| |
 |
|
|
Science Forum Index » Physics - Relativity Forum » Time dilation and expanding space
Page 2 of 2 Goto page Previous 1, 2
|
| Author |
Message |
| Sue... |
 Posted: Wed Feb 28, 2007 10:58 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Feb 28, 8:14 am, bz <bz+...@ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote:
Quote: "Sue..." <suzysewns...@yahoo.com.au> wrote innews:1172664755.521880.124120@v33g2000cwv.googlegroups.com:
On Feb 28, 5:55 am, bz <bz+...@ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote:
"Sue..." <suzysewns...@yahoo.com.au> wrote in
news:1172642156.376982.237460 @k78g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
The term nuclear-resonance is used by Pound-Snider
to describe a Mossbauer shift with altitude.
Are you sure that is how they used the term??
It is more likely that nuclear-resonance is used to describe the
Mossbauer effect itself, since the Mossbauer effect IS a nuclear
resonance effect.
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/nuclear/mossfe.html
"Effect of Gravity on Gamma Radiation"
http://prola.aps.org/abstract/PR/v140/i3B/pB788_1
Effect of Gravity on Nuclear Resonance
R. V. Pound and J. L. Snider
Lyman Laboratory of Physics, Harvard University,
Cambridge, Massachusetts
Received 24 September 1964
http://prola.aps.org/abstract/PRL/v13/i18/p539_1
" The classical phenomenon of the redshift of light in a
static gravitational potential, usually called the gravitational
redshift, is described in the literature essentially in two ways:
On the one hand, the phenomenon is explained through the
behavior of clocks which run faster the higher they are
located in the potential, whereas the energy and frequency
of the propagating photon do not change with height. The light
thus appears to be redshifted relative to the frequency of the
clock. On the other hand, the phenomenon is alternatively
discussed (even in some authoritative texts) in terms of an
energy loss of a photon as it overcomes the gravitational
attraction of the massive body. This second approach
operates with notions such as the "gravitational mass" or
the "potential energy" of a photon and we assert that it is
misleading. We do not claim to present any original ideas
or to give a comprehensive review of the subject, our goal
being essentially a pedagogical one.
The quote above, comes from your reference, below.>http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/9907017
On the Interpretation of the Redshift in a Static Gravitational Field
Authors: L.B. Okun (ITEP, Moscow), K.G. Selivanov (ITEP, Moscow), V.L.
Telegdi (EP Division, CERN)
I see NOTHING there suggesting that "The term nuclear-resonance is used by
Pound-Snider to describe a Mossbauer shift with altitude."
How many "F"s are there in Nuke-U-Lar?
"Effect of Gravity on Nuclear Resonance"
R. V. Pound and J. L. Snider
Lyman Laboratory of Physics,
Harvard University, Cambridge,
Massachusetts
Received 24 September 1964
http://prola.aps.org/abstract/PRL/v13/i18/p539_1
Quote:
Okun et al ALSO seem to discount "gravitational mass" or "potential energy"
as an explanation for the shift, saying "we assert that it is misleading."
I am surprised that you cited them because I thought that was your horse. I
thought you were against the 'clock speed' explaination for the red shift
that they seem to favor.
The "falling photon" is what is absurd. Slower motion in the
surface clock is completly consistant with inertial behavior.
Aparently the absurdity wasn't generally recognised
untill a few GPS SVs demonstrated consistancy in the
launch presets. As Okun explains, the acceptance of
the absurdity was wide-spread in academia:
"even in some authoritative texts"
Sue... |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Tom Roberts |
| Posted: Wed Feb 28, 2007 11:28 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Robert Karl Stonjek wrote:
Quote: "Tom Roberts" <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:qS8Fh.175$iw4.7@newssvr23.news.prodigy.net...
Robert Karl Stonjek wrote:
The frequency of light is like a clock in itself - if the frequency is
lower then the clock at the source is slower as measured by an observer
who also measures that redshift. [...]
This is true regardless of the cause of redshift
Not true. Doppler shift is a different relationship than "time
dilation". And you completely ignore the possibility that an observer
can measure a BLUEshift....
I don't see how the frequency of light can be lower at the destination than
the source without all other observations of the source indicating that the
clocks are running slower
The usual method of measuring redshift would not work if what you claim
were true. In order to measure the redshift of a distant galaxy one must
ASSUME that frequencies of atomic lines in that galaxy are THE SAME as
they are here on earth. That directly implies that atomic clocks there
run at the same rate as identical atomic clocks here.
Of course in GR that assumption is valid.
In some sense you are double counting. If redshift corresponded to clock
slowing at the source, you would not obtain the correct values.... And
of course for BLUE-shifted light your claim breaks down completely. In
simplified terms, the Doppler shift due to relative motion is first
order in v/c, while the "time dilation" is second order in v/c; so the
EM signal from an approaching clock is BLUE-shifted even though its
"time dilation" goes the other way.
Quote: I don't see how it can be otherwise.
It cannot be as you claim and still agree with observations. And of
course GR simply predicts otherwise. In GR, every clock ticks at its
usual rate wherever it is located and however it might be moving.
Measurements of red- and blue-shifts of EM signals sent from the clock
will vary depending on the relative motion of source clock+emitter and
receiver detector+clock, plus the difference in "gravitational
potential" between them.
Light is NOT a "clock". Period. But the phase function of a light wave
is an invariant 4-vector function on the manifold (this is the wave
optics approximation to Maxwell's equations). That invariance directly
relates to the observed local invariance of c and the measured
relationships among c, frequency, and wavelength.
Your claim being valid would destroy those relationships. So you need to
improve your ability to imagine things which are unfamiliar to you.
Tom Roberts |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Sue... |
| Posted: Wed Feb 28, 2007 12:39 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Feb 28, 10:58 am, bz <bz+...@ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote:
Quote: "Sue..." <suzysewns...@yahoo.com.au> wrote innews:1172674722.461052.259920@m58g2000cwm.googlegroups.com:
On Feb 28, 8:14 am, bz <bz+...@ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote:
"Sue..." <suzysewns...@yahoo.com.au> wrote
innews:1172664755.521880.124120@v33g2000cwv.googlegroups.com:
On Feb 28, 5:55 am, bz <bz+...@ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote:
"Sue..." <suzysewns...@yahoo.com.au> wrote in
news:1172642156.376982.237460 @k78g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
The term nuclear-resonance is used by Pound-Snider
to describe a Mossbauer shift with altitude.
Are you sure that is how they used the term??
It is more likely that nuclear-resonance is used to describe the
Mossbauer effect itself, since the Mossbauer effect IS a nuclear
resonance effect.
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/nuclear/mossfe.html
"Effect of Gravity on Gamma Radiation"
http://prola.aps.org/abstract/PR/v140/i3B/pB788_1
Effect of Gravity on Nuclear Resonance
R. V. Pound and J. L. Snider
Lyman Laboratory of Physics, Harvard University,
Cambridge, Massachusetts
Received 24 September 1964
http://prola.aps.org/abstract/PRL/v13/i18/p539_1
" The classical phenomenon of the redshift of light in a
static gravitational potential, usually called the gravitational
redshift, is described in the literature essentially in two ways:
On the one hand, the phenomenon is explained through the
behavior of clocks which run faster the higher they are
located in the potential, whereas the energy and frequency
of the propagating photon do not change with height. The light
thus appears to be redshifted relative to the frequency of the
clock. On the other hand, the phenomenon is alternatively
discussed (even in some authoritative texts) in terms of an
energy loss of a photon as it overcomes the gravitational
attraction of the massive body. This second approach
operates with notions such as the "gravitational mass" or
the "potential energy" of a photon and we assert that it is
misleading. We do not claim to present any original ideas
or to give a comprehensive review of the subject, our goal
being essentially a pedagogical one.
The quote above, comes from your reference,
below.>http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/9907017
On the Interpretation of the Redshift in a Static Gravitational Field
Authors: L.B. Okun (ITEP, Moscow), K.G. Selivanov (ITEP, Moscow), V.L.
Telegdi (EP Division, CERN)
I see NOTHING there suggesting that "The term nuclear-resonance is
used by Pound-Snider to describe a Mossbauer shift with altitude."
How many "F"s are there in Nuke-U-Lar?
You said:
The term nuclear-resonance is used by Pound-Snider
to describe a Mossbauer shift with altitude.
Are you sure that is how they used the term??
It is more likely that nuclear-resonance is used to describe the
Mossbauer effect itself, since the Mossbauer effect IS a nuclear
resonance effect.
Show me where they say that 'nuclear-resonance' is the term that we use
when we are speaking of 'a Mossbauer shift with altitude.'
FOR THE THIRD TIME
---------READ THE TITLE------
YA BLIIND !!!
Quote:
"Effect of Gravity on Nuclear Resonance"
R. V. Pound and J. L. Snider
Lyman Laboratory of Physics,
Harvard University, Cambridge,
Massachusetts
Received 24 September 1964
http://prola.aps.org/abstract/PRL/v13/i18/p539_1
Okun et al ALSO seem to discount "gravitational mass" or "potential
energy" as an explanation for the shift, saying "we assert that it is
misleading."
I am surprised that you cited them because I thought that was your
horse. I thought you were against the 'clock speed' explanation for
the red shift that they seem to favor.
The "falling photon" is what is absurd. Slower motion in the
surface clock is completly consistant with inertial behavior.
Actually, the math seems to allow either model to work for that particular
experiment.
But I seem to recall you saying that clocks do not care what altitude they
are at and something about the faster drag racer not being left with fuel
in his tank, when you were saying that there are no clocks.
Maybe it is someone else that I am thinking about or I misunderstood your
point, like perhaps I misunderstood your point when you said the term ....
was used to refer to .... English is such a difficult language with so
many ambiguities
Aparently the absurdity wasn't generally recognized
untill a few GPS SVs demonstrated consistancy in the
launch presets. As Okun explains, the acceptance of
the absurdity was wide-spread in academia:
"even in some authoritative texts"
Sue...
--
bz
please pardon my infinite ignorance, the set-of-things-I-do-not-know is an
infinite set.
bz+...@ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu remove ch100-5 to avoid spam trap- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text - |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Guest |
| Posted: Wed Feb 28, 2007 12:44 pm |
|
|
|
|
On Feb 27, 9:06 pm, "Robert Karl Stonjek" <ston...@ozemail.com.au>
wrote:
Quote: This one is a little obvious after some thought, but I haven't heard it mentioned before.
The frequency of light is like a clock in itself - if the frequency is lower then the clock at the source is slower as measured by an observer who also measures that redshift. If the redshifted electromagnetic radiation was a radio carrier wave then the frequency the observer must tune to is further down the dial, as expected, but the sounds transmitted via that carrier wave will also appear to be slowed down, like an audio tape running at the wrong speed.
This is true regardless of the cause of redshift - source moving away from observer, source near a gravitating body, or source at a very great distance (Hubble shift).
The Hubble redshift observed on Earth must also be accompanied by time dilation. If the frequency of light received is half, for instance, then the clock at the emitting end of that electromagnetic transmission is running at half the pace as the clock at the receiving end.
I assume that this time dilation is taken into consideration when observing pulsed transmission of the rotation of galaxies (pulses will be measured as slower than the actual rate, galaxies will appear to rotate slower then than actually do etc.)
Anyone know more on this?
--
Kind Regards
Robert Karl Stonjek
You are wrong (as bz and TR already observed). For a good description
of drequency shift mechanisms, read here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redshift |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Robert Karl Stonjek |
| Posted: Wed Feb 28, 2007 8:09 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"Tom Roberts" <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:8chFh.2538$M65.164@newssvr21.news.prodigy.net...
Quote: Robert Karl Stonjek wrote:
"Tom Roberts" <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:qS8Fh.175$iw4.7@newssvr23.news.prodigy.net...
Robert Karl Stonjek wrote:
The frequency of light is like a clock in itself - if the frequency is
lower then the clock at the source is slower as measured by an
observer
who also measures that redshift. [...]
This is true regardless of the cause of redshift
Not true. Doppler shift is a different relationship than "time
dilation". And you completely ignore the possibility that an observer
can measure a BLUEshift....
I don't see how the frequency of light can be lower at the destination
than
the source without all other observations of the source indicating that
the
clocks are running slower
The usual method of measuring redshift would not work if what you claim
were true. In order to measure the redshift of a distant galaxy one must
ASSUME that frequencies of atomic lines in that galaxy are THE SAME as
they are here on earth. That directly implies that atomic clocks there
run at the same rate as identical atomic clocks here.
Tom,
1) time dilation NEVER occurs in your own frame,
2) MEASURED time dilation does not imply actual time dilation.
Consider two travelers passing each other in space with equal speed but
opposite velocity. They BOTH merasure time dilation in the other. This *is
not* a paradox.
Thus in my secnario either the original transitter or reciever will measure
time dilation in the other's emitted light.
Quote:
Of course in GR that assumption is valid.
In some sense you are double counting. If redshift corresponded to clock
slowing at the source, you would not obtain the correct values.... And
of course for BLUE-shifted light your claim breaks down completely. In
simplified terms, the Doppler shift due to relative motion is first
order in v/c, while the "time dilation" is second order in v/c; so the
EM signal from an approaching clock is BLUE-shifted even though its
"time dilation" goes the other way.
I am consider redshit caused by "light passing over expanding space" (I read
that in MTW Gravitation - I am sure you a familiar with that tome).
Quote:
I don't see how it can be otherwise.
It cannot be as you claim and still agree with observations. And of
course GR simply predicts otherwise. In GR, every clock ticks at its
usual rate wherever it is located and however it might be moving.
Measurements of red- and blue-shifts of EM signals sent from the clock
will vary depending on the relative motion of source clock+emitter and
receiver detector+clock, plus the difference in "gravitational
potential" between them.
Light is NOT a "clock". Period. But the phase function of a light wave
is an invariant 4-vector function on the manifold (this is the wave
optics approximation to Maxwell's equations). That invariance directly
relates to the observed local invariance of c and the measured
relationships among c, frequency, and wavelength.
Your claim being valid would destroy those relationships. So you need to
improve your ability to imagine things which are unfamiliar to you.
Tom Roberts
I am not claiming that clocks actually tick in any way but normally
according to commoves (commoving with the clock). But if redshift is
measured then time dilation must also be measured and thus any temporal data
carried by that light will also be time dilated.
I noted this at sci.astro - I will copy/paste to save typing. BTW Steve
Willner replied with "As you indicate, this is pretty well known." Not so
well known, it seems. He pointed out the phenomena had been confirmed with
type 1a supernova and that the time dilation data ruled out the tired light
hypothesis. Here is the quote from the sci.astro list (I'm the author):
"
There is a difference between the measured time dilation and actual time
dilation. In expanding space we expect redshift in both directions.
Time dilation *is* measured at the receiver end (or the emitter, if a return
signal is forthcoming). The frequency of light is known for certain
elements, which is how redshift is established - I assumed this knowledge
above.
Instead of a light wave, let's consider photons. The time it takes for a
photon to pass from emitter to receiver is t=d*c where d is the distance, t
is the transit interval and c is the speed of light. For two photons
transmitted 1s apart, the first photon travels distance d in dc seconds.
But space expands continually so that when the second photon is emitted d
has expanded to d' where d', the distance travelled by the second photon, is
greater than d ie d'>d therefore t'>t
Thus a stream of photons emitted at 1s intervals arrives at a remote
receiver at intervals greater than 1s. Thus any temporal information
emitted will also be time dilated (the intervals are dilated).
But as you point out, this is true *in either direction* ie if the receiver
emits photons at 1s intervals back to the original emitter then they will be
received at intervals greater than 1s.
We know that in one's own frame, time dilation never occurs (by one's own
measure). That is not at issue. Also, when two high velocity objects pass
each other they both measure time dilation and redshift in the other.
In the case of the expansion of spacetime, redshift indicates time dilation.
Thus if the redshift halves the frequency of the emitted light, the
intervals of transmitted photons will also double by the receiver's clock -
time dilation halves the speed of the emitters clock by the receivers
measure."
Nice to chat with you once again, Tom,
Robert. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Robert Karl Stonjek |
| Posted: Wed Feb 28, 2007 8:14 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
<karandash2000@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1172681070.071151.129050@k78g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Quote: On Feb 27, 9:06 pm, "Robert Karl Stonjek" <ston...@ozemail.com.au
wrote:
This one is a little obvious after some thought, but I haven't heard it
mentioned before.
The frequency of light is like a clock in itself - if the frequency is
lower then the clock at the source is slower as measured by an observer who
also measures that redshift. If the redshifted electromagnetic radiation
was a radio carrier wave then the frequency the observer must tune to is
further down the dial, as expected, but the sounds transmitted via that
carrier wave will also appear to be slowed down, like an audio tape running
at the wrong speed.
