sci.physics.particle

On Mar 20, 9:21=A0am, "Androcles" wrote:
> "PD" wrote in message
>
> news:4c53fc2e-bcfd-425d-a7ed-afb8933257d2@e60g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
> On Mar 20, 3:02 am, Pentcho Valev wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Mar 18, 7:29 pm, Tom Roberts wrote in
> > sci.physics.relativity:
>
> > > John C. Polasek wrote:
> > > > On Sun, 16 Mar 2008 17:14:22 GMT,TomRoberts
> > > > wrote:
> > > >> [Ignore Valev when he brings up Pound-Rebka and similar
> > > >> experiments -- they do not measure speed.]
> > > > I think, in a very important way, the experiment did effectively
> > > > measure light speed, even though the authors thought frequency was
> > > > reduced on the way up ("On the Weight of Photons" iirc).
> > > > The Mossbauer filter on a speaker cone was oscillated at a minute
> > > > rate, and spectral re-centering was achieved by the Doppler effect. =
On
> > > > the up-stroke, the velocity neutralized the speedup of light as it
> > > > left the gravity well.
>
> > > Think about it -- there is no time synchornization, and if the effect
> > > were due to a change in speed there's no way for the apparatus to be
> > > sensitive to it; that is, there's no "nominal distance" relative to
> > > which a "speed change" could be measured. Their observations are
> > > consistent with a change in frequency (measured via Doppler), and say
> > > nothing at all about any change in speed. Whether or not the speed
> > > changed in addition to the frequency cannot be answered by this
> > > particular experiment.
>
> > I would agree with you Roberts Roberts if at this place you did not
> > always stick your head in the sand, expose other parts of your body
> > and fail to explain clearly the two incompatible implications of Pound-
> > Rebka result f'=3Df(1+V/c^2). Let me do this for you:
>
> > The Pound-Rebka result f'=3Df(1+V/c^2) implies that:
>
> > (1) the speed of light in a gravitational filed is VARIABLE as
> > Einstein suggests in his 1920 "Relativity" and obeys Einstein's 1911
> > equation c'=3Dc(1+V/c^2), whereas the wavelength remains constant. The
> > application of Einstein's equivalence principle converts c'=3Dc(1+V/c^2)=

> > into c'=3Dc+v, an equation given by Newton's emission theory of light,
> > where v is the relative speed of the light source and the observer in
> > the absence of a gravitational field. Einstein's 1905 light postulate
> > (c'=3Dc) is false.
>
> > (2) the speed of light in a gravitational field is CONSTANT and obeys
> > the equation c'=3Dc, in contradiction to what Einstein claims in his
> > 1920 "Relativity". The wavelength is variable and obeys the equation
> > L'=3DL/(1+V/c^2). The application of Einstein's equivalence principle
> > leads to the conclusion that the equation c'=3Dc+v given by Newton's
> > emission theory of light is wrong whereas Einstein's 1905 light
> > postulate (c'=3Dc) is correct.
>
> > This is a minimum explanation Roberts Roberts - more could be said in
> > favour of (1) and against (2).
>
> | The above is incorrect in a number of ways.
> | 1. The Pound-Rebka experiment in no way implies that the wavelength is
> | constant. In fact, the opposite is true.
>
> What does it imply, then, now that we know what it doesn't imply?

It implies that the frequency and wavelength are shifted and the local
speed of light remains c.

>
> | 2. The equivalence principle in no way converts c'=3Dc(1+V/c^2) into c'=
=3Dc
> | +v, and I frankly don't see how you could even come close to drawing
> | that conclusion.
>
> What does it convert to, then,

It doesn't convert.

> and you frankly don't see shit, being as
> blind
> and stupid as the ignoramus Poe?
>
> | 3. The 1905 light postulate applies to *inertial frames* only where
> | there is no curvature throughout the frame.
>
> What does that have to so with the price of rice in China or Pound-Rebka?

It doesn't have anything to do with Pound-Rebka. That was the point.
Pound-Rebka results don't have any impact on the 1905 light postulate,
any more than the price of rice in China does.

>
> | That is what makes it the
> | *special* theory of relativity as opposed to the *general* theory. The
> | Pound-Rebka experiment is not an example of comparing lightspeed in
> | two inertial frames.
>
> Now that we know what it is not, what is Pound-Rebka an example of?

It is an example of wavelength and frequency shifting between two
locations in spacetime, exactly as the paper says, if you would read
it. It is not an example of other things that it doesn't declare in
the paper. It is not an example of optical refraction, not an example
of convergent evolution, not an example of frictional heating, not an
example of Nash equilibrium, and not an example of what Petcho was
claiming, either.

>
> | 4. There is a distinct difference in a curved space between the speed
> | of light measured *locally* and the speed of light measured from a
> | different location in spacetime. It is as simple as measuring the
> | speed of light at location A from a region near A, distinguished from
> | measuring the speed of light at location A from a region B far away
> | from A.
>
> And how different are these differences?

Distinct. Didn't I say that?

>
> | Tom's correct statement is that the speed of light in vacuum
> | is always measured *locally* to be c.
>
> He's lying. So are you, disgusting fuckhead.

No, he's not. You have experimental evidence of local measurement of
speed of light in vacuum being different than c?

>
> | Measuring the speed of light at
> | A from a region B and finding an answer c' =3D/=3D c does not change the=

> | truth of Tom's correct statement.
>
> What correct statement are you babbling about now, shit-for-brains?

The one I just mentioned, you victim of short-term memory loss, you.