|
|
| Author |
Message |
Dr ***
science forum Guru
Joined: 04 May 2005
Posts: 592
|
 Posted: Tue May 03, 2005 6:19 pm Post subject:
Pound-Rebka
|
|
|
This is a link to a Pound-Rebka analysis.
http://www.circlon-theory.com/HTML/poundRebka.html
This is my take on it.
One experimenter/observer at top in field state A
One experimenter/analyst half way up in field state B
One experimenter/observer at bottom in field state C
Field state A Duration (interval time) compressed wrt to states B and C
all light emitted by A will be blue shifted as measured by B and C due to
a. being duration compressed wrt B and C
Field state B Duration state = 1/2(C-A)+A in m/s2
Field state C Duration expanded wrt to B and A all light emitted by C
will be red shifted as measured by B and A due to C being duration
expanded wrt B and A
The speed of light as measured by A, B and C at their level in the field
will be the constant c as none of the experimenters or equipment has a
velocity wrt to the experiment or the vacuum state.
With a fix frequency source measured at the same level as the emitter it
is possible to calculate by converting the frequency shift into a velocity
change the speed of light wrt to the emitter, at the observation point
from the emitting point.
'Accelerometers placed at the top and bottom of the tower will measure
an upward acceleration of 9.807m/s2 at the bottom and 9.806307 m/s2
at the top.'
This defines the top and bottom field states and the field potential
difference at a vertical distance of 22.5 m.
The observers have not moved, the field has not moved, the only possible
difference is in the field gradient to produce this effect. i.e the
propagation and interval duration characteristics of the field at A are
faster
than at C due to the field gradient.
So the effect of duration expansion and contraction has been misunderstood
and possibly miscalculated by both relativity and absolute motion theory.
The Experimenter/analyst at the middle of the tower will now come into play
to evaluate the states of A and C and so be able to judge clocks as they go
and say what's happening 
He states I have no proof of any absolutes so I will postulate that all
measurements are relative so I have an accelerometer reading of
9.8066535m/s2 and the time is zero and it starts now and my interval
duration is the standard.
This places B firmly in the future wrt A and C in regard to information
transfer with C further in the past than A wrt B this being due to the field
gradient from all evidence.
He measures the signal from above knowing that this will be interval
contracted and it will be coming from the past to the now and measures
the wavelength as being shortened to .999999999999998775.
He measures the signal from below knowing that this will be interval dilated
and it will be coming from the past to the now and measures the wavelength
as being lengthened to 1.0000000000000012275.
He converts these two wavelength values into frequency based on his
standard and finds the interval ratio between B and A is
..999999999999998775 to 1. That how much faster it is up at A wrt to B
and wrt C it is 1.0000000000000012275 to 1 slower.
So the duration interval ratios are as per and also the inverse for the
voltage ratios to arrive at the field gradient as a voltage potential
difference and the curvature of vacuum space-time as a percentage ratio.
It would appear from this that A would be ageing faster than B as from
B's pov A was accumulating more events than B in B's unit time and C
was ageing slower than B because C was accumulating less events in B's
unit time, B's unit time as being defined as the standard earlier on.
From the values given it would appear that C would live longer than B
by approximately 1 second in B's time in 160 seconds B's time which
equates to 6 months in 80 years B's time all other things being equal.
Motto, living up mountains may shorten your life, try getting buried
early it may extend your life:-)
It perhaps needs to be clarified that the vacuum itself is all *now* and
its only the characteristics of the vacuum state that is modified by events
that modify the event rates that produces this effect.
The effect of acceleration and deceleration perhaps needs to be explained
as it has different characteristics to gravity modulation and tends to
follow t = 1-V2/C2 or similar as far as I can tell at the moment.
Equivalence? does a piece of wire stationary in a magnetic field look like
and perform like a moving piece?.
Dr ***
http://home.freeuk.com/paulps/
Still full of manure but the turnips
are coming up nicely. Ooh ah.{ |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Dirk Van de moortel
science forum Guru
Joined: 01 May 2005
Posts: 3019
|
| Posted: Tue May 03, 2005 7:23 pm Post subject:
Re: Pound-Rebka
|
|
|
"Dr ***" <paulpsremove@freeuk.com> wrote in message news:1115151386.72328.0@dyke.uk.clara.net...
From the same shite:
http://www.circlon-theory.com/HTML/timeEquiv.html
| Physical time exists as two separate arrows or time flows
| that are measured by two completely different kinds of
| clocks. Inertial time can be measured by the daily
| rotation of the Earth on its axis or by the vibration
| of atoms in an atomic clock.
Dead before arrival.
More essays from the Absolute Moron Institute:
http://www.circlon-theory.com/HTML/Essays.html
Dirk Vdm |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
sue jahn
science forum addict
Joined: 01 May 2005
Posts: 56
|
| Posted: Tue May 03, 2005 7:38 pm Post subject:
Re: Pound-Rebka
|
|
|
"Dr ***" <paulpsremove@freeuk.com> wrote in message news:1115151386.72328.0@dyke.uk.clara.net...
| Quote: | This is a link to a Pound-Rebka analysis.
http://www.circlon-theory.com/HTML/poundRebka.html
This is my take on it.
One experimenter/observer at top in field state A
One experimenter/analyst half way up in field state B
One experimenter/observer at bottom in field state C
Field state A Duration (interval time) compressed wrt to states B and C
all light emitted by A will be blue shifted as measured by B and C due to
a. being duration compressed wrt B and C
Field state B Duration state = 1/2(C-A)+A in m/s2
Field state C Duration expanded wrt to B and A all light emitted by C
will be red shifted as measured by B and A due to C being duration
expanded wrt B and A
The speed of light as measured by A, B and C at their level in the field
will be the constant c as none of the experimenters or equipment has a
velocity wrt to the experiment or the vacuum state.
With a fix frequency source measured at the same level as the emitter it
is possible to calculate by converting the frequency shift into a velocity
change the speed of light wrt to the emitter, at the observation point
from the emitting point.
'Accelerometers placed at the top and bottom of the tower will measure
an upward acceleration of 9.807m/s2 at the bottom and 9.806307 m/s2
at the top.'
This defines the top and bottom field states and the field potential
difference at a vertical distance of 22.5 m.
The observers have not moved, the field has not moved, the only possible
difference is in the field gradient to produce this effect. i.e the
propagation and interval duration characteristics of the field at A are
faster
than at C due to the field gradient.
So the effect of duration expansion and contraction has been misunderstood
and possibly miscalculated by both relativity and absolute motion theory.
The Experimenter/analyst at the middle of the tower will now come into play
to evaluate the states of A and C and so be able to judge clocks as they go
and say what's happening
He states I have no proof of any absolutes so I will postulate that all
measurements are relative so I have an accelerometer reading of
9.8066535m/s2 and the time is zero and it starts now and my interval
duration is the standard.
This places B firmly in the future wrt A and C in regard to information
transfer with C further in the past than A wrt B this being due to the field
gradient from all evidence.
He measures the signal from above knowing that this will be interval
contracted and it will be coming from the past to the now and measures
the wavelength as being shortened to .999999999999998775.
He measures the signal from below knowing that this will be interval dilated
and it will be coming from the past to the now and measures the wavelength
as being lengthened to 1.0000000000000012275.
He converts these two wavelength values into frequency based on his
standard and finds the interval ratio between B and A is
.999999999999998775 to 1. That how much faster it is up at A wrt to B
and wrt C it is 1.0000000000000012275 to 1 slower.
So the duration interval ratios are as per and also the inverse for the
voltage ratios to arrive at the field gradient as a voltage potential
difference and the curvature of vacuum space-time as a percentage ratio.
It would appear from this that A would be ageing faster than B as from
B's pov A was accumulating more events than B in B's unit time and C
was ageing slower than B because C was accumulating less events in B's
unit time, B's unit time as being defined as the standard earlier on.
From the values given it would appear that C would live longer than B
by approximately 1 second in B's time in 160 seconds B's time which
equates to 6 months in 80 years B's time all other things being equal.
Motto, living up mountains may shorten your life, try getting buried
early it may extend your life:-)
It perhaps needs to be clarified that the vacuum itself is all *now* and
its only the characteristics of the vacuum state that is modified by events
that modify the event rates that produces this effect.
