sci.physics.particle

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" wrot=
e:
>
> > > > > "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 wro=
te 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 effecti=
vely
> > > > > > > > measure light speed, even though the authors thought frequen=
cy was
> > > > > > > > reduced on the way up ("On the Weight of Photons" iirc).
> > > > > > > > The Mossbauer filter on a speaker cone was oscillated at a m=
inute
> > > > > > > > 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" relati=
ve to
> > > > > > > which a "speed change" could be measured. Their observations a=
re
> > > > > > > consistent with a change in frequency (measured via Doppler), =
and say
> > > > > > > nothing at all about any change in speed. Whether or not the s=
peed
> > > > > > > changed in addition to the frequency cannot be answered by thi=
s
> > > > > > > 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 b=
ody
> > > > > > 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 constan=
t. 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 observ=
er in
> > > > > > the absence of a gravitational field. Einstein's 1905 light post=
ulate
> > > > > > (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 equa=
tion
> > > > > > L'=3DL/(1+V/c^2). The application of Einstein's equivalence prin=
ciple
> > > > > > leads to the conclusion that the equation c'=3Dc+v given by Newt=
on'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 sa=
id 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 wavelen=
gth 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 loc=
al
> > > > 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.

> 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.

No, sir, it does not. It is the *same* source for multiple observers.

>
> The speed incoming can indeed be affected by the individaul motion of
> the source or the observer.

You say it can be, but experimentally it is NOT. This has been
checked. The speed incoming is experimentally *proven* to be the same
for all observers.

> 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- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -