Interpreting the Pound-Rebka experiment in 1911

Scenario:

We are in 1911 (that is, before gravitational time dilation and other
camouflage have been taken seriously) and we somehow know Pound and
Rebka's 1960 experimental result confirming the validity of the
gravitational redshift factor 1+V/c^2. We are to adopt one of the
following two statements:

(1) The Pound-Rebka experiment refutes the hypothesis that the speed
of light is independent of the speed of the light source (Einstein's
1905 light postulate) and confirms the hypothesis that the speed of
light does depend on the speed of the light source.

(2) The Pound-Rebka experiment confirms the hypothesis that the speed
of light is independent of the speed of the light source (Einstein's
1905 light postulate) and refutes the hypothesis that the speed of
light does depend on the speed of the light source.

Clever Einsteinians know that (1) is correct, (2) is wrong. See also:

http://www.blazelabs.com/f-g-gcont.asp
"So, faced with this evidence most readers must be wondering why we
learn about the importance of the constancy of speed of light. Did
Einstein miss this? Sometimes I find out that what's written in our
textbooks is just a biased version taken from the original work, so
after searching within the original text of the theory of GR by
Einstein, I found this quote:"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. Now we
might think that as a consequence of this, the special theory of
relativity and with it the whole theory of relativity would be laid in
the dust. But in reality this is not the case. We can only conclude
that the special theory of relativity cannot claim an unlimited domain
of validity ; its results hold only so long as we are able to
disregard the influences of gravitational fields on the phenomena
(e.g. of light)." - Albert Einstein (1879-1955) - The General Theory
of Relativity: Chapter 22 - A Few Inferences from the General
Principle of Relativity-. 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."

Pentcho Valev

On Feb 4, 4:25*am, Pentcho Valev wrote:
Scenario:

We are in 1911 (that is, before gravitational time dilation and other
camouflage have been taken seriously) and we somehow know Pound and
Rebka's 1960 experimental result confirming the validity of the
gravitational redshift factor 1+V/c^2. We are to adopt one of the
following two statements:

(1) The Pound-Rebka experiment refutes the hypothesis that the speed
of light is independent of the speed of the light source (Einstein's
1905 light postulate) and confirms the hypothesis that the speed of
light does depend on the speed of the light source.

(2) The Pound-Rebka experiment confirms the hypothesis that the speed
of light is independent of the speed of the light source (Einstein's
1905 light postulate) and refutes the hypothesis that the speed of
light does depend on the speed of the light source.

Clever Einsteinians know that (1) is correct, (2) is wrong. See also:

http://www.blazelabs.com/f-g-gcont.asp
"So, faced with this evidence most readers must be wondering why we
learn about the importance of the constancy of speed of light. Did
Einstein miss this? Sometimes I find out that what's written in our
textbooks is just a biased version taken from the original work, so
after searching within the original text of the theory of GR by
Einstein, I found this quote:"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. Now we
might think that as a consequence of this, the special theory of
relativity and with it the whole theory of relativity would be laid in
the dust. But in reality this is not the case. We can only conclude
that the special theory of relativity cannot claim an unlimited domain
of validity ; its results hold only so long as we are able to
disregard the influences of gravitational fields on the phenomena
(e.g. of light)." - Albert Einstein (1879-1955) - The General Theory
of Relativity: Chapter 22 - A Few Inferences from the General
Principle of Relativity-. 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."

Pentcho Valev


where epsilon_0 and mu_0 are physical
constants which can be evaluated by performing two
simple experiments which involve measuring the force
of attraction between two fixed charges and two fixed
parallel current carrying wires. According to the
relativity principle, these experiments must yield
the same values for epsilon_0 and mu_0 in all inertial
frames. Thus, the speed of light must be the same
in all inertial frames.
http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teachin...s/node108.html

Now, does not the prize to Einstein
imply that the Academy recognised the
particle nature of light? The Nobel
Committee says that Einstein had found
that the energy exchange between matter
and ether occurs by atoms emitting or
absorbing a quantum of energy, hv.

As a consequence of the new concept of
light quanta (in modern terminology photons)
Einstein proposed the law that an electron
emitted from a substance by monochromatic
light with the frequency has to have a maximum
energy of E=hv-P, where p is the energy
needed to remove the electron from the substance.
Robert Andrews Millikan carried out a series
of measurements over a period of 10 years,
finally confirming the validity of this law
in 1916 with great accuracy. Millikan had,
however, found the idea of light quanta to
be unfamiliar and strange.

The Nobel Committee avoids committing
itself to the particle concept. Light-quanta
or with modern terminology, photons, were
explicitly mentioned in the reports on which
the prize decision rested only in connection
with emission and absorption processes. The
Committee says that the most important application
of Einstein's photoelectric law and also its most
convincing confirmation has come from the use
Bohr made of it in his theory of atoms, which
explains a vast amount of spectroscopic data.
http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/p...icles/ekspong/

Sue...

