Doppler Shift is evidence for the varying speed of incoming light.
This statement is based on the following assumptions:
1. The wavelength of a source such as the sodium is a defined
universal constant 589 nm in all frames.
2. There is nothing that can change the universal wavelength of sodium
during the transit of sodium light from a moving sodium source.
3. The incoming light from a moving sodium source becomes a new light
source in the observer's frame. The grating in the observer's frame
defines a new wavelength for this new light source....much like the
grating defines different wavelengths for different light sources in
the observer's frame.
4. The newly defined wavelength for the incoming light can be used to
identify the original source (sodium) of the incoming light as
outlined in the following previous post by PD.

Based on the above assumptions the varying speed of the incoming
sodium light is calculated as follows:
c' = (the measured incoming frequency of incoming sodium light)(589 nm
universal wavelength for sodium light)

The above interpretation on the varying speed of incoming sodium light
gives rise to a new theory of relativity called Improved Relativity
Theory (IRT). IRT includes SRT as a subset. However, unlike SRT, the
equations of IRT are valid in all environments, including grvaity. IRT
is described in a paper entitled "Improved Relativity Theory and
Doppler Theory of Gravity" in my website:
http://www.geocities.com/kn_seto/index.htm

Ken Seto
__________________________________________________ ___

PD:
For example, if I have a source of some kind (I don't know what) and I
want to measure the wavelength, I shine the light through a diffraction
grating that has, say, 5,113 lines per centimeter. This I can do with a
ruler, and it tells me that the line spacing is d = 1.956E-4 cm. When I
do this, I measure with a protractor that this light is bent through an
angle of theta = 18.583 degrees. I also know that for *any* kind of
grating, and *any* kind of wave, regardless of source, regardless of
wave speed, regardless even of the kind of wave it is, that lambda =
d*sin(theta). (This is important: This formula holds whether the wave
is light, or sound in air or in water, or deBroglie matter waves, or
whatever.It is derived not from anything from SR but from the work of
Huygens 350 years ago, and it is *still* just as valid as it ever was.)

From this I determine that the wavelength is 623.30 nm. Keep in mind
that I don't have any idea what the source is, whether the source is
moving away or toward us or neither, nor what the speed of the wave is.
I nevertheless know what the wavelength is. I've just measured it with
a ruler and a protractor and knowing how waves of any kind behave in a
grating.

Now normally what I would do is to look up in a table of elements and
look for wavelengths that match up with this measurement, because each
element has a "fingerprint" of wavelengths that are unique to them.
Sadly, when I do this, I don't find *any* element that has a wavelength
of 623.30 nm.

But what I *do* recall is that when I was using the protractor, there
was *another* spectral line nearby at 18.603 degrees. This, following
the same calculation as above, results in a *measured* wavelength of
623.93 nm. Now, this line isn't anywhere in the catalog of elemental
spectral lines either, so it at first seems that I don't know what the
source is. I looks to be a completely new element.

But I notice in my reference table that there is a pair of lines that
has the same *ratio*. They are lines at 588.995 nm and 589.59 nm, which
*could* be this pair of lines if they were both shifted by a factor of
5.83%. Since this is the *only* pair of lines in the whole elemental
table that have this spacing, I say that I've discovered what element
was radiating this light. This is the first moment I've been able to
identify what element was the source of the light, long after I
measured the wavelength. It is indeed sodium, I claim, shifted by
5.83%. But you'll notice that my measured wavelength has not changed a
bit. The *measured* value of that (shifted sodium, I claim) light is
*still* 623.30 nm.

Stop right here.....once you identified the source as sodium usng the
measured wavelength 623.30 nm of the incoming light, you then use the
observer's sodium wavelength (the universal wavelength for sodium
589nm) to
figure out the speed of the incoming light as follows:
c'= (Universal sodium wavelength 589nm)(measured incoming frequency)
__________________________________________________ ___

On Nov 27, 7:03 am, kenseto wrote:
Doppler Shift is evidence for the varying speed of incoming light.

Yes, confirmed he

http://eldoradoclub.net/images/wacko-lg_1_.gif

On Nov 27, 9:08 am, Dono wrote:
On Nov 27, 7:03 am, kenseto wrote:

Doppler Shift is evidence for the varying speed of incoming light.

Yes, confirmed he

http://eldoradoclub.net/images/wacko-lg_1_.gif

Wasn't that where all those Branch Dividians got killed?

On Nov 27, 8:04 am, Don Stockbauer wrote:
On Nov 27, 9:08 am, Dono wrote:

On Nov 27, 7:03 am, kenseto wrote:

Doppler Shift is evidence for the varying speed of incoming light.

Yes, confirmed he

http://eldoradoclub.net/images/wacko-lg_1_.gif

Wasn't that where all those Branch Dividians got killed?



Yep :-)

On Nov 27, 8:03 am, kenseto wrote:
Doppler Shift is evidence for the varying speed of
incoming light.

Disproven using the Moon as a shutter. The light is travelling at c
prior-to / as encountering the Moon. The Moon eclipses all objects in
its path, leaving no "afterimage" for high-z objects. Delays of up to
6 seconds should be obtained from your premise. Much, much longer
using the CMBR (which has a z greater than 1000).

Additionally, your premise will require experiments that use starlight
for MMX to show detectable arm length differences. None obtain.
Unless you want to imagine that light remembers to reflect at c+v,
when it arrives a c-v, but then you'd have to throw away conservation
of momentum...

Try again. So what mechanism will brake / boost light, removing /
adding energy / momentum to the photons, do so specularly, and not
affect the systems the light is passing through?

Unless light travels at a constant speed, as Maxwell obtains, which is
just plain boring... being physics and all. I know you are interested
only in your personal fantasies.

David A. Smith

On Tue, 27 Nov 2007 07:03:30 -0800 (PST), kenseto
wrote:

Doppler Shift is evidence for the varying speed of incoming light.
This statement is based on the following assumptions:
1. The wavelength of a source such as the sodium is a defined
universal constant 589 nm in all frames.

Which is obviously not true, but don't let that stop you from assuming
it anyway.

2. There is nothing that can change the universal wavelength of sodium
during the transit of sodium light from a moving sodium source.

Except doppler shift, gravitational redshift, or expansion of the
universe. Don't let reality determine what is and isn't true, Ken!

3. The incoming light from a moving sodium source becomes a new light
source in the observer's frame. The grating in the observer's frame
defines a new wavelength for this new light source....much like the
grating defines different wavelengths for different light sources in
the observer's frame.

I swear someone explained the concept of the diffraction grating to
you before.

4. The newly defined wavelength for the incoming light can be used to
identify the original source (sodium) of the incoming light as
outlined in the following previous post by PD.

For ****s sake, Ken. Nobody uses "newly defined "wavelength" except
you, in your head.


Based on the above assumptions the varying speed of the incoming
sodium light is calculated as follows:
c' = (the measured incoming frequency of incoming sodium light)(589 nm
universal wavelength for sodium light)

Unsupported by observation, dumbass. Higher frequency light would
arrive more quickly than lower frequency light, which isn't observed.


The above interpretation on the varying speed of incoming sodium light
gives rise to a new theory of relativity called Improved Relativity
Theory (IRT). IRT includes SRT as a subset. However, unlike SRT, the
equations of IRT are valid in all environments, including grvaity. IRT
is described in a paper entitled "Improved Relativity Theory and
Doppler Theory of Gravity" in my website:
http://www.geocities.com/kn_seto/index.htm

Ken Seto

You sure are quick to toot your own horn even though you can't show
something simple like how gravitational time dilation appears from
your theory.

You can't explain what is already observed, much less make new
predictions.

[snip remaining]

"dlzc" wrote in message
...
: On Nov 27, 8:03 am, kenseto wrote:
: Doppler Shift is evidence for the varying speed of
: incoming light.
:
: Disproven using the Moon as a shutter.

Lying git. Proven by Sagnac.

On Nov 27, 10:03 am, kenseto wrote:
Doppler Shift is evidence for the varying speed of incoming light.
This statement is based on the following assumptions:
1. The wavelength of a source such as the sodium is a defined
universal constant 589 nm in all frames.

A chain is only as stong as its weakest link and this one has already
been severed. So there's no use going any further. It's all GIGO
from here.

