Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #614915 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Prokaryotic Capase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2023-07-10 10:26 -0700 |
| Last post | 2023-07-16 15:45 +0200 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 113 — 28 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity
Twin paradox article in Wikipedia Prokaryotic Capase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2023-07-10 10:26 -0700
Re: Twin paradox article in Wikipedia Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-07-10 10:33 -0700
Re: Twin paradox article in Wikipedia Richard Hachel <r.hachel@frite.fr> - 2023-07-10 17:56 +0000
Re: Twin paradox article in Wikipedia Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-07-10 11:26 -0700
Re: Twin paradox article in Wikipedia "mitchr...@gmail.com" <mitchrae3323@gmail.com> - 2023-07-10 14:27 -0700
Re: Twin paradox article in Wikipedia Richard Hachel <r.hachel@frite.fr> - 2023-07-10 21:42 +0000
Re: Twin paradox article in Wikipedia Gernaro Close <lcgr@rrlgrane.ne> - 2023-07-10 21:58 +0000
Re: Twin paradox article in Wikipedia Richard Hachel <r.hachel@frite.fr> - 2023-07-10 22:12 +0000
Re: Twin paradox article in Wikipedia Emanuele Pezos <leop@mmpussos.zm> - 2023-07-12 08:34 +0000
Re: Twin paradox article in Wikipedia Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-07-11 11:03 -0400
Re: Twin paradox article in Wikipedia Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-07-11 08:11 -0700
Re: Twin paradox article in Wikipedia Wade Spyridis <didi@drdsippw.ss> - 2023-07-11 20:01 +0000
Re: Twin paradox article in Wikipedia patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2023-07-10 15:14 -0700
Re: Twin paradox article in Wikipedia Richard Hachel <r.hachel@frite.fr> - 2023-07-10 22:28 +0000
Re: Twin paradox article in Wikipedia Harry Angelopoulos <ouse@assapoyr.ug> - 2023-07-10 22:34 +0000
Re: Twin paradox article in Wikipedia patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2023-07-10 15:50 -0700
Re: Twin paradox article in Wikipedia Athel Cornish-Bowden <athel.cb@gmail.com> - 2023-07-11 11:37 +0200
Re: Twin paradox article in Wikipedia Prokaryotic Capase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2023-07-10 19:46 -0700
Re: Twin paradox article in Wikipedia Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-07-10 20:47 -0700
Re: Twin paradox article in Wikipedia The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2023-07-10 21:50 -0700
Re: Twin paradox article in Wikipedia The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2023-07-11 11:07 -0700
Re: Twin paradox article in Wikipedia The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2023-07-11 21:19 -0700
Re: Twin paradox article in Wikipedia "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2023-07-11 08:00 -0700
Re: Twin paradox article in Wikipedia Prokaryotic Capase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2023-07-11 08:29 -0700
Re: Twin paradox article in Wikipedia Maïkel Jacques-Sonne <mjs@frite.fr> - 2023-07-11 16:03 +0000
Re: Twin paradox article in Wikipedia Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-07-11 10:03 -0700
Re: Twin paradox article in Wikipedia wugi <wugi@brol.invalid> - 2023-07-11 18:53 +0200
Re: Twin paradox article in Wikipedia Prokaryotic Capase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2023-07-11 10:18 -0700
Re: Twin paradox article in Wikipedia Richard Hachel <r.hachel@frite.fr> - 2023-07-11 17:38 +0000
Re: Twin paradox article in Wikipedia Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-07-11 10:39 -0700
Re: Twin paradox article in Wikipedia Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-07-12 23:34 -0400
Re: Twin paradox article in Wikipedia Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-07-12 22:29 -0700
Re: Twin paradox article in Wikipedia Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-07-13 09:11 -0400
Re: Twin paradox article in Wikipedia Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-07-13 06:27 -0700
Re: Twin paradox article in Wikipedia wugi <wugi@brol.invalid> - 2023-07-12 17:32 +0200
Re: Twin paradox article in Wikipedia Prokaryotic Capase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2023-07-12 09:05 -0700
Re: Twin paradox article in Wikipedia Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-07-12 09:46 -0700
Re: Twin paradox article in Wikipedia wugi <wugi@brol.invalid> - 2023-07-12 19:07 +0200
Re: Twin paradox article in Wikipedia Richard Hachel <r.hachel@frite.fr> - 2023-07-12 17:36 +0000
Re: Twin paradox article in Wikipedia wugi <wugi@brol.invalid> - 2023-07-12 21:16 +0200
Re: Twin paradox article in Wikipedia wugi <wugi@brol.invalid> - 2023-07-12 21:19 +0200
Re: Twin paradox article in Wikipedia Richard Hachel <r.hachel@frite.fr> - 2023-07-12 19:47 +0000
Re: Twin paradox article in Wikipedia larry harson <larryharson66@gmail.com> - 2023-07-11 11:30 -0700
Re: Twin paradox article in Wikipedia Prokaryotic Capase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2023-07-11 12:02 -0700
Re: Twin paradox article in Wikipedia Lou <noelturntive@live.co.uk> - 2023-07-12 07:19 -0700
Re: Twin paradox article in Wikipedia "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2023-07-12 08:32 -0700
Re: Twin paradox article in Wikipedia Lou <noelturntive@live.co.uk> - 2023-07-12 13:24 -0700
Re: Twin paradox article in Wikipedia "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2023-07-12 20:43 -0700
Re: Twin paradox article in Wikipedia Lou <noelturntive@live.co.uk> - 2023-07-13 01:31 -0700
Re: Twin paradox article in Wikipedia "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2023-07-13 07:14 -0700
Re: Twin paradox article in Wikipedia "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2023-07-13 08:31 -0700
