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 4 of 5 [65 Posts] View previous topic :: View next topic
Goto page:  Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5 Next
Author Message
Sue...
science forum Guru


Joined: 08 May 2005
Posts: 2684

PostPosted: Mon Jul 17, 2006 6:25 am    Post subject: Re: Einstein interpretation of gravitational redshift is misleading Reply with quote

John C. Polasek wrote:
Quote:
On 15 Jul 2006 10:56:47 -0700, 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."

You could do with some study. You probably do not realize that the
gravity at the bottom of the mine shaft is lower than at the surface.

100 percent of the planet's mass is beneath your feet when
you stand on the surface; Less when your feet are below the
surface. Further study is not going to change that fact.

Quote:
So it's not a Pound Rebka experiment.

Do you mean it is not a Pound-Snider expeiment
which correctely attributes a change in nuclear resonance to
the gravitational potential acting on the oscillator
as opposed to a change in gravitational potential
energy of a 'flying foton' ?

Quote:
Yes, g tapers from 0 at center to gnormal at the surface.

So... a mine shaft experiment will demonstrate the
folly of the 'flying foton' interpretation, consistant
with the subject of Okun's article.

Quote:

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)

(Re^2-d^2) looks like bad mathematics. Are Re and d at right angles?

The distance light travels is irrelvant to the lights frequency
for a constant length path.

Are you joining Marcel's efforts so he won't have pull on
opposite ends of the cow at the same time to make
it move nowhere? Surprised)

Sue...

Quote:

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

Marcel Luttgens
John Polasek
Back to top
mluttgens@wanadoo.fr
science forum Guru Wannabe


Joined: 11 Sep 2005
Posts: 290

PostPosted: Mon Jul 17, 2006 10:14 am    Post subject: Re: Einstein interpretation of gravitational redshift is misleading Reply with quote

John C. Polasek wrote:
Quote:
On 15 Jul 2006 10:56:47 -0700, 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."

You could do with some study. You probably do not realize that the
gravity at the bottom of the mine shaft is lower than at the surface.
So it's not a Pound Rebka experiment.
Yes, g tapers from 0 at center to gnormal at the surface.

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)

(Re^2-d^2) looks like bad mathematics. Are Re and d at right angles?

Sorry, but this is a silly question.
Using potential energy and photon mass, even children should be able
to obtain the above formula and understand its meaning.
Using GR, it would probably not be possible. But GRists prefer not
to recognize the inadequacies of GR, due, Imo, to its fundamental flaw
consisting in hypothesizing that the energy and frequency of the
propagating
photon do not change with height.

A nicer form of the "shaft" shift formula is
shift = GMe/2Rec^2 * (1-d^2/Re^2),
where d is the distance between the bottom of the shaft and the
Earth's center.
The shift could of course be expressed in terms of the
shaft depth = Re-d. Replacing d by Re-depth, one gets
shift = GMe/2Rec^2 * (1-(Re-depth)^2/Re^2)

If the depth = Re, one is left with shift = GMe/2Rec^2 (1)
Let's remember that the signal is sent from the Earth's surface
to the bottom of the shaft.

Notice that a signal emitted at infinity towards the Earth's surface
would be observed to be shifted by GMe/Rec^2 (also according to GR).
The fact that this shift is twice the "shaft" shift (1) must be
more than a coincidence!

Btw, when the depth is much smaller than the Earth's radius,
one could use the approximate formula
shift = g * depth / c^2,
which is straightforwardly obtained from GMe/2Rec^2 *
(1-(Re-depth)^2/Re^2)
and which should be more familiar to you.

Marcel Luttgens

Quote:

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

Marcel Luttgens
John Polasek
Back to top
mluttgens@wanadoo.fr
science forum Guru Wannabe


Joined: 11 Sep 2005
Posts: 290

PostPosted: Mon Jul 17, 2006 10:28 am    Post subject: Re: Einstein interpretation of gravitational redshift is misleading Reply with quote

Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
Quote:
mluttgens@wanadoo.fr> wrote in message news:1153083953.338245.290050@35g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...

