OBSERVER-DEPENDENT SPEED OF LIGHT

[Pentcho Valev]

The speed of light (relative to the observer) varies with the speed of the observer. This is an antirelativistic statement which, somewhat paradoxically, is commonplace in the scientific literature. Scientists often forget to worship special relativity and produce texts like this one:

http://physics.bu.edu/~redner/211-sp06/class19/class19_doppler.html
Professor Sidney Redner: "The Doppler effect is the shift in frequency of a wave that occurs when the wave source, or the detector of the wave, is moving. Applications of the Doppler effect range from medical tests using ultrasound to radar detectors and astronomy (with electromagnetic waves). (...) We will focus on sound waves in describing the Doppler effect, but it works for other waves too. (...) Let's say you, the observer, now move toward the source with velocity vO. You encounter more waves per unit time than you did before. Relative to you, the waves travel at a higher speed: v'=v+vO. The frequency of the waves you detect is higher, and is given by: f'=v'/(lambda)=(v+vO)/(lambda)."

See more here:

http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1398
Shift in Frequency Implies Shift in Speed of Light

Pentcho Valev
pva...@yahoo.com

[xxein]

xxein: MM and PR are a step beyond Thor. I'll give you that. Even
Einstein could not reconcile his belief. It seemed to work, but then
again, it did not contain any physical reason for it to be so. Just a
math trying to explain an observation.

The complexity of Einstein's math matched no physical process. But
you are less than that with no physical process. MM and PR
interpretations included.

You can't base the understanding of the physic on Thor. But you seem
to base it on observational results that are only interpretations
based on old and incomplete theories (beliefs).

I've studied them and they don't have even a near completeness for the
physic that must provide.

Even I have not discovered the true physic but I can eliminate
Einstein as a contender. Even more much so with MM and PR
interpretations.

I am not suggesting that any theory in existence can do this. I am
saying that the way I think about it (on the macro scale and even to
some micro) is much more complete.

And then proof of what? An observation? You don't even know the
physic that PROVIDES for observation. It is much different than you
know. Been there, done that.

[Pentcho Valev]

http://www.hep.man.ac.uk/u/roger/PHYS10302/lecture18.pdf
Roger Barlow, Professor of Particle Physics: "The Doppler effect - changes in frequencies when sources or observers are in motion - is familiar to anyone who has stood at the roadside and watched (and listened) to the cars go by. It applies to all types of wave, not just sound. (...) Moving Observer. Now suppose the source is fixed but the observer is moving towards the source, with speed v. In time t, ct/(lambda) waves pass a fixed point. A moving point adds another vt/(lambda). So f'=(c+v)/(lambda)."

"In time t, ct/(lambda) waves pass a fixed point." That is, the speed of the waves relative to the fixed observer is c.

"A moving point adds another vt/(lambda)." That is, the speed of the waves relative to the moving observer becomes c'=c+v. The new frequency, f'=c'/(lambda)=(c+v)/(lambda), is consistent with c'=c+v.

Pentcho Valev

[Pentcho Valev]

http://www.cmmp.ucl.ac.uk/~ahh/teaching/1B24n/lect19.pdf
Tony Harker, University College London: "The Doppler Effect: Moving sources and receivers. The phenomena which occur when a source of sound is in motion are well known. The example which is usually cited is the change in pitch of the engine of a moving vehicle as it approaches. In our treatment we shall not specify the type of wave motion involved, and our results will be applicable to sound or to light. (...) Now suppose that the observer is moving with a velocity Vo away from the source. (...) If the observer moves with a speed Vo away from the source (...), then in a time t the number of waves which reach the observer are those in a distance (c-Vo)t, so the number of waves observed is (c-Vo)t/lambda, giving an observed frequency f'=f(1-Vo/c) when the observer is moving away from the source at a speed Vo."

If "in a time t the number of waves which reach the observer are those in a distance (c-Vo)t", then the speed of the light waves relative to the observer is c'=c-Vo.

Pentcho Valev

[Helmut Wabnig]

Yes, and what's your point?

w.

[Pentcho Valev]

http://ef.engr.utk.edu/ef152-2008-08/m4/ef152-lec-4-2.pdf
"If an observer moves towards a stationary source with speed Vr, the observer sees the wave crests with a speed:

V' = V + Vr

Wavelength remains the same, so the modified frequency is:

f' = V'/(lambda) = (V + Vr)/(lambda) = fo(1 + Vr/V)"

Pentcho Valev

[Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway]

"Pentcho Valev" <pva...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:54b4d096-2121-42e5...@googlegroups.com...

 

Sound is emitted from a stationary source with a speed of Mach 1 and

a wavelength of 1.116 feet.

If a car moves toward the stationary sound source with a speed

of 30 mph, what frequency is heard?

Explain your answer.

 

[Pentcho Valev]

http://www.einstein-online.info/spotlights/doppler
Albert Einstein Institute: "The frequency of a wave-like signal - such as sound or light - depends on the movement of the sender and of the receiver. This is known as the Doppler effect. (...) Here is an animation of the receiver moving towards the source: (...) By observing the two indicator lights, you can see for yourself that, once more, there is a blue-shift - the pulse frequency measured at the receiver is somewhat higher than the frequency with which the pulses are sent out. This time, the distances between subsequent pulses are not affected, but still there is a frequency shift: As the receiver moves towards each pulse, the time until pulse and receiver meet up is shortened. In this particular animation, which has the receiver moving towards the source at one third the speed of the pulses themselves, four pulses are received in the time it takes the source to emit three pulses."

That is, the motion of the observer cannot change the wavelength ("the distances between subsequent pulses are not affected") and accordingly the speed of light as measured by the receiver is (4/3)c.

Pentcho Valev

[Paul B. Andersen]

On 24.09.2012 14:09, Pentcho Valev wrote:
> http://www.einstein-online.info/spotlights/doppler
> Albert Einstein Institute:
> "The frequency of a wave-like signal - such as sound or light -
> depends on the movement of the sender and of the receiver.
> This is known as the Doppler effect. (...)
> Here is an animation of the receiver moving towards the source: (...)
> By observing the two indicator lights, you can see for yourself that,
> once more, there is a blue-shift - the pulse frequency measured at
> the receiver is somewhat higher than the frequency with which the pulses
> are sent out. This time, the distances between subsequent pulses are not
> affected, but still there is a frequency shift: As the receiver moves
towards
> each pulse, the time until pulse and receiver meet up is shortened.
> In this particular animation, which has the receiver moving towards
>the source at one third the speed of the pulses themselves, four pulses
> are received in the time it takes the source to emit three pulses."
>

And to quote what follows in the next section:
"All our arguments so far were grounded in classical physics
[that is Galilean relativity].
Once we take special relativity into account, there is
an additional effect: time dilation."

And then the result would be different.

> That is, the motion of the observer cannot change the wavelength
> ("the distances between subsequent pulses are not affected") and accordingly
> the speed of light as measured by the receiver is (4/3)c.

Indeed.
In Galilean relativity, distances and wavelengths are invariant.
And if the speed of light is c in the rest frame of the source,
and the speed of the receiver v is c/3 towards the emitter,
then the speed of light measured by the receiver is c' = c + v = (4/3)c.

Did you have a point with stating this trivial prediction
of Galilean relativity?

--
Paul

http://www.gethome.no/paulba/

[Tom Roberts]

On 9/24/12 9/24/12 7:09 AM, Pentcho Valev wrote:
> http://www.einstein-online.info/spotlights/doppler Albert Einstein Institute:

> [...]

You need to READ your sources. Further down they say explicitly: "All our
arguments so far were grounded in classical physics." They then go on to
describe the effects of relativity.

> That is, the motion of the observer cannot change the wavelength ("the
> distances between subsequent pulses are not affected") and accordingly the
> speed of light as measured by the receiver is (4/3)c.

Nonsense.

As I keep telling you, and you keep ignoring, the observation of the annual
Doppler effect shows CONCLUSIVELY that "motion of the observer" (on earth) DOES
"change the wavelength" [#].

[#] This is poorly worded -- the wavelength of the light wave is
not intrinsic, and what is changing is the MEASURED VALUE of the
wavelength BY THIS OBSERVER.


Pentcho Valev is one of the many fools and idiots around here who are unable to
read, and who have proven themselves completely unable to learn anything.
Readers who are interested in science would do well to ignore them.


Tom Roberts

[Pentcho Valev]

On Monday, September 24, 2012 2:54:10 PM UTC+2, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
> On 24.09.2012 14:09, Pentcho Valev wrote:
>
> > http://www.einstein-online.info/spotlights/doppler
>
> > Albert Einstein Institute:
>
> > "The frequency of a wave-like signal - such as sound or light -
>
> > depends on the movement of the sender and of the receiver.
>
> > This is known as the Doppler effect. (...)
>
> > Here is an animation of the receiver moving towards the source: (...)
>
> > By observing the two indicator lights, you can see for yourself that,
>
> > once more, there is a blue-shift - the pulse frequency measured at
>
> > the receiver is somewhat higher than the frequency with which the pulses
>
> > are sent out. This time, the distances between subsequent pulses are not
>
> > affected, but still there is a frequency shift: As the receiver moves
>
> towards
>
> > each pulse, the time until pulse and receiver meet up is shortened.
>
> > In this particular animation, which has the receiver moving towards
>
> >the source at one third the speed of the pulses themselves, four pulses
>
> > are received in the time it takes the source to emit three pulses."
>
> >
>
>
>
> And to quote what follows in the next section:
>
> "All our arguments so far were grounded in classical physics
>
> [that is Galilean relativity].
>
> Once we take special relativity into account, there is
>
> an additional effect: time dilation."
>
>
>
> And then the result would be different.

How different, Clever Andersen? Will taking into account time dilation convert the original result, (4/3)c, to c? If yes, just show the calculations. If not, isn't your "time dilation" counterargument too silly?

Pentcho Valev

[Pentcho Valev]

On Monday, September 24, 2012 4:01:01 PM UTC+2, tjrob137 wrote:
> On 9/24/12 9/24/12 7:09 AM, Pentcho Valev wrote:
> > That is, the motion of the observer cannot change the wavelength ("the
>
> > distances between subsequent pulses are not affected") and accordingly the
>
> > speed of light as measured by the receiver is (4/3)c.
>
>
>
> Nonsense.
>
>
>
> As I keep telling you, and you keep ignoring, the observation of the annual
>
> Doppler effect shows CONCLUSIVELY that "motion of the observer" (on earth) DOES
>
> "change the wavelength" [#].
>
>
>
> [#] This is poorly worded -- the wavelength of the light wave is
>
> not intrinsic, and what is changing is the MEASURED VALUE of the
>
> wavelength BY THIS OBSERVER.

The crucial question, Honest Roberts: Does your "nonsense" refer to the text above it or the text below it?

Pentcho Valev

[Pentcho Valev]

http://www.takoi.edu.hk/~phy/0304_S6_webpage/Doppler%20effec1[1].2.htm
"Approaching observer with stationary source. The wavelength observed by the observer remains unchanged. (lambda)=c/f. Apparent speed of the wave relatively to the observer: c'=c+Vo. Apparent frequency observed by the observer: f'=c'/(lambda)=[(c+Vo)/c]f."

Contrary to naive expectations, the blasphemous equation c'=c+Vo provokes no reaction at all. High-ranking Einsteinians have already left the sinking ship:

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_45GnkHLOfyA/TClEb8j-yAI/AAAAAAAAA48/Sz82Y_ZwGvs/s1600/Ratosdenavio.png

Pentcho Valev

[Paul B. Andersen]

Yes, stupid Valev.

> If yes, just show the calculations.

If you Google "Relativistic Doppler effect", you get 141 000 hits.
So why should I bother to repeat this trivial exercise?

--
Paul

http://www.gethome.no/paulba/

[Paul B. Andersen]

On 24.09.2012 19:09, Pentcho Valev wrote:
> http://www.takoi.edu.hk/~phy/0304_S6_webpage/Doppler%20effec1[1].2.htm
> "Approaching observer with stationary source. The wavelength observed by the observer remains unchanged. (lambda)=c/f. Apparent speed of the wave relatively to the observer: c'=c+Vo. Apparent frequency observed by the observer: f'=c'/(lambda)=[(c+Vo)/c]f."
>
> Contrary to naive expectations, the blasphemous equation c'=c+Vo provokes no reaction at all. High-ranking Einsteinians have already left the sinking ship:

I note with amusement that Valev's naive expectation is that
"High-ranking Einsteinians" in this NG should bother to react on
the fact that relativity is not introduced in a physics web page
for students in a secondary school in Hong Kong. :-)

--
Paul

http://www.gethome.no/paulba/

[Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway]

"Paul B. Andersen" <som...@somewhere.no> wrote in message news:k3qdjj$cdf$1...@news.albasani.net...

Here’s the problem, clever Tusseladd.

 

http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/figures/img11.gif

Taking into consideration the principle of the constancy of the velocity of light we find that

t_B-t_A = r_AB/(c-v)

and

t_A’-t_B = r_AB/(c+v)

where r_AB denotes the length of the moving rod—measured in the stationary system. -- Einstein

 

So how does measured c-v = c and measured c+v = c, measured

in the moving system, clever Tusseladd?

 

Oh wait, I know...

I want my weight to be 75 kg instead of 100 kg so I just

multiply what the bathroom scale says by 3/4, call it the Lorentz

weight loss and forget about dieting. Right, clever Tusseladd?

> If yes, just show the calculations.

If you Google "Relativistic Doppler effect", you get 141 000 hits.
So why should I bother to repeat this trivial exercise?

You won’t because you know I’d make you look like the drunken fool

you are, clever Tusseladd.

 

-- This message is brought to you from the keyboard of
Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway

[Ron-boy]

On Sep 24, 2012, Tom Roberts wrote:
<<snip>>

An observer who is at rest relative to the light source will see the
true or absolute frequency of the emitted light. For example, sodium
light is intrinsically yellow, so any observer who is at rest wrt a
sodium source will see sodium light as yellow. The reason for this is
shown by the following simple diagram:

( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ))))))))))))))))))
O1--------------------S-----------------O2-->

O1 says, "I see yellow because any motion that I may have through
space will "compress" the waves back to yellow," and O2 says, "I also
see yellow because any motion that I may have through space will
"stretch" the waves back to yellow."

The yellow color is intrinsic and observer-independent because it is
caused by electrons in the source that return to their ground state.
Obviously, no observer has anything to do with this.

The observers are not measuring anything but are merely looking at
color.

Also, after the light leaves the source, it is disconnected from it
because light is source-independent. The source is "out of the
picture," only the light is left.

Given all of the above, it is clear that whenever observers see
different, non-yellow colors from a sodium source, then the observers
are moving differently relative to the light.

And since relative motion is reciprocal, we see that light is moving
differently relative to said observers.

And of course, this runs counter to special relativity "theory."

(Note that frequency is the only directly-measured parameter of the
equation wavelength = c/frequency, and a possibly slowed clock is used
to make this measurement. Also note that c is an assumed value. Only
after the frequency has been measured with a slowed clock and the
speed "c" is assumed can you then calculate the wavelength.)

~RA~

[space...@gmail.com]

On Wednesday, September 26, 2012 6:27:14 PM UTC-7, Ron-boy wrote:
> On Sep 24, 2012, Tom Roberts wrote:
>
> <<snip>>
>

If an observer moves behind light slightly below C in space
what kind of seperation of the two shall take place?

Mitchell Raemsch

[kenseto]

That's right....a new theory of relativity called IRT is
based on the above concept. A paper on IRT is available
in the following link:
http://www.modelmechanics.org/2011irt.dtg.pdf

[Ron-boy]

On Sep 26, 10:51 pm, spacespe...@gmail.com wrote:
> If an observer moves behind light slightly below C in space
> what kind of seperation of the two shall take place?
>
> Mitchell Raemsch

Light's relative motion is the same* as that of any other entity in
space, such as a plain old asteroid (with the only - irrelevant -
difference being light's faster speed), so the separation of which you
spoke is the same as that of an observer in one car going 49 mph who
is following another car that is going 50 mph.

*the only reasons for round-trip light speed invariance are the
improper instruments used, namely, slowed clocks and shrunken rulers,
and if we use undistorted instruments with the clocks being correctly
synch'd, then light's one-way speed, just as will an asteroid's, will
vary with frame vel.

SR errs by trying to make light different. Light is the same as it was
before, during, and after the MMx. It ain't changed a bit.

~RA~

[kenseto]

On Monday, September 24, 2012 10:01:01 AM UTC-4, tjrob137 wrote:
> On 9/24/12 9/24/12 7:09 AM, Pentcho Valev wrote:
>
> > http://www.einstein-online.info/spotlights/doppler Albert Einstein Institute:
>
> > [...]
>
>
>
> You need to READ your sources. Further down they say explicitly: "All our
>
> arguments so far were grounded in classical physics." They then go on to
>
> describe the effects of relativity.
>
>
>
>
>
> > That is, the motion of the observer cannot change the wavelength ("the
>
> > distances between subsequent pulses are not affected") and accordingly the
>
> > speed of light as measured by the receiver is (4/3)c.
>
>
>
> Nonsense.
>
>
>
> As I keep telling you, and you keep ignoring, the observation of the annual
>
> Doppler effect shows CONCLUSIVELY that "motion of the observer" (on earth) DOES
>
> "change the wavelength" [#].

No it doen't the incoming light becomes a new light source and the grating defines a new wavelength for this new light source. The correct interpretation is that the change in the incoming frequency is due to a change in the inconming speed of light when the wavelength of the source is assumed to be universal.
>

[Tom Roberts]

On 9/26/12 9/26/12 8:27 PM, Ron-boy wrote:
> An observer who is at rest relative to the light source will see the
> true or absolute frequency of the emitted light.

There is nothing "true" or "absolute" about that. This is just the frequency
measured in the rest frame of the source.

You keep making claims like this, but have NEVER described how to make an
"absolute" measurement.

> For example, sodium
> light is intrinsically yellow,

Not at all. It is yellow IN THE REST FRAME OF THE SOURCE. Observers moving
relative to the source will see other colors -- which PROVES that color is not
intrinsic to the light.

Make no mistake, an intrinsic property is one that is the same to
all observers. For light, color fails miserably.

Note: Human eyeballs are not very good at resolving different colors (compared
to modern instruments), and they often make mistakes (the frequency response of
the pigments in the retina are not uniform, or even monotonic). So in physics we
universally mean frequency of the light when we mention "color" (sometimes
wavelength is meant) -- eyeballs are too easily fooled.

Have you ever seen a color Polaroid photograph? Doesn't it
LOOK like all colors are present? -- they aren't; Polaroid
photography uses just a black-and-white image and a red image;
the "colors" you see are a sophisticated illusion to your
eyeball (and brain, which is where the deception really
happens).

