Re: Diffraction Gratings versus Prisms


"The Ghost In The Machine" <ewill@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in
message news:g19a23-dno.ln1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
| In sci.physics.relativity, Androcles
| <Androcles@xxxxxxxxxxx>
| wrote
| on Sun, 16 Oct 2005 09:21:05 GMT
| <5Yo4f.30926$ey6.28573@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>:
| >
| > "The Ghost In The Machine" <ewill@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in
| > message news:toe823-ufa.ln1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
| > | In sci.physics.relativity, Androcles
| > | <Androcles@xxxxxxxxxxx>
| > | wrote
| > | on Fri, 14 Oct 2005 15:38:52 GMT
| > | <giQ3f.22893$ey6.15246@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>:
| > | >
| > | > "The Ghost In The Machine" <ewill@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote
in
| > | > message news:32t423-bvl.ln1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
| > | > | In sci.physics.relativity, Androcles
| > | > | <Androcles@xxxxxxxxxxx>
| > | > | wrote
| > | > | on Fri, 14 Oct 2005 07:27:59 GMT
| > | > | <36J3f.22619$ey6.19806@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>:
| > | > | >
| > | > | > "The Ghost In The Machine" <ewill@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote
| > in
| > | > | > message news:osf323-f29.ln1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
| > | > | > | This is kind of a dumb question, but here's a thought that
| > | > occurred
| > | > | > | to me.
| > | > | > |
| > | > | > | In the Newtonian realm, one can differentiate between the
| > | > following
| > | > | > | three concepts, when it comes to light propagation.
| > | > | > |
| > | > | > | [1] Light speed.
| > | > | > | [2] Wavelength.
| > | > | > | [3] Frequency.
| > | > | >
| > | > | > You have to know 2 variables to find the third. c = b*a is
not
| > | > | > much use if you only know b.
| > | > | > |
| > | > | > | One of the reasons a prism works is because the speed of
light
| > in
| > | > | > | the prism varies as a function of wavelength (and of
| > refractive
| > | > | > | index).
| > | > | >
| > | > | > Now you have 4 variables c = b*a/d, you need to know 3 of
them.
| > | > | >
| > | > | > | A diffraction grating works on different principles and
| > | > | > | does not vary according to lightspeed, but only varies
| > depending
| > | > | > | on the light wavelength.
| > | > | >
| > | > | > Depends if the grating is at rest wrt the source or moving.
| > Still
| > | > | > 4 variables.
| > | > | >
| > | > | > |
| > | > | > | In SR, at least in vacuo, lightspeed is constant and the
other
| > | > | > | two relate thereto (wavelength = c/frequency);
| > | > | >
| > | > | > SR assumes you know one variable, c, which you do not.
| > | > | > "That fellow seems to me to possess but one idea, and that
is a
| > | > wrong
| > | > | > one."--Dr. Samuel Johnson
| > | > | >
| > | > | >
| > | > | >
| > | > | > | furthermore, one
| > | > | > | can, using QM, add other things such as the energy of a
single
| > | > | > | photon.
| > | > | > |
| > | > |
| > | > | > E = h(c+v)/ \lambda
| > | > | >
| > | > | > Obviously the energy depends on v.
| > | > |
| > | > | Maybe it depends
| > | > |
| > | > | E = 1/2 m (c+v)^2?
| > | >
| > | > What m would that be?
| > |
| > | The mass of the photon, of course. If one prefers, one can
| > | rewrite the equation
| > |
| > | m = 2E/(c+v)^2
| > |
| > | expressing the mass of the photon in terms of its energy and its
| > | velocity. This is all elementary Newtonian dynamics.
| >
| > Nonsense. Driving a car into a tree doesn't change the mass of the
tree,
| > it changes the shape of the car. That is elementary.
|
| It also changes the shape of the tree. Newton's Third.

Nah...trees don't have to go through impact tests with dummies
driving them, they are not designed to protect the squirrels when they
collide with cars. Heck, they don't even have seatbelts installed.
If the bird nests fall out, too bad, the shape of the eggs changes.
As far as I know, no birds ever made it in time to the
obstetrician, the squirrels don't have driver's licenses and always
get pulled over for Grand Theft Arbor (except on Arbor Day).



|
| > Driving a tree into a car changes the shape of the car as well.
|
| True, although most trees are not equipped for independent motion,
| and therefore have to settle for falling thereon as opposed to
| being driven thereinto, though one could use logs, instead,
| and cart them on a logging truck...

The car that hit this tree was at fault.
http://www.dreamweaverstudios.com/terrian/common/sequoiao.jpg

|
| > You do know you are a phuckwit, right?
|
| You have informed me of that many times, yes. Whether it's a true
| statement or not...I can't say.
Oh it is... definitely. If you have enough imagination you can replace
the moon with the sun, Earth with Jupiter and see the precession of
Mercury's perihelion in this applet:-
http://www.ifmo.ru/butikov/Projects/Collection1.html (courtesy Jerry).


|
| >
| > |
| > | (This is of course assuming that photons have mass, and that
Newtonian
| > | mechanics works in this area. SR assumes m = 0 and does not use
| > | this particular equation.)
| >
| > Newtonian Mechanics insists the energy of the photon is the mass
| > lost by the emitter, 1/2 mc^2 relative to the emitter, not the
| > mass lost by the receiver which has its own energy 1/2 mv^2.
| > The other 1/2mc^2 goes into the recoil of the emitter (by Newton's
| > second law, of course). You do know you are a phuckwit, right?
|
| What mass lost by what emitter?

The mass of the atom the emitted the photon.

| Newtonian mechanics does not postulate
| conservation of mass-energy (a la E = mc^2).

The extended version does, rev 2.0. There were no bugs in rev 1.0.
Think of it as you do with GR being an extension of SR.
I'm working on rev 3.0 as we speak. I was hoping you'd join me
but you are still undecided and sarcastic.


| There is a recoil, though.

Well of course, but the energy of the sun has to come from SOMETHING,
and it's not Earth, Air, Fire or Water. Time to move on out of the Dark
Age
of the 20th century and find out what it is. I have some ideas...


| >
| > |
| > | > |
| > | > | >
| > | > | >
| > | > | > | So here's the question. Has anyone carefully calibrated
both
| > | > | > | a prism and a diffraction grating to a set of stationary
light
| > | > | > | sources (mercury, sodium, hydrogen, etc. etc.), then
pointed
| > | > | > | the pair of them at a light source (probably astronomical)
| > that
| > | > | > | is known to be moving?
| > | > | >
| > | > | > Class M, not moving:
| > | > | >
| > | >
| >
http://outreach.atnf.csiro.au/education/senior/astrophysics/spectral_class.html
| > | > | >
| > | > | > According to the tusselad Andersen,
| > | > | > "It shows which elements give the the most prominent
| > | > | > absorption lines for the different spectral classes.
| > | > | > Note that the H-alpha line is most prominent for A stars,
| > | > | > and grow weaker and weaker for cooler stars, and is almost
| > | > | > absent in M stars.
| > | > | > Compare this to:
| > | > | > http://www.astro.umd.edu/~ssm/ASTR220/OBAFGKM.html
| > | > | > and you will see that they matches." -- Paul B. Andersen.
| > | > | >
| > | > | > The tusselad supplied both URLs.
| > | > | > A prism or a diffraction grating... <shrug> you can change
the
| > | > angles
| > | > | > of the prism and the spacing of the diffraction grating.
| > | > |
| > | > | Yes...and?
| > | > I don't know, it's you trying to make a point. What is the point
you
| > | > are trying to make?
| > |
| > | You were asserting that one can change the prism angle and the
| > | diffraction grating spacing; I am curious as to what you hope
| > | to accomplish by doing so, in the context of the two URLs
| > | Andersen provided.
| >
| > It's your thread title, "Diffraction Gratings versus Prisms".
| > What is the point you are trying to make?
| > We can deal with your curiousity after we've resolved "Diffraction
| > Gratings versus Prisms".
|
| We've already dealt with it; the experiment is not sensitive enough
| to show interesting results.

Oh, ok. I'll agree to that.
Wanna see a change of reference frame?
It's not inertial, though.
http://www.ifmo.ru/butikov/Projects/Collection4.html
| >
| >
| >
| > | >
| > | > |
| > | > | >
| > | > | > |
| > | > | > | And would such an experiment show strong evidence for SR?
| > | > | >
| > | > | > No.
| > | > | >
| > | > | > | Or is
| > | > | > | there a mathematical / physical issue that would preclude
| > drawing
| > | > | > | any conclusions at all, similar to the MMX being unable to
| > | > | > differentiate
| > | > | > | between nBaT (or BaT) and SR using a stationary light
source?
| > | > | >
| > | > | > You can't conclude a difference between data from a prism v
| > | > | > data from a diffraction grating, if that's what you are
asking.
| > | > | >
| > | > | > You can do this analysis if you like:
| > | > | > f' = f (c+v)/c (emission theory)
| > | > | > versus
| > | > | > f' = f. c/(c-v) (aether theory)
| > | > |
| > | > | f' = (c+w)/(c-v+w) for some w. There might be a transverse
effect
| > | > | as well, but I'd have to work it out -- and in any event MMX
| > | > | detected nothing.
| > | >
| > | > So work it out, idiot, assume no transverse effect.
| > | > Androcles.
| > |
| > | If there is no transverse effect and lightspeed is constant
| > | relative to a fixed rigid aether, then f' = (c+w)/(c-v+w) for some
w.
| >
| > I gave you three simple equations to compare, beancounter,
| > none of which contained w.
| > 1) f' = f. (c+v)/c (emission theory)
| > 2) f' = f. c/(c-v) (aether theory)
| > 3) f' = f. sqrt([1+v/c] / [1 - v/c]) (SR idiocy)
| >
| > There are no 'IF's.
| > It's still legal to be a phuckwit.
|
| Yes, it is. Now which one is correct?
|
| Choose.
Err....I choose 1)
|
| Or would you rather simply state "NO I DON'T HAVE A THEORY!!" again?

I don't. I give credit where it's due. This is Christian Andreas
Doppler's theory, Austrian physicist and mathematician, born november
29, 1803, Salzburg; died March 17, 1853, Venice, Revision 1.5 of
Newtonian Mechanics.
|
| Note that 1)=2); the one is a receding source, the other advancing.

See, that's what makes you a phuckwit.
1 advancing) f' = f. (c+v)/c
1 receding) f' = f. (c-v)/c
2 advancing) f' = f' = f. c/(c+v)
2 receding) f' = f' = f. c/(c-v)
We can check these quite easily.
Let f = 440Hz (Middle A on the pie-anny), v = c = 760 mph.
You hear 880Hz when you drive toward the factory whistle.
You hear 0Hz when you drive away from the factory whistle, out-running
the sound.
The factory whistle blower guy hears nothing at first, you are racing
your own sound, followed by a sonic boom from your car horn,
then 220Hz as you approach and drive past.
eeeeeEEEEE-----OOOWWWwww.

0Hz, 220Hz, 440Hz, 880Hz, sonic boom.
Note that 1) <> 2).
Androcles.


| > Androcles.
| >
| > |
| > | >
| > | > |
| > | > | > versus
| > | > | > f' = f. sqrt([1+v/c] / [1 - v/c]) (SR idiocy)
| > | > | > I suggest you use the velocity of the Earth as per MMX,
0.0001c
| > | > | > and see which gives the closest result to observation.
| > | > | > Just about any star in the ecliptic will do.
| > | > | > Androcles.
| > | > | >
| > | > |
| > | > |
| > | > | --
| > | > | #191, ewill3@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
| > | > | It's still legal to go .sigless.
| > | >
| > |
| > |
| > | --
| > | #191, ewill3@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
| > | It's still legal to go .sigless.
| >
|
|
| --
| #191, ewill3@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
| It's still legal to go .sigless.

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Are *observed* SR effects real?
    ... that the tree is moving wrt the car. ... pretty basic physics principle. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Are *observed* SR effects real?
    ... that the tree is moving wrt the car. ... pretty basic physics principle. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Are *observed* SR effects real?
    ... that the tree is moving wrt the car. ... pretty basic physics principle. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Whos trippin down the streets of the city
    ... I discovered a tree had fallen smack ... into the middle of my car which was parked over 100 ... Carrier from Hurricane http://tinyurl.com/yo5gwu ... Ray Haddad lies about Saving an Aircraft ...
    (misc.writing)
  • Re: US v European car technology
    ... >> mass. ... >> The median family income in the USA is about $44,000 - that's the US auto ... >> One needs a car in all but center city neighborhoods. ... > Same in most of Europe. ...
    (alt.auto.mercedes)