FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups 
 ProfileProfile   PreferencesPreferences   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 
Forum index » Science and Technology » Physics » Relativity
Einstein interpretation of gravitational redshift is misleading
Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 2 of 5 [65 Posts] View previous topic :: View next topic
Goto page:  Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5 Next
Author Message
Henri Wilson
science forum Guru


Joined: 08 May 2005
Posts: 3381

PostPosted: Fri Jul 14, 2006 7:28 am    Post subject: Re: Einstein interpretation of gravitational redshift is misleading Reply with quote

On 13 Jul 2006 21:20:22 -0700, "PD" <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> wrote:

Quote:

mluttgens@wanadoo.fr wrote:
PD wrote:
mluttgens@wanadoo.fr wrote:
PD wrote:
mluttgens@wanadoo.fr wrote:
Einstein interpretation of gravitational redshift is misleading
---------------------------------------------------------------

Excerpts from arXiv: physics/ 9907017 v2 27 Jul 1999

ON THE INTERPRETATION OF THE REDSHIFT IN A STATIC GRAVITATIONAL FIELD
L.B. OKUN and K.G. SELIVANOV
ITEP, Moscow, 117218, Russia
e-mail: okun@heron.itep.ru, selivano@heron.itep.ru
and
V.L. TELEGDI
EP Division, CERN, CH - 1211 Geneva 23
e-mail: valentine.telegdi@cern.ch

Excerpt:

"ABSTRACT

The classical phenomenon of the redshift of light in a static
gravitational potential, usually called the gravitational redshift,
is described in the literature essentially in two ways:
on the one hand the phenomenon is explained through the behaviour
of clocks which run the faster the higher they are located in the
potential, whereas the energy and frequency of the propagating photon
do not change with height. The light thus appears to be redshifted
relative to the frequency of the clock.

On the other hand the phenomenon is alternatively discussed
(even in some authoritative texts) in terms of an energy loss of
a photon as it overcomes the gravitational attraction of the massive
body. This second approach operates with notions such as the
"gravitational mass" or the "potential energy" of a photon and
we assert that it is misleading.

We do not claim to present any original ideas or to give a
comprehensive review of the subject, our goal being essentially
a pedagogical one."


This proof falsifies Einstein's view:

Excerpt:

"The gravitational redshift is a classical effect of Einstein's
General
Relativity (GR), one predicted by him [1] well before that theory
was created [2] (for the historical background, see e.g., [3]).
Phenomenologically one can simply affirm that the frequency of light
emitted by two identical atoms is smaller for the atom which sits
deeper in the gravitational potential.


I'm sorry, Marcel. I don't see any conflict.
Okun says that redshift is better understood that as a time dilation
effect than as a change of energy effect.
The statement at bottom says the effect occurs. It does not say that
this effect is due to a change of energy.

PD

For a freely falling absorber, the signal emitted from the ground
would appear *Doppler blue shifted* by gH/c^2 if it were not
*beforehand* red shifted by gH/c^2 by "the gravitational attraction
of the massive body".

Because of the Doppler effect, one has to accept that the energy and
frequency of the propagating photon change with height, and that clocks
don't run the faster the higher they are located in the potential.


I see you learned nothing from reading Lev Okun's article.

What do you don't understand in my demonstration:

It is not a demonstration. It is an exposition of precisely what Okun
warned about. The Doppler shift is *not* best understood as a loss or
increase of energy of the photon, precisely because of the problem that
Okun points out. It is better understood as a difference in clock rates
at different locations in the potential well.

Why?

It is perfectly well understood in terms of light accelerating as it falls,
like any other lump of matter.

Marcel is correct. GR is plain bullshit.

Quote:

PD


HW.
www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm

Appropriate message snipping is considerate and painless.
Back to top
mluttgens@wanadoo.fr
science forum Guru Wannabe


Joined: 11 Sep 2005
Posts: 290

PostPosted: Fri Jul 14, 2006 9:09 am    Post subject: Re: Einstein interpretation of gravitational redshift is misleading Reply with quote

PD wrote:
Quote:
mluttgens@wanadoo.fr wrote:
PD wrote:
mluttgens@wanadoo.fr wrote:
PD wrote:
mluttgens@wanadoo.fr wrote:
Einstein interpretation of gravitational redshift is misleading
---------------------------------------------------------------

Excerpts from arXiv: physics/ 9907017 v2 27 Jul 1999

ON THE INTERPRETATION OF THE REDSHIFT IN A STATIC GRAVITATIONAL FIELD
L.B. OKUN and K.G. SELIVANOV
ITEP, Moscow, 117218, Russia
e-mail: okun@heron.itep.ru, selivano@heron.itep.ru
and
V.L. TELEGDI
EP Division, CERN, CH - 1211 Geneva 23
e-mail: valentine.telegdi@cern.ch

Excerpt:

"ABSTRACT

The classical phenomenon of the redshift of light in a static
gravitational potential, usually called the gravitational redshift,
is described in the literature essentially in two ways:
on the one hand the phenomenon is explained through the behaviour
of clocks which run the faster the higher they are located in the
potential, whereas the energy and frequency of the propagating photon
do not change with height. The light thus appears to be redshifted
relative to the frequency of the clock.

On the other hand the phenomenon is alternatively discussed
(even in some authoritative texts) in terms of an energy loss of
a photon as it overcomes the gravitational attraction of the massive
body. This second approach operates with notions such as the
"gravitational mass" or the "potential energy" of a photon and
we assert that it is misleading.

We do not claim to present any original ideas or to give a
comprehensive review of the subject, our goal being essentially
a pedagogical one."


This proof falsifies Einstein's view:

Excerpt:

"The gravitational redshift is a classical effect of Einstein's
General
Relativity (GR), one predicted by him [1] well before that theory
was created [2] (for the historical background, see e.g., [3]).
Phenomenologically one can simply affirm that the frequency of light
emitted by two identical atoms is smaller for the atom which sits
deeper in the gravitational potential.


I'm sorry, Marcel. I don't see any conflict.
Okun says that redshift is better understood that as a time dilation
effect than as a change of energy effect.
The statement at bottom says the effect occurs. It does not say that
this effect is due to a change of energy.

PD

For a freely falling absorber, the signal emitted from the ground
would appear *Doppler blue shifted* by gH/c^2 if it were not
*beforehand* red shifted by gH/c^2 by "the gravitational attraction
of the massive body".

Because of the Doppler effect, one has to accept that the energy and
frequency of the propagating photon change with height, and that clocks
don't run the faster the higher they are located in the potential.


I see you learned nothing from reading Lev Okun's article.

What do you don't understand in my demonstration:

It is not a demonstration. It is an exposition of precisely what Okun
warned about. The Doppler shift is *not* best understood as a loss or
increase of energy of the photon, precisely because of the problem that
Okun points out. It is better understood as a difference in clock rates
at different locations in the potential well.


Tell us PD, what shift is observed by a freely falling receiver?
(That shift is 0 according to eveybody, perhaps not according to
you).

As the receiver is moving relatively to the source, why doesn't he
observe a blue shift due to the Doppler effect, instead of no shift
at all?

The answer is simple: the Doppler blue shift gH/c^2 is exacty cancelled
by a redshift of -gh/c^2 due to the loss of energy of the photons as
they "overcome the gravitational attraction of the Earth?
Do you reject such answer? Why?

Marcel Luttgens

Quote:
PD


For a freely falling absorber, the signal emitted from the ground
would appear *Doppler blue shifted* by gH/c^2 if it were not
*beforehand* red shifted by gH/c^2 by "the gravitational attraction
of the massive body".

Because of the Doppler effect, one has to accept that the energy and
frequency of the propagating photon change with height, and that clocks

don't run the faster the higher they are located in the potential.

Marcel Luttgens

I see you learned nothing from reading Lev Okun's article.
Back to top
Sue...
science forum Guru


Joined: 08 May 2005
Posts: 2684

PostPosted: Fri Jul 14, 2006 9:39 am    Post subject: Re: Einstein interpretation of gravitational redshift is misleading Reply with quote

mluttgens@wanadoo.fr wrote:

Quote:

As the receiver is moving relatively to the source, why doesn't he
observe a blue shift due to the Doppler effect, instead of no shift
at all?


The Mossbauer 'receiver' is extremely narrow due to the high
Q of the atomic oscillator. It only observes (absorbs) light
which is of the right frequency and phase to permit an
efficient transition to a permissible energy level.

A wide band receiver will intercept the transitions at a
higher rate due to the closing motion, just as you have
described.

Sue...
Back to top
Harry
science forum Guru


Joined: 08 May 2005
Posts: 1010

PostPosted: Fri Jul 14, 2006 12:48 pm    Post subject: Re: Einstein interpretation of gravitational redshift is misleading Reply with quote

"Henri Wilson" <HW@..> wrote in message
news:8eheb29mf9s9p7kic5mq2005qrrlvprj5j@4ax.com...
Quote:
On 13 Jul 2006 21:20:22 -0700, "PD" <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> wrote:


mluttgens@wanadoo.fr wrote:
PD wrote:
mluttgens@wanadoo.fr wrote:
PD wrote:
mluttgens@wanadoo.fr wrote:
Einstein interpretation of gravitational redshift is misleading
---------------------------------------------------------------

Excerpts from arXiv: physics/ 9907017 v2 27 Jul 1999

ON THE INTERPRETATION OF THE REDSHIFT IN A STATIC GRAVITATIONAL
FIELD
L.B. OKUN and K.G. SELIVANOV
ITEP, Moscow, 117218, Russia
e-mail: okun@heron.itep.ru, selivano@heron.itep.ru
and
V.L. TELEGDI
EP Division, CERN, CH - 1211 Geneva 23
e-mail: valentine.telegdi@cern.ch

Excerpt:

"ABSTRACT

The classical phenomenon of the redshift of light in a static
gravitational potential, usually called the gravitational
redshift,
is described in the literature essentially in two ways:
on the one hand the phenomenon is explained through the
behaviour
of clocks which run the faster the higher they are located in
the
potential, whereas the energy and frequency of the propagating
photon
do not change with height. The light thus appears to be
redshifted
relative to the frequency of the clock.

On the other hand the phenomenon is alternatively discussed
(even in some authoritative texts) in terms of an energy loss
of
a photon as it overcomes the gravitational attraction of the
massive
body. This second approach operates with notions such as the
"gravitational mass" or the "potential energy" of a photon and
we assert that it is misleading.

We do not claim to present any original ideas or to give a
comprehensive review of the subject, our goal being essentially
a pedagogical one."


This proof falsifies Einstein's view:

Excerpt:

"The gravitational redshift is a classical effect of Einstein's
General
Relativity (GR), one predicted by him [1] well before that
theory
was created [2] (for the historical background, see e.g., [3]).
Phenomenologically one can simply affirm that the frequency of
light
emitted by two identical atoms is smaller for the atom which
sits
deeper in the gravitational potential.


I'm sorry, Marcel. I don't see any conflict.
Okun says that redshift is better understood that as a time
dilation
effect than as a change of energy effect.
The statement at bottom says the effect occurs. It does not say
that
this effect is due to a change of energy.

PD

For a freely falling absorber, the signal emitted from the ground
would appear *Doppler blue shifted* by gH/c^2 if it were not
*beforehand* red shifted by gH/c^2 by "the gravitational attraction
of the massive body".

Because of the Doppler effect, one has to accept that the energy
and
frequency of the propagating photon change with height, and that
clocks
don't run the faster the higher they are located in the potential.


I see you learned nothing from reading Lev Okun's article.

What do you don't understand in my demonstration:

It is not a demonstration. It is an exposition of precisely what Okun
warned about. The Doppler shift is *not* best understood as a loss or
increase of energy of the photon, precisely because of the problem that
Okun points out. It is better understood as a difference in clock rates
at different locations in the potential well.

Why?

It is perfectly well understood in terms of light accelerating as it
falls,
like any other lump of matter.

Marcel is correct. GR is plain bullshit.

This was discussed before in a thread in which you participated:
http://tinyurl.com/pflq2

Harald
Back to top
mluttgens@wanadoo.fr
science forum Guru Wannabe


Joined: 11 Sep 2005
Posts: 290

PostPosted: Sat Jul 15, 2006 7:41 am    Post subject: Re: Einstein interpretation of gravitational redshift is misleading Reply with quote

Sue... wrote:
Quote:
mluttgens@wanadoo.fr wrote:


As the receiver is moving relatively to the source, why doesn't he
observe a blue shift due to the Doppler effect, instead of no shift
at all?


The Mossbauer 'receiver' is extremely narrow due to the high
Q of the atomic oscillator. It only observes (absorbs) light
which is of the right frequency and phase to permit an
efficient transition to a permissible energy level.

A wide band receiver will intercept the transitions at a
higher rate due to the closing motion, just as you have
described.

Sue...

Thank you.

Only crackpots would stick to the explanation according to which
"clocks which run the faster the higher they are located in the
potential, whereas the energy and frequency of the propagating photon
do not change with height."

But, nevertheless, most GRists will probably not openly recognize that
such explanation is "misleading".

Marcel Luttgens
Back to top
Sue...
science forum Guru


Joined: 08 May 2005
Posts: 2684

PostPosted: Sat Jul 15, 2006 10:40 am    Post subject: Re: Einstein interpretation of gravitational redshift is misleading Reply with quote

mluttgens@wanadoo.fr wrote:
Quote:
Sue... wrote:
mluttgens@wanadoo.fr wrote:


As the receiver is moving relatively to the source, why doesn't he
observe a blue shift due to the Doppler effect, instead of no shift
at all?


The Mossbauer 'receiver' is extremely narrow due to the high
Q of the atomic oscillator. It only observes (absorbs) light
which is of the right frequency and phase to permit an
efficient transition to a permissible energy level.

A wide band receiver will intercept the transitions at a
higher rate due to the closing motion, just as you have
described.

Sue...

Thank you.

Only crackpots would stick to the explanation according to which
"clocks which run the faster the higher they are located in the
potential, whereas the energy and frequency of the propagating photon
do not change with height."

But, nevertheless, most GRists will probably not openly recognize that
such explanation is "misleading".

Marcel Luttgens

LOL
I am looking for a Pound-Rebka-Snider experiment down a
mine shaft. I think that would clear up a lot of the misunderstanding
but so far I haven't found one. Either my research skills are
getting rusty or graduate students have a softer life these days.

Sue...
Back to top
mluttgens@wanadoo.fr
science forum Guru Wannabe


Joined: 11 Sep 2005
Posts: 290

PostPosted: Sat Jul 15, 2006 12:39 pm    Post subject: Re: Einstein interpretation of gravitational redshift is misleading Reply with quote

Sue... wrote:
Quote:
mluttgens@wanadoo.fr wrote:
Sue... wrote:
mluttgens@wanadoo.fr wrote:


As the receiver is moving relatively to the source, why doesn't he
observe a blue shift due to the Doppler effect, instead of no shift
at all?


The Mossbauer 'receiver' is extremely narrow due to the high
Q of the atomic oscillator. It only observes (absorbs) light
which is of the right frequency and phase to permit an
efficient transition to a permissible energy level.

A wide band receiver will intercept the transitions at a
higher rate due to the closing motion, just as you have
described.

Sue...

Thank you.

Only crackpots would stick to the explanation according to which
"clocks which run the faster the higher they are located in the
potential, whereas the energy and frequency of the propagating photon
do not change with height."

But, nevertheless, most GRists will probably not openly recognize that
such explanation is "misleading".

Marcel Luttgens

LOL

Does that mean "Laughing Out Loud -or- Lots of Luck (or Love)"?

Quote:
I am looking for a Pound-Rebka-Snider experiment down a
mine shaft. I think that would clear up a lot of the misunderstanding
but so far I haven't found one. Either my research skills are
getting rusty or graduate students have a softer life these days.

Misunderstandings from some GRists! And more generally from crackpots!

Marcel Luttgens

Quote:

Sue...
Back to top
dda1
science forum Guru


Joined: 06 Feb 2006
Posts: 762

PostPosted: Sat Jul 15, 2006 2:34 pm    Post subject: Marcel Luttgens - s**t Eater Reply with quote

mluttgens@wanadoo.fr wrote:
<snipped, the m**********r doesn't understand the Pound Rebka
experiment>
Hey, the food is pretty good in your country, why do you persist in
eating s**t breakfast, lunch and dinner?
Back to top
tendon
science forum beginner


Joined: 13 Jul 2006
Posts: 18

PostPosted: Sat Jul 15, 2006 4:02 pm    Post subject: Re: Marcel Luttgens - s**t Eater Reply with quote

dda1 wrote:
Quote:
mluttgens@wanadoo.fr wrote:
snipped, the m**********r doesn't understand the Pound Rebka
experiment
Hey, the food is pretty good in your country, why do you persist in
eating s**t breakfast, lunch and dinner?

what about not changin tha foken subject lines
yo stooped foken nazimothofaka
Back to top
dda1
science forum Guru


Joined: 06 Feb 2006
Posts: 762

PostPosted: Sat Jul 15, 2006 4:29 pm    Post subject: Re: Marcel Luttgens - s**t Eater Reply with quote

my mother wrote:
Stop fucking your mother and eating your own s**t. It makes you and
your offspring imbeciles. Wait, you are already and imbecile!
Back to top
mluttgens@wanadoo.fr
science forum Guru Wannabe


Joined: 11 Sep 2005
Posts: 290

PostPosted: Sat Jul 15, 2006 5:56 pm    Post subject: Re: Einstein interpretation of gravitational redshift is misleading Reply with quote

Sue... wrote:
Quote:
mluttgens@wanadoo.fr wrote:
Sue... wrote:
mluttgens@wanadoo.fr wrote:


As the receiver is moving relatively to the source, why doesn't he
observe a blue shift due to the Doppler effect, instead of no shift
at all?


The Mossbauer 'receiver' is extremely narrow due to the high
Q of the atomic oscillator. It only observes (absorbs) light
which is of the right frequency and phase to permit an
efficient transition to a permissible energy level.

A wide band receiver will intercept the transitions at a
higher rate due to the closing motion, just as you have
described.

Sue...

Thank you.

Only crackpots would stick to the explanation according to which
"clocks which run the faster the higher they are located in the
potential, whereas the energy and frequency of the propagating photon
do not change with height."

But, nevertheless, most GRists will probably not openly recognize that
such explanation is "misleading".

Marcel Luttgens

LOL
I am looking for a Pound-Rebka-Snider experiment down a
mine shaft. I think that would clear up a lot of the misunderstanding
but so far I haven't found one. Either my research skills are
getting rusty or graduate students have a softer life these days.

Sue...

You wrote:

"I am looking for a Pound-Rebka-Snider experiment down a
mine shaft. I think that would clear up a lot of the misunderstanding
but so far I haven't found one."

In the meantime, you could content yourself with the formula easily
obtained by using the potential energy of the photons:

Nu1 is the frequency of the signal sent to the bottom
of the shaft.
Nu2 is the frequency of the signal received at the bottom.
d is the distance of the bottom of the shaft to the Earth's center.
Me and Re are respectively the mass and the radius of the Earth.
The shift Nu2/Nu1 - 1 = (GMe/2Re^3c^2) * (Re^2-d^2)

If GR doesn't get the same formula, it is false.

Marcel Luttgens
Back to top
Dirk Van de moortel
science forum Guru


Joined: 01 May 2005
Posts: 3019

PostPosted: Sat Jul 15, 2006 6:22 pm    Post subject: Re: Einstein interpretation of gravitational redshift is misleading Reply with quote

<mluttgens@wanadoo.fr> wrote in message news:1152986207.831816.296920@s13g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Quote:

Sue... wrote:
mluttgens@wanadoo.fr wrote:
Sue... wrote:
mluttgens@wanadoo.fr wrote:


As the receiver is moving relatively to the source, why doesn't he
observe a blue shift due to the Doppler effect, instead of no shift
at all?


The Mossbauer 'receiver' is extremely narrow due to the high
Q of the atomic oscillator. It only observes (absorbs) light
which is of the right frequency and phase to permit an
efficient transition to a permissible energy level.

A wide band receiver will intercept the transitions at a
higher rate due to the closing motion, just as you have
described.

Sue...

Thank you.

Only crackpots would stick to the explanation according to which
"clocks which run the faster the higher they are located in the
potential, whereas the energy and frequency of the propagating photon
do not change with height."

But, nevertheless, most GRists will probably not openly recognize that
such explanation is "misleading".

Marcel Luttgens

LOL
I am looking for a Pound-Rebka-Snider experiment down a
mine shaft. I think that would clear up a lot of the misunderstanding
but so far I haven't found one. Either my research skills are
getting rusty or graduate students have a softer life these days.

Sue...

You wrote:

"I am looking for a Pound-Rebka-Snider experiment down a
mine shaft. I think that would clear up a lot of the misunderstanding
but so far I haven't found one."

In the meantime, you could content yourself with the formula easily
obtained by using the potential energy of the photons:

Nu1 is the frequency of the signal sent to the bottom
of the shaft.
Nu2 is the frequency of the signal received at the bottom.
d is the distance of the bottom of the shaft to the Earth's center.
Me and Re are respectively the mass and the radius of the Earth.
The shift Nu2/Nu1 - 1 = (GMe/2Re^3c^2) * (Re^2-d^2)

If GR doesn't get the same formula, it is false.

As false as the The Lorentz transformation (LT), by M. Luttgens?
http://perso.wanadoo.fr/mluttgens/LTfalse.htm

Dirk Vdm
Back to top
Sue...
science forum Guru


Joined: 08 May 2005
Posts: 2684

PostPosted: Sat Jul 15, 2006 7:34 pm    Post subject: Re: Einstein interpretation of gravitational redshift is misleading Reply with quote

mluttgens@wanadoo.fr wrote:
Quote:
Sue... wrote:
mluttgens@wanadoo.fr wrote:
Sue... wrote:
mluttgens@wanadoo.fr wrote:


As the receiver is moving relatively to the source, why doesn't he
observe a blue shift due to the Doppler effect, instead of no shift
at all?


The Mossbauer 'receiver' is extremely narrow due to the high
Q of the atomic oscillator. It only observes (absorbs) light
which is of the right frequency and phase to permit an
efficient transition to a permissible energy level.

A wide band receiver will intercept the transitions at a
higher rate due to the closing motion, just as you have
described.

Sue...

Thank you.

Only crackpots would stick to the explanation according to which
"clocks which run the faster the higher they are located in the
potential, whereas the energy and frequency of the propagating photon
do not change with height."

But, nevertheless, most GRists will probably not openly recognize that
such explanation is "misleading".

Marcel Luttgens

LOL
I am looking for a Pound-Rebka-Snider experiment down a
mine shaft. I think that would clear up a lot of the misunderstanding
but so far I haven't found one. Either my research skills are
getting rusty or graduate students have a softer life these days.

Sue...

You wrote:

"I am looking for a Pound-Rebka-Snider experiment down a
mine shaft. I think that would clear up a lot of the misunderstanding
but so far I haven't found one."

In the meantime, you could content yourself with the formula easily
obtained by using the potential energy of the photons:

Nu1 is the frequency of the signal sent to the bottom
of the shaft.
Nu2 is the frequency of the signal received at the bottom.
d is the distance of the bottom of the shaft to the Earth's center.
Me and Re are respectively the mass and the radius of the Earth.
The shift Nu2/Nu1 - 1 = (GMe/2Re^3c^2) * (Re^2-d^2)

If GR doesn't get the same formula, it is false.

Equation 14 looks reasonable:
http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/9606079

It is in terms of gravitational potential so
would predict the lowest frequency at the surface
then increasing as the clock either moved up or down.
That is consistant with free pendulms, long know to
decrease in frequency when moved up or down from the
surface.

As for your equation above, Nu1 should equal Nu2.
....unless you have a mechanism to create or destroy
the news of events as it is propagated. Maybe that
is what is happening on a noisy satellite feed when
the announcer freezes for a few seconds? Surprised)

Sue...



Quote:

Marcel Luttgens
Back to top
tendon
science forum beginner


Joined: 13 Jul 2006
Posts: 18

PostPosted: Sat Jul 15, 2006 8:22 pm    Post subject: Re: Marcel Luttgens - s**t Eater Reply with quote

dda1 wrote:
Quote:
my mother wrote:
Stop fucking your mother and eating your own s**t. It makes you and
your offspring imbeciles. Wait, you are already and imbecile!

this is a wonderful think, informin tha entire
population about tha writings of your mother

who wold even think such a thing could
happen this place, these peoples are psykos

doin his own mother, she tellin him ta stop
doin it

disgustin, but thank yo anyways
Back to top
mluttgens@wanadoo.fr
science forum Guru Wannabe


Joined: 11 Sep 2005
Posts: 290

PostPosted: Sat Jul 15, 2006 9:32 pm    Post subject: Re: Einstein interpretation of gravitational redshift is misleading Reply with quote

Sue... wrote:
Quote:
mluttgens@wanadoo.fr wrote:
Sue... wrote:
mluttgens@wanadoo.fr wrote:
Sue... wrote:
mluttgens@wanadoo.fr wrote:


As the receiver is moving relatively to the source, why doesn't he
observe a blue shift due to the Doppler effect, instead of no shift
at all?


The Mossbauer 'receiver' is extremely narrow due to the high
Q of the atomic oscillator. It only observes (absorbs) light
which is of the right frequency and phase to permit an
efficient transition to a permissible energy level.

A wide band receiver will intercept the transitions at a
higher rate due to the closing motion, just as you have
described.

Sue...

Thank you.

Only crackpots would stick to the explanation according to which
"clocks which run the faster the higher they are located in the
potential, whereas the energy and frequency of the propagating photon
do not change with height."

But, nevertheless, most GRists will probably not openly recognize that
such explanation is "misleading".

Marcel Luttgens

LOL
I am looking for a Pound-Rebka-Snider experiment down a
mine shaft. I think that would clear up a lot of the misunderstanding
but so far I haven't found one. Either my research skills are
getting rusty or graduate students have a softer life these days.

Sue...

You wrote:

"I am looking for a Pound-Rebka-Snider experiment down a
mine shaft. I think that would clear up a lot of the misunderstanding
but so far I haven't found one."

In the meantime, you could content yourself with the formula easily
obtained by using the potential energy of the photons:

Nu1 is the frequency of the signal sent to the bottom
of the shaft.
Nu2 is the frequency of the signal received at the bottom.
d is the distance of the bottom of the shaft to the Earth's center.
Me and Re are respectively the mass and the radius of the Earth.
The shift Nu2/Nu1 - 1 = (GMe/2Re^3c^2) * (Re^2-d^2)

If GR doesn't get the same formula, it is false.

Equation 14 looks reasonable:
http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/9606079

Equation 14 should here be written in terms of the shaft depth!
Perhaps a true GR specialist could do this.

Quote:

It is in terms of gravitational potential so
would predict the lowest frequency at the surface
then increasing as the clock either moved up or down.
That is consistant with free pendulms, long know to
decrease in frequency when moved up or down from the
surface.

As for your equation above, Nu1 should equal Nu2.

Look at my equation: the shift is given by (GMe/2Re^3c^2) * (Re^2-d^2)
Only if d = Re is Nu2 equal to Nu1 (the depth of the shaft is 0).
If d = 0 (the receiver is at the Earth's center), the shift becomes
GMe/2Re*c^2.
This shift should rather easily be obtained with GR.

Quote:
...unless you have a mechanism to create or destroy
the news of events as it is propagated.

?????

Marcel Luttgens

Quote:
Maybe that
is what is happening on a noisy satellite feed when
the announcer freezes for a few seconds? Surprised)

Sue...




Marcel Luttgens
Back to top
Google

Back to top
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 2 of 5 [65 Posts] Goto page:  Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5 Next
View previous topic :: View next topic
The time now is Thu Jul 02, 2015 5:14 am | All times are GMT
Forum index » Science and Technology » Physics » Relativity
Jump to:  

Similar Topics
Topic Author Forum Replies Last Post
No new posts For the Einstein worshipers and skeptics 3ality Relativity 3 Tue Oct 02, 2007 11:23 pm
No new posts WHO KILLED PHYSICS: CLAUSIUS OR EINSTEIN? Pentcho Valev Relativity 7 Thu Jul 20, 2006 8:24 am
No new posts Gravitational redshift wgilmour@i-zoom.net Research 5 Mon Jul 17, 2006 3:44 pm
No new posts SI EINSTEIN AVAIT CHOISI C'=C+V Pentcho Valev Relativity 5 Wed Jul 12, 2006 6:07 am
No new posts Caltech and Princeton University Press Release Tenth Volu... baalke@earthlink.net Relativity 1 Mon Jul 10, 2006 3:25 pm

Copyright © 2004-2005 DeniX Solutions SRL
Other DeniX Solutions sites: Electronics forum |  Medicine forum |  Unix/Linux blog |  Unix/Linux documentation |  Unix/Linux forums  |  send newsletters
 


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
[ Time: 0.9466s ][ Queries: 16 (0.5693s) ][ GZIP on - Debug on ]