On Nov 27, 10:03 am, kenseto wrote:
Doppler Shift is evidence for the varying speed of incoming light.
This statement is based on the following assumptions:
1. The wavelength of a source such as the sodium is a defined
universal constant 589 nm in all frames.

[snip]

For example, if I have a source of some kind (I don't know what) and I
want to measure the wavelength, I shine the light through a diffraction
grating that has, say, 5,113 lines per centimeter. This I can do with a
ruler, and it tells me that the line spacing is d = 1.956E-4 cm. When I
do this, I measure with a protractor that this light is bent through an
angle of theta = 18.583 degrees. I also know that for *any* kind of
grating, and *any* kind of wave, regardless of source, regardless of
wave speed, regardless even of the kind of wave it is, that lambda =
d*sin(theta). (This is important: This formula holds whether the wave
is light, or sound in air or in water, or deBroglie matter waves, or
whatever.It is derived not from anything from SR but from the work of
Huygens 350 years ago, and it is *still* just as valid as it ever was.)

From this I determine that the wavelength is 623.30 nm. Keep in mind
that I don't have any idea what the source is, whether the source is
moving away or toward us or neither, nor what the speed of the wave is.
I nevertheless know what the wavelength is. I've just measured it with
a ruler and a protractor and knowing how waves of any kind behave in a
grating.

Now normally what I would do is to look up in a table of elements and
look for wavelengths that match up with this measurement, because each
element has a "fingerprint" of wavelengths that are unique to them.
Sadly, when I do this, I don't find *any* element that has a wavelength
of 623.30 nm.

But what I *do* recall is that when I was using the protractor, there
was *another* spectral line nearby at 18.603 degrees. This, following
the same calculation as above, results in a *measured* wavelength of
623.93 nm. Now, this line isn't anywhere in the catalog of elemental
spectral lines either, so it at first seems that I don't know what the
source is. I looks to be a completely new element.

But I notice in my reference table that there is a pair of lines that
has the same *ratio*. They are lines at 588.995 nm and 589.59 nm, which
*could* be this pair of lines if they were both shifted by a factor of
5.83%. Since this is the *only* pair of lines in the whole elemental
table that have this spacing, I say that I've discovered what element
was radiating this light. This is the first moment I've been able to
identify what element was the source of the light, long after I
measured the wavelength. It is indeed sodium, I claim, shifted by
5.83%. But you'll notice that my measured wavelength has not changed a
bit. The *measured* value of that (shifted sodium, I claim) light is
*still* 623.30 nm.

Stop right here.....once you identified the source as sodium usng the
measured wavelength 623.30 nm of the incoming light, you then use the
observer's sodium wavelength (the universal wavelength for sodium
589nm) to
figure out the speed of the incoming light as follows:
c'= (Universal sodium wavelength 589nm)(measured incoming frequency)

Ken, I've used diffraction gratings to measure wavelength.
I'm willing to bet money that Eric and Paul have also,
and that you haven't. Nothing that you describe
bears any resemblance to what is actually involved
in the use of a diffraction grating. The procedure
is actually much as Paul described above.

Yet you feel you, who have never seen or used a
grating, can tell us what the procedure was, when
we actually performed the procedure and you didn't.

That's the kind of thing that makes you a laughing
stock.

- Randy

kenseto wrote:

Doppler Shift is evidence for the varying speed of incoming light.
This statement is based on the following assumptions:
1. The wavelength of a source such as the sodium is a defined
universal constant 589 nm in all frames.
[snip 80 lines of crap]

There's your problem! BTW, you got the numbers wrong because air and
vacuum refractive indices are different - and it's plural, jackass,
because it's a pair of lines,

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/quantum/imgqua/Nadoub2.gif
Metrologia 17 77 (1981)
589.7566617 nm and 589.1580220 nm.
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/quantum/sodium.html

Now be a good little idiot and look up whether those are vacuum or air
values.

Why don't you use the hydrogen atom triplet-singlet hyperfine decay?
It is a single line at 1.4204057517667 GHz or 10,000X more accurately
known. Then all your equipment can have the same precision but with
bigger, easier dimensions - like Frankenstein's monster giving Victor
more elbow room (presumably including a commensurately bigger pecker).


--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/lajos.htm#a2