The Naked Scientists
  • Login
  • Register
  • Podcasts
      • The Naked Scientists
      • eLife
      • Naked Genetics
      • Naked Astronomy
      • In short
      • Naked Neuroscience
      • Ask! The Naked Scientists
      • Question of the Week
      • Archive
      • Video
      • SUBSCRIBE to our Podcasts
  • Articles
      • Science News
      • Features
      • Interviews
      • Answers to Science Questions
  • Get Naked
      • Donate
      • Do an Experiment
      • Science Forum
      • Ask a Question
  • About
      • Meet the team
      • Our Sponsors
      • Site Map
      • Contact us

User menu

  • Login
  • Register
  • Home
  • Help
  • Search
  • Tags
  • Member Map
  • Recent Topics
  • Login
  • Register
  1. Naked Science Forum
  2. Non Life Sciences
  3. Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology
  4. Are NIST 2010 ground relativity test results exactly as relativity predicts?
« previous next »
  • Print
Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5]   Go Down

Are NIST 2010 ground relativity test results exactly as relativity predicts?

  • 88 Replies
  • 17646 Views
  • 0 Tags

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • ********
  • 11395
  • Activity:
    100%
  • Thanked: 669 times
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
Re: Are NIST 2010 ground relativity test results exactly as relativity predicts?
« Reply #80 on: 20/11/2016 00:21:39 »
Except that you cannot describe a receiver as a source, pertinently or otherwise, the answer is yes. 

Poster:
"I've got a new cyclic model of the universe, can someone help me with the maths?'

Physicist:
"never mind the maths, what are your underpinning assumptions and testable predictions?"
Logged
helping to stem the tide of ignorance
 



Offline timey (OP)

  • Naked Science Forum King!
  • ******
  • 2439
  • Activity:
    0%
  • Thanked: 26 times
  • Self educated since age 11 at "University of Life"
    • View Profile
Re: Are NIST 2010 ground relativity test results exactly as relativity predicts?
« Reply #81 on: 20/11/2016 01:02:24 »
Just to be absolutely sure that you have answered the question Alan...

Do the maths of the Pound Rebka, in relation to the Mossbauer effect, take into account that the emitting source is blue shifted at top of tower relative to the frequency the same source would be emitting at when located at bottom of tower?

Because I'm pretty sure (but I could be wrong) that Relativity does 'not' predict that atoms have higher energy, or emit higher energy photons at elevation, relative to the energy they have, or the photons they emit in a lower gravity potential.
I'm pretty sure that Relativity does predict that an observation of light arriving from an elevated frame of reference will be blue shifted from the perspective of an observer in the lower frame.  This being because the observer can only observe light when it arrives in his own frame of reference...  But nowhere did I read that an atom would have a blue shifted frequency at elevation relative to that which it would have in a lower frame of reference.

(I've told you my theory and its predictions.  You said show me the physics)
Logged
Particles are very helpful, they lend themselves to everything...
 

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • ********
  • 11395
  • Activity:
    100%
  • Thanked: 669 times
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
Re: Are NIST 2010 ground relativity test results exactly as relativity predicts?
« Reply #82 on: 20/11/2016 09:13:57 »
You are almost absolutely correct. To be pedantic, the photon is blue shifted "from", not "at" the top of the tower.

The stuff you say you never read, is nonsense, which is why you never read it.
Logged
helping to stem the tide of ignorance
 
The following users thanked this post: Ethos_

Offline timey (OP)

  • Naked Science Forum King!
  • ******
  • 2439
  • Activity:
    0%
  • Thanked: 26 times
  • Self educated since age 11 at "University of Life"
    • View Profile
Re: Are NIST 2010 ground relativity test results exactly as relativity predicts?
« Reply #83 on: 20/11/2016 11:23:56 »
Quote from: alancalverd on 20/11/2016 09:13:57
You are almost absolutely correct. To be pedantic, the photon is blue shifted "from", not "at" the top of the tower.

The stuff you say you never read, is nonsense, which is why you never read it.

But the clock IS blue shifted 'at' elevation... (this has been the whole point of the thread)

Why does physics think that the gamma ray source will 'not' be blue shifted at top of tower?

(It may be that Relativity didn't predict that atoms are blue shifted in elevation, but it is most certainly not nonsense that they are because it is proven by the NIST experiment...  And if a cesium atom is blue shifted at elevation, a gamma ray source will be as well.)
Logged
Particles are very helpful, they lend themselves to everything...
 

Offline Colin2B

  • Global Moderator
  • Naked Science Forum King!
  • ********
  • 5269
  • Activity:
    9%
  • Thanked: 438 times
    • View Profile
Re: Are NIST 2010 ground relativity test results exactly as relativity predicts?
« Reply #84 on: 20/11/2016 11:54:14 »
Quote from: Nilak on 19/11/2016 23:48:40
If two persons have contradictory opinions about something, one of them will think like the other need to study some more to understant the phenomenon. Obviously, the other will think the same way.

