On Fri, 1 Feb 2008 10:36:35 +1100, "Jeckyl" wrote:

"Dr. Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message
.. .
On Thu, 31 Jan 2008 21:12:48 +1100, "Jeckyl" wrote:
"Dr. Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message
...
On Thu, 31 Jan 2008 09:22:50 GMT, "Ockham"
wrote:
Correct.


| (though both have been observed).

That is actually funny since you cannot say by whom, when
and under what circumstances.




Idiot, did you notice I wrote 'wavelength' and not wavelength.

Yes .. in both cases .. first you said it had a 'wavelength' and then that
is did not have a 'wavelength'. Which is it?

...which implies that this is not a true wavelength but a commonly defined
one.

Any sort of wavelength is a defined wavelength

I think that's where your confusion lies.
I think you are showing your own confusion
And now then .. how does light move then .. is it like a moving
oscillator,
where the frequency is fixed and the wavelength varies between observers,
or
like a moving wave, where the wavelength is fixed and the frequency varies
between observers.
....this is how light moves around a ring gyro.
http://www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/rayphases.exe (now upgraded)

You might be able to deduce a few facts about light from this.

Your animation shows two completely different frequencies of light (whether
you look at it from the inertial or the rotating frame)

Poor boy....can't click 'pause' and count the wavelengths in the source
frame.....

.. but that is not
the case in a real ring gyro. As per usualy, you do your analysis and
animation on something that is NOT what you claim it to be. That makes you
a liar.

And you've still not said how light moves .. is it like a moving oscilator,
or like a wave?

both



Henri Wilson. ASTC,BSc,DSc(T)

www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm