Pound Rebka
in [Physics]
|
Prev: Magnetron Experiments
Next: [DUMBS]: My Personal Observations and Viewpoints About a Variety of Subjects !
From: Dono on 28 Jan 2008 22:09 On Jan 28, 6:52 pm, "Max Keon" <maxk...(a)optusnet.com.au> wrote: http://www.helinium.nl/trolltech.gif
From: Jeckyl on 29 Jan 2008 00:12 "Max Keon" <maxkeon(a)optusnet.com.au> wrote in message news:479e9523$0$18606$afc38c87(a)news.optusnet.com.au... > > "Eric Gisse" <jowr.pi(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > news:a7476325-ebe0-458d-8e95-308d9602ce70(a)e4g2000hsg.googlegroups.com... >> On Jan 25, 1:53 pm, "Max Keon" <maxk...(a)optusnet.com.au> wrote: > >> [snip junk] > > You have my sympathy, but physics is the medium of truth and > truth will always prevail in the end. > >> There is no point in discussing equations that you have simply MADE >> UP. So what if observation disagrees with your made up equations? It >> wouldn't be the first time. > > Clock oscillators and the natural oscillators that generate > characteristic spectral lines have been proven to become > redshifted in a gravity well. Trying to explain the redshift as > lost energy due to a "photon's" climb from the well is absolutely > ridiculous. > > The clocks of the GPS prove beyond doubt that they _physically_ > run slower on the Earth's surface, What do you mean by '_physically_' ? And what do you mean slower .. GPS clocks run quicker in orbit then when on the earth (as observed from earth) Sounds like you've gotten something wrong there.
From: Jeckyl on 29 Jan 2008 00:17 "Jeckyl" <noone(a)nowhere.com> wrote in message news:13ptddbd5fmv604(a)corp.supernews.com... > "Max Keon" <maxkeon(a)optusnet.com.au> wrote in message > news:479e9523$0$18606$afc38c87(a)news.optusnet.com.au... >> >> "Eric Gisse" <jowr.pi(a)gmail.com> wrote in message >> news:a7476325-ebe0-458d-8e95-308d9602ce70(a)e4g2000hsg.googlegroups.com... >>> On Jan 25, 1:53 pm, "Max Keon" <maxk...(a)optusnet.com.au> wrote: >> >>> [snip junk] >> >> You have my sympathy, but physics is the medium of truth and >> truth will always prevail in the end. >> >>> There is no point in discussing equations that you have simply MADE >>> UP. So what if observation disagrees with your made up equations? It >>> wouldn't be the first time. >> >> Clock oscillators and the natural oscillators that generate >> characteristic spectral lines have been proven to become >> redshifted in a gravity well. Trying to explain the redshift as >> lost energy due to a "photon's" climb from the well is absolutely >> ridiculous. >> >> The clocks of the GPS prove beyond doubt that they _physically_ >> run slower on the Earth's surface, > > What do you mean by '_physically_' ? And what do you mean slower .. GPS > clocks run quicker in orbit then when on the earth (as observed from > earth) > Sounds like you've gotten something wrong there. Sorry .. I misread your post (so it was me that got something wrong :)) Yes .. the clock on the satellite is slower when on the earth than when in orbit (as observed from earth). Of course, within the satellite itself, there is no change in the clock .. it continues to tick at the same rate. So .. the question still remains: what do you mean by _physically_? Do you mean it is not some optical illusion (eg due to transit time of light signals etc)? Do you mean it is what we measure .. in which case what is 'physical' depends on your frame of reference? Or is there some deeper meaning to '_phsycally_'?
From: Max Keon on 31 Jan 2008 18:16 "Jeckyl" <noone(a)nowhere.com> wrote in message news:13ptdo21cbn3ra3(a)corp.supernews.com... > Jeckyl wrote: >> Max Keon wrote: >>> Clock oscillators and the natural oscillators that generate >>> characteristic spectral lines have been proven to become >>> redshifted in a gravity well. Trying to explain the redshift as >>> lost energy due to a "photon's" climb from the well is absolutely >>> ridiculous. >>> >>> The clocks of the GPS prove beyond doubt that they _physically_ >>> run slower on the Earth's surface, >> >> What do you mean by '_physically_' ? And what do you mean slower .. GPS >> clocks run quicker in orbit then when on the earth (as observed from >> earth) >> Sounds like you've gotten something wrong there. > Sorry .. I misread your post (so it was me that got something wrong :)) > > Yes .. the clock on the satellite is slower when on the earth than when in > orbit (as observed from earth). Of course, within the satellite itself, > there is no change in the clock .. it continues to tick at the same rate. > > So .. the question still remains: what do you mean by _physically_? Do you > mean it is not some optical illusion (eg due to transit time of light > signals etc)? Do you mean it is what we measure .. in which case what is > 'physical' depends on your frame of reference? Or is there some deeper > meaning to '_phsycally_'? _Every_ electronic interaction in the universe outside a proton-neutron physically runs slower in a gravity well, and that includes every electronic interaction that controls a life cycle rate. So nothing locally will appear to have changed. But the rest of the universe is now _physically_ running faster according to life in the gravity well. In a 300000 year old universe, how slow do you think everything would be _physically_ running compared to now? ----- Max Keon
From: Jeckyl on 31 Jan 2008 18:37
"Max Keon" <maxkeon(a)optusnet.com.au> wrote in message news:47a256f3$0$22049$afc38c87(a)news.optusnet.com.au... > > "Jeckyl" <noone(a)nowhere.com> wrote in message > news:13ptdo21cbn3ra3(a)corp.supernews.com... >> Jeckyl wrote: >>> Max Keon wrote: >>>> Clock oscillators and the natural oscillators that generate >>>> characteristic spectral lines have been proven to become >>>> redshifted in a gravity well. Trying to explain the redshift as >>>> lost energy due to a "photon's" climb from the well is absolutely >>>> ridiculous. >>>> >>>> The clocks of the GPS prove beyond doubt that they _physically_ >>>> run slower on the Earth's surface, >>> >>> What do you mean by '_physically_' ? And what do you mean slower .. GPS >>> clocks run quicker in orbit then when on the earth (as observed from >>> earth) >>> Sounds like you've gotten something wrong there. > >> Sorry .. I misread your post (so it was me that got something wrong :)) >> >> Yes .. the clock on the satellite is slower when on the earth than when >> in >> orbit (as observed from earth). Of course, within the satellite itself, >> there is no change in the clock .. it continues to tick at the same rate. >> >> So .. the question still remains: what do you mean by _physically_? Do > you >> mean it is not some optical illusion (eg due to transit time of light >> signals etc)? Do you mean it is what we measure .. in which case what is >> 'physical' depends on your frame of reference? Or is there some deeper >> meaning to '_phsycally_'? > > _Every_ electronic interaction in the universe outside a > proton-neutron physically runs slower in a gravity well, and that > includes every electronic interaction that controls a life cycle > rate. Yes > So nothing locally will appear to have changed. Yes > But the > rest of the universe is now _physically_ running faster according > to life in the gravity well. Yes > In a 300000 year old universe, how slow do you think everything > would be _physically_ running compared to now? Eh? |