🚀 go-pugleaf

"PD" <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> wrote in message 
news:786aaaa3-90cd-421f-ba2c-9c29775be9c1@u72g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
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.

>
> | 2. The equivalence principle in no way converts c'=c(1+V/c^2) into c'=c
> | +v, and I frankly don't see how you could even come close to drawing
> | that conclusion.
>
> What does it convert to, then,

It doesn't convert.

> and you frankly don't see shit, being as
> blind
> and stupid as the ignoramus Poe?
>
> | 3. The 1905 light postulate applies to *inertial frames* only where
> | there is no curvature throughout the frame.
>
> What does that have to so with the price of rice in China or Pound-Rebka?

| It doesn't

Yes, I know that. What DOES it have to do with the price of rice in China or 
Pound-Rebka?



| have anything to do with Pound-Rebka. That was the point.

Oh, you wanted to say what something was not.


| Pound-Rebka results don't have any impact on the 1905 light postulate,
| any more than the price of rice in China does.

>
> | That is what makes it the
> | *special* theory of relativity as opposed to the *general* theory. The
> | Pound-Rebka experiment is not an example of comparing lightspeed in
> | two inertial frames.
>
> Now that we know what it is not, what is Pound-Rebka an example of?

| It is an example of wavelength

What's example of wavelength? Be specific.



| and frequency shifting between two
| locations in spacetime, exactly as the paper says, if you would read
| it. It is not an example of other things that it doesn't declare in
| the paper. It is not an example of optical refraction, not an example
| of convergent evolution, not an example of frictional heating, not an
| example of Nash equilibrium, and not an example of what Petcho was
| claiming, either.

>
> | 4. There is a distinct difference in a curved space between the speed
> | of light measured *locally* and the speed of light measured from a
> | different location in spacetime. It is as simple as measuring the
> | speed of light at location A from a region near A, distinguished from
> | measuring the speed of light at location A from a region B far away
> | from A.
>
> And how different are these differences?

| Distinct.

Be specific.

| Didn't I say that?

That's not specific.


>
> | Tom's correct statement is that the speed of light in vacuum
> | is always measured *locally* to be c.
>
> He's lying. So are you, disgusting fuckhead.

| No, he's not.

Yes, he is.


| You have experimental evidence

What experimental evidence? Be specific.


| of local measurement of
| speed of light in vacuum being different than c?

Yes: Michelson, Irvine Ranch, Ca, 1931- 1934.




>
> | Measuring the speed of light at
> | A from a region B and finding an answer c' =/= c does not change the
> | truth of Tom's correct statement.
>
> What correct statement are you babbling about now, shit-for-brains?

| The one

Which one? Be specific.


| I just mentioned,

Be specific. What did you mention?


|  you victim of short-term memory loss, you.

So what's the relative velocity of the colliding hadrons in the LHC, as
shown in the cute animation, Duck?
It would be useful to put a value to v in  1/sqrt(1-v^2/(3.0E+08)^2).