🚀 go-pugleaf

Dr. Henri Wilson wrote:
> On Wed, 13 Feb 2008 21:16:40 +0100, "Paul B. Andersen"
> <paul.b.andersen@guesswhatuia.no> wrote:
> 
>> Dr. Henri Wilson skrev:
>>> On Tue, 12 Feb 2008 16:05:09 +0100, "Paul B. Andersen"
>>> <paul.b.andersen@hiadeletethis.no> wrote:
> 
>>>>> So: v = gh/c
>>>>>
>>>>> f1/f_0 = (c+v)/c = [c + (gh/c)]/c = 1 + gh/c^2
>>>>>
>>>>> Strange, eh?...and much, much simpler than Einstein's nonsensical method of
>>>>> inserting a gradient into space in order to maintain a constant light speed.
>>>> No it isn't strange at all, quite the contrary.
>>>> Of course the kinetic energy must increase by the difference
>>>> in gravitational potential whether you use GR or NM.
>>>> So if you assume that a photon has a (unspecified) mass, and that
>>>> the kinetic energy is the Newtonian one, then this is the obvious
>>>> answer.
>>> Corrrect. This IS the obvious answer.
>>> ....derived in four lines as against hundreds with YOUR method... plus a year's
>>> indoctrination in fairyland fantasies.
>> And then we have the interesting situation that different laws
>> of nature must apply to EM-radiation depending on the frequency.
>> Gamma rays are gravitational blue shifted, radio frequencies are not.
> 
> I hope that's true....where's your evidence?

Exactly.
You hope 'that' is true, that being that the laws
of nature are different for the Pond & Rebka experiment
and gravity probe A.

> 
>> But that's OK, because according to Wilsonian thinking,
>> every phenomenon has its own set of laws of nature.
>>
>> Right? :-)
> 
> BaTh laws are surprisingly consistent.

Yet you hope they are different for different phenomena.

>>>> In the Pound & Rebka experiment gamma rays are used.
>>>> They are very "particle like", and we have no continuous wave.
>>>> Sure the Pound & Rebka can be explained by "falling light".
>>>> (If you insist that the Mossbauer effect only detect the photons
>>>>  going exactly at c.)
>>> Why is that important? The effect detects frequency shift...the same for BaTh
>>> and GR.
>> Read about the Mossbauer effect, and the Pound & Rebka
>> experiment, and you will understand why.
>> http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/nuclear/mossb.html
>> http://luth2.obspm.fr/IHP06/lectures/mester-vinet/IHP-2GravRedshift.pdf
> 
> I did. It essentially detects a very small energy increase.
> It agrees completely with BaTh.

I infer from your answer that you didn't get why I said:
"If you insist that the Mossbauer effect only detect the photons
  going exactly at c."


>>>> But other experiments are made.
>>>> In gravity probe A, a hydrogen maser was used as a clock.
>>>> It transmitted a continuous wave with frequency ca. 1.42 GHz.
>>>> This frequency can easily be, and was, directly measured
>>> >from the ground. Every cycle was received.
>>>
>>> I should hope so....but I doubt if anyone counted them just to make sure.
>>>
>>>> (The received frequency was compared to the frequency of
>>>>  a signal reflected off the probe, to compensate for
>>>>  Doppler effect. The gravitational shift was thus measured.)
>>>> The rocket with the maser was launched straight up, and was
>>>> inertial for most of the journey. It reached an altitude of 10000km.
>>>> The relative gravitational frequency shift of the EM-radiation from
>>>> that altitude was ca. 4.2E-10.
>>> The speed and position of the rocket was based on the doppler shift of its
>>> signal. 
>> No.
>> The speed and position was _not_ determined by the Doppler shift
>> of the signal from the on-board H-maser. Of _course_ it wasn't!
>> It was determined by - in principle - a Doppler radar.
>> The uplinked signal was returned by a transponder where
>> the transmitted frequency was a fixed ratio of the received
>> frequency. Thus the frequency of the received signal was given
>> by the speed only, any gravitational frequency shift will cancel.
>> This is a variation of Doppler radar - a very precise way of determining
>> the speed and thus the position of the probe.
> 
> ...assuming light speed remains constant.
> 
> You are trying to use it to confirm that light speed remains constant.

Yes, of course!! Of bloody, blatantly obvious course!!

This experiment doesn't say much about the speed of light.
But if you /should/ make an experiment to determine
if the speed of light remains constant, how would you do it?

You would obviously calculate what the theory "the speed of
light remains constant" predicts for the outcome of an experiment
which is sensitive to the speed of light.
That is, you would assume that the speed of light remains constant,
and calculate the consequences of that assumption. Then you do
the experiment, and see if the result is in accordance with
the predictions of the theory "the speed of light remains constant".
There is nothing circular about that.
The assumption "speed of light remains constant" doesn't force
the measurements of the experiment to show what the theory predicts.
If the assumption was wrong, the measurements would simply be
different from the prediction, and the assumption is proven wrong.

> 
> You logic is clearly circular.
> ....But that's typical relativist behavior.

You are surprisingly ignorant of the scientific method.
Didn't you use to call yourself an "experimental physicist"?
(Despite the fact that you never have made a single experiment.)

