🚀 go-pugleaf

On Dec 30, 3:15 am, Pentcho Valev <pva...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Dec 30, 5:52 am, Tom Roberts <tjroberts...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in
> sci.physics.relativity:
>
>
>
>
>
> > David wrote:
> > > I've been trying to find experimental verification that c is constant
> > > by looking for experiments where wavelength and frequency are measured
> > > independently of each other and results from moving sources are
> > > compared to the results from stationary sources - like the wavelength
> > > of light with frequency f (as measured in a rest frame) from a moving
> > > star compared to the wavelength of light with the same frequency f
> > > created by a source in the rest frame. But I wasn't able to find any
> > > experiment where wavelength and frequency are measured independently
> > > to confirm that their product is a constant.
>
> > Consider the operation of a standard lab He-Ne laser. The 3S->2P
> > transition of neon is Doppler broadened to about 1.5 GHz [#]. The
> > wavelength is 632.8 nm, and for mirrors 30 cm apart there are about 1
> > million wavelengths between the mirrors, with spacing between
> > longitudinal modes of 400-500 MHz. So typically 3 or 4 longitudinal
> > modes of the mirrors overlap the Doppler-broadened linewith of the
> > lasing transition in Ne.
>
> >         [#] I don't have a reference for the intrinsic linewidth
> >         of this transition, but the observed 1.5 GHz Doppler-
> >         broadened width is consistent with the thermal computation
> >         given in _Fundamentals_of_Light_Sources_and_Lasers_, by
> >         Mark Csele. So the intrinsic width is considerably smaller
> >         than the Doppler broadening, and that is all that matters here.
>
> > The frequency and wavelength separations of the different longitudinal
> > modes are fully consistent with the speed of light being constant. This
> > implies that for moving Ne atoms, the product of frequency times
> > wavelength for the lasing transition does indeed equal c. This is
> > optical spectroscopy, and these values are known quite accurately.
>
> > This example also refutes Henri Wilson's "BaTh", which claims that the
> > wavelength of light emitted from a source is the same in all inertial
> > frames -- for the Doppler-broadened lasing transition to excite multiple
> > longitudinal modes in the mirrors its wavelength MUST vary with speed.
>
> > Note that without the Doppler broadening of the lasing transition, He-Ne
> > lasers would be vastly more difficult to set up and get working.
>
> > Tom Roberts
>
> Bravo Roberts bravo Tom bravo Albert Einstein of our generation
> (Hawking is no longer the Albert Einstein of our generation)! At last
> you have found the camouflage you needed so badly! Two years ago, when
> we discussed an analogous problem, you still knew nothing of
> wavelength measurements; you only knew that "on earth the speed of
> light is c":
>
> http://groups.google.ca/group/sci.physics.relativity/browse_frm/threa...
> Tom Roberts, Sep 25, 2005: "None of the above measured wavelength
> directly. But we do know that on earth the speed of light is c, and in
> the GPS the speed of light is c between satellite and ground."
>
> Roberts Roberts some day even your zombies will ask the fatal
> questions:
>
> "Oh Divine Master Roberts, why don't you explain both the Doppler
> effect and the gravitational redshift in terms of the textbook
> formula:
>
> frequency = (speed of light)/(wavelength)
>
> Since the frequency shifts, oh Divine Master, isn't it reasonable to
> assume that the speed of light shifts with the frequency, as Divine
> Albert did in 1911? If we assume that the speed of light remains
> constant and it is the wavelength that shifts with the frequency, will
> that assumption have implications that are too silly, oh Divine Master
> Roberts?"
>
> Pentcho Valev
> pva...@yahoo.com- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

ATTENTION: Those of you who are interested in discussing the various
moot points of Einstein's theories, or the off-shoots of his
"reasoning", are invited to view the various posts of -- NoEinstein --
who has conclusively disproved Einstein both mathematically and
experimentally.  Access may be gained via the following NoEinstein
post, and via the attached additional links following such.  Those of
you wishing to reply to any point of science, are urged to do so in
the most recent post(s), because the earlier ones, though still quite
apt as to the science, are no longer being checked for comments.  I
hope that you will find my links both interesting and educational! --
NoEinstein --

Matter from Thin Air
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/ee4fe3946dfc0c31/1f1872476bc6ca90?hl=en#1f1872476bc6ca90
Curing Einstein's Disease
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/4ff9e866e0d87562/f5f848ad8aba67da?hl=en#f5f848ad8aba67da
__________