Prev: HAUNTING EQUATIONS FOR CURRENT MATHEMATICS X^n +X^n=n^X (previous post), TOWARDS A SIMPLE , NON- BRAINER PROOF OF FLT FROM HOPE RESEARCH
Next: I want someone to discuss some interesting problems in axiomaticset theory with
From: Archimedes Plutonium on 2 Jun 2010 01:46


Enrico wrote:
> On Jun 1, 11:12 am, Archimedes Plutonium
> <plutonium.archime...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> > Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> > > Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> > > > Enrico wrote:
> > > > (snipped)
> >
> > > > > "The frequency of the photon "falling" towards the bottom of the tower
> > > > > is blueshifted. Pound and Rebka countered the gravitational blueshift
> > > > > by moving the emittor away from the receiver, thus generating a
> > > > > relativistic Doppler redshift:"
> >
> > > > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pound-Rebka_experiment
> >
> > > > >                            Enrico
> >
> > > --- quoting from Wikipedia of the actual experiment itself ---
> > > The test was carried out at Harvard University's Jefferson laboratory..
> > > A solid sample containing iron (57Fe) emitting gamma rays was placed
> > > in the center of a loudspeaker cone which was placed near the roof of
> > > the building. Another sample containing 57Fe was placed in the
> > > basement. The distance between this source and absorber was 22.5
> > > meters (73.8 ft). The gamma rays traveled through a Mylar bag filled
> > > with helium to minimize scattering of the gamma rays. A scintillation
> > > counter was placed below the receiving 57Fe sample to detect the gamma
> > > rays that were not absorbed by the receiving sample. By vibrating the
> > > speaker cone the gamma ray source moved with varying speed, thus
> > > creating varying Doppler shifts. When the Doppler shift canceled out
> > > the gravitational blueshift, the receiving sample absorbed gamma rays
> > > and the number of gamma rays detected by the scintillation counter
> > > dropped accordingly.
> > > --- end quoting ---
> >
> > > Enrico, correct me if I am wrong, but the above sounds to me like a
> > > case in which
> > > you have two refractors. Where you have photons hitting one refractor,
> > > then those
> > > refracted photons hitting a second refractor to restore what Pound and
> > > Rebka
> > > wanted to restore.
> >
> > > Correct me if wrong, but the above Pound and Rebka Experiment is
> > > reproducable
> > > by me in my own experiment of the Fiberglass panel in which I look at
> > > oncoming
> > > headlights of cars. They are redshifted. But now, suppose I find the
> > > second Fiberglass
> > > panel that refracts and scatters (scattering is an awfully important
> > > feature of Pound
> > > and Rebka and of mine own fiberglass). But suppose I find the
> > > fiberglass panel
> > > that counteracts the refraction and scattering of the first panel?
> >
> > > So I suspect that my own fiberglass panel experiment is a duplication
> > > of Pound and
> > > Rebka, only that Pound and Rebka have the theory all wrong and in
> > > error.
> >
> > Aha!, I think I found the flaw in the Pound/Rebka Experiment. The
> > reliance
> > on the Mylar bag full of helium. It is a refractor. So can this
> > experiment ever
> > be performed without a refractor?? No. It is totally reliant on
> > refracting the
> > gamma rays. What Pound and Rebka were experimenting with was
> > refraction
> > and scattering physics, not what they thought was gravity and doppler
> > shift.
> >
> > The Pound and Rebka Experiment is a experiment into the ability to
> > refract,
> > scatter photons and says almost nothing about gravity nor Doppler
> > shift.
> >
> > It is and was an exercise experiment into the refraction of light
> > waves, not of
> > the gravity or Doppler effect on light waves.
> >
> > And I can see and understand why noone picked that up or picked that
> > out,
> > that innocent error. When you are looking for something that you
> > expect to
> > find at the end of an experiment, you can easily rig the experiment,
> > not knowing
> > you rigged the experiment and get your end result that you wished for.
> > If you
> > eliminate the Mylar bag full of helium, then there is no Pound & Rebka
> > Experiment
> > on _supposed gravity and doppler shift_.
> >
> > This Pound and Rebka experiment was a refraction and scattering
> > experiment all
> > along.
> >
> > Archimedes Plutoniumhttp://www.iw.net/~a_plutonium/
> > whole entire Universe is just one big atom
> > where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies- Hide quoted text -
> >
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> ============================================================
>
> >
> > Aha!, I think I found the flaw in the Pound/Rebka Experiment. The
> > reliance
> > on the Mylar bag full of helium. It is a refractor. So can this
> > experiment ever
> > be performed without a refractor?? No. It is totally reliant on
> > refracting the
> > gamma rays. What Pound and Rebka were experimenting with was
> > refraction
> > and scattering physics, not what they thought was gravity and doppler
> > shift.
> >
>
> Try here:
> http://groups.google.com/group/sci.math/browse_frm/thread/e5ba6e339fc7f3b2/dbe60195873f75ec#dbe60195873f75ec
>
> Scroll down halfway thru the document and see:
>
> "
> Introduction:
> Doppler Shift
> An experimental shift similar in scale to the hyperfine splitting is
> that of
> the Doppler shift. If a nucleus is moving when it decays, the energy
> of the
> emitted gamma rays will be shifted. If it is moving toward an
> absorber, higher
> energy gamma rays will be seen at the absorber. If it is moving away
> from the
> absorber, lower energy gamma rays will be seen. This Doppler shift
> changes the
> gamma ray energy by an amount
> "

