Properties of a preferred frame, an inertial frame in SR and
in [Relativity]
|
From: kenseto on 30 Jul 2010 11:34 On Jul 30, 11:14 am, moro...(a)world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) wrote: > kenseto <kens...(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, During the transit of sodium light the wavelength is not changed. Therefore the lower arriving frequency means lower arriving speed of light....what so hard about that? >then all of a sudden it decides > to change its wavelength and start moving at c? No....the incoming sodium light becomes a new light source (not sodium anymore)in the grating's frame and the grating defines a new wavelength for it. This new wavelength in combination with its measured frequency give c. Ken Seto >That's about the > stupidest thing I've heard. What causes this photon to magically > change? - Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
From: Michael Moroney on 30 Jul 2010 13:39 kenseto <kenseto(a)erinet.com> writes: >On Jul 30, 11:14=A0am, moro...(a)world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) >wrote: >> >> That's so much gobbledygook nonsense. =A0Are you claiming that this >> photon is travelling along with the wavelength of sodium light but a lowe= >r >> frequency and also moving at less than c, >During the transit of sodium light the wavelength is not changed. >Therefore the lower arriving frequency means lower arriving speed of >light....what so hard about that? It conflicts with experiments, all of which light in a vacuum always travels at c, for one. It conflicts with the predictions of SR, which state the above, for two. It's gobbledygook nonsense, for three. >>then all of a sudden it decides >> to change its wavelength and start moving at c? =A0 >No....the incoming sodium light becomes a new light source (not sodium >anymore)in the grating's frame and the grating defines a new >wavelength for it. This new wavelength in combination with its >measured frequency give c. And if we test its frequency and wavelength in between, the magical conversion of speed and wavelength will happen at the point measured, correct? And if we do so again, closer to the source, same thing, right? All the way back to the source? The result is, the photons happen to be measured as moving at c with the longer wavelength the whole way! And it's still nonsense. Easily disproved as well. A---B--------------------C A is a sodium light source retreating from B and C relativistically. B and C are stationary wrt each other. A emits photons towards B and C. B measures and retransmits some of the photons, which have the sodium wavelength but are moving slower than c, and B doesn't interfere with other photons. The retransmitted photons now have the longer wavelength and are moving at C, right? So C will receive the retransmitted photons from B before receiving the original ones from A! This does not happen.
From: kenseto on 31 Jul 2010 08:41 On Jul 30, 1:39 pm, moro...(a)world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) wrote: > kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> writes: > >On Jul 30, 11:14=A0am, moro...(a)world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) > >wrote: > > >> That's so much gobbledygook nonsense. =A0Are you claiming that this > >> photon is travelling along with the wavelength of sodium light but a lowe= > >r > >> frequency and also moving at less than c, > >During the transit of sodium light the wavelength is not changed. > >Therefore the lower arriving frequency means lower arriving speed of > >light....what so hard about that? > > It conflicts with experiments, all of which light in a vacuum always > travels at c, for one. Sigh...the speed of light in a vacuum is a defined constant....not a measured constant. In fact the one-way speed of light never been measured and the two-way speed of light is a defined constant as 1 light-second/1 second. > > It conflicts with the predictions of SR, which state the above, for two. No it doesn't conflict with the predictions of SR. > > It's gobbledygook nonsense, for three. > > >>then all of a sudden it decides > >> to change its wavelength and start moving at c? =A0 > >No....the incoming sodium light becomes a new light source (not sodium > >anymore)in the grating's frame and the grating defines a new > >wavelength for it. This new wavelength in combination with its > >measured frequency give c. > > And if we test its frequency and wavelength in between, the magical > conversion of speed and wavelength will happen at the point measured, > correct? If the source is sodium the arriving speed of sodium light at any point is: c'=(measured frequency)(universal wavelength of sodium 589nm) Ken Seto >And if we do so again, closer to the source, same thing, right? > All the way back to the source? The result is, the photons happen to be > measured as moving at c with the longer wavelength the whole way! > > And it's still nonsense. > > Easily disproved as well. > > A---B--------------------C > > A is a sodium light source retreating from B and C relativistically. > B and C are stationary wrt each other. > > A emits photons towards B and C. B measures and retransmits some of > the photons, which have the sodium wavelength but are moving slower > than c, and B doesn't interfere with other photons. > > The retransmitted photons now have the longer wavelength and are moving > at C, right? So C will receive the retransmitted photons from B before > receiving the original ones from A! This does not happen.
From: Sam Wormley on 31 Jul 2010 10:13 On 7/31/10 7:23 AM, kenseto wrote: > Hey idiot....how does the grating know that light passing through it > is coming from distance star instead of coming from a source in its > frame? The grating doesn't have to know anything... it just diffracts whatever light passes through it according to physics laws. Diffracting gratings are used by astronomers to measure the spectra of the incoming light--an essential tool in measurements of planetary atmospheres stars, interstellar clouds, galaxies, quasars, etc. Background for Seto http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diffraction_grating
From: Sam Wormley on 31 Jul 2010 10:26
On 7/31/10 7:41 AM, kenseto wrote: > Sigh...the speed of light in a vacuum is a defined constant....not a > measured constant. Wanna bet? First a measured constant, then because almost all the uncertainty in this measurement of the speed of light was due to uncertainty in the length of the meter, the speed of light was defined independent of the meter and the meter defined in terms of the speed of light. Background for Seto http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_of_light#Measurement |