Properties of a preferred frame, an inertial frame in SR and
in [Relativity]
|
From: Sam Wormley on 29 Jul 2010 09:29 On 7/29/10 7:56 AM, kenseto wrote: > The incoming light becomes a new light source in the grating's frame > and the grating defines a new wavelength for this new light source. Wavelength is un altered, and diffraction gratings are used to study spectra. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diffraction_grating#Theory_of_operation
From: Sam Wormley on 29 Jul 2010 09:30 On 7/29/10 8:02 AM, kenseto wrote: > > That's irrelevant....the grating treats any light passing through it > as light from its own frame. > Wavelength is un altered, and diffraction gratings are used to study spectra. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diffraction_grating#Theory_of_operation
From: Michael Moroney on 29 Jul 2010 11:05 kenseto <kenseto(a)erinet.com> writes: >On Jul 28, 3:01 pm, moro...(a)world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) >wrote: >> >> So you admit a redshifted photon has the longer wavelength of the >> >> destination frame. >> >No idiot...the original source's wavelength is not changed during >> >transit. For example if the original source is sodium with a wavlength >> >of 589 nm. Then the speed of incoming light is determined as follows: >> >c'=(measured incoming frequency of sodium light)(589 nm) >> >> That is so much gobbledygook...and conflicts with measurements. >> >> >What this mean is that the new wavelength measured by the grating is >> >from a new light source in the grating's frame....the telescope that >> >collects the incoming sodium light. >> >> What if there is no telescope? Simply a source of sodium light and >> a diffraction grating in relativisic motion wrt each other? >That's irrelevant....the grating treats any light passing through it >as light from its own frame. So, for a measurement of redshifted sodium light, a diffraction grating will indicate a longer wavelength than 589 nm. This experiment has been done. Thus your claim: "c'=(measured incoming frequency of sodium light)(589 nm)" is false. It's c'=(measured incoming frequency of sodium light)(measured wavelength of incoming sodium light) = c.
From: kenseto on 30 Jul 2010 09:17 On Jul 29, 11:05 am, moro...(a)world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) wrote: > kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> writes: > >On Jul 28, 3:01 pm, moro...(a)world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) > >wrote: > >> >> So you admit a redshifted photon has the longer wavelength of the > >> >> destination frame. > >> >No idiot...the original source's wavelength is not changed during > >> >transit. For example if the original source is sodium with a wavlength > >> >of 589 nm. Then the speed of incoming light is determined as follows: > >> >c'=(measured incoming frequency of sodium light)(589 nm) > > >> That is so much gobbledygook...and conflicts with measurements. > > >> >What this mean is that the new wavelength measured by the grating is > >> >from a new light source in the grating's frame....the telescope that > >> >collects the incoming sodium light. > > >> What if there is no telescope? Simply a source of sodium light and > >> a diffraction grating in relativisic motion wrt each other? > >That's irrelevant....the grating treats any light passing through it > >as light from its own frame. > > So, for a measurement of redshifted sodium light, a diffraction grating > will indicate a longer wavelength than 589 nm. This experiment has been > done. Thus your claim: > "c'=(measured incoming frequency of sodium light)(589 nm)" is false. It's > c'=(measured incoming frequency of sodium light)(measured wavelength of > incoming sodium light) = c. No the incoming light is a new light source in the grating's frame and the grating defines a new wavelength for it. The arrival speed of incoming sodium light is: c'=(measured frequency)(universal wavelength of sodium 589 nm) Ken Seto - Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
From: Michael Moroney on 30 Jul 2010 11:14
kenseto <kenseto(a)erinet.com> writes: >On Jul 29, 11:05 am, moro...(a)world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) >wrote: >> kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> writes: >> >> >What this mean is that the new wavelength measured by the grating is >> >> >from a new light source in the grating's frame....the telescope that >> >> >collects the incoming sodium light. >> >> >> What if there is no telescope? Simply a source of sodium light and >> >> a diffraction grating in relativisic motion wrt each other? >> >That's irrelevant....the grating treats any light passing through it >> >as light from its own frame. >> >> So, for a measurement of redshifted sodium light, a diffraction grating >> will indicate a longer wavelength than 589 nm. This experiment has been >> done. Thus your claim: >> "c'=(measured incoming frequency of sodium light)(589 nm)" is false. It's >> c'=(measured incoming frequency of sodium light)(measured wavelength of >> incoming sodium light) = c. >No the incoming light is a new light source in the grating's frame and >the grating defines a new wavelength for it. The arrival speed of >incoming sodium light is: >c'=(measured frequency)(universal wavelength of sodium 589 nm) That's so much gobbledygook nonsense. Are you claiming that this photon is travelling along with the wavelength of sodium light but a lower frequency and also moving at less than c, then all of a sudden it decides to change its wavelength and start moving at c? That's about the stupidest thing I've heard. What causes this photon to magically change? |