If lightspeed were constant to all frames

On Aug 18, 4:59*am, Tom Roberts wrote in
sci.physics.relativity:
Spaceman wrote:
If lightspeed was 186,000 miles per second to all frames
and it truly was not "relative" instead, Doppler effect would
never occur to lightwaves.

This is just plain wrong.

In SR, both the frequency and the wavelength of a given light beam (in
vacuum) depend on the inertial frame in which they are measured. But in
all frames the product wavelength*frequency is the same value, c.

Bravo Honest Roberts! It seems you believe that, in a gravitational
field, again, "the product wavelength*frequency is the same value, c",
but in this case you have a slightly different explanation:

http://groups.google.com/group/sci.p...2bf614c261e66c
Tom Roberts: "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."

Pentcho Valev

On 20 Aug, 11:17, Pentcho Valev wrote:
snip - endless variations on the same old material!

If anybody want proof of the problem then I guess Valev's 14,800+
postings – including 809 in July 2008 at an average of 26 per day -
might be enough!

Valev, posting so many minor variations of the same material would
seem to prove this!

Martin Nicholson
Daventry, UK

On Aug 20, 12:17*pm, Pentcho Valev wrote:
On Aug 18, 4:59*am, Tom Roberts wrote in
sci.physics.relativity:

Spaceman wrote:
If lightspeed was 186,000 miles per second to all frames
and it truly was not "relative" instead, Doppler effect would
never occur to lightwaves.

This is just plain wrong.

In SR, both the frequency and the wavelength of a given light beam (in
vacuum) depend on the inertial frame in which they are measured. But in
all frames the product wavelength*frequency is the same value, c.

Bravo Honest Roberts! It seems you believe that, in a gravitational
field, again, "the product wavelength*frequency is the same value, c",
but in this case you have a slightly different explanation:

http://groups.google.com/group/sci.p...2bf614c261e66c
Tom Roberts: "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."

So Honest Roberts "on earth" (that is, in the conditions of the Pound-
Rebka experiment) the speed of light is NOT c, simply because the 22-
meter Harvard tower is not in a "freely falling reference frame", as
Master Steve Carlip explains to you:

http://groups.google.com/group/sci.p...eddf24b59b0840
Master Steve Carlip: "In special relativity, the speed of light is
constant when measured in any *inertial* frame. In general
relativity, the appropriate generalization is that the speed of light
is constant in any freely falling reference frame (in a region small
enough that tidal effects can be neglected). In this passage, Einstein
is not talking about a freely falling frame, but rather about a frame
at rest relative to a source of gravity. In such a frame, the speed
of light can differ from c."

In other words Honest Roberts, the fact that Pound and Rebka have
measured the frequency shift to be:

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

means that they have indirectly measured the speed of light to be:

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

in accordance with Einstein's 1911 equation that you hate so much. Now
Honest Roberts try to think of the Doppler shift in an analogous way.

Pentcho Valev

ukastronomy wrote:
On 20 Aug, 11:17, Pentcho Valev wrote:
snip - endless variations on the same old material!

If anybody want proof of the problem then I guess Valev's 14,800+
postings – including 809 in July 2008 at an average of 26 per day -
might be enough!

Valev, posting so many minor variations of the same material would
seem to prove this!

Martin Nicholson
Daventry, UK



Goodbye, Martin.