BradGuth wrote:
[snip crap]

I think of photons as zero mass dump trucks, each capable of hauling a
wee bit of mass.
. - Brad Guth

Idiot.

http://prola.aps.org/abstract/PRL/v90/i8/e081801
Phys. Rev. Lett. 90 081801 (2003)
Phys. Rev. Lett. 80 1826 (1998)
Phys. Rev. Lett. 68 23 3383 (1992)
Phys. Rev. D 8 2349 (1973)

Photon rest mass is less than 10^(-51) grams or 7x10^(-19) electron
volts. If the photon had non-zero rest mass then electromagnetism
would have a finite range and force proportional to 1/r^2 would not
obtain.

****ing imbecile.

http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/sunshine.jpg
Brad Guth looking for Dark Matter
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/analysis.jpg
Brad Guth explaining physics

--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/lajos.htm#a2

BradGuth wrote:
[snip crap]

A zero mass photon dump truck might haul a wee bit of mass. Therefore
a given photon can represent mass, though however extremely wee it
might be.

****ing imbecile.

http://prola.aps.org/abstract/PRL/v90/i8/e081801
Phys. Rev. Lett. 90 081801 (2003)
Phys. Rev. Lett. 80 1826 (1998)
Phys. Rev. Lett. 68 23 3383 (1992)
Phys. Rev. D 8 2349 (1973)

Photon rest mass is less than 10^(-51) grams or 7x10^(-19) electron
volts. If the photon had non-zero rest mass then electromagnetism
would have a finite range and force proportional to 1/r^2 would not
obtain.
\
BTW, of passing near the sun, what's the all inclusive (meaning full
electromagnetic spectrum) worth of photon population/cm3 ?
[snip more crap]

****ing imbecile.

http://arXiv.org/abs/gr-qc/9909014
Amer. J. Phys. 71 770 (2003)
Phys. Rev. Lett. 92 121101 (2004)
Nature 425 374-376 (2003).
http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2006-3/
Section 3.4.1, Figure 5
falling light

As long as your zero mass photon dump trucks are always empty little
buggers, you could be correct.
. - Brad Guth

Empirical idiot.

--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/lajos.htm#a2

On 17 Mar, 01:04, BradGuth wrote:
On Mar 16, 1:41 pm, The Speaking Clock
wrote:





On 16 Mar, 20:30, BradGuth wrote:

On Mar 16, 9:14 am, Tom Roberts wrote:

The Speaking Clock wrote:
On 15 Mar, 08:57, Pentcho Valev wrote:
[... his usual nonsense]

Would the speed of light be a non wiggly constant at the very edge of
the universe - bending around it?

The speed of light is a constant, c, for any LOCAL measurement anywhere
in the universe. I guess that includes "non wiggly". It also includes
essentially all measurements of light speed here on earth. At least that
is what GR predicts, and there are no observations that contradict it.

BradGuth wrote:
[snip crap]


Good for you and others of your open mindset kind. I'm on your side
of this topic rant that's giving further consideration as to why
photons that supposedly have zero mass, and yet still manage to
interact with the likes of our sun.
. - Brad Guth

Empirical idiot.

http://arXiv.org/abs/gr-qc/9909014
Amer. J. Phys. 71 770 (2003)
Phys. Rev. Lett. 92 121101 (2004)
Nature 425 374-376 (2003).
http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2006-3/
Section 3.4.1, Figure 5
falling light

http://prola.aps.org/abstract/PRL/v90/i8/e081801
Phys. Rev. Lett. 90 081801 (2003)
Phys. Rev. Lett. 80 1826 (1998)
Phys. Rev. Lett. 68 23 3383 (1992)
Phys. Rev. D 8 2349 (1973)

Photon rest mass is less than 10^(-51) grams or 7x10^(-19) electron
volts. If the photon had non-zero rest mass then electromagnetism
would have a finite range and force proportional to 1/r^2 would not
obtain.

****ing imbecile.

--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/lajos.htm#a2

On Mar 16, 7:14 pm, Tom Roberts wrote:
The Speaking Clock wrote:
On 15 Mar, 08:57, Pentcho Valev wrote:
[... his usual nonsense]

Would the speed of light be a non wiggly constant at the very edge of
the universe - bending around it?

The speed of light is a constant, c, for any LOCAL measurement anywhere
in the universe. I guess that includes "non wiggly". It also includes
essentially all measurements of light speed here on earth. At least that
is what GR predicts, and there are no observations that contradict it.

[Ignore Valev when he brings up Pound-Rebka and similar
experiments -- they do not measure speed.]

