🚀 go-pugleaf

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.

> thus the speed of light is shifted to c'.

Multiplying the *measured* frequency with the *measured* wavelength
gives c, not c'.

PD