> so any observer who is at rest wrt a
> sodium source will see sodium light as yellow.

Yes, that is true.

> The yellow color is intrinsic and observer-independent

This is just not so. Observers moving relative to the source see other colors.

Your hopes and dreams are not conditions the world must obey.
The color of a light ray is NOT intrinsic, because that is
WHAT WE OBSERVE. SR has nothing to do with it.

> because it is
> caused by electrons in the source that return to their ground state.

Yes, IN THE REST FRAME OF THE SOURCE. Not in any other frame.

Hint: those atoms and their electron clouds are at rest
in one and only one frame.

> Obviously, no observer has anything to do with this.

Sure. But observers' motion relative to the source has A LOT TO DO WITH WHAT
THEY OBSERVE.

> The observers are not measuring anything but are merely looking at
> color.

That _IS_ a measurement. See above about the limitations of human eyeballs.
Still, identifying the color of a light ray most definitely _IS_ a measurement
of its color (and therefore its frequency and/or wavelength).

> Also, after the light leaves the source, it is disconnected from it
> because light is source-independent. The source is "out of the
> picture," only the light is left.

Hmmm. The source has "imprinted" itself on the light, in the sense that the
events of constant phase are independent of frame, and were determined by the
source; the frequency and wavelength between such events depends on the motion
of the measuring instruments; that is conventionally phrased as "relative to the
source", because that is in general the only reference available.

"Speed relative to light" has no meaning, because one cannot
put rulers and clocks at rest relative to the light.

> Given all of the above, it is clear that whenever observers see
> different, non-yellow colors from a sodium source, then the observers
> are moving differently relative to the light.

Only in your dreams. If "moving differently relative to the light" means the
light has different speeds relative to the observers, then this is wrong (for
light in vacuum). Indeed, "moving relative to light" has no real meaning, as
light cannot make measurements; and no observer can make herself come to rest
relative to the light, so this is impossible IN PRINCIPLE, and not merely
because there happens to be no observer there.

Given all the above, it is clear that whenever observers see different,
non-yellow colors from a sodium source, then the observers are moving RELATIVE
TO THE SOURCE (no gravity).

> And since relative motion is reciprocal, we see that light is moving
> differently relative to said observers.

Again, only in your dreams. The real world does not correspond to your dreams.
Too bad for your dreams.


You REALLY need to learn to stop attempting to dictate to nature how to behave.
She won't listen. Essentially everything of substance that you said is
contradicted BY EXPERIMENT.


Tom Roberts

[hanis...@gmail.com]

Applying dopler effect in Light waves is cool! But it's too bad, you haven't figured what can posible go faster than light, which is C :)

[David Fuller]

Since the light path you perceive to be a straight line, is in actuality orthogonal due to the "fact" you and everything in this octave are in a hyper cube that is traveling inward at c, c is escape velocity around the corner of the hyper cube and the actual orthogonal path of light which is the explanation of c squared and empty space and the interference pattern and the invariant speed if light.

[David Fuller]

Since "YOU" are the event horizon, protons and neutrons, exit from and re entry to the event horizon will always be measured as "c" regardless.

[David Fuller]

X Y Z
Three orthogonal transmitting dimensions.

All three orthogonal to the recieving dimensions.

Simplify by making 90 degrees equal 1 degree and making one full turn equal 4 degrees.

[David Fuller]

Sqrt 3
3 orthogonal spatial dimensions
That are orthogonal to 3 orthogonal dimensions.

Magic hyper cube

[kenseto]

On Friday, September 28, 2012 12:34:53 AM UTC-4, tjrob137 wrote:
> On 9/26/12 9/26/12 8:27 PM, Ron-boy wrote:
>
> > An observer who is at rest relative to the light source will see the
>
> > true or absolute frequency of the emitted light.
>
>
>

> Only in your dreams. If "moving differently relative to the light" means the
>
> light has different speeds relative to the observers, then this is wrong (for
>
> light in vacuum).

No this is not wrong. The motion of the observer wrt the source will
cause frequency shift.....this in combination with the universal
wavelength of the source will give variable speed of light.

[Big Dog]

On 9/28/2012 9:21 AM, kenseto wrote:

> No this is not wrong. The motion of the observer wrt the source will
> cause frequency shift.....this in combination with the universal
> wavelength of the source will give variable speed of light.

An imaginary universal wavelength that Seto insists is there despite
measurements to the contrary, and which then implies a variable speed of
light that Seto insists is there despite measurements to the contrary.

Because you see, if the measurements do not make sense, then it is right
to reject them in favor of concepts you think make more sense. That's
how science is supposed to work.

[kenseto]

On Friday, September 28, 2012 10:40:51 AM UTC-4, Big Dog wrote:
> On 9/28/2012 9:21 AM, kenseto wrote:
>
>
>
> > No this is not wrong. The motion of the observer wrt the source will
>
> > cause frequency shift.....this in combination with the universal
>
> > wavelength of the source will give variable speed of light.
>
>
>
> An imaginary universal wavelength that Seto insists is there despite
>
> measurements to the contrary, and which then implies a variable speed of
>
> light that Seto insists is there despite measurements to the contrary.

Hey idiot....the incoming light becomes a new light
source in the observer's frame and the grating defines

a new wavelength for this new light source. The

wavelength of the original light source remains unchanged
and therefore any change in frequency is the result of
a change in the incoming speed of light.

[Big Dog]

On 9/28/2012 10:40 AM, kenseto wrote:
> On Friday, September 28, 2012 10:40:51 AM UTC-4, Big Dog wrote:
>> On 9/28/2012 9:21 AM, kenseto wrote:
>>
>>
>>> No this is not wrong. The motion of the observer wrt the source will
>>> cause frequency shift.....this in combination with the universal
>>> wavelength of the source will give variable speed of light.
>>
>>
>>
>> An imaginary universal wavelength that Seto insists is there despite
>> measurements to the contrary, and which then implies a variable speed of
>> light that Seto insists is there despite measurements to the contrary.
>
>
> Hey idiot....the incoming light becomes a new light
> source in the observer's frame and the grating defines
> a new wavelength for this new light source.

Again, there is no evidence of this change, there is only your
*assumption* of the change.

> The
> wavelength of the original light source remains unchanged

You have no evidence that the wavelength of the original light source is
unchanged. The *measurement* of the light from the source shows a
change. You say the measurement is of something else, but you have no
evidence that it is not changed.

> and therefore any change in frequency is the result of
> a change in the incoming speed of light.

But that contradicts any direct *measurement* of the speed from that source.

Remember, you can do all this on a desktop. You don't need a distant
star to measure Doppler shift. It is measured also on a desktop
apparatus, where you have the source in the room, you can measure the
speed of the light signal directly, you can measure the frequency of the
light directly, and you can measure the wavelength of the light directly.

[Tom Roberts]

You are also wrong. The observation of annual Doppler shift shows conclusively
that motion of the observer affects BOTH the measured frequency AND the measured
wavelength of light from distant astronomical objects.

Like Valev, you are mistaken about any sort of "universal wavelength".


Tom Roberts

[Pete Weber]

On Fri, 28 Sep 2012 11:28:35 -0500, Tom Roberts wrote:

> On 9/28/12 9/28/12 - 9:21 AM, kenseto wrote:
>> On Friday, September 28, 2012 12:34:53 AM UTC-4, tjrob137 wrote:
>>> If "moving differently relative to the light" means the light has
>>> different speeds relative to the observers, then this is wrong (for
>>> light in vacuum).
>>
>> No this is not wrong. The motion of the observer wrt the source will
>> cause frequency shift.....this in combination with the universal
>> wavelength of the source will give variable speed of light.
>
> You are also wrong. The observation of annual Doppler shift shows
> conclusively that motion of the observer affects BOTH the measured
> frequency AND the measured wavelength of light from distant astronomical
> objects.

This is incorrect, nothing can affect light, but only the way one id
detecting it

[Big Dog]

"nothing can affect light"
Let's see:
1. refraction
2. reflection
3. scattering
4. diffraction
5. Compton effect
6. Doppler shift (wavelength and frequency)
....
nope, no evidence whatsoever of light being affected

[Tom Roberts]

It is not "incorrect", it's just that you need to read more accurately. That's
what I said -- only the MEASUREMENTS are affected.


Tom Roberts

[Pete Weber]

It was about motion, and a detector couldnt care less that photon has been
reflected, scattered and so on, for a detector those are sources!

[Pete Weber]

Then we agree, however it easily can interprets to that the

"that motion of the observer affects ... light"

[kenseto]

On Friday, September 28, 2012 11:45:23 AM UTC-4, Big Dog wrote:
> On 9/28/2012 10:40 AM, kenseto wrote:
>
> > On Friday, September 28, 2012 10:40:51 AM UTC-4, Big Dog wrote:
>
> >> On 9/28/2012 9:21 AM, kenseto wrote:
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>> No this is not wrong. The motion of the observer wrt the source will
>
> >>> cause frequency shift.....this in combination with the universal
>
> >>> wavelength of the source will give variable speed of light.
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> An imaginary universal wavelength that Seto insists is there despite
>
> >> measurements to the contrary, and which then implies a variable speed of
>
> >> light that Seto insists is there despite measurements to the contrary.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > Hey idiot....the incoming light becomes a new light
>
> > source in the observer's frame and the grating defines
>
> > a new wavelength for this new light source.
>
>
>
> Again, there is no evidence of this change, there is only your
>
> *assumption* of the change.

Hey idiot the incoming light becomes a new light source and
that's why it had different frequency and wavelength. The
telescope that collects the incoming light is the new light source.
>

[kenseto]

On Friday, September 28, 2012 12:28:35 PM UTC-4, tjrob137 wrote:
> On 9/28/12 9/28/12 - 9:21 AM, kenseto wrote:
>
> > On Friday, September 28, 2012 12:34:53 AM UTC-4, tjrob137 wrote:
>
> >> If "moving differently relative to the light" means the
>
> >> light has different speeds relative to the observers, then this is wrong (for
>
> >> light in vacuum).
>
> >
>
> > No this is not wrong. The motion of the observer wrt the source will
>
> > cause frequency shift.....this in combination with the universal
>
> > wavelength of the source will give variable speed of light.
>
>
>
> You are also wrong. The observation of annual Doppler shift shows conclusively
>
> that motion of the observer affects BOTH the measured frequency AND the measured
>
> wavelength of light from distant astronomical objects.
>

No the incoming light becomes a new light source in the

observer's frame and the grating defines a new wavelength

for this new light source....the telescope that collects
the incoming light is the new light source. There is nothing
that can affect the wavelength during the transit of light.
However the absolute moiton of the source or the observer
can affect the frequency and thus the speed of incoming light.

[Ron-boy]

On Sep 28, 2012, Tom Roberts wrote:
>Make no mistake, an intrinsic property is one that is the same to
>all observers. For light, color fails miserably.

Ron-boy replies:
Given this, it is no wonder that your post made no sense and that you
failed to understand my message.

You have it exactly backward; here are the definitions of intrinsic
and extrinsic:
"An intrinsic property is a property that an object or a thing has of
itself, independently of other things, including its context. An
extrinsic (or relational) property is a property that depends on a
thing's relationship with other things."

Perhaps this simple example will help you:

Let's say that various observers are passing a picket fence. Each
observer is in a different frame, so each sees a different frequency
for the passing posts, but the fence itself is always the same
intrinsically. This is exactly what happens as a light wave moves
through space past observer in various frames; the light itself does
not change (as it cannot change once it has left the source, which
could be long gone or even destroyed), but the observers see different
colors (speaking theoretically, not practically) because they are
moving at different speeds through space or, if you like, relative to
the light wave. And, as I said, this, in turn, means that the wave is
moving differently relative to
the observers (since relative motion is reciprocal).

[Oddly enough, you got it right in this brief exchange:

> Hint: those atoms and their electron clouds are at rest
> in one and only one frame.

>> Obviously, no observer has anything to do with this.

>Sure. But observers' motion relative to the source has
>A LOT TO DO WITH WHAT THEY OBSERVE.

Yes, the observer cannot affect the light, but each observer does see
it differently, which of course proves what I said.]
Given your above grievous error, it is no wonder that you went on to
make another of similar magnitude, as follows:

>"Speed relative to light" has no meaning, because one cannot
>put rulers and clocks at rest relative to the light.

Ironically, even your man Einstein emphatically disagreed, as
evidenced by his simple equation w = c - v.
http://www.bartleby.com/173/7.html

You will never understand special relativity "theory" until you fully
understand Einstein's equation. (Hint: It has nothing to do with a
mere closing velocity because such a velocity could not ever even
apparently conflict with the principle of relativity or give Einstein
a major headache or cause the very creation of relativity.)