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


[snip]

Quibbling is pleasant for the quibbler.

And two idiots quibbling can be fun to watch Smile
Thanks, guys.

Those idiots are not as stupid as Vandemoortel, see

http://groups.google.fr/group/sci.physics.relativity/browse_frm/thread/ef1faa058dfa1835/c6ee6ea57474b965?

Indeed, it's a matter of having the indices in the correct
order. Rereading everything, I notice that I fucked up
just about everywhere. I also swapped the numerical
values of rs and ra. Yuck... haste brings along mistakes.
Next time, I'll be much more careful. Thanks for having
checked and for the correction. Amazing that no one
else noticed.

Dirk Vdm

Thread: Classical transverse Doppler effect
in sci.physics.relativity

Dirk Van de moortel
Date : 28 apr 2005

Sergey also claims that he has a function with a nonzero
curl(grad( )):

http://groups-beta.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_frm/thread/72b...

Explaining where he goes wrong does not help.

Dirk Vdm

shuba
Date : 30 apr 2005

But it's *easy* to find such a function. That is, if you're not
one of those geometers with your mind brazed shut. I'm sure some
of those hifalutin math books on your shelf say that the gradient
takes a scalar field as its argument, but let's think outside of
the box. A string of characters, such as, oh, "aether" is also a
function, a function of chars. Now in the spirit of object
oriented programming, there is nothing stopping us from
overloading the grad() function, and defining it such that

grad("aether") = zi + 0j + 0k.

In this case, curl(grad("aether")) = j is nonzero. QED

Dirk Van de moortel
Date : 30 apr 2005

Oooooh yes, I hadn't looked at it from that solid angle!
Damn.

Marcel Luttgens

Quote:

Dirk Vdm
Back to top
Dirk Van de moortel
science forum Guru


Joined: 01 May 2005
Posts: 3019

PostPosted: Mon Jul 17, 2006 10:41 am    Post subject: Re: Einstein interpretation of gravitational redshift is misleading Reply with quote

<mluttgens@wanadoo.fr> wrote in message news:1153132126.740859.28500@m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
Quote:

Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
mluttgens@wanadoo.fr> wrote in message news:1153083953.338245.290050@35g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...

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


[snip]

Quibbling is pleasant for the quibbler.

And two idiots quibbling can be fun to watch Smile
Thanks, guys.

Those idiots are not as stupid as Vandemoortel, see

http://groups.google.fr/group/sci.physics.relativity/browse_frm/thread/ef1faa058dfa1835/c6ee6ea57474b965?

Indeed, it's a matter of having the indices in the correct
order. Rereading everything, I notice that I fucked up
just about everywhere. I also swapped the numerical
values of rs and ra. Yuck... haste brings along mistakes.
Next time, I'll be much more careful. Thanks for having
checked and for the correction. Amazing that no one
else noticed.

Dirk Vdm

Thread: Classical transverse Doppler effect
in sci.physics.relativity

Dirk Van de moortel
Date : 28 apr 2005

Sergey also claims that he has a function with a nonzero
curl(grad( )):

http://groups-beta.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_frm/thread/72b...

Explaining where he goes wrong does not help.

Dirk Vdm

shuba
Date : 30 apr 2005

But it's *easy* to find such a function. That is, if you're not
one of those geometers with your mind brazed shut. I'm sure some
of those hifalutin math books on your shelf say that the gradient
takes a scalar field as its argument, but let's think outside of
the box. A string of characters, such as, oh, "aether" is also a
function, a function of chars. Now in the spirit of object
oriented programming, there is nothing stopping us from
overloading the grad() function, and defining it such that

grad("aether") = zi + 0j + 0k.

In this case, curl(grad("aether")) = j is nonzero. QED

Dirk Van de moortel
Date : 30 apr 2005

Oooooh yes, I hadn't looked at it from that solid angle!
Damn.

Marcel Luttgens

And I'm sure you're 100% serious about this.
This must be the most stupid way one can possibly
dream up to prove a case. Congratulations Smile)
Were you born an imbecile, Marcel, or was it
something in the milk?

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


Joined: 11 Sep 2005
Posts: 290

PostPosted: Mon Jul 17, 2006 4:32 pm    Post subject: Re: Einstein interpretation of gravitational redshift is misleading Reply with quote

John C. Polasek wrote:
Quote:
On 15 Jul 2006 00:41:34 -0700, 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."

That should be "do not change with height AFTER EMISSION". Naturally a
faster clock has higher frequency, and the higher frequency does not
change after it is emitted.

Cf. arXiv: physics/ 9907017 v2

Consider from such an elevator falling with the acceleration g
a photon of frequency omega which is emitted upwards by an atom at rest

on the surface of the earth and which is expected to be absorbed
by an identical atom fixed at height h . The frequency of light is
not affected by any gravitational field in a freely falling elevator:
it keeps the frequency with which it was emitted.

Assume that at the moment of emission (t = 0) the elevator had zero
velocity. At the time t = h/c , when the photon reaches the absorbing
atom, the latter will have velocity v = gh/c directed upwards in the
elevator frame. As a result the frequency of the photon, as seen by
the absorbing atom, will be shifted by the linear Doppler effect
by v/c = gh/c^2 towards the red, that is Delta omega / omega = -gh/c^2.

The following situation is particularly interesting:

Consider now another situation, when the upper atom (absorber) moves
in the laboratory frame with a velocity v = gh/c downwards."

As a result, the frequency of the photon, as seen by the absorbing
atom, should be shifted by the linear Doppler effect by v/c = gh/c^2
towards the blue, that is Delta omega / omega = gh/c^2, in the
*laboratory* frame.

In the elevator frame it (the absorber) will have zero velocity
at the moment of absorption and hence it will be able to absorb the
photon resonantly in complete agreement with experiments [4, 5].
Obviously, in the elevator frame there is no room for the
interpretation
of the redshift in terms of a photon losing its energy as it climbs
out of the gravitational well.

Anyhow, for the absorber, the frequency of the photon is
*experimentally*
not shifted at all.

In the laboratory frame, this can only be explained by the fact that
the frequency of the photon, *when it meets the absorber, not when
it leaves the emitter*, thus *at a distance h* from the Earth surface,
is red shifted by gh/c^2, a red shift that exactly cancel the expected
blue shift. The conclusion is that photons lose their energy as they
"climb out of the gravitational well", and *not* that the energy and
frequency of the propagating photons do not change with height
AFTER EMISSION.

Marcel Luttgens

Quote:

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

Marcel Luttgens

John Polasek
Back to top
John C. Polasek
science forum Guru


Joined: 30 Apr 2005
Posts: 321

PostPosted: Tue Jul 18, 2006 1:35 am    Post subject: Re: Einstein interpretation of gravitational redshift is misleading Reply with quote

On 17 Jul 2006 09:32:03 -0700, mluttgens@wanadoo.fr wrote:

Quote:

John C. Polasek wrote:
On 15 Jul 2006 00:41:34 -0700, mluttgens@wanadoo.fr wrote:


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


Quote:
The conclusion is that photons lose their energy as they
"climb out of the gravitational well", and *not* that the energy and
frequency of the propagating photons do not change with height
AFTER EMISSION.

If the photons from a clock lose 1% climbing out of the well up to an
identical clock which, at higher altitude is running 1% faster, the
frequency comparison will yield a 2% redshift. You can't have that.

Quote:
Marcel Luttgens


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

Marcel Luttgens

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


Joined: 11 Sep 2005
Posts: 290

PostPosted: Tue Jul 18, 2006 11:58 am    Post subject: Re: Einstein interpretation of gravitational redshift is misleading Reply with quote

John C. Polasek wrote:
Quote:
On 17 Jul 2006 09:32:03 -0700, mluttgens@wanadoo.fr wrote:


John C. Polasek wrote:
On 15 Jul 2006 00:41:34 -0700, mluttgens@wanadoo.fr wrote:


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

The conclusion is that photons lose their energy as they
"climb out of the gravitational well", and *not* that the energy and
frequency of the propagating photons do not change with height
AFTER EMISSION.

