Dingle's Paradoxes

They use accelerators to smash atoms and little else as far as I can tell. The funding of this stuff is what determines what is done and it has nothing to do with science. They mash atoms for no reason other than that is what they are paid to do.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Jim</i>
<br />if the frequency of an atom is changed by motion...<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

It definitely is. That was the subject of the Ives-Stilwell experiment.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">... then some of the LAF datta would indicate less and more of a shift that you suggest may occur.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

I don't understand. There is a shift due to motion, and it is in the predicted amount. What other shift could be expected? -|Tom|-

The problem is that Einstein calculated the frequency shift incorrectly in 1905. Then he tried to fix the mistake by another calculation in 1907. His calculation is wrong in both. But the 1907 calculation seemed to indicate the atomic clock ran slow, or more precisely appeared to the observer in the opposite frame to run slow. This of course contradicted his 1905 conclusion that the clock in the moving frame ran slow. This has resulted in confusing statements regarding time dilation ever since.

There is a redshift after the fact that the photon was emmitted but the photon was emmitted at a given frequency reguardless of how fast the atom emmitting the photon was going. If not then there would be data that shows this effect and there is none. The time thing is a result of how the redshift is modeled. If you hold the speed of light as the fixed unchangable detail then the time wiil be changing to suit that assumption. If you say the redshift increases the time the signal needs to traval from the source to the receiver then nothing is changing time. It just takes a while longer for the signal to be observed when the atom is in motion. I am not at all clear why GPS assumes clocks in orbit run slow when redshift is all that seems to be effecting the signal. The same redshift seems to be the cause of a lot of other confusing theories-one of which is the BB theory.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Jim</i>
<br />I am not at all clear why GPS assumes clocks in orbit run slow when redshift is all that seems to be effecting the signal.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

GPS satellites are in closely circular orbits, and therefore have no doppler redshift. The only available explanation for their clock readings falling farther behind every day is real clock slowing. -|Tom|-

The redshift is not doppler redshift but Hubble redshift-a big difference. The Hubble redshift is always in the direction of being redder and never bluer. The redshift observed by GPS is the same one that is observed as the Hubble redshift in my opinion. It is also observed and not recognized in other astromical events.