Re: Diffraction Gratings Prove SR Wrong.
- From: PD <TheDraperFamily@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: 4 May 2007 04:55:25 -0700
On May 3, 10:47 pm, HW@....(Henri Wilson) wrote:
On 3 May 2007 08:21:44 -0700, PD <TheDraperFam...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On May 2, 8:01 pm, HW@....(Henri Wilson) wrote:
How do you know that?
Because differently-moving observers measure different values for the
wavelength of a given beam of light.
No, they measure a different 'wavecrest arrival rate'.
That is incorrect, Henri. A wavecrest arrival rate is a frequency, by
definition. Gratings are by design not sensitive to frequency. They
are sensitive to wavelength only.
Good!!! That's what I like to hear....
Good!!! Then you'll retract your statement that a grating measures the
wavecrest arrival rate (the frequency).
Now if you re-read my original post, you MUST then agree that this fact
falsifies SR.
Certainly not. Now if you re-read my post, you'll see that experiment
plainly disagrees, and every day.
In the same grating, two waves coming in with the same wavelength but
different speeds (and hence different frequencies) are scattered
through the *same* angle. This has actually been tested with gratings
that are suitable for microwaves and high-frequency sound (same
wavelength, much different speeds, much different frequencies).
That's perfectly all right by me Draper.
Good, then we've established that a grating is sensitive to wavelength
and wavelength only, not frequency, not wave speed.
In a grating (a device that measures *wavelength*, not frequency),
differently moving observers measure different values for the
wavelength of a given beam of light.
Hahahohohhahah!
So you and your colleagues still believe the observer can affect the observed.
Nice on Draper....I'll try it with my Keno numbers....
I don't know why you're laughing, Henri. You've already agreed that a
diffraction grating measures wavelength, not frequency, not wave
speed. The last statement, the one you're laughing at, is a simple
observational fact, one that is shown to students by the bucketloads
every year. It's not a matter of "believing". It's a matter of
looking. Have you never used a diffraction grating to observe this
*real behavior*?
Much as you'd like to say, "But that can't be," it nevertheless is.
Your refusal to acknowledge what is and your steadfast clinging to
what you think "can be" is the mark of a crank. A crank is someone
who, in contrast to those would would say, "Seeing is believing," says
instead, "Despite seeing, I still don't believe," or in your case, "I
refuse to look at something that would be in conflict with what I
believe."
Draper, the movement of the grating does not affect the absolute wavelength of
the light, therefore movement of the grating should not affect the diffracted
angles either.
But it does. Simple observational fact. You could do it yourself in
your garage.
Your theory is proved wrong.
It's not a theory. It's a simple observational fact, Henri. Reread
what I wrote about how to discern a crank.
PD
www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm
Einstein's Relativity - the greatest HOAX since jesus christ's virgin mother.
.
- References:
- Re: Diffraction Gratings Prove SR Wrong.
- From: Tom Roberts
- Re: Diffraction Gratings Prove SR Wrong.
- From: Tom Roberts
- Re: Diffraction Gratings Prove SR Wrong.
- From: Tom Roberts
- Re: Diffraction Gratings Prove SR Wrong.
- From: PD
- Re: Diffraction Gratings Prove SR Wrong.
- Prev by Date: Re: Are these people insane? Seriously.
- Next by Date: Re: Bohr's Atom still number one
- Previous by thread: Re: Diffraction Gratings Prove SR Wrong.
- Next by thread: Re: Diffraction Gratings Prove SR Wrong.
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