The effect of acceleration and deceleration perhaps needs to be explained
as it has different characteristics to gravity modulation and tends to
follow t = 1-V2/C2 or similar as far as I can tell at the moment.
Equivalence? does a piece of wire stationary in a magnetic field look like
and perform like a moving piece?.
Dr ***
http://home.freeuk.com/paulps/
Still full of manure but the turnips
are coming up nicely. Ooh ah.{
|
Yes
Pound Rebka demonstrates the Mossbaruer recoil effict.
The frequency shift occurs in emission and absorbtion..
=3051831093837402530
Sue...
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Sue...
science forum Guru
Joined: 08 May 2005
Posts: 2684
|
| Posted: Tue May 03, 2005 7:46 pm Post subject:
Re: Pound-Rebka
|
|
|
Show References
[ Previous / Next Abstract | Issue Table of Contents | Bottom of Page ]
American Journal of Physics -- February 2000 -- Volume 68, Issue 2, pp.
115-119
Choose an action-------------------------Add to:-
myArticles-------------------------Download Citation(s) in:- BibTeX-
EndNote ® (generic)- EndNote ® (RIS)- Medline- Plain Text-
RefWorks-------------------------View Citation(s) in:- BibTeX- EndNote
® (generic)- EndNote ® (RIS)- Medline- Plain Text- RefWorks
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&c2coff=1&safe=off&q=%22dennis+mccarthy%22&spell=1
ROFL
Sue...
Full Text: [ HTML Sectioned HTML PDF (61 kB) GZipped PS ]
Order
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On the interpretation of the redshift in a static gravitational field
L. B. Okun and K. G. Selivanov
ITEP, Moscow, 117218, Russia
V. L. Telegdi
EP Division, CERN, CH-1211 Geneva 23, Switzerland
(Received 12 April 1999; accepted 27 July 1999)
The classical phenomenon of the redshift of light in a static
gravitational potential, usually called the gravitational redshift, is
described in the literature essentially in two ways: On the one hand,
the phenomenon is explained through the behavior of clocks which run
faster the higher they are located in the potential, whereas the energy
and frequency of the propagating photon do not change with height. The
light thus appears to be redshifted relative to the frequency of the
clock. On the other hand, the phenomenon is alternatively discussed
(even in some authoritative texts) in terms of an energy loss of a
photon as it overcomes the gravitational attraction of the massive
body. This second approach operates with notions such as the
"gravitational mass" or the "potential energy" of a photon and we
assert that it is misleading. We do not claim to present any original
ideas or to give a comprehensive review of the subject, our goal being
essentially a pedagogical one. ©2000 American Association of Physics
Teachers.
PII: S0002-9505(99)01711-0
doi:10.1119/1.19382
PACS: 01.50.-i, 04.20.Cv Additional Information
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Full Text: [ HTML Sectioned HTML PDF (61 kB) GZipped PS ]
Order
The American Association of Physics Teachers is a member of CrossRef.
[ Previous / Next Abstract | Issue Table of Contents | Top of Page ]
Show References
© 2005 American Association of Physics Teachers |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Sue...
science forum Guru
Joined: 08 May 2005
Posts: 2684
|
| Posted: Tue May 03, 2005 9:03 pm Post subject:
Re: Pound-Rebka
|
|
|
Ya stoooopid mathymathicin.
The fast monkey burns more calories than the slow monkey.
Go put your head in a commode and INHALE.
Sue... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ken S. Tucker
science forum Guru
Joined: 30 Apr 2005
Posts: 1230
|
| Posted: Tue May 03, 2005 9:55 pm Post subject:
Re: Pound-Rebka
|
|
|
Hi Sue, Dr*** et al...
AJP is a bit of a raggy tabloid physics journal
for school teachers, I use it for ref, but as a
last resort. An educational journal that is user
pay, sucks both ends...
Anyway, the abstract is incomplete as the authors
say, factors in the analysis are,
g_00 = 1-2*phi , time dilation
g_11 = 1+2*phi , length contraction
C = g_00 , (C = coordinate speed of light)
p'dt' = p dt = h*f*dt == action invariance.
