Re: Einsteinian Relativity...all Bluff and Bull***

On Feb 27, 12:54 pm, "kens...@xxxxxxxxxx" <kens...@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Feb 27, 11:08 am, PD <TheDraperFam...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:



On Feb 27, 9:40 am, "kens...@xxxxxxxxxx" <kens...@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Feb 27, 9:07 am, PD <TheDraperFam...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Feb 27, 4:29 am, hw@..(Dr. Henri Wilson) wrote:

On Thu, 26 Feb 2009 15:58:10 -0800 (PST), PD <TheDraperFam...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Feb 26, 5:19 pm, hw@..(Dr. Henri Wilson) wrote:
On Thu, 26 Feb 2009 14:30:13 -0800 (PST), PD <TheDraperFam...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Feb 26, 3:40 pm, hw@..(Dr. Henri Wilson) wrote:

Ken should point out that the way to establish that absolute and universal
wavelength is to measure it with apparatus that is at rest with the source.

That's fine. That's called appropriately the "rest wavelength".
The problem comes in when you then say, "But it's not JUST the rest
wavelength, it's the UNIVERSAL wavelength."

All lengths are absolute and universal.

That's not in agreement with measurement. Now, you may believe that
measurement should not stand in the way of decrees about facts.

But it's not the universal wavelength. It's measured to be something
entirely different in frames where the source is not at rest. What's
universal about it?

The method used to measure it is flawed. Gratings are sensitive to 'wavecrest
arrival frequency' not wavelength itself.

That's not correct, and there is a simple demonstration that shows
your contention is wrong. I've already described it to you. A bar
grating can be used to measure the wavelength of both electromagnetic
microwaves and sound waves. In this case, the two waves of identical
wavelengths show identical diffraction patterns, even though the wave
speeds and the "wavecrest arrival frequencies" are vastly, vastly
different (in fact by six orders of magnitude). This clearly shows
that gratings measure wavelength directly and not "wavelength arrival
frequency". You can give up that little strawman now.

It shows nothing of the sort.
The frequency method produces the same equation but with a (c+v) factor
atached. Lamnda(0) still appears as it does in YOUR
My equation is at:http://www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/bathgrating.jpg.
Lambda is absolute.

You are not paying attention. Two waves, one with a speed of 343 m/s
and a wavelength of 2.2 cm,

This wavefront would have a measured frequency of 15591 cps.

Yes.

and another with a speed of 3.0E8 m/s and
a wavelength of 2.2 cm,

This wave front would have a measured frequancy of 1.36363636E10 cps

Yes.

So the arrival speed is dependent on the speed of arrive of the
wavecrests while the wavelength remains universal.

No, the wavelength is not universal. Two sources have been *chosen* so
that they have the same wavelength. The grating measures that
wavelength directly.

You are mixing the measured wavelength for sources at rest with the
grating with the universal wavelengths of the original sources. The
original sources must be determined before you can determine their
universal wavelength and their arriving speeds.

In the case that I mention above, there is a sound source and a
microwave source that are both at rest relative to the same grating.
The sound source is an adjustable audio generator, the microwave
source is a klystron. There is no universal wavelength of an
adjustable audio generator -- it is called "adjustable" for a reason.
The same thing is true for klystrons.

Ken, your freshman-level textbook has given you a 4-inch wide, 1/16th-
inch deep exposure to physics, and you haven't even studied that itsy
teeny bit much at all.

PD
.

Quantcast