Diffraction Gratings Prove SR Wrong. - sci.physics.relativity

Message from discussion Diffraction Gratings Prove SR Wrong.

Henri Wilson

View profile

More options May 6 2007, 6:45 am

Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity

From: HW@....(Henri Wilson)

Date: Sun, 06 May 2007 10:45:08 GMT

Local: Sun, May 6 2007 6:45 am

Subject: Re: Diffraction Gratings Prove SR Wrong.

  Reply to author
  |
  Forward
  | Print
  | View thread
  | Show original
  | Report this message
  | Find messages by this author
  

On 5 May 2007 03:07:13 -0700, Jerry <Cephalobus_alie...@comcast.net> wrote:

>On May 4, 6:09 pm, HW@....(Henri Wilson) wrote:
>> On 4 May 2007 05:16:20 -0700, Jerry <Cephalobus_alie...@comcast.net> wrote:

>> >A few days ago, you were asserting that the wavelength detected
>> >by gratings should NOT change with grating movement, and you
>> >were challenging us for a counterexample.

>> I SAID THEY SHOULD NOT IF YOUR THEORY IS CORRECT.

>Whose theory?

Einstein's

>In SR, for motion along the line of sight, if observer and emitter
>are moving away from each other with velocity v, then

>f_o = sqrt((1-v/c)/(1+v/c))*f_e
>lambda_o = sqrt((1+v/c)/(1-v/c))*lambda_e

>Measured frequency and wavelength BOTH change.

You have never directly measured that wavelength change...and nor has anyone
else.

>It is BaTh, not SR, which asserts that the wavelength detected
>by gratings is unaffected by grating movement. It is BaTh, not
>SR, which is contradicted by observation.

Read carefully, dear medical student...

there are two effects to discuss here.
Firstly, when light changes speed due for instance, to entering a medium of
different referactive index, its wavelength also changes accordingly.
Ignoring extinction effects, light of absolute wavelength 0.7 um, emitted from
a distant star that is moving towards Earth at v will arrive outside the
atmosphere at c+v wrt Eatrh. It will slow to c/n wrt Earth by the time it
reaches the ground and its absolute wavelength will shrink accordingly.

Thus, according to BaTh, a grating on Earth will be sensitive to the movement
of a source star.

The second case is the one we're discussing here. Let light of absolute
wavelength 0.7 um impinge on a grating. A diffraction paterns is generated. Now
move the grating away. SR says the wavelength changes. The BaTh - and every
sane person on this planet - says the absolute wavelength cannot possibly be
affected. Therefore any change in diffraction angle cannot be due to wavelength
change and therefore any theory that says it does must be wrong.

>I fully realize that you have dug BaTh's grave.

>Repeat:
>It is BaTh, not SR, which asserts that the wavelength detected
>by gratings is unaffected by grating movement. It is BaTh, not
>SR, which is contradicted by observation.

>> >My analogy to "1984" is closer than I ever suspected. You are a
>> >victim of your own system of doublethink.

>> >[Blackwhite is] "the ability to believe that black is white, and
>> >more, to know that black is white, and to forget that one has ever
>> >believed the contrary. This demands a continuous alteration of the
>> >past, made possible by the system of thought which really embraces
>> >all the rest, and which is known in Newspeak as doublethink.
>> >Doublethink is basically the power of holding two contradictory
>> >beliefs in one's mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them."

>> If X then Y.
>> If Y then......
>> If Not Y then Not X.
>> If X and Not Y then NOT Z(X,Y)

>What do you mean by "or then"?
>Your last logical assertion cannot be parsed.
>Is this more doublethink?

I can't see any 'or'...you imagined it...

>Jerry

www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm

Einstein's Relativity - the greatest HOAX since jesus christ's virgin mother.

Reply to author Forward