Properties of a preferred frame, an inertial frame in SR and
in [Physics]
|
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?
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 - |