sci.physics.particle

On Mar 24, 9:50=A0am, PD wrote:
> On Mar 24, 9:44=A0am, "kens...@erinet.com" wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Mar 20, 10:50=A0am, PD wrote:
>
> > > On Mar 20, 9:21=A0am, "Androcles" wrote:=

>
> > > > "PD" wrote in message
>
> > > >news:4c53fc2e-bcfd-425d-a7ed-afb8933257d2@e60g2000hsh.googlegroups.co=
m...
> > > > 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 effective=
ly
> > > > > > > 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 min=
ute
> > > > > > > rate, and spectral re-centering was achieved by the Doppler ef=
fect. On
> > > > > > > the up-stroke, the velocity neutralized the speedup of light a=
s it
> > > > > > > left the gravity well.
>
> > > > > > Think about it -- there is no time synchornization, and if the e=
ffect
> > > > > > were due to a change in speed there's no way for the apparatus t=
o 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), an=
d say
> > > > > > nothing at all about any change in speed. Whether or not the spe=
ed
> > > > > > 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 no=
t
> > > > > always stick your head in the sand, expose other parts of your bod=
y
> > > > > and fail to explain clearly the two incompatible implications of P=
ound-
> > > > > 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 19=
11
> > > > > 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 li=
ght,
> > > > > where v is the relative speed of the light source and the observer=
in
> > > > > the absence of a gravitational field. Einstein's 1905 light postul=
ate
> > > > > (c'=3Dc) is false.
>
> > > > > (2) the speed of light in a gravitational field is CONSTANT and ob=
eys
> > > > > the equation c'=3Dc, in contradiction to what Einstein claims in h=
is
> > > > > 1920 "Relativity". The wavelength is variable and obeys the equati=
on
> > > > > L'=3DL/(1+V/c^2). The application of Einstein's equivalence princi=
ple
> > > > > 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 wavelengt=
h 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.
>
> > No..... it implies that frequency is shifted and wavelength remains
> > constant
>
> Why would it imply something that is counter to measurement?
> Measurement shows that the wavelength is clearly shifted, as well as
> the frequency.

The wavelength of a specific source such as the sodium is universal as
measured by all obserers. There is nothing during the transit of light
can change that. The incoming light becomes a new light source in the
observer's frame and the newly measured wavelength is the defined
wavelength for this new light source.

The speed incoming can indeed be affected by the individaul motion of
the source or the observer. Therefore the observed freuqency shift is
due to different arrival speed of the incoming light.

>
> > thus the speed of light is shifted to c'.
>
> Multiplying the *measured* frequency with the *measured* wavelength
> gives c, not c'.

c'=3D (universal wavelength of the incoming light)(measured incoming
frequency).

Ken Seto