Re: Twin paradox article in Wikipedia Prokaryotic Capase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2023-07-13 09:13 -0700
Re: Twin paradox article in Wikipedia "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2023-07-13 12:16 -0700
Re: Twin paradox article in Wikipedia Prokaryotic Capase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2023-07-13 20:49 -0700
Re: Twin paradox article in Wikipedia "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2023-07-13 21:03 -0700
Re: Twin paradox article in Wikipedia Prokaryotic Capase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2023-07-13 21:33 -0700
Re: Twin paradox article in Wikipedia Lou <noelturntive@live.co.uk> - 2023-07-14 01:09 -0700
Re: Twin paradox article in Wikipedia Prokaryotic Capase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2023-07-24 17:08 -0700
Re: Twin paradox article in Wikipedia Lou <noelturntive@live.co.uk> - 2023-07-13 09:49 -0700
Re: Twin paradox article in Wikipedia Prokaryotic Capase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2023-07-13 04:30 -0700
Re: Twin paradox article in Wikipedia nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2023-07-13 18:21 +0200
Re: Twin paradox article in Wikipedia Prokaryotic Capase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2023-07-13 09:46 -0700
Re: Twin paradox article in Wikipedia nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2023-07-15 21:37 +0200
Re: Twin paradox article in Wikipedia Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> - 2023-07-15 13:37 -0700
Re: Twin paradox article in Wikipedia Prokaryotic Capase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2023-07-15 13:52 -0700
Re: Twin paradox article in Wikipedia nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2023-07-16 12:03 +0200
Re: Twin paradox article in Wikipedia Prokaryotic Capase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2023-07-16 03:54 -0700
Re: Twin paradox article in Wikipedia nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2023-07-16 13:36 +0200
Re: Twin paradox article in Wikipedia Tom Roberts <tjoberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2023-07-16 09:03 -0500
Re: Twin paradox article in Wikipedia Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-07-16 07:18 -0700
Re: Twin paradox article in Wikipedia Elizardo Sklavenitis <otrv@vzoeaioo.tk> - 2023-07-16 19:08 +0000
Re: Twin paradox article in Wikipedia Meredith Adamou <utto@mddaeaem.tt> - 2023-07-16 18:55 +0000
Re: Twin paradox article in Wikipedia RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2023-07-17 11:49 -0700
Re: Twin paradox article in Wikipedia nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2023-07-17 22:07 +0200
Re: Twin paradox article in Wikipedia Lou <noelturntive@live.co.uk> - 2023-07-18 00:41 -0700
Re: Twin paradox article in Wikipedia Tom Roberts <tjoberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2023-07-18 22:49 -0500
Re: Twin paradox article in Wikipedia Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-07-18 21:06 -0700
Re: Twin paradox article in Wikipedia Honorio Christakos <iosi@asrsosch.rc> - 2023-07-19 08:46 +0000
Re: Twin paradox article in Wikipedia Lou <noelturntive@live.co.uk> - 2023-07-19 10:58 -0700
Re: Twin paradox article in Wikipedia Lou <noelturntive@live.co.uk> - 2023-07-16 06:09 -0700
Re: Twin paradox article in Wikipedia Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-07-16 04:35 -0700
Re: Twin paradox article in Wikipedia nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2023-07-15 23:29 +0200
Re: Twin paradox article in Wikipedia Tom Roberts <tjoberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2023-07-15 18:37 -0500
Re: Twin paradox article in Wikipedia nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2023-07-16 12:03 +0200
Re: Twin paradox article in Wikipedia Tom Roberts <tjoberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2023-07-18 23:28 -0500
Re: Twin paradox article in Wikipedia Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-07-18 22:06 -0700
Re: Twin paradox article in Wikipedia Lou <noelturntive@live.co.uk> - 2023-07-18 00:31 -0700
Re: Twin paradox article in Wikipedia Lou <noelturntive@live.co.uk> - 2023-07-13 10:21 -0700
Re: Twin paradox article in Wikipedia Prokaryotic Capase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2023-07-13 11:01 -0700
Re: Twin paradox article in Wikipedia Lou <noelturntive@live.co.uk> - 2023-07-13 13:49 -0700
Re: Twin paradox article in Wikipedia Lou <noelturntive@live.co.uk> - 2023-07-13 14:06 -0700
Re: Twin paradox article in Wikipedia "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2023-07-13 12:18 -0700
Re: Twin paradox article in Wikipedia Lou <noelturntive@live.co.uk> - 2023-07-13 13:51 -0700
Re: Twin paradox article in Wikipedia "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2023-07-13 14:52 -0700
Re: Twin paradox article in Wikipedia Lou <noelturntive@live.co.uk> - 2023-07-14 00:49 -0700
Re: Twin paradox article in Wikipedia "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2023-07-14 08:24 -0700
Re: Twin paradox article in Wikipedia Lou <noelturntive@live.co.uk> - 2023-07-17 10:59 -0700
Re: Twin paradox article in Wikipedia Mike Fontenot <mlfasf@comcast.net> - 2023-07-14 10:32 -0600
Re: Twin paradox article in Wikipedia Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-07-14 09:45 -0700
Re: Twin paradox article in Wikipedia The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2023-07-14 09:48 -0700
Re: Twin paradox article in Wikipedia The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2023-07-14 22:19 -0700
Re: Twin paradox article in Wikipedia Tom Roberts <tjoberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2023-07-15 13:07 -0500
Re: Twin paradox article in Wikipedia Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-07-15 11:15 -0700