Enrico, the principle of Special Relativity as stated by Halliday and
Resnick
pages 953 and 954, Fundamentals of Physics, 1988.

I am quoting:

" 1. The Postulate of Relativity: The laws of physics are the same for
observers
in all inertial reference frames. No frame is singled out as
preferred."

" 2. The Postulate of the Speed of Light. The speed of light in free
space has the
same value c in all directions and in all inertial reference frames."

Now the question is, that sound does have a Doppler shift effect for
there is no
Special Relativity of Sound waves. But, light waves does obey Special
Relativity,
so here the question is, can we have a Doppler shift effect on light
waves
yet still obey Special Relativity?

That was my question Enrico. For I suspect, those two are
contradictory, yet
noone in physics was really smart enough to see that. That light waves
do not Doppler shift.

Now how do I prove that? Well, it is not easy, in fact, it is
difficult, because the
human mind is foreign to Quantum Mechanics and can only tease out the
truth
in little parcels. We cannot see the 4th dimension, nor can we even
see Elliptic
geometry 3rd dimension, so to tease out that light waves cannot be
Doppler shifted
due to Special Relativity is as difficult as trying to see the 4th
dimension.

But I think the proof goes in this manner, Enrico.

Tentative proof that the Doppler Shift is only for sound waves and
never for
light waves: We know that speed is distance divided by time. We know
that
momentum involves speed. We know that the quantum canonical conjugates
of momentum and position are replaceable with energy and time. So the
arguement would go that since speed of light is a constant in Special
Relativity,
we can replace the speed with that of energy and frequency. So in
essence,
Special Relativity holds the frequency of light waves a constant. And
so a Doppler
shift of frequency violates Special Relativity.

The Doppler Effect in physics was never meant to spill over into
light, nor into
quantum mechanics. The Doppler Effect exists only for sound waves and
other
waves but never light waves.



>
> <Math garbled by copy/paste>
> DE = vE0
> c
> ( 7)
> <,\Math>
>
> "
> where v is the speed of the source. (For a derivation, see [3].)
>
> Exercise 6: Estimate the velocity needed to counteract the hyperfine
> splitting
> in Fe57 using the result of Exercise 5.
> Materials and
> "
>
> This looks like a physics lab exercise.
>
> Scroll down to the procedure section and see:
>
> "
> III. Insert Source
> A. Use Pb gloves and tongs
> B. Turn off constant acceleration drive
> C. Screw on source
> D. Turn on constant acceleration drive
> E. Adjust gain and frequency to just below high frequency tone
> "
>
> I don't see any mylar bag of helium or any other refractors.
>
> If you need more details of this experiment, you might be
> able to get them from the university - UCSB (?)
> or the references at the end of the document.
>
>
> Enrico

Enrico, my reading of the Pound & Rebka Experiment as in the Wikipedia
write up:

--- quoting from Wikipedia of the actual experiment itself ---
The test was carried out at Harvard University's Jefferson
laboratory.
A solid sample containing iron (57Fe) emitting gamma rays was placed
in the center of a loudspeaker cone which was placed near the roof
of
the building. Another sample containing 57Fe was placed in the
basement. The distance between this source and absorber was 22.5
meters (73.8 ft). The gamma rays traveled through a Mylar bag filled
with helium to minimize scattering of the gamma rays. A
scintillation
counter was placed below the receiving 57Fe sample to detect the
gamma
rays that were not absorbed by the receiving sample. By vibrating
the
speaker cone the gamma ray source moved with varying speed, thus
creating varying Doppler shifts. When the Doppler shift canceled out
the gravitational blueshift, the receiving sample absorbed gamma
rays
and the number of gamma rays detected by the scintillation counter
dropped accordingly.
--- end quoting ---

Is that all such experiments have to cancel out the gravitational
blueshift by
the Doppler shift. And that the only way to proceed in this
cancellation is to
eliminate the scattering and to focus those photons and this is done
by
** refraction**. So all such Pound/Rebka experiments use a refraction.

As you can read, they used a mylar bag of helium to focus and to
elminate scattering. And all such experiments following Pound and
Rebka
used refraction for this cancellation. So in effect, the Pound Rebka
Experiment was never about Doppler shifting of light waves but rather
simply a refraction and scattering experiment of light waves.

So, let me try to explain how Dirac Positron Space as gravity explains
the
Pound/Rebka Experiment. The space in the Experiment has x number of
positron space. Those positrons are fewer than the atoms of normal
matter
that occupy that space. But the positrons are attracted electrically
to the
atoms in that space, and attracted 10^-40 of a Coulomb attraction.
This
Coulomb gravity as the gamma rays in the experiment travel in that
space
are deflected by the Positron gravity Space. And so there never was a
Doppler shift in the experiment, but only a refraction, and possibly a
scattering.