If the photons from a clock lose 1% climbing out of the well up to an
identical clock which, at higher altitude is running 1% faster, the
frequency comparison will yield a 2% redshift. You can't have that.

Contrarily to GR hypothesis, the identical clock doesn't tick faster
*because* it is at a higher altitude!

Marcel Luttgens


Quote:

Marcel Luttgens


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

Marcel Luttgens

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


Joined: 11 Sep 2005
Posts: 290

PostPosted: Tue Jul 18, 2006 1:09 pm    Post subject: Re: Einstein interpretation of gravitational redshift is misleading Reply with quote

Sue... wrote:
Quote:
mluttgens@wanadoo.fr wrote:
Einstein interpretation of gravitational redshift is misleading
Exerpt snipped


Let's consider that photons loose energy as they overcome the
gravitational attraction of the Earth:

That is absurd.
http://nobelprize.org/physics/articles/ekspong/index.html


A light signal of frequency Nu1 is emitted by an atom at rest on the
surface of the earth. The energy of a photon is thus E1 = hNu1 and
its "mass" m = E1/c^2 = hNu1/c^2.

Where do you find angular momentum equivalent to mass ?
Don't answer that without a radius for your 'flying foton'.


At a height H, i.e. at a distance d = Rearth + H from the Earth's
center, the frequency of the received signal is Nu2, hence the
photon's energy is E2 = hNu2.
Its potential energy is Ep = m * gm * H, where gm = GMearth/(Rearth*d).
From E2 = E1 - Ep, one gets
hNu2 = hNu1 - hNu1/c^2 * GMearth/(Rearth*d) * (d-Rearth)
Nu2 = Nu1 * (1 - GMearth/c^2 * (1/Rearth - 1/d)
The corresponding shift Nu2/Nu1 - 1 = -GMearth/c^2 * (1/Rearth - 1/d),
which is a redshift.

The same shift would be obtained using GR.

I see little resemblence to your computation
See equation 12, fully comliant with Okuns recommendations.
http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/9606079


Sue, you are acting like a quibbling crackpot, who seemingly doesn't
understand the equations to which (s)he refers.

Look at Gravitation and Cosmology, Steven Weinberg, 1972, pp. 83-85.
When vs = 0, the GR shift is the same as mine.

Bye,

Marcel Luttgens

Quote:


To simplify, one could consider, like the authors of the paper did,
that g is approximately constant when H is small.
Then Ep = m * g * H = hNu1/c^2 * g * H (where g = GMearth/Rearth^2)
hNu2 = hNu1 - hNu1/c^2 * g * H = hNu1 (1 - g*H/c^2)
The shift then reduces to -g*H/c^2.

It is easy to show that the interpretation according to which
"clocks 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" is wrong.
It suffices to consider the case when the signal receiver is freely
falling.

Excerpt:snipped

Yes... it is easy to do that. The thing which is hard is learing
some basic electromagnetic propagation so your postings don't
look like something you saw in a billard parlor.
http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching.html
http://web.mit.edu/8.02t/www/802TEAL3D/teal_tour.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mossbauer_effect



In such situation, for the 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". Iow, for the absorber, the signal is not shifted
at all. This is a logical proof that the signal is red shifted when
it leaves the emitter.

This proof falsifies Einstein's view:

...and your assumption of absurd light propagation
falsifies your ?proof?

Sue...



