🚀 go-pugleaf

On Mar 26, 8:30 am, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 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.

No the incoming light is collected by the telescope and send to the
grating. This means that the telescope is a new light source in the
observer's frame and the grating defines or measures a new wavelength
for this new light source. BTW the grating defines a wavelength for
every light source at rest in its frame.

>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.

That is irrelevant. Every line in a spectrum of an element has a
specific defined universal wavelength by every observer.

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."

That's correct.....the grating defines a universal wavelength for
every light source at rest wrt it. The incoming light is a new light
source at rest wrt it.

>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.

ROTFLOL.....it is you who need to understand what the grating is
measuring. It is measuring the wavelength of a light source at rest
wrt it.....including the incoming light which is a new light source at
rest wrt it.

Ken Seto