|
|
 Up |
|
  |
Author: JerryJerry Date: Feb 27, 2008 07:10
On Feb 26, 6:33 pm, Eric Gisse gmail.com> wrote:> On Feb 26, 1:18 pm, Jerry comcast.net> wrote:
>
> [...]
>>> The other item to note is that the time dilation can be analyzed
>> either in terms of transverse Doppler effect as seen from the
>> non-rotating frame, or in terms of gravitational time dilation,
>> as seen from the standpoint of an observer at the center of the
>> centrifuge rotor, co-rotating with the rotor.
>
>> The two computations yield exactly the same value.
>
> Yes - zero.
>
Sorry, Eric. You're wrong. Try these references. I have others.
Note in particular the last sentence of the Champeney et. al.
abstract, "This expression may be obtained either in terms of the
time dilatation...
|
| Show full article (3.87Kb) |
|
| | no comments |
|
|
Author: JerryJerry Date: Feb 27, 2008 07:12
On Feb 26, 7:19 pm, Uncle Al hate.spam.net> wrote:> Jerry wrote:
>
>> On Feb 26, 3:55 pm, Uncle Al hate.spam.net> wrote:>>> Jerry wrote:
>>>> On Feb 26, 1:23 pm, Uncle Al hate.spam.net> wrote:>>>>> Jerry wrote
>>>> Why should I put any credence into the writings of someone
>>>> capable of declaiming:
>
>
>>>> Jerry
>
>>> That is a statement of observed fact. One can destroy the Co-57/Fe-57
>>> Mössbauer resonance by moving the source *relative* to the absorber.
> ...
|
| Show full article (6.38Kb) |
|
| | no comments |
|
|
Author: Eric GisseEric Gisse Date: Feb 27, 2008 07:19
On Feb 26, 9:10 pm, Jerry comcast.net> wrote:
[...]
> I have the feeling that you may be confusing the Champeny, Isaac
> and Khan experiment with a DIFFERENT experiment by Champeny and
> Moon which has caused much grief among the crackpot crowd. In this
> experiment, Champeny and Moon placed the source and receiver at
> opposite ends of a rotating arm. The "relative transverse
> velocity" is seemingly TWICE that of the previous setup, yet
> the measured transverse Doppler shift is zero. So does this
> disprove special relativity? Of course not!
>
> Jerry
Yes, you are right.
I didn't notice that until I carefully read the abstracts - I thought
the latter case was the one under discussion. Back to lurking.
|
| |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: JerryJerry Date: Feb 27, 2008 13:54
On Feb 26, 7:19 pm, Uncle Al hate.spam.net> wrote:> Jerry wrote:
>
>> Sorry, they do not stay in resonance.
>
>> Here is a quote from Turner and Hill (1964), the third of the
>> three references that you cite below:
>
>> "The observed change in the number of transmitted 14.4-keV gamma
>> rays in going from 0 to 15 000 rpm was (1.1+/-0.4)%% while the
>> expected change was (0.9+/-0.1)%%..."
>
> The observed change was 0.7 to 1.5%%
> The expected change was 0.8 to 1.0%%
>
> They do stay in resonance within experimental error, without
> apologies. The net signal is at most one sigma above noise. That
> might fly in psychology, but not here. Centrifuges vibrate. 0.2
> mm/sec velocity kills Mossbauer resonance. Special Relativity is
> validated. ...
|
| Show full article (2.63Kb) |
| 4 Comments |
|
|
Author: JerryJerry Date: Feb 27, 2008 14:28
On Feb 27, 6:54 am, Jerry comcast.net> wrote:
> Had you actually -read- Turner and Hill (1964), you would have
> known that their experiment was -not- specifically designed to
> measure the transverse Doppler effect. Rather, their experiment
> was designed to detect possible frequency shifts in light as
> a result of directional variations in light speed. So their
> experimental bounds on transverse Doppler effect were rather
> loose.
CORRECTION:
Turner and Hill were NOT attempting to detect directional
variations in light speed. In other words, they were NOT
attempting to conduct an "aether drift" experiment. If you
think about it for a few seconds, you would realize that motion
through a classical aether would have no effect on the received
frequency.
|
| Show full article (1.38Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: Tom RobertsTom Roberts Date: Feb 27, 2008 15:51
Jerry wrote:
> I have the feeling that you may be confusing the Champeny, Isaac
> and Khan experiment with a DIFFERENT experiment by Champeny and
> Moon which has caused much grief among the crackpot crowd. In this
> experiment, Champeny and Moon placed the source and receiver at
> opposite ends of a rotating arm. The "relative transverse
> velocity" is seemingly TWICE that of the previous setup, yet
> the measured transverse Doppler shift is zero. So does this
> disprove special relativity? Of course not!
I had forgotten this. Do you have a reference for Champeny and Moon?
Tom Roberts
|
| |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: Uncle AlUncle Al Date: Feb 27, 2008 17:53
Jerry wrote:
>
> On Feb 26, 7:19Â pm, Uncle Al hate.spam.net> wrote:>> Jerry wrote:
>>
>>> On Feb 26, 3:55 pm, Uncle Al hate.spam.net> wrote:>>>> Jerry wrote:
>>>>> On Feb 26, 1:23 pm, Uncle Al hate.spam.net> wrote:>>>>>> Jerry wrote
Like string theory with 10^1000 acceptable vacua and not single
testable prediction, you pontificate but do not j\ustify. Parity
Eotvos experiment and the parity calorimetry experiment net outputs
either null within experimental error or they do not. Do left and
right hands vacuum free fall identically? 80-year old orthodox theory
says both "no" (spacetime torsion tensor vanishes, pseudo-Riemannian
spacetime, V^4) and "yes" (spacetime curvature tensor vanishes,
Weitzenböck spacetime, A^4). Nobody has looked. Only one can be true.
1) If they null, that is the gold standard for 420+ years of EP and
Lorentz invariance testing. Nobody has basis for complaint.
|
| Show full article (1.48Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: JerryJerry Date: Feb 27, 2008 19:34
On Feb 27, 8:51 am, Tom Roberts sbcglobal.net> wrote:> Jerry wrote:
>> I have the feeling that you may be confusing the Champeny, Isaac
>> and Khan experiment with a DIFFERENT experiment by Champeny and
>> Moon which has caused much grief among the crackpot crowd. In this
>> experiment, Champeny and Moon placed the source and receiver at
>> opposite ends of a rotating arm. The "relative transverse
>> velocity" is seemingly TWICE that of the previous setup, yet
>> the measured transverse Doppler shift is zero. So does this
>> disprove special relativity? Of course not!
>
> I had forgotten this. Do you have a reference for Champeny and Moon?
>
> Tom Roberts
Absence of Doppler Shift for Gamma Ray Source and Detector on Same
Circular Orbit
D C Champeney et al 1961 Proc. Phys. Soc. 77 350-352
|
| Show full article (1.27Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: JerryJerry Date: Feb 27, 2008 22:39
On Feb 27, 10:53 am, Uncle Al hate.spam.net> wrote:
> Like string theory with 10^1000 acceptable vacua and not single
> testable prediction, you pontificate but do not j\ustify. Parity
> Eotvos experiment and the parity calorimetry experiment net outputs...
|
| Show full article (2.00Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
|
|
|
Author: Uncle AlUncle Al Date: Feb 28, 2008 02:37
Jerry wrote:
>
> On Feb 27, 10:53 am, Uncle Al hate.spam.net> wrote:
> >> Like string theory with 10^1000 acceptable vacua and not single
>> testable prediction, you pontificate but do not j\ustify. Parity
>> Eotvos experiment and the parity calorimetry experiment net outputs
>> either null within experimental error or they do not. Do left and
>> right hands vacuum free fall identically? 80-year old orthodox theory
>> says both "no" (spacetime torsion tensor vanishes, pseudo-Riemannian
>> spacetime, V^4) and "yes" (spacetime curvature tensor vanishes,
>> Weitzenböck spacetime, A^4). Nobody has looked. Only one can be true.
>>
>> 1) If they null, that is the gold standard for 420+ years of EP and
>> Lorentz invariance testing. Nobody has basis for complaint.
>>
>> 2) If they do not null, Uncle Al is correct.
>>
>> Like the Church of Rome refusing to peer through Galileo's telescope
>> at four moons of Jupiter not orbiting the Earth, you value dogma over ...
|
| Show full article (3.67Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
|
|
