>On May 3, 10:50 pm, HW@....(Henri Wilson) wrote:
>> On 2 May 2007 22:40:45 -0700, Jerry <Cephalobus_alie...@comcast.net> 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?....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?

>1) Gratings measure wavelength
>2) The wavelength measured by gratings depends on the relative
>   movement of source and detector.
>3) Therefore, wavelength is not absolute.

>> >Doppler shift in moving gratings has been routinely observed in
>> >orbiting space telescopes such as HST, Chandra, Compton etc.

>> Good! that supports my argument.

>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.

>> >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...

>> Don't need to. You have fully supported my argument. Thank you.

>I don't think you know what your argument IS, anymore!
>All you know is that since you WANT BaTh to be the correct
>theory, and since you WANT SR to be false, that all observations
>support BaTh and falsify SR no matter what they may be. You
>flip-flop at a moments notice if an incontrovertible fact
>contradicts a previous assertion of yours, and your forget that
>you ever made the false assertion. A few days later, you will
>repeat the false assertion, and the cycle begins anew.

>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."

>Jerry