🚀 go-pugleaf

On May 20, 11:22 pm, PD <thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On May 20, 12:57 am, Pentcho Valev <pva...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > Scientists should try various rescue operations; one of them could
> > consist in strict adherence to the following postulates:
>
> > Postulate 1: (frequency) = (speed of light)/(wavelength)
>
> > Postulate 2: The wavelength of light is constant.
>
> > Postulate 1 is a universally accepted textbook formula but Postulate 2
> > needs some justification. Consider this:
>
> There is no point in trying to justify a postulate that is directly
> counter to experimental evidence. A diffraction grating is a device
> that is directly sensitive to wavelength. It's as reliable as holding
> up a stick with marks on it to measure the length of a stationary
> object.
>
> The diffraction grating establishes unambiguously that the wavelength
> of light is NOT constant, no matter how badly you want it to be so.

Clever Draper, do you suggest experiments can confirm that the
wavelength of both ocean waves and light waves varies with the speed
of the observer while the speed of the waves relative to the observer
remains constant:

http://sampit.geol.sc.edu/Doppler.html
"Moving observer: A man is standing on the beach, watching the tide.
The waves are washing into the shore and over his feet with a constant
frequency and wavelength. However, if he begins walking out into the
ocean, the waves will begin hitting him more frequently, leading him
to perceive that the wavelength of the waves has decreased."

http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/teaching/HPS_0410/chapters/big_bang/index.html
John Norton: "Here's a light wave and an observer. If the observer
were to hurry towards the source of the light, the observer would now
pass wavecrests more frequently than the resting observer. That would
mean that moving observer would find the frequency of the light to
have increased (AND CORRESPONDINGLY FOR THE WAVELENGTH - THE DISTANCE
BETWEEN CRESTS - TO HAVE DECREASED)."

Pentcho Valev
pvalev@yahoo.com