relationship between electrons and photons

Androcles:

Androcles wrote:

[...]


If you are right please cite a study for the claim. My recollection
doesn't produce a cite, and neither does my education.

Your help would be appreciated.

A question:

If the velocity of light is proportional to the wavelength wouldn't the
frequency be the same for all light? The conservation of energy
principle is operative.

Wouldn't the frequency for all light be either 0 or 1 Hz?



Ralph Hertle

--
This message is brought to you by Androcles
[Only registered users see links. ]
"Ralph Hertle" <[Only registered users see links. ]> wrote in message
news:[Only registered users see links. ]...
| Androcles:
|
| Androcles wrote:
|
| [...]
| > Which is why their speed is directly proportional to wavelength -
| > red and blue shift is routinely observed and Einstein's
| > crackpottery is not routinely observed or ever observed.
| >
|
|
| If you are right please cite a study for the claim. My recollection
| doesn't produce a cite, and neither does my education.

Cite a study that never happened? How can I do that?
If you want a study of Doppler shift you can do that for yourself
by driving a vehicle past a sound source and listening carefully,
but nobody has studied:

'we establish by definition that the "time" required by
light to travel from A to B equals the "time" it requires
to travel from B to A' -- Idiot Albert Einstein


|
| Your help would be appreciated.
|
| A question:
|
| If the velocity of light is proportional to the wavelength wouldn't the
| frequency be the same for all light?

The set of frequencies is the same for one element and there
is a different set for each element.
http://www.solarobserving.com/pics/hydrogen-spectra.jpg



| The conservation of energy
| principle is operative.
|
| Wouldn't the frequency for all light be either 0 or 1 Hz?

No. The red H-alpha line at 656 nm has a frequency of 300,000,000/656 nm,
which is... well, you work the number out on your calculator, I can't be
bothered.

If you are moving toward or away from the star (as we do every year for most
stars except the polar stars) then that frequency cannot change, but the
wavelength does.
http://www.psi.edu/esp/doppler.jpg

However, the frequency you *measure* (if you could) would *appear* to
change.

In this demonstration :
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...nding_wave.gif
there is clearly a frequency and clearly a wavelength, yet the speed is
zero.
It is up to you to understand how that can be, I cannot think for you.

Doppler's equation here is
lamba' = lamda (c+v)/c where c is the "at rest" speed of light.

Ralph Hertle wrote:



Greetings!



http://www.astromedia.de/shop/images/MSF+Kerze1.jpg



Kind regards,

Daniel Mandic

On Mar 30, 11:53*am, Randy Poe <[Only registered users see links. ]> wrote:

dequantised liht? Wham's that?


Work must preserve celerity's scale.

On Apr 2, 2:32*pm, Benj <[Only registered users see links. ]> wrote:

No, continvose wave theory does; discretvose wave theory does not.