Quote:
This is true regardless of the cause of redshift - source moving away
from observer, source near a gravitating body, or source at a very great
distance (Hubble shift).
Quote:
The Hubble redshift observed on Earth must also be accompanied by time
dilation. If the frequency of light received is half, for instance, then
the clock at the emitting end of that electromagnetic transmission is
running at half the pace as the clock at the receiving end.
Quote:
I assume that this time dilation is taken into consideration when
observing pulsed transmission of the rotation of galaxies (pulses will be
measured as slower than the actual rate, galaxies will appear to rotate
slower then than actually do etc.)
Quote:
Anyone know more on this?
--
Kind Regards
Robert Karl Stonjek
You are wrong (as bz and TR already observed). For a good description
of drequency shift mechanisms, read here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redshift
I'm referring to light that does not interact with matter between emitter
and receiver, as would be the case with scattering and optical effects. I
guess we could be more specific by including 'relativistic Doppler
distortion' in specification.
Robert |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| bz |
| Posted: Thu Mar 01, 2007 12:08 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"Sue..." <suzysewnshow@yahoo.com.au> wrote in
news:1172730504.866412.33810@h3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com:
Quote: Let's admit we don't share the same interpretation of
Pound-Rebka-Snider and move on.
My objection has nothing to do with PRS. It has to do with the way you
used the english language.
Quote: Your statement:>> >> > >> > The term nuclear-resonance is used by
Pound-Snider
to describe a Mossbauer shift with altitude.
was wrong as it equated
'nuclear-resonance'
with
'a Mossbauer shift'
Maybe you made a typographical error, but the fact that you do not seem to
understand my objection to the wording of your statement indicates a deeper
communications problem.
--
bz
please pardon my infinite ignorance, the set-of-things-I-do-not-know is an
infinite set.
bz+nanae@ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Sue... |
| Posted: Thu Mar 01, 2007 2:28 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Feb 28, 3:11 pm, bz <bz+...@ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote:
Quote: "Sue..." <suzysewns...@yahoo.com.au> wrote innews:1172690697.776550.50080@j27g2000cwj.googlegroups.com:
On Feb 28, 1:13 pm, bz <bz+...@ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote:
"Sue..." <suzysewns...@yahoo.com.au> wrote in
news:1172680778.749594.307340 @t69g2000cwt.googlegroups.com:
You said:
The term nuclear-resonance is used by Pound-Snider
to describe a Mossbauer shift with altitude.
Are you sure that is how they used the term??
It is more likely that nuclear-resonance is used to describe
the Mossbauer effect itself, since the Mossbauer effect IS a
nuclear resonance effect.
Show me where they say that 'nuclear-resonance' is the term that we
use when we are speaking of 'a Mossbauer shift with altitude.'
FOR THE THIRD TIME
---------READ THE TITLE------
YA BLIIND !!!
I read the title. It does NOT say that
'nuclear-resonance' = 'a Mossbauer shift with altitude'
where '=' stands for 'is the term for'
The title is "Effect of Gravity on Nuclear Resonance"
It says NOTHING about nuclear resonance being a term for "a Mossbauer
shift with altitude"
The paper says nothing about nuclear resonance being a term for "a
Mossbauer shift with altitude"
If you had said "nuclear-resonance" is a term for the "Mossbauer
effect" you would have been correct.
Do you now see why what you did say made no sense?
It is generally known that the force of the earth's gravity
diminishes as you move up and away from earth's surface.
Most understand that to be "altitude"
It is generally known that change in velocity is acceleration.
If I said change in distance with time is acceleration, would I be right or
wrong?
What you said was just as wrong because the Mossbauer effect is a nuclear
resonance effect. The effect (the nuclear-resonance[general term] or
Mossbauer effect[specific term]) may diminish with altitude, but it is NOT
altitude.
Why would anyone say nuclear resonance is altitude?
We might call an altimeter a barometer.
That isn't calling calling pressure, altitude.
We might call an atomic oscillator an altimeter.
That isn't calling frequency, altitude.
Quote:
You are always very quick to point out the smallest inaccuracy in others
posts. Why do you object when someone points out one of yours?
Your statement:>> >> > >> > The term nuclear-resonance is used by Pound-Snider
to describe a Mossbauer shift with altitude.