Quote from: timey on 20/11/2016 11:23:56
But the clock IS blue shifted 'at' elevation... (this has been the whole point of the thread)
Not from our point of view. We were trying to convince you that it isn't blue shifted 'at elevation'.

Quote from: timey on 20/11/2016 11:23:56
Why does physics think that the gamma ray source will 'not' be blue shifted at top of tower?
Sorry, I'm not going to fall into the trap of trying to explain again. You asked me not to and it seems to irritate you when I do.

Quote from: timey on 20/11/2016 11:23:56
(It may be that Relativity didn't predict that atoms are blue shifted in elevation, but it is most certainly not nonsense that they are because it is proven by the NIST experiment...  And if a cesium atom is blue shifted at elevation, a gamma ray source will be as well.)
NIST did not prove this. The Al ion was not blue shifted in its frame at elevation.


Logged
and the misguided shall lead the gullible,
the feebleminded have inherited the earth.
 



Offline Ethos_

  • Naked Science Forum King!
  • ******
  • 1332
  • Activity:
    0%
  • Thanked: 17 times
    • View Profile
Re: Are NIST 2010 ground relativity test results exactly as relativity predicts?
« Reply #85 on: 20/11/2016 22:40:16 »
Quote from: alancalverd on 20/11/2016 09:13:57
You are almost absolutely correct. To be pedantic, the photon is blue shifted "from", not "at" the top of the tower.
While some may view this point as "pedant"or trivial, the designation of "from", not "at" is the very problem one of us has regarding their view about the accuracy of relativity.
Quote from: alancalverd
The stuff you say you never read, is nonsense, which is why you never read it.
And is also the reason they resist considering the difference between "from" and "at" when forming their rationalizations about that accuracy.

As usual, Alan is direct, correct, and efficient with his answers.
Logged
"The more things change, the more they remain the same."
 

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • ********
  • 11395
  • Activity:
    100%
  • Thanked: 669 times
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
Re: Are NIST 2010 ground relativity test results exactly as relativity predicts?
« Reply #86 on: 21/11/2016 00:30:53 »
For the umpteenth time, all the clocks and gamma sources that have been used to test GR and SR have given exactly the same result, yet they all generate their signals by different mechanisms, none of which is determined by the local gravitational potential.

Relativistic effects are exactly that: effects due to the relative gravitational potential and/or speed of source and receiver.
Logged
helping to stem the tide of ignorance
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 28411
  • Activity:
    100%
  • Thanked: 64 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: Are NIST 2010 ground relativity test results exactly as relativity predicts?
« Reply #87 on: 21/11/2016 20:29:36 »
Damn timey :)
You made us run, didn't you

The truth is simple.

you're the one measuring
Logged
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 28411
  • Activity:
    100%
  • Thanked: 64 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: Are NIST 2010 ground relativity test results exactly as relativity predicts?
« Reply #88 on: 21/11/2016 20:42:29 »
Now, what you need to prove is that those measurements doesn't fit.
Can you?
Logged
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."
 



  • Print
Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5]   Go Up
« previous next »
Tags:
 

Similar topics (5)

Where does the saying "acid test" come from?

Started by MissMontanaBoard That CAN'T be true!

Replies: 11
Views: 15386
Last post 04/04/2004 22:42:21
by MayoFlyFarmer
How to test rocks to see if gold looking stuff is really gold?

Started by huntin4goldBoard Geology, Palaeontology & Archaeology

Replies: 49
Views: 122533
Last post 03/03/2010 09:15:54
by yor_on
Why is blood a different RED when comparing a nosebleed to blood test vial?

Started by beemBoard Physiology & Medicine

Replies: 13
Views: 19083
Last post 03/02/2009 20:22:35
by beem
DO YOU REMEMBER BABY jESSICA, THE 1RST TEST TUBE BABY?

Started by Karen W.Board Physiology & Medicine

Replies: 10
Views: 6698
Last post 23/08/2019 15:03:41
by Karen W.
Can we conduct a climate model "acid test"?

Started by MarkPawelekBoard That CAN'T be true!

Replies: 79
Views: 11107
Last post 14/11/2019 21:45:35
by Bored chemist
There was an error while thanking
Thanking...
  • SMF 2.0.15 | SMF © 2017, Simple Machines
    Privacy Policy
    SMFAds for Free Forums
  • Naked Science Forum ©

Page created in 0.207 seconds with 56 queries.

  • Podcasts
  • Articles
  • Get Naked
  • About
  • Contact us
  • Advertise
  • Privacy Policy
  • Subscribe to newsletter
  • We love feedback

Follow us

cambridge_logo_footer.png

©The Naked Scientists® 2000–2017 | The Naked Scientists® and Naked Science® are registered trademarks created by Dr Chris Smith. Information presented on this website is the opinion of the individual contributors and does not reflect the general views of the administrators, editors, moderators, sponsors, Cambridge University or the public at large.