|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Interpreting the Pound-Rebka experiment in 1911
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... |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Interpreting Valev's illness
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. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Interpreting the Pound-Rebka experiment in 1911
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. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Interpreting the Pound-Rebka experiment in 1911
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... |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Interpreting the Pound-Rebka experiment in 1911
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. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Interpreting the Pound-Rebka experiment in 1911
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 |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Interpreting the Pound-Rebka experiment in 1911
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. |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Interpreting the Pound-Rebka experiment in 1911
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... |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Pound and Rebka experiment falsifies big bang theory. | [email protected] | Astronomy Misc | 71 | November 12th 08 10:45 AM |
Pound Rebka | Max Keon | Astronomy Misc | 85 | March 4th 08 10:57 AM |
Pound-Rebka revisited | Pentcho Valev | Astronomy Misc | 0 | August 28th 07 05:52 AM |
Pound-Rebka revisited | Pentcho Valev | Astronomy Misc | 0 | August 27th 07 04:52 PM |
RELATIVITY HYPNOTISTS EXPLAIN THE POUND AND REBKA EXPERIMENT | Pentcho Valev | Astronomy Misc | 29 | May 21st 07 09:24 PM |