Pound-Rebka revisited

On 27 Aug, 17:36, Dono wrote in
sci.physics.relativity:
On Aug 27, 8:18 am, Dono wrote:

Looking at a very good paper on Pound-Rebka :

http://luth2.obspm.fr/IHP06/lectures...avRedshift.pdf

one question comes to mind: why isn't the time dilation between the
top and the bottom of the tower taken into calculation? The speeds of
the top and bottom of the tower are unequal:

omega*R at the bottom vs. omega*(R+H) at the top. So, following the
reasoning used by Ashby in his GPS paper (where h is much larger, of
course) the authors should have calculated the effect of time
dilation. What would that effect have amounted to?

Following the calculations showed in wiki he

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proper_..._rotating_disk

, one would obtain:

dT=dTau/sqrt(1-((omega*R)/c)^2) at the bottom of the tower

dT'=dTau/sqrt(1-((omega*(R+h))/c)^2) at the top of the tower

So:

dT'/dT=sqrt(1-((omega*R)/c)^2)/sqrt(1-((omega*(R+h))/c)^2)

Yes? No? Too simplistic? Good enough?

Too silly. Zombies should not even mention the rotating disk because
"in an accelerated system (like a rotating disk), geometry is
INHERENTLY AMBIGUOUS":

http://groups.google.ca/group/sci.ph...0c6f27f1d6be1?
Master Tom Roberts: "As I keep stressing: in an accelerated system
(like a rotating disk), geometry is INHERENTLY AMBIGUOUS. You can get
whatever answer you want by defining differently what you mean by
"circumference of the rotating disk".

Pentcho Valev