sci.physics.particle

On Mar 24, 12:12=A0pm, PD wrote:
> On Mar 24, 11:19=A0am, kenseto wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > 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" wr=
ote:
>
> > > > > > "PD" wrote in message
>
> > > > > >news:4c53fc2e-bcfd-425d-a7ed-afb8933257d2@e60g2000hsh.googlegroup=
s.com...
> > > > > > On Mar 20, 3:02 am, Pentcho Valev wrote:
>
> > > > > > > On Mar 18, 7:29 pm, Tom Roberts w=
rote 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 effec=
tively
> > > > > > > > > measure light speed, even though the authors thought frequ=
ency 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 Dopple=
r effect. On
> > > > > > > > > the up-stroke, the velocity neutralized the speedup of lig=
ht as it
> > > > > > > > > left the gravity well.
>
> > > > > > > > Think about it -- there is no time synchornization, and if t=
he effect
> > > > > > > > were due to a change in speed there's no way for the apparat=
us to be
> > > > > > > > sensitive to it; that is, there's no "nominal distance" rela=
tive 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 t=
his
> > > > > > > > particular experiment.
>
> > > > > > > I would agree with you Roberts Roberts if at this place you di=
d 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 const=
ant. The
> > > > > > > application of Einstein's equivalence principle converts c'=3D=
c(1+V/c^2)
> > > > > > > into c'=3Dc+v, an equation given by Newton's emission theory o=
f light,
> > > > > > > where v is the relative speed of the light source and the obse=
rver in
> > > > > > > the absence of a gravitational field. Einstein's 1905 light po=
stulate
> > > > > > > (c'=3Dc) is false.
>
> > > > > > > (2) the speed of light in a gravitational field is CONSTANT an=
d obeys
> > > > > > > the equation c'=3Dc, in contradiction to what Einstein claims =
in his
> > > > > > > 1920 "Relativity". The wavelength is variable and obeys the eq=
uation
> > > > > > > L'=3DL/(1+V/c^2). The application of Einstein's equivalence pr=
inciple
> > > > > > > leads to the conclusion that the equation c'=3Dc+v given by Ne=
wton's
> > > > > > > emission theory of light is wrong whereas Einstein's 1905 ligh=
t
> > > > > > > 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 wavel=
ength 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 l=
ocal
> > > > > 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.
>
> We've been through that. It is not universal. The same sodium source,
> recognized as sodium by all observers, has *different* wavelengths for
> different observers. You insist that it must somehow either be a
> different source for those observers, or not recognized as sodium, or
> the wavelength is affected by something in the apparatus. None of
> those are correct. A wavelength of 630 nm, and 582 nm, and 646 nm, can
> all come from the *same* source, and *all* be identified as coming
> from sodium. The identification to sodium does not involve the *value*
> of the wavelength, but the *ratio* of wavelengths. Note that 562/588
> has a ratio of 0.9558, and that 498/521 has the *same* ratio, and
> would be identified with the *same* source, even though 562 is not the
> same as 498 and 588 is not the same as 521.
>
> > There is nothing during the transit of light
> > can change that.
>
> Yes, there certainly is. Relative motion changes all sorts of lengths,
> wavelength included.

No....relative motion affects the speed of incoming light. Think about
it ....an observer can change his state of relative motion wrt the
source by acceleration and thus change the speed of incoming light and
the wavelength in the ether remains unchanged.

Ken Seto