sci.physics.particle

On Mar 24, 3:28=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.
>
> Sure it is universal when everybody measures his sodium source to have
> the same wavelength.

We've already discussed that too. It's not universal if a bunch of
observers look at the *same* source and see that the wavelengths are
different for all observers.

What you call "universal" is really "what you'll measure only if you
obey the strict rule that the only source you can look at is one that
is at rest relative to you." That is like coming up with a universal
rule for cats by making everyone look only at the cat in their own
lap.

>
> >The same sodium source,
> > recognized as sodium by all observers, has *different* wavelengths for
> > different observers.
>
> No....all light sources in the observer's frame will have a defined
> wavelength.
> The incoming light becomes a new light source in the
> observer's frame

Already covered that, too Ken. You're repeating yourself. There's
nothing in the measurement process that makes it a new source -- it is
still the same source for everyone, and it is still recognized by
everyone as a sodium.

> and thus it is defined to have a new wavelength. The
> new wavelength can be used to determine the origin of the incoming
> light.

You'll notice that you never use the new wavelength in anything. You
only use what you call the "universal wavelength", which is not the
wavelength of the source you just measured. You say "new wavelength
can be used", but what you really mean is "chuck the new wavelength,
and use the old wavelength anyway."

> The frequency shift is due to the varying speed of the incoming light
> as follows:
> c'=3D (detected incoming frequency)(universal wavelength of the incoming
> light)
>
> Ken Seto
>
>
>
> >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).
>