🚀 go-pugleaf

On Mar 25, 8:07 am, kenseto <kens...@erinet.com> wrote:
> On Mar 24, 3:43 pm, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Mar 24, 3:34 pm, kenseto <kens...@erinet.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Mar 24, 12:12 pm, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Mar 24, 11:19 am, kenseto <kens...@erinet.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > On Mar 24, 9:50 am, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > On Mar 24, 9:44 am, "kens...@erinet.com" <kens...@erinet.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > On Mar 20, 10:50 am, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > On Mar 20, 9:21 am, "Androcles" <Headmas...@Hogwarts.physics> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > "PD" <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> > > > > > > > >news:4c53fc2e-bcfd-425d-a7ed-afb8933257d2@e60g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
> > > > > > > > > On Mar 20, 3:02 am, Pentcho Valev <pva...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > > On Mar 18, 7:29 pm, Tom Roberts <tjroberts...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in
> > > > > > > > > > sci.physics.relativity:
>
> > > > > > > > > > > John C. Polasek wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > On Sun, 16 Mar 2008 17:14:22 GMT,TomRoberts
> > > > > > > > > > > > <tjroberts...@sbcglobal.net> 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 effectively
> > > > > > > > > > > > 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 minute
> > > > > > > > > > > > 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" relative 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 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 your body
> > > > > > > > > > and fail to explain clearly the two incompatible implications of Pound-
> > > > > > > > > > Rebka result f'=f(1+V/c^2). Let me do this for you:
>
> > > > > > > > > > The Pound-Rebka result f'=f(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'=c(1+V/c^2), whereas the wavelength remains constant. The
> > > > > > > > > > application of Einstein's equivalence principle converts c'=c(1+V/c^2)
> > > > > > > > > > into c'=c+v, an equation given by Newton's emission theory of light,
> > > > > > > > > > where v is the relative speed of the light source and the observer in
> > > > > > > > > > the absence of a gravitational field. Einstein's 1905 light postulate
> > > > > > > > > > (c'=c) is false.
>
> > > > > > > > > > (2) the speed of light in a gravitational field is CONSTANT and obeys
> > > > > > > > > > the equation c'=c, in contradiction to what Einstein claims in his
> > > > > > > > > > 1920 "Relativity". The wavelength is variable and obeys the equation
> > > > > > > > > > L'=L/(1+V/c^2). The application of Einstein's equivalence principle
> > > > > > > > > > leads to the conclusion that the equation c'=c+v given by Newton's
> > > > > > > > > > emission theory of light is wrong whereas Einstein's 1905 light
> > > > > > > > > > postulate (c'=c) 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 wavelength 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.
>
> > > > 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.
>
> Any light source in the observer's frame will have a defined
> wavelength

No, not a DEFINED wavelength. A MEASURED wavelength. Something that is
MEASURED is more real than something that is just DEFINED. This is the
part about physics that you don't seem to get.

> and this in combination with the measured frequency will
> give a constant number c for the speed of light. The defined
> wavelength such as sodium is universal because all observers define
> sodium to have the same wavelength.

No, they do NOT. I don't know where you got the ridiculous notion that
all observers define sodium to have the same wavelength. Where on
earth did you read that? It's just plain wrong, wrong, wrong.

> Therefore you must use the
> universal wavelength of sodium in combination with the measured
> frequency to determine the speed of the incoming sodium light.
>
> >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.
>
> Yes it does when the universal wavelength of the source is used to
> determine 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.
>
> That's because you are not using the universal wavelength of the
> source to determine the speed of incoming light.

That's because what you claim is the DEFINED wavelength is WRONG and
inconsistent with MEASUREMENT. If what you define is inconsistent with
its measured value, then it is WRONG. Period.

>
>
>
> > 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.
>
> But scientists failed to realize that: There is nothing during the
> transit of light can change the wavelength.

Yes, there is. Relative motion changes all sorts of lengths. Now, you
can say, "But I don't understand how it does that." That is an
entirely different matter.

> OTOH individual motion of
> the source or the observer can change the speed of incoming light.

No, it cannot. And moreover, measurement shows that it DOES NOT.
Insisting the individual motion of the source should be able to change
the speed of the incoming light even when measurement shows that it
NEVER HAPPENS is bordering on lunacy.

>
>
>
> > > 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.
>
> Every source in the observer's frame will have different defined
> wavelength and the incoming light is a new source in the observer's
> frame.

Already answered. You are just repeating the same erroneous statement.
Measurement shows this is WRONG.

> The speed of incoming light is varying when the universal
> wavelength of the source is used to determine the speed of incoming
> light.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -