🚀 go-pugleaf

On Thu, 14 Feb 2008 14:39:01 +0100, "Paul B. Andersen"
<paul.b.andersen@hiadeletethis.no> wrote:

>Dr. Henri Wilson wrote:
>> On Wed, 13 Feb 2008 21:16:40 +0100, "Paul B. Andersen"
>> <paul.b.andersen@guesswhatuia.no> wrote:
>> 

>>> 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.

Where is your evidence that a radio signal increases frequency as it falls to
Earth? You have none, have you Paul?.

>>> 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.

A generated wave like RF, based on varying photon density, should not
experience a frequency shift when falling. Any change would be difficult to
detect and I doubt if anyone has seriously looked.


>>> 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."

It should be sensitive to photons that are doppler shifted as a result of
accelerating while falling.


>>> 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.

the same result would be obtained if the speed of light was assumed to vary as
it falls.
The experiment proved nothing.
It certainly supports BaTh.
 
>> 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!

You don't get it.
The position and timing of the turnaround is all important. It was determined
on the basis of constant light speed. 
Therefore the position and timing was out by just enough to make the results
appear to support constant light speed.

>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? :-)

How stupid is the whole logic behind the experiment?


>>> 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? :-)

No, different laws for entirely different entities.
A photon is a photon. An RF signal is a wave produced by varying the density of
photons in a projected beam of photons. 

>>>>> 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. :-)

The experiment has two basic errors that cancel each other out.
It proves nothing except that BaTh explains the phenomenon perfectly well.


>>>
>>> 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.

You still don't get it.
There is obviously no point in trying to explain it again.

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

they show two errors that cancel each other.

>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.

In such situations, GR will usually get the BaTh result. 
There is little difference between the two approaches....1) of distorting space
to keep light speed constant and 2) allowing light speed to increase.
 
>> 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!

....it's the same with the muon experiment. The coincidence detection includes
a delay based on the muons traveling at NO GREATER THAN c.
 
>>>>> 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.


>
>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?

No you still don't get it.

If an experiment is designed to test a particular theory, it is circular to use
parameter values based on that theory in determining the result.  


Henri Wilson. ASTC,BSc,DSc(T)
www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm

Einstein's  Relativity is easy to understand if one has the IQ of a parrot and a gullibility index >0.95.