Come back after you have done your homework, and give us a your report
on the meaning and essence of Einstein's little equation (and don't
try to tell us that the dog ate it!)

~RA~

[Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway]

"Ron-boy" <ron_...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:277e3f0e-bd5a-490a...@v15g2000yqi.googlegroups.com...

On Sep 28, 2012, Tom Roberts wrote:
>Make no mistake, an intrinsic property is one that is the same to
>all observers. For light, color fails miserably.

Ron-boy replies:
Given this, it is no wonder that your post made no sense and that you
failed to understand my message.

You have it exactly backward; here are the definitions of intrinsic
and extrinsic:
"An intrinsic property is a property that an object or a thing has of
itself, independently of other things, including its context. An
extrinsic (or relational) property is a property that depends on a
thing's relationship with other things."

Perhaps this simple example will help you:

Let's say that various observers are passing a picket fence.  Each
observer is in a different frame, so each sees a different frequency
for the passing posts, but the fence itself is always the same
intrinsically.

RA

=============================================================

Ok, the intrinsic wavelength of the fence is from picket to picket,

but what do you do when the intrinsic FREQUENCY of the fence

(zero in your analogy) is non-zero because it has a string of strobe

lights attached to it which fire off sequentially, as seen in this real

world video?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z_bO52VJHU8

 

If the plane flies at one picket per strobe light (is always above the

light when the light is on) the frequency observed is zero.

Intrinsic wavelength and intrinsic frequency are different animals,

do not confuse them.

Never mind the moron Roberts, he’s a fool and doesn’t live

in the real world.

[Sue...]

===============

> Yes, the observer cannot affect the light,

Oh?

<<Because each part (electric and magnetic) of the EM field in the far-
field region is produced by a change in the other part, the ratios of
electric to magnetic field strength are fixed and unvarying in the far-
field. However, in the near field, they are nearly independent of each
other and each cannot be calculated from knowing the other. Depending
on the type of source, the near-field will be dominated by either a
magnetic component, or an electric component.>>

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Near_and_far_field

> but each observer does see
> it differently, which of course proves what I said.]
> Given your above grievous error, it is no wonder that you went on to
> make another of similar magnitude, as follows:>"Speed relative to light" has no meaning, because one cannot
> >put rulers and clocks at rest relative to the light.
>

--------------

> Ironically, even your man Einstein emphatically disagreed, as
> evidenced by his simple equation w = c - v.http://www.bartleby.com/173/7.html

<<in reality there is not the least incompatibility between the
principle of relativity and the law of propagation of light, >>
http://www.bartleby.com/173/7.html

<<where $\epsilon_0$ and $\mu_0$ are physical constants which can be
evaluated by performing two simple experiments which involve measuring
the force of attraction between two fixed charges and two fixed
parallel current carrying wires. According to the relativity
principle, these experiments must yield the same values for $
\epsilon_0$ and $\mu_0$ in all inertial frames. Thus, the speed of
light must be the same in all inertial frames.>>
http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/em/lectures/node108.html

Sue...

[Henry Wilson]

Empty space has no epsilon or mu. ... nor has it a reference for any speeds.

If you try to measure those constants you only get the values for the fields used in the experiment. The fields themselves provide a medium in which the constants apply and Maxwell's equations hold.

[kenseto]

So in your opinion .....what are fields? What is the mechanism that
fields interact with matter objects?

[Big Dog]

Nope. No reason to assume it. You repeating it doesn't make it true.

[Tom Roberts]

On 9/29/12 9/29/12 - 11:06 AM, kenseto wrote:
> There is nothing
> that can affect the wavelength during the transit of light.

Hmmm. Wavelength is not an intrinsic property of light, so it cannot be
discussed independent of how it is measured. But it is clear that in vacuum the
light ray itself is unchanged as it propagates.

Differently moving observers will measure different wavelengths for a given
light ray, because their MEASURING INSTRUMENTS are oriented differently in
spacetime, and such a measurement inherently PROJECTS the light ray onto the
measuring instrument. Ditto for measurements of frequency. For wavelength the
relevant instrument is a ruler (or equivalent such as a diffraction grating);
for frequency the relevant instrument is a clock (or equivalent such as a
frequency comb).

[All that I said here is also true in GR, in the presence of
gravitation. Like the Doppler shift in SR, the gravitational
and cosmological redshifts in GR are due to the varying
orientations of measuring instruments, not any "change" in
the light ray.]


Tom Roberts

[Tom Roberts]

On 9/29/12 9/29/12 - 4:19 PM, Ron-boy wrote:
> On Sep 28, 2012, Tom Roberts wrote:
>> Make no mistake, an intrinsic property is one that is the same to
>> all observers. For light, color fails miserably.
>

> You have it exactly backward; here are the definitions of intrinsic
> and extrinsic:
> "An intrinsic property is a property that an object or a thing has of
> itself, independently of other things, including its context. An
> extrinsic (or relational) property is a property that depends on a
> thing's relationship with other things."

OK, that's a reasonable definition. It CLEARLY means that any intrinsic property
will be the same to all observers, as I said, because an intrinsic property is
"independent of other things" such as which observer measures it.

As differently moving observers get different values for the frequency and
wavelength of a given light ray, neither frequency nor wavelength can be
intrinsic properties of the light ray. This _IS_ observed.

> [... further confusions by Ron-boy]


Tom Roberts

[Henry Wilson]

On Tuesday, 2 October 2012 02:34:53 UTC+10, tjrob137 wrote:
> On 9/29/12 9/29/12 - 11:06 AM, kenseto wrote:
>
> > There is nothing
>
> > that can affect the wavelength during the transit of light.
>
>
>
> Hmmm. Wavelength is not an intrinsic property of light,

What evidence do you have for such a statement?

so it cannot be
>
> discussed independent of how it is measured. But it is clear that in vacuum the
>
> light ray itself is unchanged as it propagates.
>
>
>
> Differently moving observers will measure different wavelengths for a given
>
> light ray, because their MEASURING INSTRUMENTS are oriented differently in
>
> spacetime, and such a measurement inherently PROJECTS the light ray onto the
>
> measuring instrument. Ditto for measurements of frequency. For wavelength the
>
> relevant instrument is a ruler (or equivalent such as a diffraction grating);
>
> for frequency the relevant instrument is a clock (or equivalent such as a
>
> frequency comb).
>
>
>
> [All that I said here is also true in GR, in the presence of
>
> gravitation. Like the Doppler shift in SR, the gravitational
>
> and cosmological redshifts in GR are due to the varying
>
> orientations of measuring instruments, not any "change" in
>
> the light ray.]

Gratings, etc., measure 'wavecrest arrival rate', which is speed dependent.

>
>
>
> Tom Roberts

[Henry Wilson]

Ken, if I knew the answer to that, I wouldn't be here talking to you.

[Big Dog]

On 10/1/2012 4:33 PM, Henry Wilson wrote:
> On Tuesday, 2 October 2012 02:34:53 UTC+10, tjrob137 wrote:
>> On 9/29/12 9/29/12 - 11:06 AM, kenseto wrote:
>>
>>> There is nothing
>>
>>> that can affect the wavelength during the transit of light.
>>
>>
>>
>> Hmmm. Wavelength is not an intrinsic property of light,
>
> What evidence do you have for such a statement?
>

Measurements of wavelength.

Were you under the impression that one should decide which properties
are intrinsic and which ones are extrinsic on the basis of argument,
logic, faith, or philosophy?

[Tom Roberts]

On 10/1/12 10/1/12 - 4:33 PM, Henry Wilson wrote:
> On Tuesday, 2 October 2012 02:34:53 UTC+10, tjrob137 wrote:
>> Wavelength is not an intrinsic property of light,
>
> What evidence do you have for such a statement?

The fact that differently moving observers obtain different values for the
wavelength of a given light ray. Ditto for frequency. And the two effects behave
such that for a given light ray the product wavelength*frequency is constant for
all (inertial) observers, and equal to c (in vacuum).


> Gratings, etc., measure 'wavecrest arrival rate' [...]

No they don't. Diffraction gratings scatter an incoming wave based on its
WAVELENGTH (and the properties of the grating, and the incident angle). This is
most definitely not 'wavecrest arrival rate'.

All you need to do to verify this is Google "diffraction grating" and READ. In
the equations, you'll see \lambda (wavelength), but not frequency or time
related to 'wavecrest arrival rate'.



It is remarkable how much nonsense you write. And how easy it would be for you
to LEARN about the subject and avoid your many errors.


Tom Roberts

[kenseto]

But you rejected the idea of an aether and yet you endorse the
field concept but you don't know what is a field????

[kenseto]

Your aeertion is not a valid arguement.

[Big Dog]

Neither is your assertion that the incoming light becomes a new light
source.

[Big Dog]

Hence illustrating that what is true in physics is not settled by "valid
arguement".

You keep trying to make "arguements", win "arguements", or hear someone
else's valid "arguements". Why? Arguments don't settle anything in
physics. Where did you ever get the idea that they do?

[Big Dog]

So when you say, Seto, "I don't consider that a valid argument," my
response is "So what?" or "Who cares?" or "Why would that matter?"

[Henry Wilson]

On Wednesday, 3 October 2012 01:45:55 UTC+10, tjrob137 wrote:
> On 10/1/12 10/1/12 - 4:33 PM, Henry Wilson wrote:
>
> > On Tuesday, 2 October 2012 02:34:53 UTC+10, tjrob137 wrote:
>
> >> Wavelength is not an intrinsic property of light,
>
> >
>
> > What evidence do you have for such a statement?
>
>
>
> The fact that differently moving observers obtain different values for the
>
> wavelength of a given light ray. Ditto for frequency. And the two effects behave such that for a given light ray the product wavelength*frequency is constant for all (inertial) observers, and equal to c (in vacuum).

Tom, nobody has measured the 'frequency' of a photon. The so-called 'frequency combs' actually detect beats due to wavelength interference.

For light, all observations detect a wavelength. The notion of an associated frequency' in entirely an inferred one and derived from the equation f = c/lambda

> > Gratings, etc., measure 'wavecrest arrival rate' [...]
>
>
>
> No they don't. Diffraction gratings scatter an incoming wave based on its
WAVELENGTH (and the properties of the grating, and the incident angle). This is most definitely not 'wavecrest arrival rate'.

Tom, Tom, here is the alternative BaTh explanation for a simple 'reflection' diffraction grating.
www.scisite.info/bathgrating.jpg

It is just a good as your classical one.

> All you need to do to verify this is Google "diffraction grating" and READ. In
>
> the equations, you'll see \lambda (wavelength), but not frequency or time
>
> related to 'wavecrest arrival rate'.

My equation contains both absolute INTRINSIC wavelength and arrival speed.

>emarkable how much nonsense you write. And how easy it would be for you to LEARN about the subject and avoid your many errors.

Tom, Tom unlike you, I am a fully qualified physicist. I know all about these things.
I don't claim to be expert in Einstein's relativity, just an expert in why it is wrong.

> Tom Roberts

[Big Dog]

On 10/2/2012 5:17 PM, Henry Wilson wrote:

> Tom, nobody has measured the 'frequency' of a photon. The so-called 'frequency combs' actually
> detect beats due to wavelength interference.
>
> For light, all observations detect a wavelength. The notion of an associated frequency' in
> entirely an inferred one and derived from the equation f = c/lambda
>

Rabbidge: "I *reject* your reality and I substitute my own!"

Rabbidge: "I *dare* you to try to prove my statements wrong. I predict I
will remain unconvinced! And I will succeed in my prediction! Guaranteed!"

Rabbidge: "I will say whatever I fucking please, because it pleases me
to see you try to smack down any fool thing I put out."

[Big Dog]

On 10/2/2012 5:17 PM, Henry Wilson wrote:

> Tom, nobody has measured the 'frequency' of a photon. The so-called 'frequency combs' actually
> detect beats due to wavelength interference.
>
> For light, all observations detect a wavelength. The notion of an associated frequency' in
> entirely an inferred one and derived from the equation f = c/lambda
>

[Henry Wilson]

.....unscientific nonsense..... ignored

[Big Dog]

As was yours, which was spurious noise spewed merely for the purpose of
generating a response. Rather than just ignoring your spurious noise,
however, I chose to point out that you were generating spurious noise.
Note that you too, did the same, even though you SAID you were ignoring
it (which you weren't). So at least my response was honest, unlike yours.

[kenseto]

It is not an assertion. The grating measures a new wavelength for this
new light source.

