| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"Pentcho Valev" |
| Date: |
25 Sep 2005 02:36:44 AM |
| Object: |
Weird Wavelength |
The light source at the top of a tower with height h emits light which
has:
Frequency = Fo
Wavelength = Lo
Speed = c
A receiver on the ground receives the light which now has:
Frequency = (1+gh/c^2)Fo (confirmed experimentally)
Wavelength = ?
Speed = ?
If Frequency=Speed/Wavelength is correct, there are two possibilities:
Wavelength = Lo
Speed = c+v (v>0 would be the speed of the receiver if the equivalence
principle were applied).
Wavelength = Lo/(1+gh/c^2)
Speed = c
Needless to say, Einstein's theory of relativity can only be true if
the latter possibility obtains. But Wavelength behaves so weirdly...
What could be the physical mechanism behind this behaviour?
Pentcho Valev
.
|
|
| User: "John C. Polasek" |
|
| Title: Re: Weird Wavelength |
25 Sep 2005 12:54:40 PM |
|
|
On 25 Sep 2005 00:36:44 -0700, "Pentcho Valev" <pvalev@yahoo.com>
wrote:
The light source at the top of a tower with height h emits light which
has:
Frequency = Fo
Wavelength = Lo
Speed = c
A receiver on the ground receives the light which now has:
Frequency = (1+gh/c^2)Fo (confirmed experimentally)
Wavelength = ?
Speed = ?
If Frequency=Speed/Wavelength is correct, there are two possibilities:
Wavelength = Lo
Speed = c+v (v>0 would be the speed of the receiver if the equivalence
principle were applied).
Wavelength = Lo/(1+gh/c^2)
Speed = c
Needless to say, Einstein's theory of relativity can only be true if
the latter possibility obtains. But Wavelength behaves so weirdly...
What could be the physical mechanism behind this behaviour?
Pentcho Valev
Of course you're confused. General relativity uses constant c to
compute a double redshift if carried to conclusion.
GR:
If you have Fo at top and read (1+k)Fo at the bottom, don't forget you
have to use an oscillator or clock to determine that. So when yoou
bring the clock down to the bottom it will run slow by 1- k. So
according to GR you would get one k for the frequency change and
another k for the clock being slower by k, so the relative frequency
comparison would be 1 +2k = 1+k/1-k. But we don't actually get such a
double reading of 2k. So the theory is wrong.
First the energy hFo does not change due to dropping down by h, it
stays the same forever after emmission. Energy is not subject to
gravity. The frequency is the same at the bottom as at the top. Well,
what changed?
The speed of light decreases deeper in gravity to c(1-k) just as the
clocks slow down in gravity. At the bottom, the wavelength is
shortened by WL = c(1-k)/fo. In most cases you can't measure
wavelength. It is a blueshift in w/l not in F.
So with the same frequency fo at the bottom as top, we compare the
frequeny with a clock down there running slow by 1-k. Thus F0
*appears* to read as Fo/1-k, a single increase of k. But it's only in
w/l not F.
That's from Dual Space theory.
John Polasek
http://www.dualspace.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Tom Roberts" |
|
| Title: Re: Weird Wavelength |
25 Sep 2005 01:11:45 PM |
|
|
John C. Polasek wrote:
Of course you're confused. General relativity uses constant c to
compute a double redshift if carried to conclusion.
I have said this numerous times: you are confused. You are taking
interpretations for two different coordinate systems and claiming they
both apply and yield twice the effect. In fact, you can use EITHER of
those interpretations and obtain agreement with observation; trying to
use both is just perverse, AND WRONG.
So the theory is wrong.
No, just your MISINTERPETATION of the theory is wrong. <shrug>
In particular, you cannot hope to understand GR via sound bites -- you
must actually STUDY it.
Tom Roberts tjroberts@lucent.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Androcles Androcles@ MyPlace.org" |
|
| Title: Re: Weird Wavelength |
25 Sep 2005 01:41:27 PM |
|
|
"Tom Roberts" <tjroberts@lucent.com> wrote in message
news:BLBZe.44$OH3.26@newssvr23.news.prodigy.net...
[snip crap]
In particular, you cannot hope to OBSERVE the accretion disk near black
hole
without putting your eye at the sharp end of telescope, you must
actually LOOK. <shrug>
Androcles.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Weird Wavelength |
26 Sep 2005 02:14:25 AM |
|
|
Androcles wrote:
you cannot hope to OBSERVE the accretion disk near black
hole
yes you can. try here http://chandra.harvard.edu/photo/2002/0052/ and
see how it goes.
not an accretion disk near black hole, but whole lot of matter spining
around neutron star. interesting to look at, if you ask me :)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Androcles Androcles@ MyPlace.org" |
|
| Title: Re: Weird Wavelength |
26 Sep 2005 03:50:18 AM |
|
|
<makc.the.great@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1127718865.077049.157750@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
| Androcles wrote:
| > you cannot hope to OBSERVE the accretion disk near black
| > hole
|
| not an accretion disk near black hole,
I'm glad you agree.
Nice to be snipped off in mid-sentence, isn't it?
Androcles.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Weird Wavelength |
26 Sep 2005 09:59:55 AM |
|
|
Androcles wrote:
Nice to be snipped off in mid-sentence, isn't it?
Why? Wasn't that a good summary of what you had actually said?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Androcles Androcles@ MyPlace.org" |
|
| Title: Re: Weird Wavelength |
26 Sep 2005 03:08:16 PM |
|
|
<makc.the.great@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1127746795.153299.272060@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
| Why?
How?
Androcles.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Weird Wavelength |
27 Sep 2005 05:35:14 AM |
|
|
Androcles wrote:
How?
What?
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "The Ghost In The Machine" |
|
| Title: Re: Weird Wavelength |
25 Sep 2005 10:00:14 PM |
|
|
In sci.physics, Androcles
<Androcles@MyPlace.org>
wrote
on Sun, 25 Sep 2005 18:41:27 GMT
<rbCZe.7022$fl6.3260@fe2.news.blueyonder.co.uk>:
"Tom Roberts" <tjroberts@lucent.com> wrote in message
news:BLBZe.44$OH3.26@newssvr23.news.prodigy.net...
[snip crap]
In particular, you cannot hope to OBSERVE the accretion
disk near black hole without putting your eye at the sharp
end of telescope, you must actually LOOK. <shrug>
How does that prove an accretion disk?
Androcles.
--
#191,
It's still legal to go .sigless.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Androcles Androcles@ MyPlace.org" |
|
| Title: Re: Weird Wavelength |
26 Sep 2005 03:46:51 AM |
|
|
"The Ghost In The Machine" <ewill@sirius.tg00suus7038.net> wrote in
message news:e12k03-an5.ln1@sirius.tg00suus7038.net...
| In sci.physics, Androcles
| <Androcles@MyPlace.org>
| wrote
| on Sun, 25 Sep 2005 18:41:27 GMT
| <rbCZe.7022$fl6.3260@fe2.news.blueyonder.co.uk>:
| >
| > "Tom Roberts" <tjroberts@lucent.com> wrote in message
| > news:BLBZe.44$OH3.26@newssvr23.news.prodigy.net...
| > [snip crap]
| >
| > In particular, you cannot hope to OBSERVE the accretion
| > disk near black hole without putting your eye at the sharp
| > end of telescope, you must actually LOOK. <shrug>
|
| How does that prove an accretion disk?
Beats the hell out of me, but according to the bindlestiff Roberts,
Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity
From: Tom Roberts <tjrobe...@lucent.com> - Find messages by this
author
Date: Sat, 17 Sep 2005 17:57:18 GMT
Local: Sat, Sep 17 2005 6:57 pm
Subject: Re: Does the 'Curvature of Spacetime' cause gravity?
"Yes, tests of strong fields are few and far between, but there are
some:
the binary pulsars, and observations of accretion disks near black
holes."
I was pointing out that Roberts is a fucking liar and stupid as well,
which is typical of any relativist.
He ignores me, of course.
"No creature smarts so little as a fool." -- Alexander Pope
Androcles
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Jim Burns" |
|
| Title: Re: Weird Wavelength |
25 Sep 2005 07:21:41 AM |
|
|
Pentcho Valev wrote:
The light source at the top of a tower with height h emits light
which has:
Frequency = Fo
Wavelength = Lo
Speed = c
A receiver on the ground receives the light which now has:
Frequency = (1+gh/c^2)Fo (confirmed experimentally)
Wow. Someone has measured this? Do you have a reference?
I get that the new frequency is 1.0000000000001 times the
old one (for a kilometer tall tower). It looks pretty
difficult to get that kind of precision.
Wavelength = ?
Speed = ?
Wavelength = c/Fo
Speed = c
If Frequency=Speed/Wavelength is correct, there are two
possibilities:
The second one.
Why even ask? Wasn't it measured?
Jim Burns
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Weird Wavelength |
25 Sep 2005 07:50:43 AM |
|
|
Jim Burns wrote:
Pentcho Valev wrote:
The light source at the top of a tower with height h emits light
which has:
Frequency = Fo
Wavelength = Lo
Speed = c
A receiver on the ground receives the light which now has:
Frequency = (1+gh/c^2)Fo (confirmed experimentally)
Wow. Someone has measured this? Do you have a reference?
I get that the new frequency is 1.0000000000001 times the
old one (for a kilometer tall tower). It looks pretty
difficult to get that kind of precision.
Mossbauer effect, 40 years ago... See
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/relatvty.htm
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jim Burns" |
|
| Title: Re: Weird Wavelength |
25 Sep 2005 10:19:00 AM |
|
|
"jmorriss@idirect.com" wrote:
Jim Burns wrote:
Pentcho Valev wrote:
The light source at the top of a tower with height h emits light
which has:
Frequency = Fo
Wavelength = Lo
Speed = c
A receiver on the ground receives the light which now has:
Frequency = (1+gh/c^2)Fo (confirmed experimentally)
Wow. Someone has measured this? Do you have a reference?
I get that the new frequency is 1.0000000000001 times the
old one (for a kilometer tall tower). It looks pretty
difficult to get that kind of precision.
Mossbauer effect, 40 years ago... See
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/relatvty.htm
Thank you. This sounds like something I may have been taught
and should have remembered.
Jim Burns
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Tom Roberts" |
|
| Title: Re: Weird Wavelength |
25 Sep 2005 08:18:36 AM |
|
|
Jim Burns wrote:
Pentcho Valev wrote:
Frequency = (1+gh/c^2)Fo (confirmed experimentally)
Wow. Someone has measured this? Do you have a reference?
# R. V. Pound and G. A. Rebka Jr., Gravitational Red-Shift in Nuclear
Resonance, Phys. Rev. Lett. 3, 439 (1959). [1] This paper proposed the
experiment.
# R. V. Pound and G. A. Rebka Jr., Apparent weight of photons, Phys.
Rev. Lett. 4, 337 (1960). [2] This paper was the first measurement.
# R. V. Pound and J. L. Snider, Effect of Gravity on Nuclear Resonance,
Phys. Rev. Lett. 13, 539 (1964). [3] The more accurate measurement with
Snider.
There is also an Italian measurement using atomic clocks on a mountain
and in the neighboring valley.
And there is the GPS, for which the satellite clocks would gain ~38
microseconds per day compared to an earthbound clock, if that were not
adjusted in the satellites.
I get that the new frequency is 1.0000000000001 times the
old one (for a kilometer tall tower). It looks pretty
difficult to get that kind of precision.
Pound et al used the 22-meter Harvard tower, using the Moessbauer effect
to obtain the requisite resolution. The others use atomic clocks.
None of the above measured wavelength directly. But we do know that on
earth the speed of light is c, and in the GPS the speed of light is c
between satellite and ground.
Tom Roberts tjroberts@lucent.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Androcles Androcles@ MyPlace.org" |
|
| Title: Re: Weird Wavelength |
25 Sep 2005 08:21:38 AM |
|
|
"Tom Roberts" <> wrote in message
news:MsxZe.22$cF6.4@newssvr30.news.prodigy.com...
| Jim Burns wrote:
| > Pentcho Valev wrote:
| >>Frequency = (1+gh/c^2)Fo (confirmed experimentally)
| >
| > Wow. Someone has measured this? Do you have a reference?
|
| # R. V. Pound and G. A. Rebka Jr., Gravitational Red-Shift in Nuclear
| Resonance, Phys. Rev. Lett. 3, 439 (1959). [1] This paper proposed the
| experiment.