Re: Twin paradox article in Wikipedia Mike Fontenot <mlfasf@comcast.net> - 2023-07-16 11:45 -0600
Re: Twin paradox article in Wikipedia whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-07-16 13:36 -0500
Re: Twin paradox article in Wikipedia Tom Roberts <tjoberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2023-07-16 22:19 -0500
Re: Twin paradox article in Wikipedia Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-07-16 21:26 -0700
Re: Twin paradox article in Wikipedia Richard Hachel <r.hachel@frite.fr> - 2023-07-15 19:09 +0000
Re: Twin paradox article in Wikipedia "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2023-07-16 13:23 +0200
Re: Twin paradox article in Wikipedia Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-07-16 04:36 -0700
Re: Twin paradox article in Wikipedia Richard Hachel <r.hachel@frite.fr> - 2023-07-16 13:08 +0000
Re: Twin paradox article in Wikipedia Dallas Anetakis <aske@aaeeatli.as> - 2023-07-16 13:41 +0000
Re: Twin paradox article in Wikipedia Athel Cornish-Bowden <athel.cb@gmail.com> - 2023-07-16 15:45 +0200
Page 4 of 6 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 Next page →
| From | nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-07-13 18:21 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <1qdtafd.9vy09c1jy0dtpN%nospam@de-ster.demon.nl> |
| In reply to | #615148 |
Prokaryotic Capase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> wrote: > On Wednesday, July 12, 2023 at 3:24:12?PM UTC-5, Lou wrote: > > > Ives Stillwell incorrectly calculate offset for an emission model using > > their formula W1=W(1+-v/c). > > This is wrong. It fails to take into account that under emission the > > frequency changes for light arriving at the detector at c+-v. > > Ives-Stillwell was ***NOT*** concerned with distinguishing > between emission models of light versus other models. > Naïve emission models had *ALREADY* been disproven up, > down and sideways by experiments such as those by > Michelson (1913), Majorana (1918/19), Tomaschek (1924), > Miller (1925-6), by astronomical observation (de Sitter, 1913) > and so on and so forth. > > Ives-Stillwell was concerned with answering the question, > "does transverse Doppler effect exist"? Your complaints > about what emission theory supposedly predicts are totally > irrelevant. The mere fact that their spectrograph worked > at all disproves your assumption of constant wavelength, > unless you want to invent some new fantasy theory of how > diffraction gratings work (which measure wavelength, not > frequency). And how do you think that the spacing of the grating is calibrated? Jan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Prokaryotic Capase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-07-13 09:46 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <396eddf1-5257-4384-8162-a895fd0f0aa8n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #615162 |
On Thursday, July 13, 2023 at 11:21:16 AM UTC-5, J. J. Lodder wrote: > Prokaryotic Capase Homolog <prokaryotic.c...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > Ives-Stillwell was ***NOT*** concerned with distinguishing > > between emission models of light versus other models. > > Naïve emission models had *ALREADY* been disproven up, > > down and sideways by experiments such as those by > > Michelson (1913), Majorana (1918/19), Tomaschek (1924), > > Miller (1925-6), by astronomical observation (de Sitter, 1913) > > and so on and so forth. > > > > Ives-Stillwell was concerned with answering the question, > > "does transverse Doppler effect exist"? Your complaints > > about what emission theory supposedly predicts are totally > > irrelevant. The mere fact that their spectrograph worked > > at all disproves your assumption of constant wavelength, > > unless you want to invent some new fantasy theory of how > > diffraction gratings work (which measure wavelength, not > > frequency). > And how do you think that the spacing of the grating is calibrated? I'm not sure where you are going with this question?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-07-15 21:37 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <1qdxhyu.1ok3o463kbpy5N%nospam@de-ster.demon.nl> |
| In reply to | #615164 |
Prokaryotic Capase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> wrote: > On Thursday, July 13, 2023 at 11:21:16?AM UTC-5, J. J. Lodder wrote: > > Prokaryotic Capase Homolog <prokaryotic.c...@gmail.com> > > wrote: > > > > Ives-Stillwell was ***NOT*** concerned with distinguishing > > > between emission models of light versus other models. > > > Naïve emission models had *ALREADY* been disproven up, > > > down and sideways by experiments such as those by > > > Michelson (1913), Majorana (1918/19), Tomaschek (1924), > > > Miller (1925-6), by astronomical observation (de Sitter, 1913) > > > and so on and so forth. > > > > > > Ives-Stillwell was concerned with answering the question, > > > "does transverse Doppler effect exist"? Your complaints > > > about what emission theory supposedly predicts are totally > > > irrelevant. The mere fact that their spectrograph worked > > > at all disproves your assumption of constant wavelength, > > > unless you want to invent some new fantasy theory of how > > > diffraction gratings work (which measure wavelength, not > > > frequency). > > And how do you think that the spacing of the grating is calibrated? > > I'm not sure where you are going with this question? Pointing out that you are going nowhere with your claim that gratings measure wavelength, not frequency, Jan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-07-15 13:37 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <46bcdec3-ce4f-4d2d-9122-910cceb2ba31n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #615402 |
