🚀 go-pugleaf

On Mar 26, 4:00 pm, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mar 26, 3:18 pm, kenseto <kens...@erinet.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Mar 26, 12:45 pm, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Mar 26, 12:34 pm, "kens...@erinet.com" <kens...@erinet.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Mar 26, 8:30 am, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > 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.
>
> > > We've been through this before. Your memory is failing you. There is
> > > no need for a telescope. A hole is sufficient. There being the absence
> > > of anything in a hole, there is nothing in the hole that can generate
> > > a new source.
>
> > Without the telescope what star is the hole measuring? Are you saying
> > that you just point the hole in the sky and get a reading for its
> > wavelength?
>
> Yes. Take a paper towel tube without any lens and point it at the sky.
> Now take a soda straw and point it at the sky. There is nothing in the
> hole of the paper towel tube or a soda straw that can generate a new
> source. Such an arrangement is perfectly suitable for a diffraction
> grating.

Ah....so you are saying that the astronomers are using straws to make
diffraction grating readings?

>
> Now, if you like, you can then *add* a lens to the paper towel tube to
> collect more light.

Bingo the lens acts as a new source in the observer's frame.

>If you actually do that experiment, you'll find
> that adding the lens does not change the measured wavelength at all.

How do you know? Did you first using straw to make measurement and
then add lens to the straw?

> This may come as a shock to you, but that is a simple test that is
> done in freshman physics labs across the country every semester. Had
> you actually done that lab at some point (and I would have thought you
> did), then you would not be making the ridiculous statements you've
> been making about the telescope being a new light source and altering
> the wavelength.

Sigh....I didn't say that the lens is altering the wavelength. I said
that the lens is a new light source in the observer's frame and the
grating measures the wavelength coming from it. Light from the lens is
like light from a sodium source or hydrogen source at rest wrt 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.
>
> > > Nope, it does not. It is the *pattern*, the ratio of wavelengths, and
> > > NOT the wavelengths themselves AT ALL that determine the source. You
> > > seem to have great difficulty with this and you keep repeating the
> > > same error.
>
> > I know that it is the pattern that determines the source. But once the
> > source is determined the the speed of the incoming light can be
> > calculated as follows:
> > c'= (measured frequency)(universal wavelength of the source)
>
> That is substituting a wavelength for that source that does not BELONG
> to that source.

No that's doing physics the logical way. Remember the example I gave
you:
1. There is a constant water wave in a pond with a frequency of
N waves/second and the wavelength is L meter.
2. You are at rest wrt the source of the wave so thew arriving speed
of the waves is L*N meters/second.
3. You are swimming toward the source. The arrival rate of the waves
is (N+n) and the wavelength remains constant L.Therefore the speed of
arrival of the waves is L(N+n) meters/second
4. You are swimming away from the source. The arrival rate of the
waves is (N-n)/second and the wavelength remains L meters. Therefore
the arrival speed of the wave is L(N-n) meters/second.

>You are removing the *measured* wavelength, and
> replacing it with a wavelength that applies to a *stationary* source.

The measured wavelength is the wavelength of a new source at rest wrt
the grating. This wavelength is used to determine the original source
of the incoming light.

>It is not the
> That is called data-fudging.

No it is not data fudging. It is real physics. So live with it.

Ken Seto

>Data fudging to produce a result you want
> to see is a big bad no-no in science and will get you immediately
> castigated and scorned -- possibly complete with newspaper stories
> that your grandchildren will read.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > Ken Seto
>
> > > > >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.
>
> > > Nope. Not true. I don't know *where* you read such nonsense. Do you
> > > remember where you read it?
>
> > > > 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.
>
> > > Nope, that is wrong. I don't know where you got such a bonehead idea.
> > > Do you remember where you learned such nonsense?
>
> > > > >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.
>
> > > Nope. You are simply repeating bonehead mistakes. You need to unlearn
> > > some of the dreadful misinformation you're carrying around with you.
>
> > > It's simply wrong.
>
> > Assertion is not a valid arguement. The grating does define a
> > universal wavelength for every light source at rest in its own frame.
>
> As you say, assertion is not a valid argument. What you assert about
> what a grating does is not valid. Anybody who has done any
> spectroscopy will correct you  in this mistake. If you are unwilling
> to acknowledge and correct a mistake, then you have no business
> attempting to do science.
>
> PD- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -