A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

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

How the Pound-Rebka Experiment Disproves Einstein's Relativity



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old February 17th 17, 08:21 AM posted to sci.astro
Pentcho Valev
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 6,309
Default How the Pound-Rebka Experiment Disproves Einstein's Relativity

If we assume that the speed of falling light varies like the speed of ordinary falling bodies (in the gravitational field of the Earth the acceleration of falling photons is g), and that there is no gravitational time dilation, the Pound-Rebka experiment is compatible with our two assumptions:

https://courses.physics.illinois.edu...e13/L13r..html
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign: "Consider a falling object. ITS SPEED INCREASES AS IT IS FALLING. Hence, if we were to associate a frequency with that object the frequency should increase accordingly as it falls to earth. Because of the equivalence between gravitational and inertial mass, WE SHOULD OBSERVE THE SAME EFFECT FOR LIGHT. So lets shine a light beam from the top of a very tall building. If we can measure the frequency shift as the light beam descends the building, we should be able to discern how gravity affects a falling light beam. This was done by Pound and Rebka in 1960. They shone a light from the top of the Jefferson tower at Harvard and measured the frequency shift. The frequency shift was tiny but in agreement with the theoretical prediction. Consider a light beam that is travelling away from a gravitational field. Its frequency should shift to lower values.. This is known as the gravitational red shift of light."

http://www.einstein-online.info/spot...t_white_dwarfs
Albert Einstein Institute: "One of the three classical tests for general relativity is the gravitational redshift of light or other forms of electromagnetic radiation. However, in contrast to the other two tests - the gravitational deflection of light and the relativistic perihelion shift -, you do not need general relativity to derive the correct prediction for the gravitational redshift. A combination of Newtonian gravity, a particle theory of light, and the weak equivalence principle (gravitating mass equals inertial mass) suffices. [...] The gravitational redshift was first measured on earth in 1960-65 by Pound, Rebka, and Snider at Harvard University..."

The Pound-Rebka experiment is also compatible with another couple of assumptions:

Assumption 1: The speed of falling light DECREASES - in the gravitational field of the Earth the acceleration of falling photons is NEGATIVE, -2g.

Assumption 2: There IS gravitational time dilation.

Both Assumption 1 and Assumption 2 are tenets of Einstein's general relativity - in this sense the Pound-Rebka experiment is compatible with general relativity. The problem is that both assumptions are absurd. In particular, Assumption 1 is an idiotic fudge factor concocted merely to make general relativity agree with the gravitational redshift predicted by Newton's emission theory of light:

https://archive.is/wn4PV
Albert Einstein: "Second, this consequence shows that the law of the constancy of the speed of light no longer holds, according to the general theory of relativity, in spaces that have gravitational fields. As a simple geometric consideration shows, the curvature of light rays occurs only in spaces where the speed of light is spatially variable."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FJ2SVPahBzg
"The change in speed of light with change in height is dc/dh=g/c."

http://www.physlink.com/Education/AskExperts/ae13.cfm
"Contrary to intuition, the speed of light (properly defined) decreases as the black hole is approached."

http://www.speed-light.info/speed_of_light_variable.htm
"Einstein wrote this paper in 1911 in German. (...) ...you will find in section 3 of that paper Einstein's derivation of the variable speed of light in a gravitational potential, eqn (3). The result is: c'=c0(1+φ/c^2) where φ is the gravitational potential relative to the point where the speed of light c0 is measured. Simply put: Light appears to travel slower in stronger gravitational fields (near bigger mass). (...) You can find a more sophisticated derivation later by Einstein (1955) from the full theory of general relativity in the weak field approximation. (...) Namely the 1955 approximation shows a variation in km/sec twice as much as first predicted in 1911."

http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s6-01/6-01.htm
"Specifically, Einstein wrote in 1911 that the speed of light at a place with the gravitational potential φ would be c(1+φ/c^2), where c is the nominal speed of light in the absence of gravity. In geometrical units we define c=1, so Einstein's 1911 formula can be written simply as c'=1+φ. However, this formula for the speed of light (not to mention this whole approach to gravity) turned out to be incorrect, as Einstein realized during the years leading up to 1915 and the completion of the general theory. (...) ...we have c_r =1+2φ, which corresponds to Einstein's 1911 equation, except that we have a factor of 2 instead of 1 on the potential term."

Pentcho Valev
Ads
  #2  
Old February 17th 17, 12:30 PM posted to sci.astro
Pentcho Valev
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 6,309
Default How the Pound-Rebka Experiment Disproves Einstein's Relativity

Pound, Rebka and Snider knew that their experiments had confirmed the variable speed of light predicted by Newton's emission theory of light, not the gravitational time dilation predicted by general relativity:

http://journals.aps.org/prl/pdf/10.1...sRevLett.4.337
R. V. Pound and G. A. Rebka, Jr, APPARENT WEIGHT OF PHOTONS

http://virgo.lal.in2p3.fr/NPAC/relat...iers/pound.pdf
R. V. Pound and J. L. Snider, Effect of Gravity on Gamma Radiation: "It is not our purpose here to enter into the many-sided discussion of the relationship between the effect under study and general relativity or energy conservation. It is to be noted that no strictly relativistic concepts are involved and the description of the effect as an "apparent weight" of photons is suggestive. The velocity difference predicted is identical to that which a material object would acquire in free fall for a time equal to the time of flight. [...] The view that the local time scale depends on gravitational potential appears to require a coherent source for confirmation. The present experiment is unable to distinguish between frequency changes and velocity changes, for example. It appears as if experimental comparison of clocks at different potentials would make a useful complementary contribution to the over-all status of theory."

Pentcho Valev
  #3  
Old February 18th 17, 09:55 AM posted to sci.astro
Pentcho Valev
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 6,309
Default How the Pound-Rebka Experiment Disproves Einstein's Relativity

Einsteinians measure the gravitational redshift (experiments essentially the same as the Pound-Rebka experiment) and then inform the brainwashed world that they have measured gravitational time dilation, a miraculous effect fabricated by Einstein in 1911:

http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/...ted-precision/
"A new paper co-authored by U.S. Energy Secretary Steven Chu measures the gravitational redshift, illustrated by the gravity-induced slowing of a clock and sometimes referred to as gravitational time dilation (though users of that term often conflate two separate phenomena), a measurement that jibes with Einstein and that is 10,000 times more precise than its predecessor."

http://www.theguardian.com/science/2...-billion-years
"Einstein's relativity theory states a clock must tick faster at the top of a mountain than at its foot, due to the effects of gravity. "Our performance means that we can measure the gravitational shift when you raise the clock just two centimetres (0.78 inches) on the Earth's surface," said study co-author Jun Ye."

Clever Einsteinians know that gravitational time dilation does not exist. The gravitational redshift (blueshift) is not due to time dilation - rather, it is the result of "what befalls light signals as they traverse space and time in the presence of gravitation":

http://www.amazon.com/Relativity-Its.../dp/0486406768
Banesh Hoffmann: "In an accelerated sky laboratory, and therefore also in the corresponding earth laboratory, the frequence of arrival of light pulses is lower than the ticking rate of the upper clocks even though all the clocks go at the same rate. [...] As a result the experimenter at the ceiling of the sky laboratory will see with his own eyes that the floor clock is going at a slower rate than the ceiling clock - even though, as I have stressed, both are going at the same rate. [...] The gravitational red shift does not arise from changes in the intrinsic rates of clocks. It arises from what befalls light signals as they traverse space and time in the presence of gravitation."

What "befalls light signals as they traverse space and time in the presence of gravitation"? They accelerate of course, just as ordinary falling objects do, and this variation of the speed of light (predicted by Newton's emission theory of light) causes the gravitational redshift (or blueshift):

https://courses.physics.illinois.edu...e13/L13r..html
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign: "Consider a falling object. ITS SPEED INCREASES AS IT IS FALLING. Hence, if we were to associate a frequency with that object the frequency should increase accordingly as it falls to earth. Because of the equivalence between gravitational and inertial mass, WE SHOULD OBSERVE THE SAME EFFECT FOR LIGHT. So lets shine a light beam from the top of a very tall building. If we can measure the frequency shift as the light beam descends the building, we should be able to discern how gravity affects a falling light beam. This was done by Pound and Rebka in 1960. They shone a light from the top of the Jefferson tower at Harvard and measured the frequency shift. The frequency shift was tiny but in agreement with the theoretical prediction. Consider a light beam that is travelling away from a gravitational field. Its frequency should shift to lower values.. This is known as the gravitational red shift of light." x

http://www.einstein-online.info/spot...t_white_dwarfs
Albert Einstein Institute: "One of the three classical tests for general relativity is the gravitational redshift of light or other forms of electromagnetic radiation. However, in contrast to the other two tests - the gravitational deflection of light and the relativistic perihelion shift -, you do not need general relativity to derive the correct prediction for the gravitational redshift. A combination of Newtonian gravity, a particle theory of light, and the weak equivalence principle (gravitating mass equals inertial mass) suffices. [...] The gravitational redshift was first measured on earth in 1960-65 by Pound, Rebka, and Snider at Harvard University..." x

Pentcho Valev
  #4  
Old February 18th 17, 10:22 PM posted to sci.astro
Pentcho Valev
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 6,309
Default How the Pound-Rebka Experiment Disproves Einstein's Relativity

Hanoch Gutfreund: "The general theory of relativity predicts that time progresses slower in a stronger gravitational field than in a weaker one." http://www.huffingtonpost.com/hanoch..._7314788..html

Actually the prediction is much more idiotic than that: General relativity predicts that gravitational time dilation occurs even in a HOMOGENEOUS gravitational field:

http://cds.cern.ch/record/538836/files/0202058.pdf
"the homogeneous gravitational field is the gravitational field which, in every point, has the same gradient of the potential. Such a field is produced by an infinite material plane with the constant surface density of mass."

This means that two clocks at different heights are in EXACTLY THE SAME immediate environment (experience EXACTLY THE SAME gravitational field) and yet one of them ticks faster than the other. That is, according to general relativity, the effect (gravitational time dilation) has no physical cause.

"Effect without cause" is not a problem in Einstein's schizophrenic world (one worships even greater idiocies) but clever Einsteinians feel uncomfortable from time to time and admit that there is no gravitational time dilation:

http://www.amazon.com/Relativity-Its.../dp/0486406768
Banesh Hoffmann: "In an accelerated sky laboratory, and therefore also in the corresponding earth laboratory, the frequence of arrival of light pulses is lower than the ticking rate of the upper clocks even though all the clocks go at the same rate. [...] As a result the experimenter at the ceiling of the sky laboratory will see with his own eyes that the floor clock is going at a slower rate than the ceiling clock - even though, as I have stressed, both are going at the same rate. [...] The gravitational red shift does not arise from changes in the intrinsic rates of clocks. It arises from what befalls light signals as they traverse space and time in the presence of gravitation." x

Pentcho Valev
 




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
How the Michelson-Morley Experiment Disproves Einstein's Relativity Pentcho Valev Astronomy Misc 2 February 17th 17 02:57 PM
The Michelson-Morley Experiment Disproves Einstein's Relativity Pentcho Valev Astronomy Misc 1 January 17th 16 05:06 PM
LOGIC IN THE POUND-REBKA EXPERIMENT Pentcho Valev Astronomy Misc 1 May 1st 15 07:52 AM
POUND-REBKA EXPERIMENT : ALL POSSIBILITIES Pentcho Valev Astronomy Misc 1 June 1st 14 11:45 AM
RELATIVITY HYPNOTISTS EXPLAIN THE POUND AND REBKA EXPERIMENT Pentcho Valev Astronomy Misc 29 May 21st 07 09:24 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:29 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2017 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.