[kenseto]

On Monday, October 1, 2012 12:34:53 PM UTC-4, tjrob137 wrote:
> On 9/29/12 9/29/12 - 11:06 AM, kenseto wrote:
>
> > There is nothing
>
> > that can affect the wavelength during the transit of light.
>
>
>
> Hmmm. Wavelength is not an intrinsic property of light, so it cannot be
>
> discussed independent of how it is measured. But it is clear that in vacuum the
>
> light ray itself is unchanged as it propagates.

You are wrong....the wavelength of water wave in a pond is unchanged
or intrinsic.
If you swim toward the source you will encounter more waves but the
wavelength of each wave remains the same. That means that the speed
of waves arriving at you is increased.

>
>
>
> Differently moving observers will measure different wavelengths for a given
>
> light ray, because their MEASURING INSTRUMENTS are oriented differently in
>
> spacetime, and such a measurement inherently PROJECTS the light ray onto the
>
> measuring instrument. Ditto for measurements of frequency. For wavelength the
>
> relevant instrument is a ruler (or equivalent such as a diffraction grating);
>
> for frequency the relevant instrument is a clock (or equivalent such as a
>
> frequency comb).
>
>
>
> [All that I said here is also true in GR, in the presence of
>
> gravitation. Like the Doppler shift in SR, the gravitational
>
> and cosmological redshifts in GR are due to the varying
>
> orientations of measuring instruments, not any "change" in
>
> the light ray.]
>
>
>
>
>
> Tom Roberts

t length

[Big Dog]

No, no reason to assume a new light source. It's a new wavelength for
the OLD light source.

You say, "But I can't think of any way that the wavelength for the old
light source could change. Therefore it can't. Therefore it must be a
new light source."

What you have to learn to accept is that there are things that can
happen, even if you cannot personally think of a way it can happen.

[Tom Roberts]

On 10/3/12 10/3/12 - 9:22 AM, kenseto wrote:
> On Monday, October 1, 2012 12:34:53 PM UTC-4, tjrob137 wrote:
>> Hmmm. Wavelength is not an intrinsic property of light, so it cannot be
>> discussed independent of how it is measured. But it is clear that in vacuum the
>> light ray itself is unchanged as it propagates.
>
> You are wrong....the wavelength of water wave in a pond is unchanged
> or intrinsic.

When are you going to learn how to read????

Hint: light is neither water nor a pond, nor a wave in either.


Tom Roberts

[Pete Weber]

Intrinsic must be a property or a feature that is born with something,

and the wavelength of light does not change while propagate

[Big Dog]

On 10/3/2012 1:06 PM, Pete Weber wrote:

>
> Intrinsic must be a property or a feature that is born with something,
> and the wavelength of light does not change while propagate
>

A bullet fired from a gun being held by a passenger on a train is born
with a velocity. Nothing changes that bullet's velocity during its
flight. And yet the velocity of the bullet as measured by someone on the
train is different than the velocity of the bullet as measured by
someone standing near the tracks. How can it be different for those two
observers if nothing changes the velocity? If you can answer that
question, then apply the same answer to the wavelength of light.

[Pete Weber]

You are so wrong I dont even know where to begin

The light is not a bullet, and is not about the speed

Intrinsic is something that characterize an object, and a wavelength does
indeed characterize light, no wavelength --> no light, and also it remains
constant while light is propagating

The motion of the source or target does not affects the wavelength of
light, the way is measured does, learn this!!

[Big Dog]

So you say that velocity does not characterize the bullet but the
wavelength does characterize the light. And on the basis of that verb
you declare that the wavelength MUST be intrinsic and frame-independent,
while velocity does not need to be intrinsic and frame-independent.

So you can tell which properties are intrinsic and which ones aren't,
not on the basis of measurement, but on the basis of a verb? So physical
qualities are determined by WORDS you use to describe them?

[Pete Weber]

isnt this obvious, bullets without speeds

even more, the wavelength characterize _completely_ a photon,
not having the amplitude as property!!

>
> So you can tell which properties are intrinsic and which ones aren't,
> not on the basis of measurement, but on the basis of a verb? So physical
> qualities are determined by WORDS you use to describe them?

what verb, there are not verbs here

[Henry Wilson]

Well please tell us what it is then?

> Tom Roberts

[kenseto]

Hint your interpretation of light wave is wrong. It is the same
as water waves or sound wvaes. If you move toward a light source you
will encounter more light waves of the same length....and thus
the arriving speed of light is higher.

[kenseto]

No idiot that's not the point. The point is the incoming
light is a new light source in the observer's frame and
the grating defines a new wavelength for this new light source.
What this mean is that the incoming light is not the same
as the original light source.

[Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway]

"Henry Wilson" <hnrw...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:1258d288-7635-4664...@googlegroups.com...

====================================================

He hasn’t got a fucking clue, he’s another moron that says what it isn’t.

A bicycle is not a dog’s breakfast.

A bicycle is not a walk in the park.

A bicycle is not a gas-propelled Cornish pasty.

Does anyone know what a bi – cycle (two wheels) is, cos I

can sure tell you what it isn’t?

 

-- This message is brought to you from the keyboard of
Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway

[Big Dog]

On 10/3/2012 5:42 PM, kenseto wrote:
> On Wednesday, October 3, 2012 10:35:06 AM UTC-4, Big Dog wrote:
>> On 10/3/2012 9:15 AM, kenseto wrote:
>>
>>> On Tuesday, October 2, 2012 12:58:54 PM UTC-4, Big Dog wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>>> Your aeertion is not a valid arguement.
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>> Neither is your assertion that the incoming light becomes a new light
>>
>>>> source.
>>
>>>
>>
>>> It is not an assertion. The grating measures a new wavelength for this
>>
>>> new light source.
>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> No, no reason to assume a new light source. It's a new wavelength for
>>
>> the OLD light source.
>>
>>
>>
>> You say, "But I can't think of any way that the wavelength for the old
>>
>> light source could change. Therefore it can't. Therefore it must be a
>>
>> new light source."
>>
>>
>>
>> What you have to learn to accept is that there are things that can
>>
>> happen, even if you cannot personally think of a way it can happen.
>
> No idiot that's not the point. The point is the incoming
> light is a new light source

No, it's not. There's not a shred of evidence for it. It's a new
wavelength for the old light. Prove that statement wrong, or provide
experimental evidence that it is wrong.