| # R. V. Pound and G. A. Rebka Jr., Apparent weight of photons, Phys.
| Rev. Lett. 4, 337 (1960). [2] This paper was the first measurement.
| # R. V. Pound and J. L. Snider, Effect of Gravity on Nuclear
Resonance,
| Phys. Rev. Lett. 13, 539 (1964). [3] The more accurate measurement
with
| Snider.
|
| There is also an Italian measurement using atomic clocks on a mountain
| and in the neighboring valley.
|
| And there is the GPS, for which the satellite clocks would gain ~38
| microseconds per day compared to an earthbound clock, if that were not
| adjusted in the satellites.
|
|
| > I get that the new frequency is 1.0000000000001 times the
| > old one (for a kilometer tall tower). It looks pretty
| > difficult to get that kind of precision.
|
| Pound et al used the 22-meter Harvard tower, using the Moessbauer
effect
| to obtain the requisite resolution. The others use atomic clocks.
|
|
| None of the above measured wavelength directly. But we do know that on
| earth the speed of light is c, and in the GPS the speed of light is c
| between satellite and ground.
|
|
| Tom Roberts
Don't forget the accretion disk you observed near a black hole.
Androcles.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Jim Burns" |
|
| Title: Re: Weird Wavelength |
25 Sep 2005 10:18:47 AM |
|
|
Tom Roberts wrote:
Jim Burns wrote:
Pentcho Valev wrote:
Frequency = (1+gh/c^2)Fo (confirmed experimentally)
Wow. Someone has measured this? Do you have a reference?
# R. V. Pound and G. A. Rebka Jr., Gravitational Red-Shift in
Nuclear Resonance, Phys. Rev. Lett. 3, 439 (1959). [1] This
paper proposed the experiment.
# R. V. Pound and G. A. Rebka Jr., Apparent weight of photons,
Phys. Rev. Lett. 4, 337 (1960). [2] This paper was the first
measurement.
# R. V. Pound and J. L. Snider, Effect of Gravity on Nuclear
Resonance, Phys. Rev. Lett. 13, 539 (1964). [3] The more
accurate measurement with Snider.
Thank you. I think this may have been something that was
covered somewhere in my coursework and I just plain forgot
about it. I look forward to checking out the references.
Jim Burns
There is also an Italian measurement using atomic clocks on a
mountain and in the neighboring valley.
And there is the GPS, for which the satellite clocks would
gain ~38 microseconds per day compared to an earthbound clock,
if that were not adjusted in the satellites.
I get that the new frequency is 1.0000000000001 times the
old one (for a kilometer tall tower). It looks pretty
difficult to get that kind of precision.
Pound et al used the 22-meter Harvard tower, using the
Moessbauer effect to obtain the requisite resolution. The others
use atomic clocks.
None of the above measured wavelength directly. But we do know
that on earth the speed of light is c, and in the GPS the speed
of light is c between satellite and ground.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Uncle Al" |
|
| Title: Re: Weird Wavelength |
25 Sep 2005 04:49:01 PM |
|
|
Pentcho Valev wrote:
The light source at the top of a tower with height h emits light which
has:
Frequency = Fo
Wavelength = Lo
Speed = c
A receiver on the ground receives the light which now has:
Frequency = (1+gh/c^2)Fo (confirmed experimentally)
Wavelength = ?
Speed = ?
If Frequency=Speed/Wavelength is correct, there are two possibilities:
Wavelength = Lo
Speed = c+v (v>0 would be the speed of the receiver if the equivalence
principle were applied).
Wavelength = Lo/(1+gh/c^2)
Speed = c
Needless to say, Einstein's theory of relativity can only be true if
the latter possibility obtains. But Wavelength behaves so weirdly...
What could be the physical mechanism behind this behaviour?
Pentcho Valev
1) http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/relativ/gratim.html
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "sam ende" |
|
| Title: Re: Weird Wavelength |
25 Sep 2005 05:02:09 AM |
|
|
Pentcho Valev wrote:
Needless to say, Einstein's theory of relativity can only be true if
the latter possibility obtains. But Wavelength behaves so weirdly...
What could be the physical mechanism behind this behaviour?
what do you mean wavelength behaves so wierdly ?
sammi
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
