RELATIVITY HYPNOTISTS EXPLAIN THE POUND AND REBKA EXPERIMENT

On Nov, 8, 2003, Harry (Tom Roberts' student) wrote in
sci.physics.relativity:
Pound-Rebka (Snider). The higher clock measures frequency as less.
Its clockrate is greater by the same amount to reconcile this. Why
should light lose energy between FOR's. The same energy is accounted
for "fully" by the clockrates that measure it. The textbook statement
"AND light loses energy" is mixing FOR's.

I have read this before, in more detail by Ron Hatch, if I remember
well he concluded the same, as the GPS measurements obviously validate
the frequency effect, leaving zero for the energy loss effect; and
conservation of cycles also forbids the energy loss hypothesis.

Tom Roberts (the Albert Einstein of our generation) replied:

I don't know what you are asking (if anything). But the Pound & Rebka
and Pound & Snider experiments clearly show that the frequency of an
emitted light beam as measured by a receiver depends upon the
respective heights of emitter and receiver in the gravitational field
of the earth.

This can be interpreted in several different ways:

1. Light loses energy as it rises, and gains energy as it falls down;
because for light E=hf this affects its frequency.

This is in direct analogy with massive particles (in that they gain/
lose energy as they fall/rise), But from other experiments (e.g.
rotating moessbauser experiments) it is clear that this is not the
whole story.

2. Clocks tick slower when they are lower in a gravitational field
than when they are higher.

This is the typical elementary explanation. But from other experiments
it is clear that this is not the whole story.

3. Spacetime is curved in accordance with Einstein's field equation,
and light rays follow null geodesics.

This is the GR approach, and it also explains the other experiments.
In the non-quantum domain so far this seems to be the whole story.

While it is not clear to me what the above-quoted statements are tying
to say, it appears to me they are attempting to mix (1) and (2), and
as a result get confused. In (1) and (2) you have to choose whether
clocks are affected, or whether light is affected; assuming both just
leads to confusion (as above). But once you choose, it is then quite
easy to get confused when looking at other situations; (3) does not
have this drawback -- NEITHER light nor clocks are affected by
gravitation, but there is curvature that affects how different
measurements relate to each other.

GR (3) also has the virtue of being quantitative, general, and in
incredibly-accurate agreement with all reproducible experiments within
its domain of applicability.

Tom Roberts
___________________________________________
[End of Tom Roberts' explanation]

Let me call the attention to two important points:

A. In discussing (1), Tom Roberts obviously thinks of the formula

frequency = (speed of light)/(wavelength)

However Roberts does not mention "speed of light". Why?

B. Roberts is right about the incompatibility of (1) and (2). That is,
the measured frequency variation is due either to the variation of the
speed of light in a gravitational field (confirmed by Einstein and
many relativity hypnotists) or to gravitational time dilation, but by
no means to both. In other words, if the speed of light "varies with
position" in a gravitational field, there is no gravitational time
dilation.

Pentcho Valev