A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

Go Back   Home » SpaceBanter.com forum » Astronomy and Astrophysics » Astronomy Misc
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

RELATIVITY HYPNOTISTS EXPLAIN THE POUND AND REBKA EXPERIMENT



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old May 17th 07, 04:55 PM posted to sci.physics.relativity,sci.physics,sci.physics.cond-matter,sci.philosophy.tech,sci.astro
Pentcho Valev
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,078
Default 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

  #2  
Old May 17th 07, 11:41 PM posted to sci.physics.relativity,sci.physics,sci.physics.cond-matter,sci.philosophy.tech,sci.astro
Eric Gisse
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,465
Default RELATIVITY HYPNOTISTS EXPLAIN THE POUND AND REBKA EXPERIMENT

On May 17, 8:55 am, Pentcho Valev wrote:

[...]

What is it like to have a life so empty that you have to do stuff like
this?

  #3  
Old May 18th 07, 03:22 PM posted to sci.physics.relativity,sci.physics,sci.physics.cond-matter,sci.philosophy.tech,sci.astro
Pentcho Valev
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,078
Default RELATIVITY HYPNOTISTS EXPLAIN THE POUND AND REBKA EXPERIMENT


Eric Gisse wrote:
On May 17, 8:55 am, Pentcho Valev wrote:

[...]

What is it like to have a life so empty that you have to do stuff like
this?


Empty, tragic etc. So empty that additionally I considered this:

http://www.blazelabs.com/f-g-gcont.asp "The first confirmation of a
long range variation in the speed of light travelling in space came in
1964. Irwin Shapiro, it seems, was the first to make use of a
previously forgotten facet of general relativity theory -- that the
speed of light is reduced when it passes through a gravitational
field....Faced with this evidence, Einstein stated:"In the second
place our result shows that, according to the general theory of
relativity, the law of the constancy of the velocity of light in
vacuo, which constitutes one of the two fundamental assumptions in the
special theory of relativity and to which we have already frequently
referred, cannot claim any unlimited validity. A curvature of rays of
light can only take place when the velocity of propagation of light
varies with position."......Today we find that since the Special
Theory of Relativity unfortunately became part of the so called
mainstream science, it is considered a sacrilege to even suggest that
the speed of light be anything other than a constant. This is somewhat
surprising since even Einstein himself suggested in a paper "On the
Influence of Gravitation on the Propagation of Light," Annalen der
Physik, 35, 1911, that the speed of light might vary with the
gravitational potential. Indeed, the variation of the speed of light
in a vacuum or space is explicitly shown in Einstein's calculation for
the angle at which light should bend upon the influence of gravity.
One can find his calculation in his paper. The result is c'=c(1+V/c^2)
where V is the gravitational potential relative to the point where the
measurement is taken. 1+V/c^2 is also known as the GRAVITATIONAL
REDSHIFT FACTOR."

Now I am not su Is the above text consistent with Master Tom
Roberts' interpretation (1)? Or perhaps with Master Tom Roberts'
interpretation (2)? Why don't you resolve the problem? If you do, you
will become Master Tom Roberts' PhD student. All faithful sycophants
sooner or later become Master Tom Roberts' PhD students. This is
inevitable.

Pentcho Valev

  #4  
Old May 18th 07, 07:55 PM posted to sci.physics.relativity,sci.physics,sci.physics.cond-matter,sci.philosophy.tech,sci.astro
Koobee Wublee
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 815
Default RELATIVITY HYPNOTISTS EXPLAIN THE POUND AND REBKA EXPERIMENT

On May 17, 8:55 am, Pentcho Valev wrote:
On Nov, 8, 2003, Harry (Tom Roberts' student) wrote in


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.


Energy is conserved. Light cannot lose any energy propagating out of
a gravitational field.

Also, energy is an observed quantity. It makes no sense to talk about
the energy of a photon under gravitational influence and out of.

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.


If the speed of light is measured the same for one inside and outside
of gravitational influence, then this issue cannot explain
gravitational redshift.

If not measured the same, it is time to bury both SR and GR under 6
feet of nonsense build-up in the past 100 years or so.

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


The curvature of spacetime is more general than the field equations or
GR. The field equations define what the curvature is.