Is flatly and completely wrong!
Admit you messed up and move on.
Let's admit we don't share the same interpretation of
Pound-Rebka-Snider and move on.
Here is another inertia experiment that fits on the
planet for comparison.
http://www.esa.int/SPECIALS/GSP/SEM0L6OVGJE_0.html
Instead of accelerating charges in a iron salt, we
are accelerating cooper-pairs in a superconductor.
Do the results fit your interpretation of the mechanism
that tells a pushed car *when* to stop pushing back ?
Sue... |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Sue... |
| Posted: Thu Mar 01, 2007 2:51 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Feb 28, 7:14 pm, "Robert Karl Stonjek" <ston...@ozemail.com.au>
wrote:
Quote: karandash2...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1172681070.071151.129050@k78g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...> On Feb 27, 9:06 pm, "Robert Karl Stonjek" <ston...@ozemail.com.au
wrote:
This one is a little obvious after some thought, but I haven't heard it
mentioned before.
The frequency of light is like a clock in itself - if the frequency is
lower then the clock at the source is slower as measured by an observer who
also measures that redshift. If the redshifted electromagnetic radiation
was a radio carrier wave then the frequency the observer must tune to is
further down the dial, as expected, but the sounds transmitted via that
carrier wave will also appear to be slowed down, like an audio tape running
at the wrong speed.
This is true regardless of the cause of redshift - source moving away
from observer, source near a gravitating body, or source at a very great
distance (Hubble shift).
The Hubble redshift observed on Earth must also be accompanied by time
dilation. If the frequency of light received is half, for instance, then
the clock at the emitting end of that electromagnetic transmission is
running at half the pace as the clock at the receiving end.
I assume that this time dilation is taken into consideration when
observing pulsed transmission of the rotation of galaxies (pulses will be
measured as slower than the actual rate, galaxies will appear to rotate
slower then than actually do etc.)
Anyone know more on this?
--
Kind Regards
Robert Karl Stonjek
You are wrong (as bz and TR already observed). For a good description
of drequency shift mechanisms, read here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redshift
I'm referring to light that does not interact with matter between emitter
and receiver, as would be the case with scattering and optical effects. I
guess we could be more specific by including 'relativistic Doppler
distortion' in specification.
All light interacts with matter over the path.
You can't move an electrical charge without
the nearest charge moving.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_space
http://www-ssg.sr.unh.edu/ism/what.html
Sue...
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| bz |
| Posted: Thu Mar 01, 2007 3:07 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"Sue..." <suzysewnshow@yahoo.com.au> wrote in news:1172747900.911257.27510
@s48g2000cws.googlegroups.com:
Quote: Mon Fran‡ais est beaucoup plus mauvais.
mine too.
Quote: Vous voir plus tard.  )
until then.... 
--
bz
please pardon my infinite ignorance, the set-of-things-I-do-not-know is an
infinite set.
bz+spr@ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu remove ch100-5 to avoid spam trap |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Sue... |
| Posted: Thu Mar 01, 2007 7:18 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Mar 1, 5:08 am, bz <bz+na...@ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote:
Quote: "Sue..." <suzysewns...@yahoo.com.au> wrote innews:1172730504.866412.33810@h3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com:
Let's admit we don't share the same interpretation of
Pound-Rebka-Snider and move on.
My objection has nothing to do with PRS. It has to do with the way you
used the english language.
Mon Français est beaucoup plus mauvais.
Quote:
Your statement:>> >> > >> > The term nuclear-resonance is used by
Pound-Snider
to describe a Mossbauer shift with altitude.
was wrong as it equated
'nuclear-resonance'
with
'a Mossbauer shift'
Maybe you made a typographical error, but the fact that you do not seem to
understand my objection to the wording of your statement indicates a deeper
communications problem.
I must have typoed or you read-oed.
Okun says there are two interpretations and it
isn't helpful to know who holds which one.
For the thread:
"Time dilation and expanding space"
we have probably made more heat than light.
Vous voir plus tard. )
Sue...
Quote:
--
bz
please pardon my infinite ignorance, the set-of-things-I-do-not-know is an
infinite set.
bz+na...@ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
Page 2 of 2 Goto page Previous 1, 2
All times are GMT - 5 Hours
The time now is Mon Oct 13, 2008 7:45 pm
|
|