On Saturday, July 15, 2023 at 12:37:42 PM UTC-7, J. J. Lodder wrote: > Prokaryotic Capase Homolog <prokaryotic.c...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > On Thursday, July 13, 2023 at 11:21:16?AM UTC-5, J. J. Lodder wrote: > > > Prokaryotic Capase Homolog <prokaryotic.c...@gmail.com> > > > wrote: > > > > > > Ives-Stillwell was ***NOT*** concerned with distinguishing > > > > between emission models of light versus other models. > > > > Naïve emission models had *ALREADY* been disproven up, > > > > down and sideways by experiments such as those by > > > > Michelson (1913), Majorana (1918/19), Tomaschek (1924), > > > > Miller (1925-6), by astronomical observation (de Sitter, 1913) > > > > and so on and so forth. > > > > > > > > Ives-Stillwell was concerned with answering the question, > > > > "does transverse Doppler effect exist"? Your complaints > > > > about what emission theory supposedly predicts are totally > > > > irrelevant. The mere fact that their spectrograph worked > > > > at all disproves your assumption of constant wavelength, > > > > unless you want to invent some new fantasy theory of how > > > > diffraction gratings work (which measure wavelength, not > > > > frequency). > > > And how do you think that the spacing of the grating is calibrated? > > > > I'm not sure where you are going with this question? > Pointing out that you are going nowhere with your claim > that gratings measure wavelength, not frequency, > > Jan Am I missing something here? https://www.thomasnet.com/articles/other/types-of-diffraction-gratings-and-what-they-are-used-for/#:~:text=It%20is%20a%20measure%20of,across%20the%20orders%20of%20diffraction. "Diffraction gratings are optical devices that are used in instruments such as spectrometers to separate polychromatic light into the underlying constituent wavelengths of which it is comprised. This process disperses the light in such a way that each wavelength is directed to a different angle as a result of the interference pattern that results from the incident light’s reflection off of or transmission through the grating structure."
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Prokaryotic Capase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-07-15 13:52 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <835d82bf-dffa-4c5a-baa8-241351ded214n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #615411 |
On Saturday, July 15, 2023 at 3:37:29 PM UTC-5, Paul Alsing wrote: > On Saturday, July 15, 2023 at 12:37:42 PM UTC-7, J. J. Lodder wrote: > > Prokaryotic Capase Homolog <prokaryotic.c...@gmail.com> > > wrote: > > > On Thursday, July 13, 2023 at 11:21:16?AM UTC-5, J. J. Lodder wrote: > > > > And how do you think that the spacing of the grating is calibrated? > > > > > > I'm not sure where you are going with this question? > > > Pointing out that you are going nowhere with your claim > > that gratings measure wavelength, not frequency, > > > > Jan > Am I missing something here? > > https://www.thomasnet.com/articles/other/types-of-diffraction-gratings-and-what-they-are-used-for/#:~:text=It%20is%20a%20measure%20of,across%20the%20orders%20of%20diffraction. > > "Diffraction gratings are optical devices that are used in instruments such as spectrometers to separate polychromatic light into the underlying constituent wavelengths of which it is comprised. This process disperses the light in such a way that each wavelength is directed to a different angle as a result of the interference pattern that results from the incident light’s reflection off of or transmission through the grating structure." I'm equally baffled.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-07-16 12:03 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <1qdyli5.11csf2egkegvzN%nospam@de-ster.demon.nl> |
| In reply to | #615413 |
Prokaryotic Capase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> wrote: > On Saturday, July 15, 2023 at 3:37:29?PM UTC-5, Paul Alsing wrote: > > On Saturday, July 15, 2023 at 12:37:42?PM UTC-7, J. J. Lodder wrote: > > > Prokaryotic Capase Homolog <prokaryotic.c...@gmail.com> > > > wrote: > > > > On Thursday, July 13, 2023 at 11:21:16?AM UTC-5, J. J. Lodder wrote: > > > > > > And how do you think that the spacing of the grating is calibrated? > > > > > > > > I'm not sure where you are going with this question? > > > > > Pointing out that you are going nowhere with your claim > > > that gratings measure wavelength, not frequency, > > > > > > Jan > > Am I missing something here? > > > > https://www.thomasnet.com/articles/other/types-of-diffraction-gratings-a > > nd-what-they-are-used-for/#:~:text=It%20is%20a%20measure%20of,across%20t > > he%20orders%20of%20diffraction. > > > > "Diffraction gratings are optical devices that are used in instruments > > such as spectrometers to separate polychromatic light into the > > underlying constituent wavelengths of which it is comprised. This > > process disperses the light in such a way that each wavelength is > > directed to a different angle as a result of the interference pattern > > that results from the incident light's reflection off of or transmission > > through the grating structure." > > I'm equally baffled. You have allowed yourself to be baffled by Jane-stupidity. All this 'measuring wavelength versus measuring frequency' is nothing but a red herring. With the redefinition of the meter in terms of c the meter has been degraded to a secondary standard, and every length measurement has been reduced to a frequency measurement. NIST supplies frequencies of certain well defined light sources (such as a certain stabilised Helium-Neon laser) for the purpose. They are accurate to about 10^-11. (still much less than clock stability) Lesser mortals, from secondary standards labs for example, can take their lasers to NIST, or BIPM, to verify their calibration,. Still lesser mortals can buy a commercial standard, Jan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Prokaryotic Capase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-07-16 03:54 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <5f21ab34-121e-423e-95dd-75d972e3ef8bn@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #615458 |
