|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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 | |
|
|
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 06:53 AM |
1 dollar = 1 pound -- NOT | Jonathan Silverlight | UK Astronomy | 0 | December 1st 06 09:32 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 04:58 AM |