Which geodesic path does light travel since every possible path has
null geodesics?

To be more specific for example, if we have 4 numbers below.

** 0, 0, 0, 0

Which one of the four numbers above is greater than the others?

Elementary school children should have no problems answering this
one. However, physicists for 100 years seem to have so much trouble
understanding this one. WHY?

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.


The current interpretation of GR is utterly absurd.

The bottom line is that GR cannot explain gravitational redshift
PERIOD



  #5  
Old May 18th 07, 09:56 PM posted to sci.physics.relativity,sci.physics,sci.physics.cond-matter,sci.philosophy.tech,sci.astro
John C. Polasek
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 102
Default RELATIVITY HYPNOTISTS EXPLAIN THE POUND AND REBKA EXPERIMENT

On 17 May 2007 08:55:58 -0700, Pentcho Valev wrote:

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

It's not enough, Tom, to say spacetime curvature causes the redshift.
It needs further explication, specifics, such as below. GR isn't all
that clear. (In MTW Gravitation they have the helpful hint "just the
redshift to be expected....bla bla bla ...falling Lorentz frames".
They try to invoke the equivalence principle applied to falling
masses; it is not only unconvincing, but there is a bit of duplicity).
Pound Rebka redshift can be analyzed very easily in Dual Space
theory. Take the case of 1% impact from the well.

DST says the clock radiator that goes down in the well will become
slow by 1%, and c is also reduced by 1%, so the native wavelength is
unaffected.
The clock naturally radiates at the lower frequency and on the way up
as c regains 1%, so also it stretches the wavelength 1%. The frequency
retains its lower value that was generated by a lower energy
environment.
In any preferred explanation it should be possible to assign 1%'s to
all of a table of F, WL, c,or time and then be able to prove that it
doesn't violate either double redshift or loss of energy through
fatigue and the like. DS case:
time freq WL c
UP 1 1 1 1
DN 1 .9 1 .9
UpOut 1 .9 1.1 1
The usual claim of loss of frequency gh/c^2 combined with a faster
test clock upstairs, gives double redshift.
You don't need time dilation. In DST the region of the gravitating
mass is weakened by removal of material from pairspace to create the
said mass, so the clock and c are both less springy.
My equation dc^2/2dt = MG/r^2 tells how c recovers it speed on the way
out, and when integrated delivers the proper expression for redshift,
c' being the lower value of c:
Dc^2 = 2MG/r (int from R to oo)
c'/c = sqrt(1-2MG/r^2c)
Thus the redshift comes about as I explained above with this equation
to verify that
John Polasek
  #6  
Old May 18th 07, 09:59 PM posted to sci.physics.relativity,sci.physics,sci.physics.cond-matter,sci.philosophy.tech,sci.astro
Eric Gisse
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,465
Default RELATIVITY HYPNOTISTS EXPLAIN THE POUND AND REBKA EXPERIMENT

On May 18, 11:55 am, Koobee Wublee wrote:
[....]

The bottom line is that GR cannot explain gravitational redshift
PERIOD


Oh shut the **** up. You have no idea what you are talking about.


  #7  
Old May 18th 07, 10:19 PM posted to sci.physics.relativity,sci.physics,sci.physics.cond-matter,sci.philosophy.tech,sci.astro
Eric Gisse
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,465
Default RELATIVITY HYPNOTISTS EXPLAIN THE POUND AND REBKA EXPERIMENT

On May 18, 7:22 am, Pentcho Valev wrote:
[snip stupidity]

Kill yourself, and spare everyone your misery.

  #8  
Old May 19th 07, 05:29 AM posted to sci.physics.relativity,sci.physics,sci.physics.cond-matter,sci.philosophy.tech,sci.astro
Koobee Wublee
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 815
Default RELATIVITY HYPNOTISTS EXPLAIN THE POUND AND REBKA EXPERIMENT

On May 18, 1:59 pm, Eric Gisse wrote:
On May 18, 11:55 am, Koobee Wublee wrote:


The bottom line is that GR cannot explain gravitational redshift
PERIOD


Oh shut the **** up. You have no idea what you are talking about.


Did you miss something? Here it goes again.

Energy is conserved. Light cannot lose any energy propagating out of
a gravitational field.

