power of the light wave depends on the
frame in which it is measured).
Tom Roberts
ca314159
Tom Roberts wrote:
>
> Henri Wilson wrote:
> > Spatial lengths are absolute Tom. Any rigid rod defines an absolute spatial
> > interval. It can be taken anywhere, anyhow and will remain the same absolute
> > length. You can calibrate it and use it to compare other lengths anywhere,
> > knowing full well that your measurements will be in the same absolute units
> > that were defined on Earth.
>
> That means the LENGTH OF THIS ROD is "absolute" (your word, not mine),
> not that "spatial lengths" are. But whether or not this last is true
> depends crucially on the meanings of your words, and you use a peculiar
> vocabulary.
>
> > On Wed, 02 May 2007 09:26:29 -0500, Tom Roberts <tjrobe...@sbcglobal.net>
> > wrote:
> >> Wavelength is NOT an intrinsic property of a light wave (neither is
> >> frequency).
> >
> > How do you know that?
>
> Because differently-moving observers measure different values for the
> wavelength of a given beam of light.
If all the observers are not moving relative to each each other
they will measure the same relative wavelength > 0, and if in addition
they are not moving relative to the source they will measure another
wavelength > 0 (the "proper" wavelength of the light emitted by the source).
Refining the definition of a "source":
From your earlier thread, "Evidence against emission theories":
Operation of FLASH, a free-electron laser, http://vuv-fel.desy.de/
What is the rest frequency of the light emitted by the moving electrons?
If it cannot be determined from a Doppler effect for the FLASH experiment,
we also cannot determine a "proper" or rest frequency of the light
and so we also cannot provide quantitative evidence that v>0 when the
light was emitted by the electrons. So in that case I would expect that
your k would have to be 0. Further, electrons don't really emit light
while at rest. It's not their linear velocity through the Halbach array
that causes them to emit light, it's their acceleration in the array,
so it is difficult in this case to make a definite association between
some source velocity v and the linear electron velocity v.
Can you help clarify this association?
Jeckyl
That is the frequency. And the wavelength is calculated from that, knowing
the speed of the wave (c in this case).
> The wavelength cannot be affected by observer movement Tom.
It does when light travels at c.
You are proposing that wavelength is fixed and speed and frequency vary
SR proposed that speed if fixed and wavelength and frequency vary
You cannot use what you are proposing as a fact to disprove SR .. nor does
it work the other way.
The only way to see which is correct is to do an experiment that
measure/compares wavelength and/or speed of light for two relatively moving
sources.
If the speed of light is the same, SR is supported and your theory is
incorrect. If the wavelength is the same, SR is incorrect, and your theory
is supported.
Are there any experiments that can do that? Have they been done.
Jerry
> Are you suggesting that the movement of the grating somehow
> changes the (absolute) wavelength of the light?....because
> gratings are sensitive only to wavelength .....If IT doesn't
> change, how can the angles change?
Wavelength is NOT absolute.
Doppler shift in moving gratings has been routinely observed in
orbiting space telescopes such as HST, Chandra, Compton etc.
In the case of the Hubble Space Telescope, for example, the
location of EACH INDIVIDUAL PHOTON gathered by the high resolution
MAMA detectors needs to be corrected for the Doppler shift induced
by spacecraft motion before being added to the proper bin counter.
See the HST Data Handbook for STIS
3.4.8 DOPPCORR: correct reference files for Doppler shift
http://www.stsci.edu/hst/stis/documents/handbooks/currentDHB/ch3_stis_calib5.html#369475
Jerry
The Ghost In The Machine
<HW@>
wrote
<503i339u7g2har3uc...@4ax.com>:
Of course all we see is the willusion. There's no way
in hell I can determine what that star over there is
doing right *now*, assuming it even makes sense for me
to attribute "now" to a faraway entity light-years --
or even light-microseconds -- away.
>
> Now will you please return to the original question....
Which is ... ? If it's relating to a diffraction grating
I've already answered it; until you provide a mathematical
BaTh basis as to how lightspeed varies from a moving source
I can't do a heck of a lot more.
Newton: c' = c-v; l0/l = 1
SR: c' = c l0/l = sqrt(1-v/c)/sqrt(1+v/c)
BaTh: c' = c-??*v; l0/l = ??
>
>>
>>5 weeks / (1/10) = 1 year, roughly speaking.
>>
>>--
>>#191, ewi...@earthlink.net
>>Useless C++ Programming Idea #12995733:
>>bool f(bool g, bool h) { if(g) h = true; else h = false; return h;}
>
>
>
> www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm
>
> Einstein's Relativity - the greatest HOAX since jesus christ's virgin mother.
--
#191, ewi...@earthlink.net
Linux. Because vaporware only goes so far.
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
Henri Wilson
>"Henri Wilson" <HW@....> wrote in message
>news:5uci3354pmvh1rp6m...@4ax.com...
>>>>> Wavelength is NOT an intrinsic property of a light wave (neither is
>>>>> frequency).
>>>>
>>>> How do you know that?
>>>
>>>Because differently-moving observers measure different values for the
>>>wavelength of a given beam of light.
>>
>> No, they measure a different 'wavecrest arrival rate'.
>
>That is the frequency. And the wavelength is calculated from that, knowing
>the speed of the wave (c in this case).
Who said it's 'c? Einstein?
How do you know it isn't c+v?
>> The wavelength cannot be affected by observer movement Tom.
>
>It does when light travels at c.
>
>You are proposing that wavelength is fixed and speed and frequency vary
>SR proposed that speed if fixed and wavelength and frequency vary
That's right...that's why SR is wrong.
>You cannot use what you are proposing as a fact to disprove SR .. nor does
>it work the other way.
SR says the angles should be the same when the grating is moved away at c.
>The only way to see which is correct is to do an experiment that
>measure/compares wavelength and/or speed of light for two relatively moving
>sources.
You will need a rocket.
>If the speed of light is the same, SR is supported and your theory is
>incorrect. If the wavelength is the same, SR is incorrect, and your theory
>is supported.
>
>Are there any experiments that can do that? Have they been done.
No. Einstein knew how hard it is to measure light speed from a moving
source...that's why he survived this long.
Henri Wilson
wrote:
>Tom Roberts wrote:
What does 'amplitude' imply? Field strength? Photons density? Intrinsic photon
energy? Relative photon speed?
Henri Wilson
>
>
>Tom Roberts wrote:
>>
>> >
>> > How do you know that?
>>
>> Because differently-moving observers measure different values for the
>> wavelength of a given beam of light.
>
>If all the observers are not moving relative to each each other
>they will measure the same relative wavelength > 0, and if in addition
>they are not moving relative to the source they will measure another
>wavelength > 0 (the "proper" wavelength of the light emitted by the source).
>Refining the definition of a "source":
The light has one absolute wavelength. If differently moving observers measure
different values for that wavelength, then their experimental procedure must be
flawed.
>From your earlier thread, "Evidence against emission theories":
> Operation of FLASH, a free-electron laser, http://vuv-fel.desy.de/
>What is the rest frequency of the light emitted by the moving electrons?
>If it cannot be determined from a Doppler effect for the FLASH experiment,
>we also cannot determine a "proper" or rest frequency of the light
>and so we also cannot provide quantitative evidence that v>0 when the
>light was emitted by the electrons. So in that case I would expect that
>your k would have to be 0. Further, electrons don't really emit light
>while at rest. It's not their linear velocity through the Halbach array
>that causes them to emit light, it's their acceleration in the array,
>so it is difficult in this case to make a definite association between
>some source velocity v and the linear electron velocity v.
>Can you help clarify this association?
>
>>
>> > What intrinsic properties of the light DO NOT change when the grating is moved
>> > away Tom?
>>
>> Its helicity (loosely its polarization), and its phase function (i.e.
>> the mapping from points in the manifold to phase of the light wave); the
>> latter is equivalent to saying its wave 4-vector is independent of frame.
>>
>> > [... further nonsense omitted]
>>
>> Tom Roberts
www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm
Jeckyl
> On Thu, 3 May 2007 12:19:24 +1000, "Jeckyl" <no...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>
>>"Henri Wilson" <HW@....> wrote in message
>>news:5uci3354pmvh1rp6m...@4ax.com...
>
>>>>>> Wavelength is NOT an intrinsic property of a light wave (neither is
>>>>>> frequency).
>>>>>
>>>>> How do you know that?
>>>>
>>>>Because differently-moving observers measure different values for the
>>>>wavelength of a given beam of light.
>>>
>>> No, they measure a different 'wavecrest arrival rate'.
>>
>>That is the frequency. And the wavelength is calculated from that,
>>knowing
>>the speed of the wave (c in this case).
>
> Who said it's 'c? Einstein?
c is the speed of light .. by definition that is how fast light travels.
> How do you know it isn't c+v?
You're the one making a claim .. how do you know that it IS c+v?
>>> The wavelength cannot be affected by observer movement Tom.
>>It does when light travels at c.
>>You are proposing that wavelength is fixed and speed and frequency vary
>>SR proposed that speed if fixed and wavelength and frequency vary
> That's right...that's why SR is wrong.
How do you know?
>>You cannot use what you are proposing as a fact to disprove SR .. nor does
>>it work the other way.
> SR says the angles should be the same when the grating is moved away at c.
>>The only way to see which is correct is to do an experiment that
>>measure/compares wavelength and/or speed of light for two relatively
>>moving
>>sources.
> You will need a rocket.
I'm sure there must be other ways of observing this.
>>If the speed of light is the same, SR is supported and your theory is
>>incorrect. If the wavelength is the same, SR is incorrect, and your
>>theory
>>is supported.
>>Are there any experiments that can do that? Have they been done.
>
> No. Einstein knew how hard it is to measure light speed from a moving
> source
He probably did. He was a clever man
> ...that's why he survived this long.
Einstein is dead .. And I don't think the length of his life was determined
by him kowing that the speed of light was hard to measure.
Anyway .. how do you know eintstien is wrong .. what evidence do you have
that it predicts results different to what we can observe experimentally?
So far its just one (well supported) theory (SR) vs another (not so well
supported) theory (Emission).
Pentcho Valev
Tom Roberts wrote:
> Henri Wilson wrote:
> > wrote:
> >> Note that the angles are measured in the rest frame of the diffraction
> >> grating, and the Doppler shift is determined by the relative velocity of
> >> source and detector (here the diffraction grating). When you change that
> >> relative velocity, the diffraction angles change. <shrug>
> >
>
> As I keep saying, you have grave MISCONCEPTIONS about very basic
> physics. Which is all the more sad because you have wasted enormous
> amounts of time posting nonsense to the net, when for a fraction of that
> time spent studying you could have learned something -- physics is
> INCREDIBLY interesting. Nobody ever learned anything while their mouth
> was open.
>
> measured; specifically: in which inertial frame they are measured. This
> is what underlies the Doppler shift of both frequency and wavelength.
>
> in which the grating is at rest, the diffraction angle will change,
> because the grating responds to the wavelength of light in its rest
> frame. Different inertial frame -- different wavelength of a given light
> wave; this is a difference in measurement, not a "change" in any
> intrinsic properties of the light.
>
>
Roberts Roberts if Divine Albert had been cleverer and had not
produced his awful 1911 equation c'=c(1+V/c^2), how convincing your
arguments above would be. But Divine Albert was a dunce Roberts
Roberts and produced anything. Divine Albert even produced correct
equations like c'=c(1+V/c^2). And just because Divine Albert was a
dunce now you Roberts Roberts, the Albert Einstein of our generation
(Hawking is no longer etc.), you have to be humble, to admit that you
don't understand anything etc. in the hope that someone may feel pity
for you and explain why Einstein's 1911 equation is wrong and it is
the wavelength, not the speed of light, that changes:
Assume, Roberts Roberts, the savior has been found, he has already
felt pity for you and you have to announce the new discovery. Would
you say:
Tom Roberts: "Einstein's 1911 equation c'=c(1+V/c^2) is wrong and have
to be replaced with c'=c."
Would you say so Roberts Roberts?
Pentcho Valev
Paul B. Andersen
> On Wed, 02 May 2007 01:22:07 GMT, Tom Roberts <tjrobe...@sbcglobal.net>
> wrote:
>
>>> [...]
>> This merely proves that Henry Wilson's personal MISUNDERSTANDINGS about
>> SR are wrong. <shrug>
>>
>> Note that the angles are measured in the rest frame of the diffraction
>> grating, and the Doppler shift is determined by the relative velocity of
>> source and detector (here the diffraction grating). When you change that
>> relative velocity, the diffraction angles change. <shrug>
>
> Are you suggesting that the movement of the grating somehow changes the
> wavelength .....If IT doesn't change, how can the angles change?
