Re: wavelength times frequency the correct way
- From: "Spaceman" <spaceman@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 23 Aug 2008 12:22:04 -0400
Timo A. Nieminen wrote:
On Sat, 23 Aug 2008, Spaceman wrote:
Timo A. Nieminen wrote:
If the wavelengths don't change length, and the ruler doesn't change
length, why would the measured wavelength change?
The "measured wavelength does not change length.
OK. That's the exact opposite of what you said in your original post
in this thread. Why did you post something you don't agree with?
It is not the opposite of what I said.
How you are even coming up with such bull*** is amazing.
How do you measure a moving wavelength?
The standard method is a diffraction grating, which cares only about
the wavelength, not the velocity or frequency.
And that is why it is wrong!
The wavelength " perceptionally changes" with motion.
The physical wavelength does not change at all.
You truly are lost in a "perceptional non physical" world.
It makes a nice wavelength ruler.
No,
It does no such thing.
It ignore the motion of the detection device and gets a
"perceptional" wavelength instead of a "physical" wavelength.
Hint: You are not actually measuring the wavelength.
You are detecting the frequency and abstracting the "percieved"
wavelength instead of the physical wavelength and the only time
you would actually be able to say it is the physical wavelength
is when you know you are at rest with the source.
It would be nice to be able to detect frequency so easily, especially
for optical frequencies! I'm so glad that you've enlightened us,
telling us that something that is thought to be very, very
challenging is really what has been being done for over a century,
since long before we thought it was possible.
I have enlightened those that can be enlightened.
I see you just refuse to understand the difference between
perceptional wavelength and physical wavelength.
Free clue: if you don't believe that the measured wavelength changes,
don't post insisting that the measured wavelength changes.
Again,
Such a statement completely proves you have ignored the statements
I made and have refused to understand the difference between
"perceptional" wavelength and "physical" wavelength.
You truly follow the rubber ruler world like a perfect lemming would.
:)
--
James M Driscoll Jr
Creator of the Clock Malfunction Theory
Spaceman
.
- References:
- Re: wavelength times frequency the correct way
- From: Spaceman
- Re: wavelength times frequency the correct way
- Prev by Date: Re: Twin Paradox debunking 101
- Next by Date: Re: Twin Paradox debunking 101
- Previous by thread: Re: wavelength times frequency the correct way
- Next by thread: Re: wavelength times frequency the correct way
- Index(es):