Re: I am appaled

From: Mike (eleatis_at_yahoo.gr)
Date: 06/04/04 

Date: Fri, 4 Jun 2004 18:02:10 -0400

"César Sirvent" <8umucsxySPA@M_MAPSterraReMoVeThIs.es> wrote in message
news:wa5wc.769877$A6.3001883@telenews.teleline.es...
>
> "sal" <believer@nospam.com> escribió en el mensaje
> news:b85f29559a44c4843a159873bfe97b03@news.teranews.com...
> > On Fri, 04 Jun 2004 16:45:57 +0000, César Sirvent wrote:
> >
> > > I cannot believe it!!!!
> > > Read this FAQ answer in the official site of the Gravity Probe B
> > > experiment.
> > >
> > > http://einstein.stanford.edu/content/relativity/a11485.html
> > >
> > > No comments, I am simply shocked.
> >
> > Perhaps I'm just stupid today, but I don't see what it is you're shocked
> > about.
> >
> > Their wording is somewhat sloppy, and the text seems rather "dumbed
down"
> > for general consumption, but the basic reasoning is essentially
identical
> > to the old falling-particle/rising-photon gedanken experiment which is
> > still quoted in GR texts (and high school classes) to justify
> > gravitational redshift.
> >
> > The light must lose energy as it leaves the gravity well, because
> > otherwise you can build a perpetual motion machine of the first kind.
> > That translates into a redshift. Is that not standard dogma? And is
that
> > not consistent with what they say here, when they say the light "must
lose
> > energy"? This doesn't seem like something that will mislead the average
> > visitor in any significant way.
> >
> > When they say the light is "working against the gravitational field" --
> > well, they're just being sloppy; but I don't see that as especially
> > appalling either.
> >
> > Note that they do not call light itself a "physical system" -- rather,
> > they say it loses energy _like_ a "physical system", which seems very
much
> > in keeping with the falling particle gedanken experiment.
>
> http://tinyurl.com/3b7j5
>
> Cesar
>
>
> > To email me directly, take out nospam and put back foobox.
> >
>
>

Obviously, the FAQ is directed towards the general public and an explanation
based on the behavior of clocks is highly confusing for that purpose. But
both explanations are problematic unless you assume some postulates. There
is nothing intuitive about them and I think the FAQ author does a good job
for his intended purpose, i.e. explaining a phenomenon of nature to the
general public that is likely to have a limited knowledge of Relativity
otherwise they wouldn't be looking at the FAQ.

Mike

Relevant Pages

  • what kind of sick, demented asshole
    ... Here's the last version of the FAQ I have at hand, ... competent advice before paying attention to his posts. ... His repeated claim that "Unix is ... This explanation is less likely than the trolling explanation ...
    (comp.sys.mac.system)
  • Re: FAQ 9.3--Replacement?
    ... The goal is to use the "de facto" standard of "documentElement.clientWidth". ... the time spent making something work in quirks mode could be better used in fixing the page to use standards mode. ... I think changing that FAQ entry is a good idea. ... Removing the explanation of Opera < 9.5 would reduce the length a lot. ...
    (comp.lang.javascript)
  • Re: All Types in Seven Pairs.
    ... implied by Four Pure Shifted Pungs): ... implied by Pure Terminal Chows. ... The explanation is in FAQ ...
    (rec.games.mahjong)
  • Re: String pointers and string arrays
    ... good use of the FAQ. ... and reminds me of my own problems teaching newbies. ... I tend to give a perfectly coherent and comprehensive explanation ...
    (comp.lang.c)