Don't you understand that the proven _fact_ that the wavelength of
light depend on the relative speed source - grating prove that
there is no such thing as "the absloute wavelength of light".
Wavelength is experimentally proven to be frame dependent.
BaT falsified.
Paul
Paul B. Andersen
> Consider a diffraction grating positioned perpendicular to light coming from a
> star that is moving towards Earth at v.
>
> As we know, the light is diffracted at certain angles determined by an equation
> that contains no light speed term. Relativists have used this fact in arguments
> against the BaTh, claiming that a diffraction grating would not work at all if
> the BaTh was correct.
The experimentally proven fact that the wavelength of light
is frame dependent falsifies the BaTh.
> The diffracted angles are indicators of doppler shift and are used to determine
> v.
>
> If now the grating is moved away at velocity v, so that it is at rest wrt the
> star, the question arises as to why these angles should change to indicate zero
> doppler shift.
We know they do.
> The light certainly hasn't been physically affected in any way
> by the grating's movement and the angles are supposed to be 'wavelength
> dependent' only.
So wavelength is proven not to be an intrinsic property of
the light - as predicted by SR.
> This is just another proof that SR is nothing but a futile circular maths
> theory which has no connection with the physical world.
This is great logic! :-)
The fact that SR predicts what is observed prove that
it has no connection with reality!
I see you still are able to improve your stupidity. :-)
Keep it up, Henri.
The sky is the limit!
Paul, still amazed after all these years
Tom Roberts
>>> wrote:
>>>> Wavelength is NOT an intrinsic property of a light wave (neither is
>>>> frequency).
>>> How do you know that?
>> Because differently-moving observers measure different values for the
>> wavelength of a given beam of light.
>
> No, they measure a different 'wavecrest arrival rate'.
Well, yes. But that is _frequency_ not wavelength.
The light from distant stars varies in wavelength due to the earth's
orbit. Ditto for the frequency. This is solidly established and
indisputable. Your claims to the contrary are plain and simply WRONG.
And any theory that claims wavelength is intrinsic to light and
independent of observer motion is completely refuted by basic observations.
> The wavelength cannot be affected by observer movement Tom.
But it _IS_. Observably so. Your personal theory of light is just plain
wrong, because it does not agree with observational facts. <shrug>
I repeat: you need to stop wasting time posting nonsense to the net, and
STUDY.
Tom Roberts
Tom Roberts
> From your earlier thread, "Evidence against emission theories":
> Operation of FLASH, a free-electron laser, http://vuv-fel.desy.de/
> What is the rest frequency of the light emitted by the moving electrons?
I dunno; it is irrelevant. Figure it out (rather complicated).
> If it cannot be determined from a Doppler effect for the FLASH experiment,
> we also cannot determine a "proper" or rest frequency of the light
> and so we also cannot provide quantitative evidence that v>0 when the
> light was emitted by the electrons.
Sure we can: the wiggler is made up of MAGNETS, and the B field of a
magnet only accelerates an electron PERPENDICULAR to its velocity
vector. So the _speed_ of the electrons does not change, only their
direction is wiggled back-and-forth by the wiggler magnets. The wiggler
is 30 meters long, the electron beam is a few microns in diameter, and
the X-ray beam is a few tens of microns in diameter some tens of meters
downstream. As the X-rays are emitted essentially parallel to the
electron velocity, the angles of the electrons cannot change by more
than a few microradians. So the wiggling of their velocity vector is is
negligible -- the component of velocity along their nominal (unwiggled)
path is essentially unchanged, and is 0.99999+ c.
> So in that case I would expect that
> your k would have to be 0.
Yes, the expression c+kv does not describe the speed of light unless k
is extremely close to 0. That's the point.
> Further, electrons don't really emit light
> while at rest. It's not their linear velocity through the Halbach array
> that causes them to emit light, it's their acceleration in the array,
Yes.
> so it is difficult in this case to make a definite association between
> some source velocity v and the linear electron velocity v.
See above. The variation in v is quite small, and the component along
the nominal beam direction remains 0.99999+ c.
Tom Roberts
Tom Roberts
> And the wavelength is calculated from that, knowing
> the speed of the wave (c in this case).
For the situation I am thinking of (spectra of distant stars affected by
earth's orbit), the wavelength is directly measured using a diffraction
grating spectrometer. This is a direct implementation of the situation
in Henri's original post.
> The only way to see which is correct is to do an experiment that
> measure/compares wavelength and/or speed of light for two relatively moving
> sources.
You mean two relatively moving OBSERVERS [#]. Such as a spectrometer on
earth, 6 months apart, looking at the same distant source.
[#] One can claim extinction removes the difference between
two relatively moving distant sources. To eliminate possible
extinction in the atmosphere, consider Hubble spectra -- now
the orbits of both Hubble and Earth are important.
> If the speed of light is the same, SR is supported and your theory is
> incorrect. If the wavelength is the same, SR is incorrect, and your theory
> is supported.
> Are there any experiments that can do that? Have they been done.
This is just basic spectrometry as applied in astronomy. The prediction
of SR is confirmed DAILY, and Henri's prediction is likewise refuted, DAILY.
Tom Roberts
Jeckyl
news:BHm_h.125$mR2...@newssvr22.news.prodigy.net...
> Jeckyl wrote:
>> And the wavelength is calculated from that, knowing the speed of the wave
>> (c in this case).
>
> For the situation I am thinking of (spectra of distant stars affected by
> earth's orbit), the wavelength is directly measured using a diffraction
> grating spectrometer. This is a direct implementation of the situation in
> Henri's original post.
>
>> The only way to see which is correct is to do an experiment that
>> measure/compares wavelength and/or speed of light for two relatively
>> moving sources.
>
> You mean two relatively moving OBSERVERS [#]. Such as a spectrometer on
> earth, 6 months apart, looking at the same distant source.
Yeup .. that would do nicely.
> [#] One can claim extinction removes the difference between
> two relatively moving distant sources. To eliminate possible
> extinction in the atmosphere, consider Hubble spectra -- now
> the orbits of both Hubble and Earth are important.
Ah .. ok .. I see your need for making it observers to get rid of the
'excuses' of extinction.
>> If the speed of light is the same, SR is supported and your theory is
>> incorrect. If the wavelength is the same, SR is incorrect, and your
>> theory is supported.
