sci.physics.particle

On Mar 24, 3:34=A0pm, kenseto wrote:
> 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" wrot=
e:
>
> > > > > 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.googlegro=
ups.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 eff=
ectively
> > > > > > > > > > measure light speed, even though the authors thought fre=
quency 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 Dopp=
ler effect. On
> > > > > > > > > > the up-stroke, the velocity neutralized the speedup of l=
ight 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 appar=
atus to be
> > > > > > > > > sensitive to it; that is, there's no "nominal distance" re=
lative to
> > > > > > > > > which a "speed change" could be measured. Their observatio=
ns are
> > > > > > > > > consistent with a change in frequency (measured via Dopple=
r), and say
> > > > > > > > > nothing at all about any change in speed. Whether or not t=
he 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 yo=
ur body
> > > > > > > > and fail to explain clearly the two incompatible implication=
s 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 Einstei=
n's 1911
> > > > > > > > equation c'=3Dc(1+V/c^2), whereas the wavelength remains con=
stant. 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 ob=
server 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 claim=
s 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 li=
ght
> > > > > > > > postulate (c'=3Dc) is correct.
>
> > > > > > > > This is a minimum explanation Roberts Roberts - more could b=
e 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 wav=
elength is
> > > > > > > | constant. In fact, the opposite is true.
>
> > > > > > > What does it imply, then, now that we know what it doesn't imp=
ly?
>
> > > > > > 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 remain=
s
> > > > > 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

It doesn't matter how much you *think* about it. Even if it makes
perfect sense to you that the speed of the incoming light is changed,
when that is in fact *measured* it is found that the speed of the
incoming light is NOT changed. No amount of "thinking about it" will
alter that measured fact. It is experimentally determined that
relative motion does NOT affect the speed of incoming light. Dozens of
experiments designed to look specifically for how relative motion
affects the speed of light have *all* shown the reverse.

Normally, when scientists find that all the "thinking about it"
they've done runs counter to experiment, then they scrap the thinking
and think differently. You on the other hand aren't so swayed by
experimental evidence. This marks the difference between you and a
scientist, Ken.

> and
> the wavelength in the ether remains unchanged.

And again, this runs counter to experiment. Experiment *measures* the
wavelength *directly*. The wavelength is changed. Insisting that it
cannot be, even in the face of direct measurement, is bordering on
lunacy.

>
> Ken Seto- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -