DOES GRAVITATIONAL TIME DILATION EXIST?

As some relativity hypnotists suggest, the gravitational redshift is
caused by the fact that the speed of light varies with the
gravitational potential:

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."

Other relativity hypnotists suggest that, in the explanation of the
gravitational redshift, assuming both variability of the speed of
light ("Light loses energy as it rises, and gains energy as it falls
down") and the existence of gravitational time dilation ("Clocks tick
slower when they are lower in a gravitational field than when they are
higher") "just leads to confusion":

http://groups.google.com/group/sci.p...8bd595e71ad99?

After considering the relativity hypnotists' suggestions one is
tempted to conclude that gravitational time dilation simply does not
exist and science like

http://woodside.blogs.com/cosmologyc...gs_astron.html
http://woodside.blogs.com/cosmologyc...ational_t.html

is just fraud. Is the conclusion reasonable?

Pentcho Valev

On 22 mayo, 03:36, Pentcho Valev wrote:
As some relativity hypnotists suggest, the gravitational redshift is
caused by the fact that the speed of light varies with the
gravitational potential:

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."

Other relativity hypnotists suggest that, in the explanation of the
gravitational redshift, assuming both variability of the speed of
light ("Light loses energy as it rises, and gains energy as it falls
down") and the existence of gravitational time dilation ("Clocks tick
slower when they are lower in a gravitational field than when they are
higher") "just leads to confusion":

http://groups.google.com/group/sci.p...rowse_frm/thre...

After considering the relativity hypnotists' suggestions one is
tempted to conclude that gravitational time dilation simply does not
exist and science like

http://woodside.blogs.com/cosmologyc...ravitational_t....

is just fraud. Is the conclusion reasonable?

Pentcho Valev

If we denote by "gravitational time dilation" the fact that the time
rate of a clock changes with gravitational potential, then we can take
for granted that it exists, taking into account the very succesful
behavior of the GPS (Global Positioning System). We can say the same
respect the "velocity time dilation". Both effects are managed at the
same time in the GPS.

RVHG (Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato_

On May 22, 3:36 am, Pentcho Valev wrote [with
appropriate additions]:
As some [phony category invented by me to railroad everything and everybody
that disagrees with the Superior Intellect that I (and only I) have, next to which the entire
world is nothing more than deluded hypnotists (by which I actually meant hypotically
entranced, not hypnotizers excuse my lack of English ability, as I proceed to categorize
everything that even deviates from my personally mandated Party Line as the outcome of
a man who was little more than an outcast in the eyes of Physics (especially in Germany of
1920's and 1930's) and everything different as the product of a single individual (even things
that have nothing to do with Relativity and are even Newtonian Physics (I can't tell which is
which, I'll just call everything that sounds odd to me "Relativity" and "Einsteinianism" because
I have no off-switch, because my Superior Intellect is never-ceasing), as I continue to issue my
sacrosanct pronouncement on in my delusion of thinking that any of more than a couple dozen
people even know or give a damn about anything that goes on here in this pity party that
the Net Ents set up for Middle America and Middle everyone else to make us feel
important before they pull out the stops with Internet 2)] suggest, the gravitational redshift is
caused by the fact that the speed of light varies with the gravitational potential:

Pound-Rebka experiment

Proposed by R. V. Pound and G. A. Rebka Jr. in 1959,[1]
A gravitational redshift experiment, which measures the redshift of
light moving in a gravitational field, or, equivalently, a test of the
general relativity prediction that clocks should run at different
rates at different places in a gravitational field. It is considered
to be the experiment that ushered in an era of precision tests of
general relativity.

The test was carried out at Harvard University's Jefferson laboratory.
A solid sample containing gamma rays emitting iron (57Fe) was placed
in the center of a loudspeaker cone which was placed near the roof of
the building. Another sample containing 57Fe was placed in the
basement. The distance between this source and absorber was 22.5 meter
(73.8 ft). The gamma rays traveled through a Mylar bag filled with
helium to minimize scattering of the gamma rays. A scintillation
counter was placed below the receiving 57Fe sample to detect the gamma
rays that were not absorbed by the receiving sample. By vibrating the
speaker cone the gamma ray source moved with varying speed, thus
creating varying doppler shifts. When the doppler shift canceled out
the gravitational redshift, the receiving sample absorbed gamma rays
and the number of gamma rays detected by the scintillation counter
dropped accordingly. The variation in absorbtion could be correlated
with the phase of the speaker vibration, hence with the speed of the
emitting sample and therefore the doppler shift. To compensate for
possible systematic errors, Pound and Rebka varied the speaker
frequency between 10Hz and 50Hz, interchanged the source and absorber-
detector, and used different speakers (ferroelectric and moving coil
magnetic transducer).[2].

The result confirmed that the predictions of general relativity were
borne out at the 10% level.[3] This was later improved to better than
the 1% level by Pound and Snider.[4]

Another test involving a hydrogen maser increased the accuracy of the
measurement.[5]

References

[1] Pound, R. V.; Rebka Jr. G. A. (November 1, 1959). "Gravitational
Red-Shift in Nuclear Resonance". Physical Review Letters 3 (9):
439-441. DOI:10.1103/PhysRevLett.3.439. Retrieved on 2006-09-23.

[2] Mester, John (2006). "Experimental Tests of General Relativity":
9-11. Retrieved on 2007-04-13.

[3] Pound, R. V.; Rebka Jr. G. A. (April 1, 1960). "Apparent weight of
photons". Physical Review Letters 4 (7): 337-341. DOI:10.1103/
PhysRevLett.4.337. Retrieved on 2006-09-23.

[4] Pound, R. V.; Snider J. L. (November 2, 1964). "Effect of Gravity
on Nuclear Resonance". Physical Review Letters 13 (18): 539-540. DOI:
10.1103/PhysRevLett.13.539. Retrieved on 2006-09-27.

[5] Vessot, R. F. C.; M. W. Levine, E. M. Mattison, E. L. Blomberg, T.
E. Hoffman, G. U. Nystrom, B. F. Farrel, R. Decher, P. B. Eby, C. R.
Baugher, J. W. Watts, D. L. Teuber and F. D. Wills (December 29,
1980). "Test of Relativistic Gravitation with a Space-Borne Hydrogen
Maser". Physical Review Letters 45 (26): 2081-2084. DOI:10.1103/
PhysRevLett.45.2081. Retrieved on 2006-09-24.

Derived from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pound-Rebka_experiment"


---------

Experimental confirmation of time dilation:

The routine work carried on in particle accelerators since the 1950s,
such as those at CERN, is a continuously running test of the time
dilation of special relativity. Specifically the mass-momentum-energy
relation E^2 - (pc)^2 = (mc^2)^2 is verified (equivalent to the
kinetic energy formula p^2 - 2mT - (1/c)^2 T^2 = 0 for kinetic energy
T) is verified in the particle trajectories resulting from particle
collision processes, while p^2 - 2mT = 0 is ruled out.

Specific experiments:
Ives and Stilwell (1938, 1941), "An experimental study of the rate of
a moving clock", in two parts. These experiments measured the Doppler
shift of the radiation emitted from cathode rays, when viewed from
directly in front and from directly behind.

The high and low frequencies detected were not the classical values
predicted, while the Lorentz factor was confirmed.

Rossi and Hall (1941) compared the population of cosmic-ray produced
muons at the top of a mountain to that observed at sea level. Although
the travel time for the muons from the top of the mountain to the base
is several muon half-lives, the muon sample at the base was only
moderately reduced.

That is to say, the muons are decaying about 10 times slower than they
would in a rest frame (that is, for "stationary observers").

[A more striking example of this is the existece of neutrons -- which
have a half life of only about 10 minutes coming across light years
distance from deep interstellar space]

Hasselkamp, Mondry, and Scharmann (1979) measured the Doppler shift
from a source moving at right angles to the line of sight (the
transverse Doppler shift).

Stronger than the Ives-Stillwell experiment: there is no classical
transverse Doppler shift.

Hefele and Keating, in 1971, flew cesium atomic clocks east and west
around the Earth in commercial airliners, to compare the elapsed time
against that of a clock that remained at the US Naval Observatory.

The clocks suffered a net gain in elapsed time -- matching prediction
to within experimental error.

In 2005, the National Physical Laboratory in the United Kingdom,
report their limited replication of this experiment. The NPL
experiment differed from the original in that the cesium clocks were
sent on a shorter trip (London-Washingon D. C. return), but the clocks
were more accurate. The reported results are within 4% of the
predictions of relativity.

The Global Positioning System can be considered a continuously
operating experiment in both special and general relativity. The in-
orbit clocks are corrected for both special and general relativistic
time-dilation effects so they run at the same (average) rate as clocks
at the surface of the Earth. In addition, but not directly time-
dilation related, general relativistic correction terms are built into
the model of motion that the satellites broadcast to receivers -
uncorrected, these effects would result in an approximately 7-metre
oscillation in the pseudo-ranges measured by a receiver over a cycle
of 12 hours.


Derived from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_dilation"

On May 22, 8:56 am, Rock Brentwood wrote:


Experimental confirmation of time dilation:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_dilation


The apparent power of an induction motor is resolved by
using different clocks for resistive and reactive components.

Is that an example of "Time Dilation" ?

Sue...

[...]

Pentcho Valev wrote:

As some relativity hypnotists suggest, the gravitational redshift is
caused by the fact that the speed of light varies with the
gravitational potential:
[snip cap]

1) You are a lying idiot.
2) You are an empirical idiot
3) You are a generic idiot.
4) You are an idiot.
5) Idiot.

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

Pentcho Valev wrote:
As some relativity hypnotists suggest, the gravitational redshift is
caused by the fact that the speed of light varies with the
gravitational potential [...]

Valev attempts to give his personal hallucinations the appearance of
validity by ascribing them to others, and by quoting crackpot websites.
For some unknown reason he has an unnatural fetish for an equation
Einstein wrote in 1911, while on the rocky and difficult road from SR to GR.

In GR it is quite clear that "gravitational time dilation" applies to
appropriate physical situations, and also that the speed of light is c
in any locally inertial frame (independent of "gravitational
potential"), and also that the 1911 equation Valev obsesses about is not
generally valid. shrug


Tom Roberts

"Uncle Al" wrote in message
...
: Pentcho Valev wrote:
:
: As some relativity hypnotists suggest, the gravitational redshift is
: caused by the fact that the speed of light varies with the
: gravitational potential:
: [snip cap]

[snit wep frat]
Do you mean [snop carp]?

1) You are a lying illiterate.
2) You are an empirical arsehole.
3) You are a generic dolt.
4) You are a ****-faced baboon.
5) Cretin.

On May 22, 8:56 am, Rock Brentwood wrote:


Experimental confirmation of time dilation:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_dilation


The apparent power of an induction motor is resolved by
using different clocks for resistive and reactive components.

Is that an example of "Time Dilation" ?

Sue...

[...]

Tom Roberts wrote:
Pentcho Valev wrote:
As some relativity hypnotists suggest, the gravitational redshift is
caused by the fact that the speed of light varies with the
gravitational potential [...]

Valev attempts to give his personal hallucinations the appearance of
validity by ascribing them to others, and by quoting crackpot websites.
For some unknown reason he has an unnatural fetish for an equation
Einstein wrote in 1911, while on the rocky and difficult road from SR to GR.

Roberts Roberts what are you talking about. Einstein's 1911 equation
c'=c(1+V/c^2), although quoted in the source I have given, is a red
herring in this particular case. Why do you introduce it? What
matters is your 2003 statement that, in the explanation of the
gravitational redshift, assuming both variability of the speed of
light ("Light loses energy as it rises, and gains energy as it falls
down") and the existence of gravitational time dilation ("Clocks tick
slower when they are lower in a gravitational field than when they are
higher") "just leads to confusion":

http://groups.google.com/group/sci.p...8bd595e71ad99?

In GR it is quite clear that "gravitational time dilation" applies to
appropriate physical situations

Is it consistent with the gravitational redshift, provided the speed
of light in a gravitational field is variable? Or perhaps
gravitational time dilation would be consistent with the gravitational
redshift IF THE SPEED OF LIGHT IN A GRAVITATIONAL FIELD WERE CONSTANT?
Is this the essence of your 2003 statement?

and also that the speed of light is c
in any locally inertial frame (independent of "gravitational
potential")

Locally inertial frames are irrelevant in this case - just another red
herring. Why do you introduce it?

and also that the 1911 equation Valev obsesses about is not
generally valid.

We shall discuss this elsewhere - where Einstein's 1911 equation
c'=c(1+V/c^2) would be more relevant.