>> Are there any experiments that can do that? Have they been done.
>
> This is just basic spectrometry as applied in astronomy. The prediction of
> SR is confirmed DAILY, and Henri's prediction is likewise refuted, DAILY.
Just to make it clear what you're saying .. spectrometers detect actual
wavelength differences, as opposed to detecting frequency differences (and
then computing the wave length assuming constant speed of light), or
measuring the energy of photons and calculating wavelength from that.
PD
> On Thu, 03 May 2007 00:37:16 GMT, Tom Roberts <tjroberts...@sbcglobal.net>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> >Henri Wilson wrote:
> >> Spatial lengths are absolute Tom. Any rigid rod defines an absolute spatial
> >> interval. It can be taken anywhere, anyhow and will remain the same absolute
> >> length. You can calibrate it and use it to compare other lengths anywhere,
> >> knowing full well that your measurements will be in the same absolute units
> >> that were defined on Earth.
>
> >That means the LENGTH OF THIS ROD is "absolute" (your word, not mine),
> >not that "spatial lengths" are. But whether or not this last is true
> >depends crucially on the meanings of your words, and you use a peculiar
> >vocabulary.
>
> >> wrote:
> >>> Wavelength is NOT an intrinsic property of a light wave (neither is
> >>> frequency).
>
> >> How do you know that?
>
> >Because differently-moving observers measure different values for the
> >wavelength of a given beam of light.
>
> No, they measure a different 'wavecrest arrival rate'.
That is incorrect, Henri. A wavecrest arrival rate is a frequency, by
definition. Gratings are by design not sensitive to frequency. They
are sensitive to wavelength only.
In the same grating, two waves coming in with the same wavelength but
different speeds (and hence different frequencies) are scattered
through the *same* angle. This has actually been tested with gratings
that are suitable for microwaves and high-frequency sound (same
wavelength, much different speeds, much different frequencies).
In a grating (a device that measures *wavelength*, not frequency),
differently moving observers measure different values for the
wavelength of a given beam of light.
Much as you'd like to say, "But that can't be," it nevertheless is.
Your refusal to acknowledge what is and your steadfast clinging to
what you think "can be" is the mark of a crank. A crank is someone
who, in contrast to those would would say, "Seeing is believing," says
instead, "Despite seeing, I still don't believe," or in your case, "I
refuse to look at something that would be in conflict with what I
believe."
PD
PD
>
> The light has one absolute wavelength. If differently moving observers measure
> different values for that wavelength, then their experimental procedure must be
> flawed.
>
A scientist will sometimes make a claim that seems to make sense. When
that claim comes up against experimental evidence that is directly
contrary to that, the scientist will retract that claim, or at least
re-examine it.
A crank will sometimes make a claim that seems to make sense. When
that claim comes up against experimental evidence that is directly
contrary to that, the crank will immediately conclude that the
experimental evidence is flawed.
PD
Pentcho Valev
> Henri Wilson wrote:
> > On Thu, 03 May 2007 00:37:16 GMT, Tom Roberts <tjrobe...@sbcglobal.net>
> >>> On Wed, 02 May 2007 09:26:29 -0500, Tom Roberts <tjrobe...@sbcglobal.net>
> >>> wrote:
> >>>> Wavelength is NOT an intrinsic property of a light wave (neither is
> >>>> frequency).
> >>> How do you know that?
> >> Because differently-moving observers measure different values for the
> >> wavelength of a given beam of light.
> >
> > No, they measure a different 'wavecrest arrival rate'.
>
> Well, yes. But that is _frequency_ not wavelength.
>
> The light from distant stars varies in wavelength due to the earth's
> orbit. Ditto for the frequency. This is solidly established and
> indisputable. Your claims to the contrary are plain and simply WRONG.
> And any theory that claims wavelength is intrinsic to light and
> independent of observer motion is completely refuted by basic observations.
>
>
> > The wavelength cannot be affected by observer movement Tom.
>
> But it _IS_. Observably so.
Roberts Roberts a year and a half ago you sang a different song:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/browse_thread/thread/d0701800ef02911d?tvc=2
Tom Roberts (the Albert Einstein of our generation): "Pound et al used
the 22-meter Harvard tower, using the Moessbauer effect to obtain the
requisite resolution. The others use atomic clocks. None of the above
measured wavelength directly. But we do know that on earth the speed
of light is c, and in the GPS the speed of light is c between
satellite and ground." Tom Roberts tjro...@lucent.com
Even a few hours ago you sang a different song Roberts Roberts:
Pentcho Valev
PD
Gee, I don't think so. You may think it is a flaw of nature, because
nature behaves this way. SR merely describes how nature behaves.
> The truth is, any 'stick' can be used to define an absolute spatial length.
Not according to nature, as revealed in experiment. You may find it
troublesome that what you want to be true is in fact not true, but
simply reiterating what you want to be true will not make it happen.
Try tossing a penny in a well while you say it.
> It
> will not change no matter how it is moved or where it is taken. (apart from
> normal elastic effects)
Well, as I said to you, this is absolutely incorrect.
>
> >In a similar vein, when you move the diffraction grating, you say
> >nothing physical has happened to the light, and that is absolutely
> >correct. You will perhaps then say that if nothing physical has
> >happened to the light, then the wavelength cannot possibly have
> >changed, and that is absolutely incorrect. You will perhaps then say
> >that it *must* be so because wavelength is an inherent property of the
> >light, and that is also absolutely incorrect.
>
> You are now contradicting yourself Draper. You haven't a clue...
You'll have to point out where what I've said is in contradiction with
something else I said.
PD
Pentcho Valev
The speed of light is not speed of light unless it is constant. Bravo
Roberts bravo Tom bravo Albert Einstein of our generation (Hawking is
no longer etc.)! This type of wisdom can only be found in Chapter 7 in
Einstein's "Relativity" and even there thoughts are not so deep.
Pentcho Valev
Pentcho Valev
Which prediction Roberts Roberts. What does SR say about the
wavelength that is confirmed DAILY. Roberts Roberts your arguments are
incredible. You are REALLY the Albert Einstein of our generation.
Hawking has never been.
Pentcho Valev
Jeckyl
news:1178207317.6...@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
No .. what it is saying is that the experiment shows that the speed that
light travels is not changed by the velocity of the source of that light.
So emission theory is wrong, and SR once again predicts the actual observed
result.
Jeckyl
In case you weren't paying attention .. that SR prediction is that the
wavelength (and frequency) of light changes when you change the relative
velocities of the source and observer. Emission theory says the wavelength
remains the same, and it is the speed (and frequency) that changes.
Eric Gisse
[...]
Do you spend a significant amount of your day reading about relativity
and somehow still get it wrong?
kenseto
> Henri Wilson wrote:
> > Spatial lengths are absolute Tom. Any rigid rod defines an absolute
spatial
> > interval. It can be taken anywhere, anyhow and will remain the same
absolute
> > length. You can calibrate it and use it to compare other lengths
anywhere,
> > knowing full well that your measurements will be in the same absolute
units
> > that were defined on Earth.
>
> That means the LENGTH OF THIS ROD is "absolute" (your word, not mine),
> not that "spatial lengths" are. But whether or not this last is true
> depends crucially on the meanings of your words, and you use a peculiar
> vocabulary.
>
>
<tjrobe...@sbcglobal.net>
> > wrote:
> >> Wavelength is NOT an intrinsic property of a light wave (neither is
> >> frequency).
> >
> > How do you know that?
>
> Because differently-moving observers measure different values for the
> wavelength of a given beam of light.
But every observer defines his sodium source to have a universal wavelength
of 589 nm. Any incoming light becomes a new light source in the observer's
frame and the observer's grating will define a new universal wavelength for
that new light source.
Ken Seto
kenseto
> Henri Wilson wrote:
> > On Thu, 03 May 2007 00:37:16 GMT, Tom Roberts
<tjrobe...@sbcglobal.net>
> >>> On Wed, 02 May 2007 09:26:29 -0500, Tom Roberts
<tjrobe...@sbcglobal.net>
> >>> wrote:
> >>>> Wavelength is NOT an intrinsic property of a light wave (neither is
> >>>> frequency).
> >>> How do you know that?
> >> Because differently-moving observers measure different values for the
> >> wavelength of a given beam of light.
> >
> > No, they measure a different 'wavecrest arrival rate'.
>
> Well, yes. But that is _frequency_ not wavelength.
(The number of waves arriving)(the universal wavelength of the incoming
light)= c'= the varying arrival speed of the incoming light
>
> The light from distant stars varies in wavelength due to the earth's
> orbit. Ditto for the frequency. This is solidly established and
> indisputable. Your claims to the contrary are plain and simply WRONG.
> And any theory that claims wavelength is intrinsic to light and
> independent of observer motion is completely refuted by basic
observations.
No....It is equally valid to claim that the wavelength of the incoming light
is universal and that the speed of arrival of the incoming light is varying.
Ken Seto
ca314159
I would think then that the FLASH experiment could no more
be said to show moving sources of light than it can be said
that the motion of electrons in the filament of an incandescent bulb
shows the motion of moving sources; rather, the wiggler/undulator/array
is stationary and that is the velocity that is typically
used as the source velocity, the velocity of a "light bulb",
a whole laser, or atoms, is more often used than that of the
electrons?
>
> Tom Roberts
Tom Roberts
> Roberts Roberts a year and a half ago you sang a different song:
Sure. I know lots of different songs. And the "songs" you reference are
all consistent with each other. And very different.
Your statements imply you think there is an inconsistency among various
statements I have made. There are no such inconsistencies; any you think
are there are in YOUR head. <shrug>
Tom Roberts
kenseto
<karand...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1178142812....@o5g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
> On May 2, 1:02 pm, "kenseto" <kens...@woh.rr.com> wrote:
> > "kenseto" <kens...@erinet.com> wrote in message
> >
> > news:1178133638....@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...> On May 2,
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > > Wavelength is NOT an intrinsic property of a light wave (neither is
are
> > > > measured; specifically: in which inertial frame they are measured.
This
> > > > is what underlies the Doppler shift of both frequency and
wavelength.
> >
> > > medium. SR replaces the varying speed of incoming light due to
> > > absolute motion with varying wavelength. Doppler shift is due to
> > > varying speed of incoming light.
> >
> > > > So your "(absolute)" is wrong.
> >
> > > not wrong.....everybody measures his sodium source to have a universal
> > > wavelength of 589 nm.
> >
> > > >Yes, when you change the inertial frame
> > > > in which the grating is at rest, the diffraction angle will change,
> >
> > > Universal wavelength = [(detected frequency/c')][sin(theta)]
> >
> > Sorry the formula for diffraction angle change should be as follows:
> > d*sin(theta) = c'(varying speed of incoming light)/(detected incoming
> > frequency)
> > Where c'=universal wavelength*detected incoming frequency.
>
>
>
> Dr. Seto
>
> IF light speed varied according to the famous IRT formulas you would
> be getting very different results from:
>
> 1. Ives-Stilwell experiment
> 2. Sagnac experiment
> 3. Gagnon experiment
> 4. Any experiment that deals with two or more light pencils
> propagating in different directions.
No idiot runt IRT agrees with all these experiments.....in the observer's
frame the speed of light is a constant math ratio and isotropic as follows:
light path length of ruler (299,792,458m)/the absolute time content for a
clock second co-moving with the ruler.
Also the speed of light in IRT is defined as Faa(Universal wavelength of a
standard light source).
Paul Cardinale
Henri Wilson wrote:
> On 2 May 2007 11:06:20 -0700, PD <TheDrap...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >On May 2, 1:17 am, HW@....(Henri Wilson) wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> Are you suggesting that the movement of the grating somehow changes the
> >> (absolute) wavelength of the light?
> >
> >point.
>
> The whole basis of modern metrology is the ABSOLUTE wavelengths of light.
>
Wow ralph. Although some might have thought it impossible, you're
actually enhancing you stupitude. I suggest that you stop using words
with more than 2 syllables; you obviously don't know what any of them
mean.
Paul Cardinale
Paul Cardinale
karand...@yahoo.com wrote:
> On May 2, 2:56 pm, HW@....(Henri Wilson) wrote:
> > On 2 May 2007 11:06:20 -0700, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > >On May 2, 1:17 am, HW@....(Henri Wilson) wrote:
> >
> > >> Are you suggesting that the movement of the grating somehow changes the
> > >> (absolute) wavelength of the light?
> >
> > >No such thing as (absolute) wavelength of light. That would be the
> > >point.
> >
> > The whole basis of modern metrology is the ABSOLUTE wavelengths of light.