They do Roberts Roberts. Directly, Pound and Rebka have measured the
frequency and have obtained:

f'= f(1 + V/c^2)

Now Roberts Roberts you can apply the textbook formula:

frequency = (speed of light)/(wavelength)

and so you understand that, indirectly, Pound and Rebka have measured
the speed of light and have confirmed Einstein's 1911 equation:

c'= c(1 + V/c^2)

Some of your brothers have already understood that Roberts Roberts:

http://www.blazelabs.com/f-g-gcont.asp "The first confirmation of a
long range variation in the speed of light travelling in space came in
1964. Irwin Shapiro, it seems, was the first to make use of a
previously forgotten facet of general relativity theory -- that the
speed of light is reduced when it passes through a gravitational
field....Faced with this evidence, Einstein stated:"In the second
place our result shows that, according to the general theory of
relativity, the law of the constancy of the velocity of light in
vacuo, which constitutes one of the two fundamental assumptions in the
special theory of relativity and to which we have already frequently
referred, cannot claim any unlimited validity. A curvature of rays of
light can only take place when the velocity of propagation of light
varies with position."......Today we find that since the Special
Theory of Relativity unfortunately became part of the so called
mainstream science, it is considered a sacrilege to even suggest that
the speed of light be anything other than a constant. This is somewhat
surprising since even Einstein himself suggested in a paper "On the
Influence of Gravitation on the Propagation of Light," Annalen der
Physik, 35, 1911, that the speed of light might vary with the
gravitational potential. Indeed, the variation of the speed of light
in a vacuum or space is explicitly shown in Einstein's calculation for
the angle at which light should bend upon the influence of gravity.
One can find his calculation in his paper. The result is c'=c(1+V/c^2)
where V is the gravitational potential relative to the point where the
measurement is taken. 1+V/c^2 is also known as the GRAVITATIONAL
REDSHIFT FACTOR."

Pentcho Valev

John C. Polasek wrote:
On Sun, 16 Mar 2008 17:14:22 GMT, Tom Roberts
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.

When you listen to a car horn passing by, you can easily hear the
Doppler shift in its pitch. But there's no change in the speed of sound.
Riding a bicycle parallel to the path of the sound also affects the
pitch you hear, without affecting the speed of sound in air (an analog
to their moving detector). All this is as predicted by the Doppler
shift, and is completely independent of the speed of the wave --
independent of speed, the FREQUENCY of a wave's cycles must remain
constant along its path, or cycles will either be created or destroyed
(which is not possible). Except in a curved spaceTIME geometry (which
can be considered to affect the measuring instruments).

To claim this experiment "measured light speed", "effectively" or not,
is plain and simply wrong.


The Shapiro effect is another confirmation that gravity slows light.

Yes. Over a NON-local path.


Tom Roberts

John C. Polasek wrote:
On Tue, 18 Mar 2008 12:29:26 -0500, Tom Roberts
wrote:
[about Pound & Rebka]
were due to a change in speed there's no way for the apparatus to be
sensitive to [a "speed change"]

These abilities are built into the experiment.

No, they are not. Just LOOK AT THEIR APPARATUS.


The change was 2.5e-15 parts, which arguably, could be either a
reduction in frequency or increase in speed of light rising.

Argue whatever you like, but the absorption band of their absorber is
sensitive ONLY to the FREQUENCY of the radiation (well, also to its
energy, but that's equivalent via E=h*f).


the FREQUENCY of a wave's cycles must remain
constant along its path, or cycles will either be created or destroyed
(which is not possible).
I agree, "the FREQUENCY of a wave's cycles must remain
constant along its path", counter to your claim of frequency change.

You must READ WHAT I WROTE. The very next sentence explained why this is
not "counter to my claim".


Tom Roberts

On Mar 18, 7:29*pm, Tom Roberts wrote in
sci.physics.relativity:
John C. Polasek wrote:
On Sun, 16 Mar 2008 17:14:22 GMT,TomRoberts
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).

Pentcho Valev

On Mar 20, 3:02*am, Pentcho Valev wrote:
On Mar 18, 7:29*pm, Tom Roberts wrote in
sci.physics.relativity:





John C. Polasek wrote:
On Sun, 16 Mar 2008 17:14:22 GMT,TomRoberts
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.
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.
3. The 1905 light postulate applies to *inertial frames* only where
there is no curvature throughout the frame. 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.
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. Tom's correct statement is that the speed of light in vacuum
is always measured *locally* to be c. 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.

PD

"PD" wrote in message
...
On Mar 20, 3:02 am, Pentcho Valev wrote:
On Mar 18, 7:29 pm, Tom Roberts wrote in
sci.physics.relativity:





John C. Polasek wrote:
On Sun, 16 Mar 2008 17:14:22 GMT,TomRoberts
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?

| 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, and you frankly don't see ****, 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?

| 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?

| 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?


| 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 ****head.


| 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, ****-for-brains?