Pentcho Valev

On May 22, 4:56 am, Rock Brentwood wrote:

Pound-Rebka experiment

Proposed by R. V. Pound and G. A. Rebka Jr. in 1959,[1]
A gravitational redshift experiment, which measures the redshift of
light moving in a gravitational field, or, equivalently, a test of the
general relativity prediction that clocks should run at different
rates at different places in a gravitational field. It is considered
to be the experiment that ushered in an era of precision tests of
general relativity.

[...]

GR predicts gravitational red, blue, or no shift depending on which
element of the metric employed to do so. Thus speaking, this
experiment proves only one of the contradictory predictions of GR.
shrug

Experimental confirmation of time dilation:

The routine work carried on in particle accelerators since the 1950s,
such as those at CERN, is a continuously running test of the time
dilation of special relativity. Specifically the mass-momentum-energy
relation E^2 - (pc)^2 = (mc^2)^2 is verified (equivalent to the
kinetic energy formula p^2 - 2mT - (1/c)^2 T^2 = 0 for kinetic energy
T) is verified in the particle trajectories resulting from particle
collision processes, while p^2 - 2mT = 0 is ruled out.

In gravitational red shift under gravitational time dilation, the
energy of a photon decreases. Under time dilation of SR, energy
increases. Thus, it should be so obvious to conclude that time
dilation does not necessary have anything to do with energy. Thus,
this experiment trying to use energy to prove time dilation is very
lame.

Specific experiments:
Ives and Stilwell (1938, 1941), "An experimental study of the rate of
a moving clock", in two parts. These experiments measured the Doppler
shift of the radiation emitted from cathode rays, when viewed from
directly in front and from directly behind.

The high and low frequencies detected were not the classical values
predicted, while the Lorentz factor was confirmed.

This does not prove the Lorenz transform valid. There are other
transformations out there that incorporates the so called gamma factor
or 1 / sqrt(1 - v^2 / c^2). For example, the transformation that the
Lorenz transform evolved from is the Voigt transform which predates
the Lorentz transform by at least one decade.

Rossi and Hall (1941) compared the population of cosmic-ray produced
muons at the top of a mountain to that observed at sea level. Although
the travel time for the muons from the top of the mountain to the base
is several muon half-lives, the muon sample at the base was only
moderately reduced.

That is to say, the muons are decaying about 10 times slower than they
would in a rest frame (that is, for "stationary observers").

[A more striking example of this is the existece of neutrons -- which
have a half life of only about 10 minutes coming across light years
distance from deep interstellar space]

Now, if you get prove the world also slow down by 10 times looking
from the muon's point of view, then you are said to have proven the
validity of the Lorentz transform. In the meantime, you just have
farce. shrug

Hasselkamp, Mondry, and Scharmann (1979) measured the Doppler shift
from a source moving at right angles to the line of sight (the
transverse Doppler shift).

Stronger than the Ives-Stillwell experiment: there is no classical
transverse Doppler shift.

The Hasselkamp experiment has very little coverage in English. It is
rather difficult to evaluate the merit of this experiment.

Hefele and Keating, in 1971, flew cesium atomic clocks east and west
around the Earth in commercial airliners, to compare the elapsed time
against that of a clock that remained at the US Naval Observatory.

The Hefele-Keating experiment after nulling out the effect of
gravitational time dilation proves the principle of relativity wrong.
Properly interpreting the result of this experiment really spells out
the doom for validity of the Lorentz transform and the BS (also known
as SR) that is based on this mathematics. shrug

In 2005, the National Physical Laboratory in the United Kingdom,
report their limited replication of this experiment. The NPL
experiment differed from the original in that the cesium clocks were
sent on a shorter trip (London-Washingon D. C. return), but the clocks
were more accurate. The reported results are within 4% of the
predictions of relativity.

This spells more trouble for SR.

The Global Positioning System can be considered a continuously
operating experiment in both special and general relativity. The in-
orbit clocks are corrected for both special and general relativistic
time-dilation effects so they run at the same (average) rate as clocks
at the surface of the Earth. In addition, but not directly time-
dilation related, general relativistic correction terms are built into
the model of motion that the satellites broadcast to receivers -
uncorrected, these effects would result in an approximately 7-metre
oscillation in the pseudo-ranges measured by a receiver over a cycle
of 12 hours.

This is a total myth (basically a lie) that GR is employed into the
design of GPS. See below.

http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/GPS/GPS.htm