All those need to make sense in a complete
analysis.
GR is a theory encompassing a range of field
and effect characteristics, and I think using
one part of it will provide incomplete results.
Regards
Ken
Sue... wrote:
| Quote: | Show References
[ Previous / Next Abstract | Issue Table of Contents | Bottom of Page
]
American Journal of Physics -- February 2000 -- Volume 68, Issue 2,
pp.
115-119
Choose an action-------------------------Add to:-
myArticles-------------------------Download Citation(s) in:- BibTeX-
EndNote ® (generic)- EndNote ® (RIS)- Medline- Plain Text-
RefWorks-------------------------View Citation(s) in:- BibTeX-
EndNote
® (generic)- EndNote ® (RIS)- Medline- Plain Text- RefWorks
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&c2coff=1&safe=off&q=%22dennis+mccarthy%22&spell=1
ROFL
Sue...
Full Text: [ HTML Sectioned HTML PDF (61 kB) GZipped PS ]
Order
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On the interpretation of the redshift in a static gravitational field
L. B. Okun and K. G. Selivanov
ITEP, Moscow, 117218, Russia
V. L. Telegdi
EP Division, CERN, CH-1211 Geneva 23, Switzerland
(Received 12 April 1999; accepted 27 July 1999)
The classical phenomenon of the redshift of light in a static
gravitational potential, usually called the gravitational redshift,
is
described in the literature essentially in two ways: On the one hand,
the phenomenon is explained through the behavior of clocks which run
faster the higher they are located in the potential, whereas the
energy
and frequency of the propagating photon do not change with height.
The
light thus appears to be redshifted relative to the frequency of the
clock. On the other hand, the phenomenon is alternatively discussed
(even in some authoritative texts) in terms of an energy loss of a
photon as it overcomes the gravitational attraction of the massive
body. This second approach operates with notions such as the
"gravitational mass" or the "potential energy" of a photon and we
assert that it is misleading. We do not claim to present any original
ideas or to give a comprehensive review of the subject, our goal
being
essentially a pedagogical one. ©2000 American Association of Physics
Teachers.
PII: S0002-9505(99)01711-0
doi:10.1119/1.19382
PACS: 01.50.-i, 04.20.Cv Additional Information
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Full Text: [ HTML Sectioned HTML PDF (61 kB) GZipped PS ]
Order
The American Association of Physics Teachers is a member of
CrossRef.
[ Previous / Next Abstract | Issue Table of Contents | Top of Page ]
Show References
© 2005 American Association of Physics Teachers |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Sue...
science forum Guru
Joined: 08 May 2005
Posts: 2684
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Dr ***
science forum Guru
Joined: 04 May 2005
Posts: 592
|
| Posted: Wed May 04, 2005 9:08 am Post subject:
Re: Pound-Rebka
|
|
|
"Sue..." <suzysewnshow@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
news:1115199897.584117.207400@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Squishy.
The substrate of the molecule absorbs 1/2 of the force.
Atoms are picky. So the Doppler shaking helps the absorbiton.
Mossbaure effect.
Ya wanna see magic ?
http://www.magic-world.info/junk/images/ribbon-ponytail-girl.jpg
d
Your such a flirty piece and those two are defiantly Squishy.{ Have you
been round my new web site? if you post something up that would fit with the
beach cartoon, I could include it, virtual beach games. I might give you
access to jiggle your own image{
Mind you I find the manga style fun but its not like my stuff which is more
impressionistic, not done much for years. The cartoon were picked to reduce
data load and for quickie but might do something and scan it in if I get in
the moo.......... Did you feel that ' the Doppler shaking ' effected the
experimental results posted ?
--
Dr *** My role is essentially a pedagogical one or biker unless I take a
chunk out of your leg and in that case I was just hungry {
http://home.freeuk.com/paulps/
Still full of manure but the turnips
are coming up nicely. Ooh ah.{ |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Dr ***
science forum Guru
Joined: 04 May 2005
Posts: 592
|
| Posted: Wed May 04, 2005 10:58 am Post subject:
Re: Pound-Rebka
|
|
|
"sue jahn" <susysewnshow@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
news:4277ef67$0$79463$14726298@news.sunsite.dk...