On 4 Feb, 09:25, Pentcho Valev wrote:
Endlessly repeated variations on the same old theme deleted

1) Valev cannot identify a single main-stream astronomer or physicist
who has changed their views based on his work.


2) Valev cannot explain why peer reviewed publication of his views
has not taken place.


3) Valev cannot explain why he feels that multiple postings each and
every day to groups where there is zero appreciation of his efforts
constitutes a good use of his time.


4) There are many areas of astronomical thinking and current practice
needing review far more urgently than Valev's current obsession.

On Feb 4, 4:37*am, "Sue..." wrote:
where epsilon_0 and mu_0 are physical
constants which can be evaluated by performing two
simple experiments which involve measuring the force
of attraction between two fixed charges and two fixed
***parallel*** current carrying wires. According to the
relativity principle, these experiments must yield
the same values for epsilon_0 and mu_0 in all inertial
frames. Thus, the speed of light must be the same
in all inertial frames. http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teachin...s/node108.html

Let me clarify that. Where I put the triple asterisks, instead of
'parallel', it should say 'infinitely long parallel' wires. Now any
infinitely long wire must be at rest, for to move it would require
infinite energy. Thus E0 and M0 are of course constant since the
setup is only a single possible setup in absolute space. It follows
that the speed of light dependent on E0 and M0 must also apply only to
absolute space.

On Feb 4, 9:07*am, "Strich.9" wrote:
On Feb 4, 4:37*am, "Sue..." wrote:

where epsilon_0 and mu_0 are physical
constants which can be evaluated by performing two
simple experiments which involve measuring the force
of attraction between two fixed charges and two fixed
***parallel*** current carrying wires. According to the
relativity principle, these experiments must yield
the same values for epsilon_0 and mu_0 in all inertial
frames. Thus, the speed of light must be the same
in all inertial frames. http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teachin...s/node108.html

Let me clarify that. *Where I put the triple asterisks, instead of
'parallel', it should say 'infinitely long parallel' wires. *Now any
infinitely long wire must be at rest, for to move it would require
infinite energy. *Thus E0 and M0 are of course constant since the
setup is only a single possible setup in absolute space. *It follows
that the speed of light dependent on E0 and M0 must also apply only to
absolute space.

If we paint an orange triangle on some helium
atom between earth and moon can you determine
your position wrt it ... absolutely?

http://espg.sr.unh.edu/ism/what1.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_space
http://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Constants/alpha.html

Sue...

On Feb 4, 9:18*am, "Sue..." wrote:
On Feb 4, 9:07*am, "Strich.9" wrote:





On Feb 4, 4:37*am, "Sue..." wrote:

where epsilon_0 and mu_0 are physical
constants which can be evaluated by performing two
simple experiments which involve measuring the force
of attraction between two fixed charges and two fixed
***parallel*** current carrying wires. According to the
relativity principle, these experiments must yield
the same values for epsilon_0 and mu_0 in all inertial
frames. Thus, the speed of light must be the same
in all inertial frames. http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teachin...s/node108.html

Let me clarify that. *Where I put the triple asterisks, instead of
'parallel', it should say 'infinitely long parallel' wires. *Now any
infinitely long wire must be at rest, for to move it would require
infinite energy. *Thus E0 and M0 are of course constant since the
setup is only a single possible setup in absolute space. *It follows
that the speed of light dependent on E0 and M0 must also apply only to
absolute space.

If we paint an orange triangle on some helium
atom between earth and moon can you determine
your position wrt it ... * absolutely?

http://espg.sr.unh.edu/ism/what1.htm...nts/alpha.html

Sue...- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Theoretically yes. That there may be technical and methodological
issues does not invalidate the premise.

Pentcho Valev wrote:

Scenario:

We are in 1911
[snip crap]

We are in 2009 with GPS - that works to spec.

idiot

--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/lajos.htm#a2

The gravity redshift in the Pound-Rebka experiment is for static
detectors in the gravity field. By the equivalence principle they are
covariantly accelerating in curved spacetime in order to stand still
relative to center of Earth. Stephen Hawking explains this in a
picture in his "The Universe in a Nutshell"

when you write e.g.

gtt = 1 - rs/r = - 1/grr

that is the representation of the metric field for static locally non-
inertial detectors held at fixed r by some non-gravity force.

On Feb 4, 2:47*pm, FLASH wrote:
The gravity redshift in the Pound-Rebka experiment is for static
detectors in the gravity field. By the equivalence principle they are
covariantly accelerating in curved spacetime in order to stand still
relative to center of Earth. Stephen Hawking explains this in a
picture in his "The Universe in a Nutshell"

when you write e.g.

gtt = 1 - rs/r = - 1/grr

that is the representation of the metric field for static locally non-
inertial detectors held at fixed r by some non-gravity force.

Sounds like a good way to synthesise a black hole
if the oscillators aren't really moving.

That seems to be the point of Okun's paper.
http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/9907017

Thanks for confirming a suspicion. :-)

Sue...