🚀 go-pugleaf

On Mar 25, 8:45 am, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mar 25, 8:20 am, kenseto <kens...@erinet.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Mar 24, 3:36 pm, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Mar 24, 3:28 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.
>
> > > > 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.
>
> > yes it is universal....different observers will determine different
> > speeds of the incoming light from the same light source. This makes
> > light agrees with the normal physics that speed is of anything is
> > dependent on the motion of the source or the detector.

>
> The speed of anything that moves slower than light *does*
> depend on the motion of the source or detector. That is *still* >true in
> relativity. But it is NOT true for anything moving at the speed > of light.

It is also true for anything moving at any speed including the speed
of light. All one needs to do is to acknowledge that wavelength is
universal.


>
> Here is how the observed speed v' depends on the motion of the source
> or detector u:
>
> v' = (v + u)/(1 + v*u/c^2)

This equation is useless. It assumes that the speed of incoming light
is a universal constant.

>
> If you take ANY v and ANY u that is less than c, you will find that in
> the above expression, v' will be different than v. That means that the
> speed observed in such cases depends on the motion of the detector.
>
> However if you take v=c and then take ANY u (any motion of the
> detector or source at all), you will find that v' = c still. (Go
> ahead, do the algebra). This means that in this case, v' = v, and the
> speed of the signal does NOT depend on the motion of the detector.
>
> Note the *same* equation predicts BOTH consequences. The fact that you
> find this mysterious and confusing is neither here nor there.
>
> > > 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.

>
> > Wrong I use the new wavelength to determine the source of the incoming
> > light as described by you and from that I find the universal
> > wavelength of that light.

>
> Sorry, that doesn't work.

Sure it works perfectly. Consider the following:
1. There is a constant source of water wave in a pond.
2. The frequency is N and the wavelength is L.
3. You are stationary wrt the source the speed of arrival of the
incoming wave is N*L
4. You swim toward the source. The number of wave arring at you is (N
+n) and the wavelength remains L. Therefore the arriving speed of the
water wave is L(N+n).
5. You swim away from the source. The number of wave arriving at you
is (N-n) and the wavelength remains L. Therefore the arriving speed of
the water wave is L(N-n).

So you see that the wavelength does not change...what is changing is
the arriving speed of the incoming water waves.

Ken Seto


> If I measure the length of a Toyota to be 12 ft, 3 inches, and I
> identify it as a Toyota Corolla by the emblem on the trunk, and you
> look up in a book that says that the standard length of a Toyota is 12
> ft, 5 inches, that does NOT make the Toyota just looked at 12 ft, 5
> inches. It is still 12 feet, 3 inches. I just measured it. The 12 ft,
> 5 inch number must apply to a different set of conditions than what I
> have here.
>
> What you are suggesting doing with a sodium source is measuring the
> wavelength of a moving source to be 613 nm, using the wavelength
> ratios to determine that it is sodium, and then dropping the 613 nm
> *measured* and using the 589 nm for a *relatively stationary* sodium
> source instead. But you don't have a *relatively stationary* source,
> and there is no earthly reason to use a number that *only* applies to
> *relatively stationary* sources. That is called data-fudging, and is a
> condemnable practice in science.
>
>
>
>
>
> > Ken Seto- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -