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

On Feb 27, 1:00 pm, "kens...@xxxxxxxxxx" <kens...@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Feb 27, 11:10 am, PD <TheDraperFam...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:



On Feb 27, 9:51 am, "kens...@xxxxxxxxxx" <kens...@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Feb 26, 8:29 am, PD <TheDraperFam...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Feb 26, 6:43 am, "kens...@xxxxxxxxxx" <kens...@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Feb 25, 11:11 am, PD <TheDraperFam...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Feb 25, 8:35 am, "kens...@xxxxxxxxxx" <kens...@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Feb 25, 8:03 am, PD <TheDraperFam...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Feb 24, 9:53 pm, "kens...@xxxxxxxxxx" <kens...@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Feb 24, 11:28 am, PD <TheDraperFam...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Feb 24, 10:01 am, "kens...@xxxxxxxxxx" <kens...@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Here are my questions again.
So you measure the wavelength of the incoming light and the *measured
value* is 603 nm.
Question 1: Now, how do you propose to determine with that information
that the source is sodium?
Your answer here: _

Using the procedure you described some time ago.

It's important that you write that down explicitly, because what I
described is completely inconsistent with statements you've made.
Please write down what YOU think is the way to identify light with a
wavelength of 603 nm and not 589 nm as coming from sodium.

Your answer here: ______________________________________________

I  am not going to bother. You look it up if you want.

Ken, this is a very poor mask. It always helps in science to start by
confessing what you don't know. You don't like that approach, I'm
sure.

Question 2: And if you do determine that the source is sodium, why on
earth would you fudge the measured data and use a value of 589 nm
rather than 603 nm, which is what you just *measured*?
Your answer here: ___________________________________

Listen idiot....603 is the wavelength of the light from the telescope
at rest with the grating. 589 nm is the universal wavelength of sodium
light.....from a rest sodium or a moving sodium source.

You *just got done telling me* that you could identify the light of
603 nm as coming from a sodium source. You want your cake and to eat
it too. You say you want the light of 603 nm to be sodium and not-
sodium at the same time.

Sigh....603 nm is not from a sodium source. It is from a telescope at
rest with the grating.

Then if it's not from sodium, why do you choose sodium as the source
of that light and therefore use a wavelength of 589 nm? How do you
know it's not neon, and you're supposed to use 632 nm, rather than
sodium at 589 nm? Why do you choose 589 nm and not 632 nm for the
universal wavelength, since the the 603 nm is from the telescope and
you don't know whether the distant source is sodium or neon?

Hey idiot....the theory says that every elementary source such as
sodium has a universal wavelength.

You have not answered my questions. How do you know the source with a
*measured* wavelength of 603 nm should be assigned to sodium with a so-
called universal wavelength of 589 nm and not to neon with a so-called
universal wavelength of 632 nm, or for that matter any other element?

Sigh....the measured wavelength of 603 nm is not sodium. It is the
telescope at rest with the grating. The relationship of the 603 nm
line with the other lines from sources at rest with the grating
enables you to determine the original source of the 603 nm is sodium.

Again you say "the measured wavelength of 603 nm is not sodium" and
"the original source of the 603 nm is sodium". You say it is A and not-
A in the same paragraph. You make no sense.

Sigh the 603 nm is the telescope source at rest with the grating. The
universal wavelength of sodium does not change during transit.


Why are you using the universal wavelength of SODIUM and not NEON? You
have a wavelength of 603 nm. How do you know the source is sodium and
not neon or lithium or helium?
.

Quantcast