sci.astro
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Ballistic Theory and the Sagnac Experiment

Subject: Re: Ballistic Theory and the Sagnac Experiment
From: "Jerry"
Date: 14 Apr 2006 22:35:36 -0700
Newsgroups: sci.astro, sci.physics.relativity, sci.physics
Henri Wilson wrote:
> On 14 Apr 2006 06:31:51 -0700, Cephalobus_alienus@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote:

> >As George stated, I mentioned frequency combs in a different
> >context, namely, in response to your statement that visible light
> >seems somehow to be a fundamentally different phenomenon
> >than radio waves. Unfortunately, I inserted my remarks in a
> >discussion you were having with George about measurements
> >of spectral line frequency, so I apologize for any confusion on
> >your part.
> >
> >You wrote:
> >"I reckon there is a fundamental difference between light and generated
> > radio waves. There is another fundamental difference between gamma
> >'particles' and, for instance, IR."
> >and I mentioned frequency combs to argue that, since light and infrared
> >have measurable frequency in addition to measurable wavelength, and
> >since a continuous spectrum is hence demonstrable from radio waves up
> >through light frequencies, you have no grounds to argue that they could
> >represent distinct phenomena.
> >
> >So far as how frequency combs work: You are obviously quite familiar
> >with the notion that a sinusoidal modulation of a radio signal results
> >in a carrier signal surrounded by two side bands. A non-sinusoidal
> >modulation of laser light will result in the carrier signal surrounded
> >by, not two, but MANY equally spaced side bands. Various tricks are
> >used to increase the relative intensity of the side bands, but that's
> >basically the idea. The "comb" of frequencies provide many reference
> >lines against which an unknown frequency may be compared.
>
> I'm not convinced this is detecting 'frequency'. I still believe it sensitive
> to wavelength.

Mixing an unknown frequency with the frequency comb output
generates beat frequencies. Resolving which line is producing the
beat represents only a modest technological puzzle, and the lines
are traceable all the way back to a cesium time standard.

BTW, do you still believe diffraction gratings measure frequency?
Have you ever developed a reasonable theory as to how this
might be so? Do you have any refutation of the classical theory
of diffraction grating behavior?
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/b8dc07dc6c164af4

I find it exceedingly puzzling that you should believe that
frequency combs are sensitive to wavelength, while diffraction
gratings are sensitive to frequency. It would seem that the only
reason you think so, is to preserve your belief in the BaT, which
otherwise consistently predicts effects that are contrary to
experimental observation.

Jerry


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>