On Sunday, July 16, 2023 at 5:03:52 AM UTC-5, J. J. Lodder wrote: > Prokaryotic Capase Homolog <prokaryotic.c...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > On Saturday, July 15, 2023 at 3:37:29?PM UTC-5, Paul Alsing wrote: > > > On Saturday, July 15, 2023 at 12:37:42?PM UTC-7, J. J. Lodder wrote: > > > > Prokaryotic Capase Homolog <prokaryotic.c...@gmail.com> > > > > wrote: > > > > > On Thursday, July 13, 2023 at 11:21:16?AM UTC-5, J. J. Lodder wrote: > > > > > > > > And how do you think that the spacing of the grating is calibrated? > > > > > > > > > > I'm not sure where you are going with this question? > > > > > > > Pointing out that you are going nowhere with your claim > > > > that gratings measure wavelength, not frequency, > > > > > > > > Jan > > > Am I missing something here? > > > > > > https://www.thomasnet.com/articles/other/types-of-diffraction-gratings-a > > > nd-what-they-are-used-for/#:~:text=It%20is%20a%20measure%20of,across%20t > > > he%20orders%20of%20diffraction. > > > > > > "Diffraction gratings are optical devices that are used in instruments > > > such as spectrometers to separate polychromatic light into the > > > underlying constituent wavelengths of which it is comprised. This > > > process disperses the light in such a way that each wavelength is > > > directed to a different angle as a result of the interference pattern > > > that results from the incident light's reflection off of or transmission > > > through the grating structure." > > > > I'm equally baffled. > You have allowed yourself to be baffled by Jane-stupidity. > All this 'measuring wavelength versus measuring frequency' > is nothing but a red herring. > > With the redefinition of the meter in terms of c > the meter has been degraded to a secondary standard, > and every length measurement has been reduced to a frequency > measurement. . That is a totally specious argument. I suppose that you would then assert along with Henry Wilson that diffraction gratings measure frequency rather than wavelength and that you would prove that statement by writing the completely proper formula d sin θ = n c / f where d is the grating spacing, n is the order and f is the frequency. Can you disprove Henry Wilson's argument? No, "measuring wavelength versus measuring frequency" is not a red herring.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-07-16 13:36 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <1qdypyu.doyqa11jd20pwN%nospam@de-ster.demon.nl> |
| In reply to | #615462 |
Prokaryotic Capase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> wrote: > On Sunday, July 16, 2023 at 5:03:52?AM UTC-5, J. J. Lodder wrote: > > Prokaryotic Capase Homolog <prokaryotic.c...@gmail.com> > > wrote: > > > On Saturday, July 15, 2023 at 3:37:29?PM UTC-5, Paul Alsing wrote: > > > > On Saturday, July 15, 2023 at 12:37:42?PM UTC-7, J. J. Lodder wrote: > > > > > Prokaryotic Capase Homolog <prokaryotic.c...@gmail.com> > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > On Thursday, July 13, 2023 at 11:21:16?AM UTC-5, J. J. Lodder wrote: > > > > > > > > > > And how do you think that the spacing of the grating is > > > > > > > calibrated? > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'm not sure where you are going with this question? > > > > > > > > > Pointing out that you are going nowhere with your claim > > > > > that gratings measure wavelength, not frequency, > > > > > > > > > > Jan > > > > Am I missing something here? > > > > > > > > https://www.thomasnet.com/articles/other/types-of-diffraction-gratings-a > > > > nd-what-they-are-used-for/#:~:text=It%20is%20a%20measure%20of,across%20t > > > > he%20orders%20of%20diffraction. > > > > > > > > "Diffraction gratings are optical devices that are used in instruments > > > > such as spectrometers to separate polychromatic light into the > > > > underlying constituent wavelengths of which it is comprised. This > > > > process disperses the light in such a way that each wavelength is > > > > directed to a different angle as a result of the interference pattern > > > > that results from the incident light's reflection off of or transmission > > > > through the grating structure." > > > > > > I'm equally baffled. > > You have allowed yourself to be baffled by Jane-stupidity. > > All this 'measuring wavelength versus measuring frequency' > > is nothing but a red herring. > > > > With the redefinition of the meter in terms of c > > the meter has been degraded to a secondary standard, > > and every length measurement has been reduced to a frequency > > measurement. > . > That is a totally specious argument. I suppose that > you would then assert along with Henry Wilson that > diffraction gratings measure frequency rather than > wavelength and that you would prove that statement > by writing the completely proper formula > d sin ? = n c / f > where d is the grating spacing, n is the order and > f is the frequency. > > Can you disprove Henry Wilson's argument? > > No, "measuring wavelength versus measuring > frequency" is not a red herring. It is not an argument at all. It assumes what needs to be shown. (that you can 'know' the spacing of the grating) Or do you just take the manufacturers spec in good faith? Spectrographs using gratings cannot 'measure' wavelengths at all. They can at best compare wavelengths. (if you really insist) To really -measure- a wavelength the thing must be calibrated by feeding light with a known frequency through it. Again, go ask at NIST or BIPM. It has been like that ever since the definition of the meter as 'so many times the wavelength of some Krypton line' was abolished, Jan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tom Roberts <tjoberts137@sbcglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-07-16 09:03 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <7pidnYwpmeIxZS75nZ2dnZfqlJxh4p2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #615467 |