"Dr ***" <paulpsremove@freeuk.com> wrote in message
news:1115151386.72328.0@dyke.uk.clara.net...
| Quote: | Equivalence? does a piece of wire stationary in a magnetic field look like
and perform like a moving piece?.
s |
Yes
Pound Rebka demonstrates the Mossbaruer recoil effict.
The frequency shift occurs in emission and absorbtion..
d
Thanks for reminding me of that Sue as I tend to forget the recoil and
impact effects but how does this relate to the P-R experiment results from
your pov.
s
http://scitation.aip.org/getabs/servlet/GetabsServlet?prog=normal&id=AJPIAS0
00068000002000115000001&idtype=cvips&gifs=yes&jsessionid
=3051831093837402530
d
Variable speed monkeys are the most entertaining as they can speed up and
slow..... down to try and get the most out of life {:-)
And the reminder of the word pedagogical from the abstract.........
s
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&c2coff=1&safe=off&q=%22dennis+mccarthy%22
&spell=1
Why do you think the above search is so funny? Sue
Dr *** My role is essentially a pedagogical one unless I take a chunk out
of your leg and in that case I was just hungry {
http://home.freeuk.com/paulps/
Still full of manure but the turnips
are coming up nicely. Ooh ah.{ |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Dr ***
science forum Guru
Joined: 04 May 2005
Posts: 592
|
| Posted: Wed May 04, 2005 11:21 am Post subject:
Re: Pound-Rebka
|
|
|
"Ken S. Tucker" <dynamics@vianet.on.ca> wrote in message
news:1115164519.866028.321350@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
g_00 = 1-2*phi , time dilation
g_11 = 1+2*phi , length contraction
C = g_00 , (C = coordinate speed of light)
p'dt' = p dt = h*f*dt == action invariance.
Do you have a link to some text that discuses these factors Ken. If so I
will have a read and try and come back to you on these if you are
interested.
--
Dr *** My role is essentially a pedagogical one unless I take a chunk out
of your leg and in that case I was just hungry {
http://home.freeuk.com/paulps/
Still full of manure but the turnips
are coming up nicely. Ooh ah.{ |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ken S. Tucker
science forum Guru
Joined: 30 Apr 2005
Posts: 1230
|
| Posted: Wed May 04, 2005 2:06 pm Post subject:
Re: Pound-Rebka
|
|
|
Dr *** wrote:
| Quote: | "Ken S. Tucker" <dynamics@vianet.on.ca> wrote in message
news:1115164519.866028.321350@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
g_00 = 1-2*phi , time dilation
g_11 = 1+2*phi , length contraction
C = g_00 , (C = coordinate speed of light)
p'dt' = p dt = h*f*dt == action invariance.
Do you have a link to some text that discuses these factors Ken. If
so I
will have a read and try and come back to you on these if you are
interested.
|
I don't have a link, and I haven't read a straightforward
succinct analysis of the problem, probably because it's not
really simple, though it can be simplified as an intro.
The first 3 above are a direct result of the Schwarzschild
Solution, and 4th uses the Quantum Theory, usually the 2nd
and 3rd are ignored, and that's where I think some mis-
understanding may result. GR really is quite intolerant of
superficial analysis, (I'm constantly oversimplifying to learn
I oversimplified:). All the above are based in a conservation
of energy equation that follows an AE field equation G_uv=0
you've problably seen tossed about.
I would like to review the subject again, (it's been a few
years).
Regards
Ken S. Tucker |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Google
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
The time now is Thu Jan 08, 2009 1:44 pm | All times are GMT
|
|
Mortgage Calculator | Credit Cards | Neopets Cheats, Games and Neopoints | Magazine Subscriptions | factory-golf-club.com
|
|
Copyright © 2004-2005 DeniX Solutions SRL
|
|
Other DeniX Solutions sites:
Electronics forum |
Medicine forum |
Unix/Linux blog |
Unix/Linux documentation |
Unix/Linux forums
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
Forum index
»
Science and Technology
»
Physics
»
Relativity
