"PD" <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1124134085.382772.222220@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

kenseto wrote:

"PD" <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1124127958.971779.143560@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...

kenseto wrote:

"PD" <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1123877298.770634.202450@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

kenseto wrote:

"PD" <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1123275729.619208.230960@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

kenseto wrote:

"PD" <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:1123165112.345034.320520@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...

kenseto@erinet.com wrote:

Hey idiot....your explanation is based on the

interpretation

that

the

speed of light is constant.

If you're referring to Uncle Al's citations then,

ironically,

you

are

still wrong. In a transition to a material of a different

index of

refraction, what is held constant is frequency, the speed

of

light

through the medium changes, and so the wavelength changes.

This is

a

crucial consideration not only for the cases that Uncle Al

cites,

but

also in non-reflective coatings for the glasses which

apparently

do

nothing for your myopia.

The other possibility is that inside the material nothing is

changed.

That's

the reason why when light re-emerges from the material it

will

have

the

same

wavelength, frequency and speed.

That possibility is ruled out by experiment. Here is the

mechanism

for

nonreflective coatings. The way those work is that light

incident

on

the front surface of the coating splits, some reflecting from

the

front

of the coating and some reflecting off the back of the coating

and

then

coming out the front of the coating again. Those two wave

contributions

then superimpose and the total light is the result of the

interference

of those contributions. Because the light that has to reflect

off

the

back of the coating has further to go (twice the thickness of

the

coating), the two waves in general will not be completely in

phase. In

fact, if the thickness is arranged to be 1/4 of a wavelength,

then

the

difference in path length will be 1/2 wavelength, and the two
contributions will be completely out of phase and they will

cancel

each

other, almost entirely eliminating reflected light.

The trick to doing this right is to discover that the

thickness

has to

be 1/4 of the wavelength of the light *in the coating*, which

is

shorter than the wavelength in the surrounding air (or vacuum)

by

the

factor n (index of refraction). If you don't take that into

account,

the non-reflective coating isn't non-reflective. That is a

simple

experiment to verify and is verified in people's eyeglasses

and

camera

lenses every day.

How is this refute my claim that doppler shfit is evidence for

varying

light

speed?

It rules out your claim above that inside the material nothing
(including wavelength) is changed.

Sheesh....it does not rule out my claim at all. Inside the material

clocks

runs at a different rate. Thus frequency, wavelength and light speed

will

maintain the same ratio as outdise the material.

Now if you will admit that this is
wrong, we will presently turn to what is wrong with interpreting
Doppler shift as a change in light speed.

Doppler shift is a change in light speed. This statement cannot be

refuted

because all observers measures the same wavelength for identical

light

source in their frame. There is no valid reason why the wavelength

should

change on its way to the observer.

That's because you have it stuck in your head that wavelength (as well
as any length) is a physical property of an object, rather than the
result of a procedure, and so that a change in wavelength must be
accompanied by a physical process that acted to change it.

Sigh....wavelength is a physical property of a wave.

Nothing of
the sort, and if that is what you think is a priori obvious and THAT

is

why Doppler shift MUST be a change in light speed, then I would say
that it is not obvious at all.

If the surface of a pond is full of water waves and if you swim toward

the

source of the wave you will encounter more waves (blue shift) and if you
swim away from the source you will entounter less wave (red shift). End

of

story.

Ken Seto

Here's a quiz:
I want to measure the speed of a passing train. When the front of the
train reaches where I am, I throw down a handful of chalk on the
ground. Then I run like hell toward the back of the train and when the
back of the train reaches where I am, I throw down another handful of
chalk. Then at my leisure I measure the distance between the chalk
marks. What, if anything, is wrong with this procedure, and what would
you insist that I do if I were to improve it?

Answer this question, and we'll be on our way to understanding why
wavelength is not an inherent property of the wave, your assertions to
the contrary. Unless you really don't want to know...

ROTFLOL.....The only properties of a wave are: wavelength, amplitude and
speed of propagation.
Your example is stupid and I have no idea what you are trying to
demonstrate. The example I provided (the water waves in the pond) is exactly
the reason why we observe doppler shift.

If the surface of a pond is full of water waves and if you swim toward

the

source of the wave you will encounter more waves (blue shift) and if you
swim away from the source you will entounter less wave (red shift). End

of

story.

Your example is stupid and I have no idea what you are trying to
demonstrate. The example I provided (the water waves in the pond) is exactly
the reason why we observe doppler shift.

"The Ghost In The Machine" <ewill@sirius.tg00suus7038.net> wrote in message
news:3ci8s2-hkj.ln1@sirius.tg00suus7038.net...

You missed the point. If one assumes lambda is constant for all
reference frames, why do spectrum (frequency) lines shift
from star to star?

Because relative motion between the observer and the stars is the vector
difference of the vector componrent of the observer's absolute motion and
the vector component of the star's absolute motion along the line joining
the star and the observer.

The Ghost In The Machine <ewill@sirius.tg00suus7038.net> wrote in
news:3ci8s2-hkj.ln1@sirius.tg00suus7038.net:

In sci.physics,

ROTFLOL....this idiot failed the Mars Lander mission!!!!!!

You missed the point. If one assumes lambda is constant for all
reference frames, why do spectrum (frequency) lines shift
from st