> >
> >
> > www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm
> >
> > Einstein's Relativity - the greatest HOAX since jesus christ's virgin mother.
>
>
>
>
> The whole basis of modern metrology is the ABSOLUTE VERTICAL motion
> wavelengths of light.
Gee, I thought it was the absolute relative rod light path length
interval.
Henri Wilson
>On May 2, 1:02 pm, "kenseto" <kens...@woh.rr.com> wrote:
>> "kenseto" <kens...@erinet.com> wrote in message
>>
>>
>> Sorry the formula for diffraction angle change should be as follows:
>> d*sin(theta) = c'(varying speed of incoming light)/(detected incoming
>> frequency)
>> Where c'=universal wavelength*detected incoming frequency.
>
>
>
>Dr. Seto
>
>IF light speed varied according to the famous IRT formulas you would
>be getting very different results from:
>
>1. Ives-Stilwell experiment
>2. Sagnac experiment
>3. Gagnon experiment
>4. Any experiment that deals with two or more light pencils
>propagating in different directions.
No you wouldn't.
>
>So, you see, your lack of expermental knowledge and of math betrays
>you again. You more than make up these two deficiencies with your very
>strong logic but this time you would need to re-examine your
>premises.
>
>Could you please try taking any of the experiments 1-3 above and
>rework the theory by using the variable speed of light formula from
>IRT. Please copy the calculations in this thread. Thank you.
Often, the apparatus itself constitutes a local EM reference frame.
BaTh only applies 100% when operating in truly 'empty' space.....that is, below
the Wilson Density Threshold.
Henri Wilson
wrote:
>Henri Wilson wrote:
>> On Thu, 03 May 2007 00:37:16 GMT, Tom Roberts <tjrobe...@sbcglobal.net>
>>>> On Wed, 02 May 2007 09:26:29 -0500, Tom Roberts <tjrobe...@sbcglobal.net>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>> Wavelength is NOT an intrinsic property of a light wave (neither is
>>>>> frequency).
>>>> How do you know that?
>>> Because differently-moving observers measure different values for the
>>> wavelength of a given beam of light.
>>
>> No, they measure a different 'wavecrest arrival rate'.
>
>Well, yes. But that is _frequency_ not wavelength.
>
>The light from distant stars varies in wavelength due to the earth's
>orbit.
I don't think that was quite what you meant to say Tom. Surely the light itself
cannot be affected by the Earth's movement.
Did you mean 'for a particular star, diffraction angles vary with the Earth
orbit phase'?
>Ditto for the frequency.
That's more like it...but 'frequency' of what?
>This is solidly established and
>indisputable.
Maybe on Earth... because all light DOES move at c by the time it gets down to
ground level.....and the BaTh says that wavelength changes during extinction.
However if the HST detects different diffraction angles as it moves around the
orbit then your old theory must be wroing...becasue the grating equation does
not contain light speed and we know the absolute wavelength of the incoming
light certainly didn't change just because the telescope moved.
>Your claims to the contrary are plain and simply WRONG.
>And any theory that claims wavelength is intrinsic to light and
>independent of observer motion is completely refuted by basic observations.
You claimed above that both wavelength AND frequency vary as the grating
orbits. How do you know that Tom? Has anyone ever measured both simultaneously?
No of course they haven't.
>> The wavelength cannot be affected by observer movement Tom.
>
>But it _IS_. Observably so. Your personal theory of light is just plain
>wrong, because it does not agree with observational facts. <shrug>
The frequency can be affected.... but not the wavelength...which is absolute.
>I repeat: you need to stop wasting time posting nonsense to the net, and
>STUDY.
I have already studied...which is why I can see the obvious flaws in SR.
>Tom Roberts
Henri Wilson
>On May 2, 8:01 pm, HW@....(Henri Wilson) wrote:
>>
>> >> How do you know that?
>>
>> >Because differently-moving observers measure different values for the
>> >wavelength of a given beam of light.
>>
>> No, they measure a different 'wavecrest arrival rate'.
>
>That is incorrect, Henri. A wavecrest arrival rate is a frequency, by
>definition. Gratings are by design not sensitive to frequency. They
>are sensitive to wavelength only.
Good!!! That's what I like to hear....
Now if you re-read my original post, you MUST then agree that this fact
falsifies SR.
>In the same grating, two waves coming in with the same wavelength but
>different speeds (and hence different frequencies) are scattered
>through the *same* angle. This has actually been tested with gratings
>that are suitable for microwaves and high-frequency sound (same
>wavelength, much different speeds, much different frequencies).
That's perfectly all right by me Draper.
>In a grating (a device that measures *wavelength*, not frequency),
>differently moving observers measure different values for the
>wavelength of a given beam of light.
Hahahohohhahah!
So you and your colleagues still believe the observer can affect the observed.
Nice on Draper....I'll try it with my Keno numbers....
>Much as you'd like to say, "But that can't be," it nevertheless is.
>Your refusal to acknowledge what is and your steadfast clinging to
>what you think "can be" is the mark of a crank. A crank is someone
>who, in contrast to those would would say, "Seeing is believing," says
>instead, "Despite seeing, I still don't believe," or in your case, "I
>refuse to look at something that would be in conflict with what I
>believe."
Draper, the movement of the grating does not affect the absolute wavelength of
the light, therefore movement of the grating should not affect the diffracted
angles either.
Your theory is proved wrong.
>PD
Henri Wilson
But Draper, in your last post, you just backed up everything I claimed.
Thank you.
Henri Wilson
>On May 2, 1:17 am, HW@....(Henri Wilson) wrote:
>
>> Are you suggesting that the movement of the grating somehow
>> changes the (absolute) wavelength of the light?....because
>> gratings are sensitive only to wavelength .....If IT doesn't
>> change, how can the angles change?
>
>Wavelength is NOT absolute.
How would YOU know?
>Doppler shift in moving gratings has been routinely observed in
>orbiting space telescopes such as HST, Chandra, Compton etc.
Good! that supports my argument.
>In the case of the Hubble Space Telescope, for example, the
>location of EACH INDIVIDUAL PHOTON gathered by the high resolution
>MAMA detectors needs to be corrected for the Doppler shift induced
>by spacecraft motion before being added to the proper bin counter.
Good! that supports my argument.
>See the HST Data Handbook for STIS
>3.4.8 DOPPCORR: correct reference files for Doppler shift
>http://www.stsci.edu/hst/stis/documents/handbooks/currentDHB/ch3_stis_calib5.html#369475
Don't need to. You have fully supported my argument. Thank you.