When calculating what GR predicts will be measured on
the instruments of gravity probe A, you obviously have to
use GR (with all its assumptions) in the calculations!

What you are saying, is that by doing so, the measurements
are forced to be in accordance with the calculated predictions!
How stupid is that? :-)

>> You obviously don't know the experiment. Read and learn:
>> http://luth2.obspm.fr/IHP06/lectures/mester-vinet/IHP-2GravRedshift.pdf
>  I have.
> 
>>>> Look at my animation:
>>>> http://home.c2i.net/pb_andersen/Satellites.html
>>>> Scenario: "Two ballistic rockets"
>>>> The path of the red one is almost identical to gravity probe A,
>>>> and the result is as observed by the probe.
>>>> (Pause it at the top, read the rate.)
>>>>
>>>> Explain that with "falling light". No fairies, please!
>>>> Of course you can't, because it simply doesn't add up.
>>>> You can't make a continuous wave increase its frequency
>>>> by speeding it up. It is the wavelength that will change.
>>> Correct, I demonstrated that with my animation
>>> http://www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/fallingwave.exe
>> So you agree that "falling light" and the BaTh can't explain
>> the gravitational frequency shift.
> 
> Yes...for individual photons but not radio signals.

Quite.
Different laws of nature for different experiments, right? :-)

> 
>>>> So what do you do?
>>>> Insist that gravity prove A was no "believable" experiment,
>>>> of course. As if it were a matter of belief!
>>>> It's hard evidence. Facts!
>> Was I right, or was I right? :-)
> 
> If you first assume you were right, you can then prove you were right.

Ah. Wilsonian thinking again!

If I predict that you will:
"Insist that gravity probe A was no "believable" experiment"
I can force you to:
"Insist that gravity probe A was no "believable" experiment"
simply by assuming that you will:
"Insist that gravity probe A was no "believable" experiment"

It is indeed interesting to note that my assumptions
can force you to state what I assumed you would. :-)

>> Wilsonian thinking:
>> "Since gravitational blue shift of EM-radiation would falsify
>>  the BaTh, and the BaTh _must_ be correct because I think it is,
>>  the only possible conclusion is that any experiment observing
>>  gravitational blue shift _must_ be false and not believable."
>>
>> Right? :-)
>> Yes:
>>> Do you really believe that the exact timing of the rocket's turnaround was
>>> sufficiently accurately determined, USING DOPPLER SHIFT, to measure the exact
>>> doppler shift at that point?
>>> Of course not. 
>>> The experiment is a circular  joke.
>> You are again demonstrating that you don't even know
>> the experiment you label as 'unbelievable'.
>>
>> Wilsonian thinking:
>> "Whenever the experimental evidence is contrary to my faith,
>>  my faith takes precedence, and there is no reason to study
>>  the experimental evidence when I know it _must_ be wrong
>>  since it falsifies my belief."
>>
>> Right? :-)
> 
> Paul, you are trying to use an experiment that ASSUMES light speed is constant
> to PROVE that light speed is constant.

Come again? :-)
"You are trying to use an _experiment_ that ASSUMES.." !!!

How can an experiment assume something?
It is the _theory_ that assumes something.
If those assumption are wrong, the prediction will be wrong.
It's that simple.

The instruments in an experiment show what they show,
and you can't change that by assuming either this nor that.

Gravity probe A confirmed GR because the numbers
on the instruments were as predeicted by GR (with
all its assumptions). If the assumptions of GR were
wrong, the predictions would not be in accordance
with the measurements.
But they were.

> 
> can you see the flaw in that?

Indeed I can. I can also see the stupitity in that:
  "you are trying to use an experiment that ASSUMES
   light speed is constant"

How revealing!

> 
>>>> Gravity probe A was a very precise experiment, and the results
>>>> were in accordance with the predictions of GR.
>>> It was so 'precise' that it assumed constant light speed, for a start.
>>>
>>> hahahahhaahaha!
>> Quite.
>> Your pathetic attempt to discredit a very well
>> designed and precise experiment is indeed laughable.
>>
>> And what a wonderful demonstration of Wilsonian thinking! :-)
> 
> I think so.

Thanks for the confirmation.

Wilsonian thinking:
  "Since gravitational blue shift of EM-radiation would falsify
   the BaTh, and the BaTh _must_ be correct because I think it is,
   the only possible conclusion is that any experiment observing
   gravitational blue shift _must_ be false and not believable."
and:
  "Whenever the experimental evidence is contrary to my faith,
   my faith takes precedence, and there is no reason to study
   the experimental evidence when I know it _must_ be wrong
   since it falsifies my belief."
and:
According to Wilsonian thinking, this is a general rule:
  "Any assumption can force the outcome of an experiment to
   be in accordance with the assumption. Thus, when the predictions
   of a theory (based on a set of assumptions or postulates)
   are calculated, the outcome of the experiment is forced to
   be in accordance with those predictions. Any test of any
   theory is thus circular.
   Exceptions from this general rule are the assumptions of the BaTh.
   These assumptions doesn't seem to be able to force the outcome
   of experiments, they tend to differ from the predictions of the BaTh.
   This proves that the BaTh isn't a circular theory. The BaTh is thus
   proven right."

Right?


-- 
Paul

http://home.c2i.net/pb_andersen/