On 7/16/23 6:36 AM, J. J. Lodder wrote: > Spectrographs using gratings cannot 'measure' wavelengths at all. > They can at best compare wavelengths. (if you really insist) Nonsense! First, any measurement using a unit is actually a comparison (of the measurement to the unit). Second, every analysis I have ever seen of a diffraction grating is based on the wavelength of the light, not its frequency. In particular, using c/f instead of wavelength is valid only in vacuum. Third, if what you claim were true, then a given laser and grating would show the same deflection angle when the grating is immersed in water or in air (the frequency of the light is the same, its wavelength isn't.). The angle changes corresponding to the wavelength, not the frequency. The redefinition of the meter did not change any of this. Tom Roberts
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-07-16 07:18 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <828bffa5-7224-49e6-9277-c38f08e6999cn@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #615473 |
On Sunday, 16 July 2023 at 16:03:37 UTC+2, Tom Roberts wrote: > On 7/16/23 6:36 AM, J. J. Lodder wrote: > > Spectrographs using gratings cannot 'measure' wavelengths at all. > > They can at best compare wavelengths. (if you really insist) > Nonsense! > > First, any measurement using a unit is actually a comparison (of the > measurement to the unit). And what was the unit of time when your idiot guru lived and mumbled?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Elizardo Sklavenitis <otrv@vzoeaioo.tk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-07-16 19:08 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <u91f6u$2felv$1@paganini.bofh.team> |
| In reply to | #615474 |
Maciej Wozniak wrote: > On Sunday, 16 July 2023 at 16:03:37 UTC+2, Tom Roberts wrote: >> On 7/16/23 6:36 AM, J. J. Lodder wrote: >> > Spectrographs using gratings cannot 'measure' wavelengths at all. >> > They can at best compare wavelengths. (if you really insist) >> Nonsense! >> >> First, any measurement using a unit is actually a comparison (of the >> measurement to the unit). > > And what was the unit of time when your idiot guru lived and mumbled? one and a half.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Meredith Adamou <utto@mddaeaem.tt> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-07-16 18:55 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <u91ef5$2fblq$1@paganini.bofh.team> |
| In reply to | #615473 |
Tom Roberts wrote: > On 7/16/23 6:36 AM, J. J. Lodder wrote: >> Spectrographs using gratings cannot 'measure' wavelengths at all. They >> can at best compare wavelengths. (if you really insist) > > Nonsense! > First, any measurement using a unit is actually a comparison (of the > measurement to the unit). > Second, every analysis I have ever seen of a diffraction grating is > based on the wavelength of the light, not its frequency. In particular, > using c/f instead of wavelength is valid only in vacuum. > Third, if what you claim were true, then a given laser and grating would > show the same deflection angle when the grating is immersed in water or > in air (the frequency of the light is the same, its wavelength isn't.). > The angle changes corresponding to the wavelength, not the frequency. absolutely, but there are nu units in wavelengths. So I guess is a comparison to a predefined chroma/color. Actually is even more complicate, as for instance, depending on intensity a "red" may have tons of nuances. How are these thing calibrated?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-07-17 11:49 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <85508818-1e4a-4e4d-adb2-dcedf27589d8n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #615473 |
On July 16, Tom Roberts wrote: >> Spectrographs using gratings cannot 'measure' wavelengths at all. >> They can at best compare wavelengths. > > Nonsense! > First, any measurement using a unit is actually a comparison (of the > measurement to the unit). > Second, every analysis I have ever seen of a diffraction grating is > based on the wavelength of the light, not its frequency. In particular, > using c/f instead of wavelength is valid only in vacuum. How was the first diffraction grating calibrated? -- Rich
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-07-17 22:07 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <1qe194v.3l4nhw7w3wbmN%nospam@de-ster.demon.nl> |
| In reply to | #615531 |
RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> wrote: > On July 16, Tom Roberts wrote: > >> Spectrographs using gratings cannot 'measure' wavelengths at all. > >> They can at best compare wavelengths. > > > > Nonsense! > > First, any measurement using a unit is actually a comparison (of the > > measurement to the unit). > > Second, every analysis I have ever seen of a diffraction grating is > > based on the wavelength of the light, not its frequency. In particular, > > using c/f instead of wavelength is valid only in vacuum. > > How was the first diffraction grating calibrated? See: Hopkinson, F.; Rittenhouse, David (1786). "An optical problem, proposed by Mr. Hopkinson, and solved by Mr. Rittenhouse". Transactions of the American Philosophical Society. 2: 201–6. <https://books.google.nl/books?id=OLgAAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA201&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false> Jan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lou <noelturntive@live.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-07-18 00:41 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <96da334c-be2d-4e58-9c10-dfe824440c6bn@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #615473 |
On Sunday, 16 July 2023 at 15:03:37 UTC+1, Tom Roberts wrote: > On 7/16/23 6:36 AM, J. J. Lodder wrote: > > Spectrographs using gratings cannot 'measure' wavelengths at all. > > They can at best compare wavelengths. (if you really insist) > Nonsense! > > First, any measurement using a unit is actually a comparison (of the > measurement to the unit). > > Second, every analysis I have ever seen of a diffraction grating is > based on the wavelength of the light, not its frequency. In particular, > using c/f instead of wavelength is valid only in vacuum. > > Third, if what you claim were true, then a given laser and grating would > show the same deflection angle when the grating is immersed in water or > in air (the frequency of the light is the same, its wavelength isn't.). > The angle changes corresponding to the wavelength, not the frequency. > > The redefinition of the meter did not change any of this. It would be an interesting experiment to try. Because if you expect the angle of maxima to change towards the blue when the light goes from air to water then why is this shift to blue colour not observed when light goes from air to water?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tom Roberts <tjoberts137@sbcglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-07-18 22:49 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <sIKdndeKiYDewCr5nZ2dnZfqlJxh4p2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #615562 |
On 7/18/23 2:41 AM, Lou wrote: > if you expect the angle of maxima to change towards the blue when > the light goes from air to water then why is this shift to blue > colour not observed when light goes from air to water? You have to read what I write. I never said anything about the color of light changing when light goes from air into water -- you just made that up, and it is wrong. I said the angle of deflection for a diffraction grating in water will be different from one in air. Note that our eyes perceive colors based on the energy of the photons. In water they travel more slowly than in air, but their energy does not change -- when modeled as a wave, in optical media with different indices of refraction, light's wavelength and speed change, but its frequency is unchanged. We KNOW this: when swimming under water, red items are perceived as red; if wavelength governed the color, we would perceive items that are red in air as cyan or blue under water. Think about how the eye's vitreous humor affects this. Hint: it doesn't. Unlike our color perception, the angle of deflection from a diffraction grating depends on the wavelength of the light, and thus is different in air and water. Tom Roberts
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-07-18 21:06 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <f11f7397-ebca-4b0a-865a-60b7e51f904en@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #615627 |
On Wednesday, 19 July 2023 at 05:49:29 UTC+2, Tom Roberts wrote: > On 7/18/23 2:41 AM, Lou wrote: > > if you expect the angle of maxima to change towards the blue when > > the light goes from air to water then why is this shift to blue > > colour not observed when light goes from air to water? > You have to read what I write. That we're FORCED!!! To THE BEST WAY!!!!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Honorio Christakos <iosi@asrsosch.rc> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-07-19 08:46 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <u987so$32tmc$1@paganini.bofh.team> |
| In reply to | #615627 |
Tom Roberts wrote: > Note that our eyes perceive colors based on the energy of the photons. > In water they travel more slowly than in air, but their energy does not > change -- when modeled as a wave, in optical media with different > indices of refraction, light's wavelength and speed change, but its > frequency is unchanged. We KNOW this: when swimming under water, red > items are perceived as red; if wavelength governed the color, we would > perceive items that are red in air as cyan or blue under water. > > Think about how the eye's vitreous humor affects this. > Hint: it doesn't. > > Unlike our color perception, the angle of deflection from a diffraction > grating depends on the wavelength of the light, and thus is different in > air and water. since you assume a water which is not milky and no turbulence. But it's strange that the water isn't changing chroma of the light. Atmospheric air does. For the example of the Sun at zenith, in broad daylight, the sky is blue due to Rayleigh scattering, which also involves the diatomic gases N2 and O2. Near sunset and especially during twilight, absorption by ozone (O3) significantly contributes to maintaining blue color in the evening sky. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Rayleigh_sunlight_scattering.png
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lou <noelturntive@live.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-07-19 10:58 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <3e7e8cfb-08f5-4e20-8279-6c01567bb6b4n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #615627 |
On Wednesday, 19 July 2023 at 04:49:29 UTC+1, Tom Roberts wrote: > On 7/18/23 2:41 AM, Lou wrote: > > if you expect the angle of maxima to change towards the blue when > > the light goes from air to water then why is this shift to blue > > colour not observed when light goes from air to water? > You have to read what I write. I never said anything about the color of > light changing when light goes from air into water -- you just made that > up, and it is wrong. I said the angle of deflection for a diffraction > grating in water will be different from one in air. > Note that our eyes perceive colors based on the energy of the photons. > In water they travel more slowly than in air, but their energy does not > change -- when modeled as a wave, in optical media with different > indices of refraction, light's wavelength and speed change, but its > frequency is unchanged. We KNOW this: when swimming under water, red > items are perceived as red; if wavelength governed the color, we would > perceive items that are red in air as cyan or blue under water. > > Think about how the eye's vitreous humor affects this. > Hint: it doesn't. > > Unlike our color perception, the angle of deflection from a diffraction > grating depends on the wavelength of the light, and thus is different in > air and water. Yes I have no problem with this. I did say in my last post that color doesn’t change even though angle of maxima does. As part of the fundamental mathematical relationship seen in spectrographs between f ,w and v. Which means it is also reasonable mathematically to say that where f and v change, w can remain the same for a spectrograph. Contrary to the false claim made by Prokaryotic earlier in this thread that emission theory and c+-v are not compatible mathematically with the relationship between v, w and f as seen in spectrographs. Prokaryotic may not like emission theory but he can’t say, or at least imply, its mathematically impossible for c+-v to have w stay the same when f and v change.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lou <noelturntive@live.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-07-16 06:09 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <d79e0c5c-db85-44be-8582-7791a74b7b96n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #615462 |
On Sunday, 16 July 2023 at 11:54:32 UTC+1, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog wrote: > On Sunday, July 16, 2023 at 5:03:52 AM UTC-5, J. J. Lodder wrote: > > Prokaryotic Capase Homolog > > wrote: > > > On Saturday, July 15, 2023 at 3:37:29?PM UTC-5, Paul Alsing wrote: > > > > On Saturday, July 15, 2023 at 12:37:42?PM UTC-7, J. J. Lodder wrote: > > > > > Prokaryotic Capase Homolog > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > On Thursday, July 13, 2023 at 11:21:16?AM UTC-5, J. J. Lodder wrote: > > > > > > > > > > And how do you think that the spacing of the grating is calibrated? > > > > > > > > > > > > I'm not sure where you are going with this question? > > > > > > > > > Pointing out that you are going nowhere with your claim > > > > > that gratings measure wavelength, not frequency, > > > > > > > > > > Jan > > > > Am I missing something here? > > > > > > > > https://www.thomasnet.com/articles/other/types-of-diffraction-gratings-a > > > > nd-what-they-are-used-for/#:~:text=It%20is%20a%20measure%20of,across%20t > > > > he%20orders%20of%20diffraction. > > > > > > > > "Diffraction gratings are optical devices that are used in instruments > > > > such as spectrometers to separate polychromatic light into the > > > > underlying constituent wavelengths of which it is comprised. This > > > > process disperses the light in such a way that each wavelength is > > > > directed to a different angle as a result of the interference pattern > > > > that results from the incident light's reflection off of or transmission > > > > through the grating structure." > > > > > > I'm equally baffled. > > You have allowed yourself to be baffled by Jane-stupidity. > > All this 'measuring wavelength versus measuring frequency' > > is nothing but a red herring. > > > > With the redefinition of the meter in terms of c > > the meter has been degraded to a secondary standard, > > and every length measurement has been reduced to a frequency > > measurement. > . > That is a totally specious argument. I suppose that > you would then assert along with Henry Wilson that > diffraction gratings measure frequency rather than > wavelength and that you would prove that statement > by writing the completely proper formula > d sin θ = n c / f > where d is the grating spacing, n is the order and > f is the frequency. > > Can you disprove Henry Wilson's argument? > > No, "measuring wavelength versus measuring > frequency" is not a red herring. The logic in Tom’s and your argument is failing to include an important element. Which is the *speed* of the interference pattern from the grating. This is a two slit example but shows the interference between the overlapping waves and can represent two wavefronts interfering after interacting with the grating. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diffraction#/media/File:Doubleslit.gif Imagine you are at the right side of the image simulation in the link and watching the 2 interfering waves come towards you. You would see a specific colour dictated by the frequency. If you could then lower the speed but retain the wavelength of the two overlapping wavefronts from each slit, what would the eye now see when looking at the interference pattern of the 2 overlapping slowed down waves? It will see a different colour relative to the change in wavelength speed. Because although the wavelengths of the 2 overlapping waves hasn’t changed, the speed of the waves has. Which must mean that the speed of the peaks and troughs of the 2 interfering wavefronts arriving at your eye has decreased. Which can only logically result in the the observed frequency decreasing and the apparent colour changing to the red end of the spectrum.. The same will apply to the interference pattern from the grating.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 4 of 6 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web