>
>Jerry
karand...@yahoo.com
> On 2 May 2007 14:53:33 -0700, karandash2...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
>
>
> >On May 2, 1:02 pm, "kenseto" <kens...@woh.rr.com> wrote:
> >> "kenseto" <kens...@erinet.com> wrote in message
>
> >> Sorry the formula for diffraction angle change should be as follows:
> >> d*sin(theta) = c'(varying speed of incoming light)/(detected incoming
> >> frequency)
> >> Where c'=universal wavelength*detected incoming frequency.
>
> >Dr. Seto
>
> >IF light speed varied according to the famous IRT formulas you would
> >be getting very different results from:
>
> >1. Ives-Stilwell experiment
> >2. Sagnac experiment
> >3. Gagnon experiment
> >4. Any experiment that deals with two or more light pencils
> >propagating in different directions.
>
> No you wouldn't.
>
Wouldn't what, shithead. Care to calculate what would happen if one
used dr. Seto's formulas in the experiments. Come on, don't be shy,
use those mathematical skills acquired when you gog your BullShit
"degree", Ralpshito.
>
>
> >So, you see, your lack of expermental knowledge and of math betrays
> >you again. You more than make up these two deficiencies with your very
> >strong logic but this time you would need to re-examine your
> >premises.
>
> >Could you please try taking any of the experiments 1-3 above and
> >rework the theory by using the variable speed of light formula from
> >IRT. Please copy the calculations in this thread. Thank you.
>
> Often, the apparatus itself constitutes a local EM reference frame.
>
> BaTh only applies 100% when operating in truly 'empty' space.....that is, below
> the Wilson Density Threshold.
>
In other words, in WIS (Wilson Imbecility Space).
Henri Wilson
<paul.b....@hiadeletethis.no> wrote:
>Henri Wilson wrote:
>> On Wed, 02 May 2007 01:22:07 GMT, Tom Roberts <tjrobe...@sbcglobal.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Henri Wilson wrote:
>>>> [...]
>>> This merely proves that Henry Wilson's personal MISUNDERSTANDINGS about
>>> SR are wrong. <shrug>
>>>
>>> Note that the angles are measured in the rest frame of the diffraction
>>> grating, and the Doppler shift is determined by the relative velocity of
>>> source and detector (here the diffraction grating). When you change that
>>> relative velocity, the diffraction angles change. <shrug>
>>
>> Are you suggesting that the movement of the grating somehow changes the
>> (absolute) wavelength of the light?....because gratings are sensitive only to
>> wavelength .....If IT doesn't change, how can the angles change?
>
>Don't you understand that the proven _fact_ that the wavelength of
>light depend on the relative speed source - grating prove that
>there is no such thing as "the absloute wavelength of light".
>Wavelength is experimentally proven to be frame dependent.
>BaT falsified.
Hohohahahahahahhohohohawhawhaw!
An exercise in Circular Norwegian Logic!!!!!!
>Paul
karand...@yahoo.com
> <karandash2...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
Dr. Seto, what you are being called by all of the people knowing is
spelled with "c". Take note.
>.in the observer's
> frame the speed of light is a constant math ratio and isotropic as follows:
> light path length of ruler (299,792,458m)/the absolute time content for a
> clock second co-moving with the ruler.
> Also the speed of light in IRT is defined as Faa(Universal wavelength of a
> standard light source).
Dr. Seto,
Are you saying that IRT is a ballistic theory? Careful, BaTh has been
refuted long ago. So, here you are , you are refuting your IRT. You
have done this many, many times now. Time for you to take a timeout
and think it over.
Jeckyl
news:eebl339k9k009jnbt...@4ax.com...
How is that circular .. Emission theory predicts one thing, and SR another
.. experimental evidence shows that the SR prediction is correct. That's
the scientific method, as opposed to delusion when you believe in your
theory even when its proven wrong.
Henri Wilson
<ew...@sirius.tg00suus7038.net> wrote:
>In sci.physics.relativity, HW@....(Henri Wilson)
><HW@>
>>>And then there's the supernovae, which would look *very*
>>>strange from Planet Newtonia. Whether Planet BaTh would
>>>see similar effects is far from clear; the decay factor
>>>mitigates the effect. It is clear that the decay factor
>>>cannot operate over more than about a light-year, since
>>>AFAIK most supernovae occur over a few weeks and the
>>>outermost shell is estimated to be moving at a speed of
>>>1/10 c.
>>
>> You're completely out of touch Ghost.
>> All we see is the Willusion.
>
>Of course all we see is the willusion. There's no way
>in hell I can determine what that star over there is
>doing right *now*, assuming it even makes sense for me
>to attribute "now" to a faraway entity light-years --
>or even light-microseconds -- away.
That's not what a willusionis Ghost.
If you look at a star 10 LYs away, the willusion is the difference between what
it actually WAS doing 10 years ago and what you now see it doing.
Get it?
>> Now will you please return to the original question....
>
>Which is ... ? If it's relating to a diffraction grating
>I've already answered it; until you provide a mathematical
>BaTh basis as to how lightspeed varies from a moving source
>I can't do a heck of a lot more.
The subject at hand doesn't involve the BaTh at all. It simply points out that
SR cannot account for the fact that the diffraction angles are different for
differently moving gratings when they are supposed to be wavelength dependent
only. The movement of the gratings cannot possibly affect the light itself,
although some of your colleagues seem to think it can.
>Newton: c' = c-v; l0/l = 1
>SR: c' = c l0/l = sqrt(1-v/c)/sqrt(1+v/c)
>BaTh: c' = c-??*v; l0/l = ??
Don't worry about BaTh. It is now firmly established.
Henri Wilson
>On May 2, 5:15 pm, HW@....(Henri Wilson) wrote:
>> On 2 May 2007 11:04:30 -0700, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >Suppose there is a stick flying toward you, and you apply a procedure
>> >using a device to measure the length of the stick. Now you move away
>> >so that the stick is no longer moving with respect to you, and you
>> >apply the identical procedure using the same device to measure the
>> >length of the stick, and it comes out with a different answer. You
>> >will certainly say that nothing physical has happened to the stick,
>> >and that is absolutely correct. You will then say that if nothing
>> >physical has happened to the stick then the length of the stick cannot
>> >possibly have changed, and that is absolutely incorrect. You will
>> >perhaps then say that it *must* be so because length is an inherent
>> >property of the stick, and that is also absolutely incorrect.