Archimedes Plutonium
http://www.iw.net/~a_plutonium/
whole entire Universe is just one big atom
where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies
From: Enrico on 2 Jun 2010 09:45
On Jun 1, 11:46 pm, Archimedes Plutonium
<plutonium.archime...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> Enrico wrote:
> > On Jun 1, 11:12 am, Archimedes Plutonium
> > <plutonium.archime...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> > > > Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> > > > > Enrico wrote:
> > > > > (snipped)
>
> > > > > > "The frequency of the photon "falling" towards the bottom of the tower
> > > > > > is blueshifted. Pound and Rebka countered the gravitational blueshift
> > > > > > by moving the emittor away from the receiver, thus generating a
> > > > > > relativistic Doppler redshift:"
>
> > > > > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pound-Rebka_experiment
>
> > > > > >                            Enrico
>
> > > > --- quoting from Wikipedia of the actual experiment itself ---
> > > > The test was carried out at Harvard University's Jefferson laboratory.
> > > > A solid sample containing iron (57Fe) emitting gamma rays was placed
> > > > in the center of a loudspeaker cone which was placed near the roof of
> > > > the building. Another sample containing 57Fe was placed in the
> > > > basement. The distance between this source and absorber was 22.5
> > > > meters (73.8 ft). The gamma rays traveled through a Mylar bag filled
> > > > with helium to minimize scattering of the gamma rays. A scintillation
> > > > counter was placed below the receiving 57Fe sample to detect the gamma
> > > > rays that were not absorbed by the receiving sample. By vibrating the
> > > > speaker cone the gamma ray source moved with varying speed, thus
> > > > creating varying Doppler shifts. When the Doppler shift canceled out
> > > > the gravitational blueshift, the receiving sample absorbed gamma rays
> > > > and the number of gamma rays detected by the scintillation counter
> > > > dropped accordingly.
> > > > --- end quoting ---
>
> > > > Enrico, correct me if I am wrong, but the above sounds to me like a
> > > > case in which
> > > > you have two refractors. Where you have photons hitting one refractor,
> > > > then those
> > > > refracted photons hitting a second refractor to restore what Pound and
> > > > Rebka
> > > > wanted to restore.
>
> > > > Correct me if wrong, but the above Pound and Rebka Experiment is
> > > > reproducable
> > > > by me in my own experiment of the Fiberglass panel in which I look at
> > > > oncoming
> > > > headlights of cars. They are redshifted. But now, suppose I find the
> > > > second Fiberglass
> > > > panel that refracts and scatters (scattering is an awfully important
> > > > feature of Pound
> > > > and Rebka and of mine own fiberglass). But suppose I find the
> > > > fiberglass panel
> > > > that counteracts the refraction and scattering of the first panel?
>
> > > > So I suspect that my own fiberglass panel experiment is a duplication
> > > > of Pound and
> > > > Rebka, only that Pound and Rebka have the theory all wrong and in
> > > > error.
>
> > > Aha!, I think I found the flaw in the Pound/Rebka Experiment. The
> > > reliance
> > > on the Mylar bag full of helium. It is a refractor. So can this
> > > experiment ever
> > > be performed without a refractor?? No. It is totally reliant on
> > > refracting the
> > > gamma rays. What Pound and Rebka were experimenting with was
> > > refraction
> > > and scattering physics, not what they thought was gravity and doppler
> > > shift.
>
> > > The Pound and Rebka Experiment is a experiment into the ability to
> > > refract,
> > > scatter photons and says almost nothing about gravity nor Doppler
> > > shift.
>
> > > It is and was an exercise experiment into the refraction of light
> > > waves, not of
> > > the gravity or Doppler effect on light waves.
>
> > > And I can see and understand why noone picked that up or picked that
> > > out,
> > > that innocent error. When you are looking for something that you
> > > expect to
> > > find at the end of an experiment, you can easily rig the experiment,
> > > not knowing
> > > you rigged the experiment and get your end result that you wished for..
> > > If you
> > > eliminate the Mylar bag full of helium, then there is no Pound & Rebka
> > > Experiment
> > > on _supposed gravity and doppler shift_.
>
> > > This Pound and Rebka experiment was a refraction and scattering
> > > experiment all
> > > along.
>
> > > Archimedes Plutoniumhttp://www.iw.net/~a_plutonium/
> > > whole entire Universe is just one big atom
> > > where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > ============================================================
>
> > > Aha!, I think I found the flaw in the Pound/Rebka Experiment. The
> > > reliance
> > > on the Mylar bag full of helium. It is a refractor. So can this
> > > experiment ever
> > > be performed without a refractor?? No. It is totally reliant on
> > > refracting the
> > > gamma rays. What Pound and Rebka were experimenting with was
> > > refraction
> > > and scattering physics, not what they thought was gravity and doppler
> > > shift.
>
> > Try here:
> >http://groups.google.com/group/sci.math/browse_frm/thread/e5ba6e339fc...
>
> > Scroll down halfway thru the document and see:
>
> > "
> > Introduction:
> > Doppler Shift
> > An experimental shift similar in scale to the hyperfine splitting is
> > that of
> > the Doppler shift. If a nucleus is moving when it decays, the energy
> > of the
> > emitted gamma rays will be shifted. If it is moving toward an
> > absorber, higher
> > energy gamma rays will be seen at the absorber. If it is moving away
> > from the
> > absorber, lower energy gamma rays will be seen. This Doppler shift
> > changes the
> > gamma ray energy by an amount
> > "
>
> Enrico, the principle of Special Relativity as stated by Halliday and
> Resnick
> pages 953 and 954, Fundamentals of Physics, 1988.
>
> I am quoting:
>
> " 1. The Postulate of Relativity: The laws of physics are the same for
> observers
> in all inertial reference frames. No frame is singled out as
> preferred."
>
> " 2. The Postulate of the Speed of Light. The speed of light in free
> space has the
> same value c in all directions and in all inertial reference frames."
>
> Now the question is, that sound does have a Doppler shift effect for
> there is no
> Special Relativity of Sound waves. But, light waves does obey Special
> Relativity,
> so here the question is, can we have a Doppler shift effect on light
> waves
> yet still obey Special Relativity?
>
> That was my question Enrico. For I suspect, those two are
> contradictory, yet
> noone in physics was really smart enough to see that. That light waves
> do not Doppler shift.
>
> Now how do I prove that? Well, it is not easy, in fact, it is
> difficult, because the
> human mind is foreign to Quantum Mechanics and can only tease out the
> truth
> in little parcels. We cannot see the 4th dimension, nor can we even
> see Elliptic
> geometry 3rd dimension, so to tease out that light waves cannot be
> Doppler shifted
> due to Special Relativity is as difficult as trying to see the 4th
> dimension.
>
> But I think the proof goes in this manner, Enrico.
>
> Tentative proof that the Doppler Shift is only for sound waves and
> never for
> light waves:  We know that speed is distance divided by time. We know
> that
> momentum involves speed. We know that the quantum canonical conjugates
> of momentum and position are replaceable with energy and time. So the
> arguement would go that since speed of light is a constant in Special
> Relativity,
> we can replace the speed with that of energy and frequency. So in
> essence,
> Special Relativity holds the frequency of light waves a constant. And
> so a Doppler
> shift of frequency violates Special Relativity.
>
> The Doppler Effect in physics was never meant to spill over into
> light, nor into
> quantum mechanics. The Doppler Effect exists only for sound waves and
> other
> waves but never light waves.
>
>
>
> > <Math garbled by copy/paste>
> > DE = vE0
> > c
> > ( 7)
> > <,\Math>
>
> > "
> > where v is the speed of the source. (For a derivation, see [3].)
>
> > Exercise 6: Estimate the velocity needed to counteract the hyperfine
> > splitting
> > in Fe57 using the result of Exercise 5.
> > Materials and
> > "
>
> > This looks like a physics lab exercise.
>
> > Scroll down to the procedure section and see:
>
> > "
> > III. Insert Source
> > A. Use Pb gloves and tongs
> > B. Turn off constant acceleration drive
> > C. Screw on source
> > D. Turn on constant acceleration drive
> > E. Adjust gain and frequency to just below high frequency tone
> > "
>
> > I don't see any mylar bag of helium or any other refractors.
>
> > If you need more details of this experiment, you might be
> > able to get them from the university - UCSB (?)
> > or the references at the end of the document.
>
> >                                Enrico
>
> Enrico, my reading of the Pound & Rebka Experiment as in the Wikipedia
> write up:
>
> --- quoting from Wikipedia of the actual experiment itself ---
>  The test was carried out at Harvard University's Jefferson
> laboratory.
>  A solid sample containing iron (57Fe) emitting gamma rays was placed
>  in the center of a loudspeaker cone which was placed near the roof
> of
>  the building. Another sample containing 57Fe was placed in the
>  basement. The distance between this source and absorber was 22.5
>  meters (73.8 ft). The gamma rays traveled through a Mylar bag filled
>  with helium to minimize scattering of the gamma rays. A
> scintillation
>  counter was placed below the receiving 57Fe sample to detect the
> gamma
>  rays that were not absorbed by the receiving sample. By vibrating
> the
>  speaker cone the gamma ray source moved with varying speed, thus
>  creating varying Doppler shifts. When the Doppler shift canceled out
>  the gravitational blueshift, the receiving sample absorbed gamma
> rays
>  and the number of gamma rays detected by the scintillation counter
>  dropped accordingly.
>  --- end quoting ---
>
> Is that all such experiments have to cancel out the gravitational
> blueshift by
> the Doppler shift. And that the only way to proceed in this
> cancellation is to
> eliminate the scattering and to focus those photons and this is done
> by
> ** refraction**. So all such Pound/Rebka experiments use a refraction.
>
> As you can read, they used a mylar bag of helium to focus and to
> elminate scattering. And all such experiments following Pound and
> Rebka
> used refraction for this cancellation. So in effect, the Pound Rebka
> Experiment was never about Doppler shifting of light waves but rather
> simply a refraction and scattering experiment of light waves.
>
> So, let me try to explain how Dirac Positron Space as gravity explains
> the
> Pound/Rebka Experiment. The space in the Experiment has x number of
> positron space. Those positrons are fewer than the atoms of normal
> matter
> that occupy that space. But the positrons are attracted electrically
> to the
> atoms in that space, and attracted 10^-40 of a Coulomb attraction.
> This
> Coulomb gravity as the gamma rays in the experiment travel in that
> space
> are deflected by the Positron gravity Space. And so there never was a
> Doppler shift in the experiment, but only a refraction, and possibly a
> scattering.
>
> Archimedes Plutoniumhttp://www.iw.net/~a_plutonium/
> whole entire Universe is just one big atom
> where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies

==============================================================

Oops. Wrong URL on my last post. Should have been:

http://www.physics.ucsb.edu/~phys128/experiments/mossbauer/mossbauer.pdf

Sorry about the confusion.



Enrico
 | 
Pages: 1
Prev: HAUNTING EQUATIONS FOR CURRENT MATHEMATICS X^n +X^n=n^X (previous post), TOWARDS A SIMPLE , NON- BRAINER PROOF OF FLT FROM HOPE RESEARCH
Next: I want someone to discuss some interesting problems in axiomaticset theory with