Gmail Calendar Documents Reader Web more »
Recently Visited Groups | Help | Sign in
Google Groups Home
sci.physics.relativity
+ new post
About this group
Subscribe to this group
This is a Usenet group - learn more
Message from discussion Diffraction Gratings Prove SR Wrong.
The group you are posting to is a Usenet group. Messages posted to this group will make your email address visible to anyone on the Internet.
Your reply message has not been sent.
Your post was successful
 
From:
To:
Cc:
Followup To:
Add Cc | Add Followup-to | Edit Subject
Subject:
Validation:
For verification purposes please type the characters you see in the picture below or the numbers you hear by clicking the accessibility icon. Listen and type the numbers you hear
 
Jerry  
View profile  
 More options May 5 2007, 6:07 am
Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity
From: Jerry <Cephalobus_alie...@comcast.net>
Date: 5 May 2007 03:07:13 -0700
Local: Sat, May 5 2007 6:07 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 May 4, 6:09 pm, HW@....(Henri Wilson) wrote:

> On 4 May 2007 05:16:20 -0700, Jerry <Cephalobus_alie...@comcast.net> wrote:

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

> >> >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.

> All lengths are 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.

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

Whose theory?

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.

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.

> >> >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.

It falsifies your argument.

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.

> >> >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.

You lose. You're welcome.

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.

> >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.

> ..the funny part is you don't even realise you are digging
> your own SR's grave here.

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 or then NOT Z(X,Y)

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

Jerry


    Reply to author    Forward  
You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.
Create a group - Google Groups - Google Home - Terms of Service - Privacy Policy
©2009 Google