>>
>> This highlights one of the basic flaws in SR.
>
>Gee, I don't think so. You may think it is a flaw of nature, because
>nature behaves this way. SR merely describes how nature behaves.
SR has never described anything that nature does.
>> The truth is, any 'stick' can be used to define an absolute spatial length.
>
>Not according to nature, as revealed in experiment. You may find it
>troublesome that what you want to be true is in fact not true, but
>simply reiterating what you want to be true will not make it happen.
>Try tossing a penny in a well while you say it.
Draper, the proof that rods don't change in any way when moved to a different
speed is quite trivial. Even you should be able to work that out.
Since nothing changes length when moved then SR is clearly wrong and all
lengths are absolute and invariant.
That should now be obvious.
>> It
>> will not change no matter how it is moved or where it is taken. (apart from
>> normal elastic effects)
>
>Well, as I said to you, this is absolutely incorrect.
Even you seniors agree with me on this one.
>PD
Henri Wilson
<paul.b....@hiadeletethis.no> wrote:
>Henri Wilson wrote:
>> Consider a diffraction grating positioned perpendicular to light coming from a
>> star that is moving towards Earth at v.
>>
>> As we know, the light is diffracted at certain angles determined by an equation
>> that contains no light speed term. Relativists have used this fact in arguments
>> against the BaTh, claiming that a diffraction grating would not work at all if
>> the BaTh was correct.
>
>The experimentally proven fact that the wavelength of light
>is frame dependent falsifies the BaTh.
Since when was that experimentally proved?
>> The diffracted angles are indicators of doppler shift and are used to determine
>> v.
>>
>> If now the grating is moved away at velocity v, so that it is at rest wrt the
>> star, the question arises as to why these angles should change to indicate zero
>> doppler shift.
>
>We know they do.
Good. That proves SR wrong.
>> The light certainly hasn't been physically affected in any way
>> by the grating's movement and the angles are supposed to be 'wavelength
>> dependent' only.
>
>So wavelength is proven not to be an intrinsic property of
>the light - as predicted by SR.
So what in your opinion is 'wavelength'
>> This is just another proof that SR is nothing but a futile circular maths
>> theory which has no connection with the physical world.
>
>This is great logic! :-)
>The fact that SR predicts what is observed prove that
>it has no connection with reality!
How can it predict what is observed when it claims gratings are sensitive to
wavelength only and we know the light cannot possibly be altered by the
movement of the grating?
>I see you still are able to improve your stupidity. :-)
well you can't get much more stupid than Norwegian.....bloody freezing hell
hole.
>
>Keep it up, Henri.
>The sky is the limit!
>
>Paul, still amazed after all these years
Paul, your colleagues are in complete disarray over this. They are grasping at
straws, contradicting both themselves and each other, desperately trying to
find a logical error in my argument.
Paul B. Andersen
Are you drivelling as well as laughing hysterically?
Watch it.
You are heading the same way as Androcles has gone.
Paul
Paul B. Andersen
On second thought, you don't have to watch it any more.
You have gone the same way as Androcles.
Fait accompli.
Paul
bz
news:463A5684...@bestweb.net:
Wrong.
The electrons in a light bulb are not the emitting bodies. They ONLY work
to heat the filament. It is the hot filament that radiates the light and
then only as a black body at that temperature radiates light. The heating
could be indirect (as in some thermionic vacuum tubes) rather than direct.
The spectrum of the radiation is broad band, closely matching that
predicted by the boltzman distribution for a body at the temperature of the
filament.
The electrons in the FLASH are the emitting bodies. The spectrum is
monochromatic.
No group theory is required to understand that these cases are quite
different.
--
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
PD
> On 3 May 2007 08:21:44 -0700, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >On May 2, 8:01 pm, HW@....(Henri Wilson) wrote:
>
> >> >> How do you know that?
>
> >> >Because differently-moving observers measure different values for the
> >> >wavelength of a given beam of light.
>
> >> No, they measure a different 'wavecrest arrival rate'.
>
> >That is incorrect, Henri. A wavecrest arrival rate is a frequency, by
> >definition. Gratings are by design not sensitive to frequency. They
> >are sensitive to wavelength only.
>
> Good!!! That's what I like to hear....
Good!!! Then you'll retract your statement that a grating measures the
wavecrest arrival rate (the frequency).
>
> Now if you re-read my original post, you MUST then agree that this fact
> falsifies SR.
Certainly not. Now if you re-read my post, you'll see that experiment
plainly disagrees, and every day.
>
> >In the same grating, two waves coming in with the same wavelength but
> >different speeds (and hence different frequencies) are scattered
> >through the *same* angle. This has actually been tested with gratings
> >that are suitable for microwaves and high-frequency sound (same
> >wavelength, much different speeds, much different frequencies).
>
> That's perfectly all right by me Draper.
Good, then we've established that a grating is sensitive to wavelength
and wavelength only, not frequency, not wave speed.
>
> >In a grating (a device that measures *wavelength*, not frequency),
> >differently moving observers measure different values for the
> >wavelength of a given beam of light.
>
> Hahahohohhahah!
> So you and your colleagues still believe the observer can affect the observed.
> Nice on Draper....I'll try it with my Keno numbers....
I don't know why you're laughing, Henri. You've already agreed that a
diffraction grating measures wavelength, not frequency, not wave
speed. The last statement, the one you're laughing at, is a simple
observational fact, one that is shown to students by the bucketloads
every year. It's not a matter of "believing". It's a matter of
looking. Have you never used a diffraction grating to observe this
*real behavior*?
>
> >Much as you'd like to say, "But that can't be," it nevertheless is.
> >Your refusal to acknowledge what is and your steadfast clinging to
> >what you think "can be" is the mark of a crank. A crank is someone
> >who, in contrast to those would would say, "Seeing is believing," says
> >instead, "Despite seeing, I still don't believe," or in your case, "I
> >refuse to look at something that would be in conflict with what I
> >believe."
>
> Draper, the movement of the grating does not affect the absolute wavelength of
> the light, therefore movement of the grating should not affect the diffracted
> angles either.
But it does. Simple observational fact. You could do it yourself in
your garage.
> Your theory is proved wrong.
It's not a theory. It's a simple observational fact, Henri. Reread
what I wrote about how to discern a crank.