Also, energy is an observed quantity. It makes no sense to talk about
the energy of a photon under gravitational influence and out of.


If the speed of light is measured the same for one inside and outside
of gravitational influence, then this issue cannot explain
gravitational redshift.

If not measured the same, it is time to bury both SR and GR under 6
feet of nonsense build-up in the past 100 years or so.

The curvature of spacetime is more general than the field equations or
GR. The field equations define what the curvature is.

Which geodesic path does light travel since every possible path has
null geodesics?

To be more specific for example, if we have 4 numbers below.

** 0, 0, 0, 0

Which one of the four numbers above is greater than the others?

Elementary school children should have no problems answering this
one. However, physicists for 100 years seem to have so much trouble
understanding this one. WHY?

The current interpretation of GR is utterly absurd.

The bottom line is that GR cannot explain gravitational redshift
PERIOD

  #9  
Old May 19th 07, 05:30 AM posted to sci.physics.relativity,sci.physics,sci.physics.cond-matter,sci.philosophy.tech,sci.astro
Koobee Wublee
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 815
Default RELATIVITY HYPNOTISTS EXPLAIN THE POUND AND REBKA EXPERIMENT

On May 18, 1:59 pm, Eric Gisse wrote:
On May 18, 11:55 am, Koobee Wublee wrote:


The bottom line is that GR cannot explain gravitational redshift
PERIOD


Oh shut the **** up. You have no idea what you are talking about.


Did you miss something? Here it goes again.

Energy is conserved. Light cannot lose any energy propagating out of
a gravitational field.

Also, energy is an observed quantity. It makes no sense to talk about
the energy of a photon under gravitational influence and out of.


If the speed of light is measured the same for one inside and outside
of gravitational influence, then this issue cannot explain
gravitational redshift.

If not measured the same, it is time to bury both SR and GR under 6
feet of nonsense build-up in the past 100 years or so.

The curvature of spacetime is more general than the field equations or
GR. The field equations define what the curvature is.

Which geodesic path does light travel since every possible path has
null geodesics?

To be more specific for example, if we have 4 numbers below.

** 0, 0, 0, 0

Which one of the four numbers above is greater than the others?

Elementary school children should have no problems answering this
one. However, physicists for 100 years seem to have so much trouble
understanding this one. WHY?

The current interpretation of GR is utterly absurd.

The bottom line is that GR cannot explain gravitational redshift
PERIOD



  #10  
Old May 19th 07, 06:23 AM posted to sci.physics.relativity,sci.physics,sci.physics.cond-matter,sci.philosophy.tech,sci.astro
Eric Gisse
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,465
Default RELATIVITY HYPNOTISTS EXPLAIN THE POUND AND REBKA EXPERIMENT

On May 18, 9:30 pm, Koobee Wublee wrote:
On May 18, 1:59 pm, Eric Gisse wrote:

On May 18, 11:55 am, Koobee Wublee wrote:
The bottom line is that GR cannot explain gravitational redshift
PERIOD


Oh shut the **** up. You have no idea what you are talking about.


Did you miss something? Here it goes again.

Energy is conserved. Light cannot lose any energy propagating out of
a gravitational field.


I cannot ****ing BELIEVE you would say something so stupid - but here
you are, saying it.

[snip stupidity]

 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
RELATIVITY HYPNOTISTS WANT TO DISCUSS THE FARCE OF PHYSICS Pentcho Valev Astronomy Misc 12 May 17th 07 08:50 AM
Physics does not explain why astro bodies spin or rotate which points out the fakeness of Big Bang and General Relativity; the Atom Totality theory however does explain the origins of rotation a_plutonium Astronomy Misc 158 December 26th 06 07:53 AM
1 dollar = 1 pound -- NOT Jonathan Silverlight UK Astronomy 0 December 1st 06 10:32 PM
other planets that have lightning bolts-- do they have plate tectonics ?? do the experiment with electric motor and also Faradays first electric motor is this the Oersted experiment writ large on the size of continental plates a_plutonium Astronomy Misc 4 September 16th 06 01:13 PM
SSTO to LEO, 80,000 pound payload or Bust. [was Bigelow launch vehicle mistake] H2-PV Policy 33 March 13th 06 05:58 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:12 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.