🚀 go-pugleaf

On Mar 26, 7:54 am, "kens...@erinet.com" <kens...@erinet.com> wrote:
> On Mar 25, 8:33 am, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Mar 25, 8:07 am, kenseto <kens...@erinet.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Mar 24, 3:43 pm, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Mar 24, 3:34 pm, kenseto <kens...@erinet.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > On Mar 24, 12:12 pm, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > No....relative motion affects the speed of incoming light. Think about
> > > > > it ....an observer can change his state of relative motion wrt the
> > > > > source by acceleration and thus change the speed of incoming light
>
> > > > It doesn't matter how much you *think* about it. Even if it makes
> > > > perfect sense to you that the speed of the incoming light is changed,
> > > > when that is in fact *measured* it is found that the speed of the
> > > > incoming light is NOT changed.
>
> > > Any light source in the observer's frame will have a defined
> > > wavelength
>
> > No, not a DEFINED wavelength. A MEASURED wavelength. Something that
> > is MEASURED is more real than something that is just DEFINED. This is the
> > part about physics that you don't seem to get.
>
> There is no difference between Meausred and Defined when the Measured
> value is the same as the Defined value in all frames. This is much
> like the speed of light is a defined constant because its measured
> value for the TWLS is the same in all frames.
>
>
>
> > > and this in combination with the measured frequency will
> > > give a constant number c for the speed of light. The defined
> > > wavelength such as sodium is universal because all observers define
> > > sodium to have the same wavelength.
>
> > No, they do NOT. I don't know where you got the ridiculous notion that
> > all observers define sodium to have the same wavelength. Where on
> > earth did you read that? It's just plain wrong, wrong, wrong.
>
> No its not wrong at all.....every observer measures and defines his
> own sodium source to have the same wavelength.
>
>
>
>
>
> > > Therefore you must use the
> > > universal wavelength of sodium in combination with the measured
> > > frequency to determine the speed of the incoming sodium light.
>
> > > >No amount of "thinking about it" will
> > > > alter that measured fact. It is experimentally determined that
> > > > relative motion does NOT affect the speed of incoming light.
>
> > > Yes it does when the universal wavelength of the source is used to
> > > determine the speed of incoming light.
>
> > > >Dozens of
> > > > experiments designed to look specifically for how relative motion
> > > > affects the speed of light have *all* shown the reverse.
>
> > > That's because you are not using the universal wavelength of the
> > > source to determine the speed of incoming light.
>
> > That's because what you claim is the DEFINED wavelength is WRONG and
> > inconsistent with MEASUREMENT. If what you define is inconsistent with
> > its measured value, then it is WRONG. Period.
>
> Sigh....the incoming light is a new source in the observer's frame.
> The observer will define or measure a new wavelength for this new
> light source. This new light source is not sodium....it has a
> different defined or measured wavelength than sodium.

You are repeating the same idiocy, Ken. The source IS recognized as
sodium, even though it has a wavelength that is different than what
you think is the "universal" wavelength for sodium. The attribution to
sodium is NOT based on what the wavelength is. It is based on the
*pattern* of lines and in particular the *ratios* of the wavelengths,
REGARDLESS of what the actual wavelength is. You have this bonehead
idea that spectroscopists look at a spectrum and say, "If it has a
line at 589 nm it is sodium, and if it doesn't have a line at 589 nm
it is not sodium." This is a mistake on your part, born out of
ignorance of how spectroscopy is done. If you cannot correct this
simple mistake in your head, then you will not ever be able to
understand the physics here.

>
>
>
> > > > Normally, when scientists find that all the "thinking about it"
> > > > they've done runs counter to experiment, then they scrap the thinking
> > > > and think differently. You on the other hand aren't so swayed by
> > > > experimental evidence. This marks the difference between you and a
> > > > scientist, Ken.
>
> > > But scientists failed to realize that: There is nothing during the
> > > transit of light can change the wavelength.
>
> > Yes, there is. Relative motion changes all sorts of lengths. Now, you
> > can say, "But I don't understand how it does that." That is an
> > entirely different matter.
>
> NO....A more valid interpretation is that relative motion will affect
> the speed of incoming light.
>

The more valid interpretation is counter to *measurement*.

>
>
> > > OTOH individual motion of
> > > the source or the observer can change the speed of incoming light.
>
> > No, it cannot. And moreover, measurement shows that it DOES NOT.
> > Insisting the individual motion of the source should be able to change
> > the speed of the incoming light even when measurement shows that it
> > NEVER HAPPENS is bordering on lunacy.
>
> You can yell all you want.....it is more valid to interpret that the
> frequency shift of the incoming light is due to the varying arrival
> speed of incoming light when the universal wavelength of the source is
> used to determine the speed of the incoming light.

No, it is never more valid to interpret it as something that is
directly countermanded by experimental evidence. That is the part that
is bordering on lunacy.

>
>
>
> Ken Seto