Excerpt snipped

Marcel Luttgens
Back to top
John C. Polasek
science forum Guru


Joined: 30 Apr 2005
Posts: 321

PostPosted: Tue Jul 18, 2006 2:13 pm    Post subject: Re: Einstein interpretation of gravitational redshift is misleading Reply with quote

On 18 Jul 2006 04:58:46 -0700, mluttgens@wanadoo.fr wrote:

Quote:

John C. Polasek wrote:
On 17 Jul 2006 09:32:03 -0700, mluttgens@wanadoo.fr wrote:


John C. Polasek wrote:
On 15 Jul 2006 00:41:34 -0700, mluttgens@wanadoo.fr wrote:


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

The conclusion is that photons lose their energy as they
"climb out of the gravitational well", and *not* that the energy and
frequency of the propagating photons do not change with height
AFTER EMISSION.

If the photons from a clock lose 1% climbing out of the well up to an
identical clock which, at higher altitude is running 1% faster, the
frequency comparison will yield a 2% redshift. You can't have that.

Contrarily to GR hypothesis, the identical clock doesn't tick faster
*because* it is at a higher altitude!

Marcel Luttgens
But it does according to Dual Space theory. The gravity well is a

"tired" environment and atoms there click more slowly. If the clock is
slow by 1%, the radiated energy is 1% low and stays that way: no
change in frequency. When it gets to the top clock which is running
faster, it registers 1% redshift.
c also increases 1% and the wavelength also, so the frequency remains
the same. DS does not use time dilation.
The wavelength stretch is the true redshift.
If GR uses constant c, and faster/slower clock and loss in frequency
on the way up, it produces a double redshift so something is wrong.
Quote:

Marcel Luttgens


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

Marcel Luttgens

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


Joined: 11 Sep 2005
Posts: 290

PostPosted: Wed Jul 19, 2006 2:13 pm    Post subject: Re: Einstein interpretation of gravitational redshift is misleading Reply with quote

John C. Polasek wrote:
Quote:
On 18 Jul 2006 04:58:46 -0700, mluttgens@wanadoo.fr wrote:


John C. Polasek wrote:
On 17 Jul 2006 09:32:03 -0700, mluttgens@wanadoo.fr wrote:


John C. Polasek wrote:
On 15 Jul 2006 00:41:34 -0700, mluttgens@wanadoo.fr wrote:


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

The conclusion is that photons lose their energy as they
"climb out of the gravitational well", and *not* that the energy and
frequency of the propagating photons do not change with height
AFTER EMISSION.

If the photons from a clock lose 1% climbing out of the well up to an
identical clock which, at higher altitude is running 1% faster, the
frequency comparison will yield a 2% redshift. You can't have that.

Contrarily to GR hypothesis, the identical clock doesn't tick faster
*because* it is at a higher altitude!

Marcel Luttgens
But it does according to Dual Space theory. The gravity well is a
"tired" environment and atoms there click more slowly. If the clock is
slow by 1%, the radiated energy is 1% low and stays that way: no
change in frequency. When it gets to the top clock which is running
faster, it registers 1% redshift.
c also increases 1% and the wavelength also, so the frequency remains
the same. DS does not use time dilation.
The wavelength stretch is the true redshift.
If GR uses constant c, and faster/slower clock and loss in frequency
on the way up, it produces a double redshift so something is wrong.

Has this NG sci.physics.relativity be created only to isolate the
crackpots? I hope not.

- Of course, you will find parrots like Van de Modder, who cannot think

by themselves. Those parrots are generally malicious and dishonest.

- You will also find people who have their own agenda, and who
automatically will reject any idea that contradict their pet theory.
Some of them are clearly crackpots.

- Other people are simply incompetent.

- And one finds the mentally impaired, who take any opportunity
to exude their psychotic venom.

But, fortunately, there are some honest and competent scientists.
I hope to get a honest response from them about the following scenario:


A photon of frequency Nu1 is emitted upwards by an atom at
rest on the surface of the Earth. That photon is absorbed by
an identical atom, which moves in the laboratory frame
with a velocity v = gh/c downwards (and is thus freely falling).

The frequency Nu2 of the photon, as seen by the absorbing atom moving
at v = gh/c, should be shifted by the linear Doppler effect by
v/c = gh/c^2 towards the blue.

But, *experimentally*, the shift Nu2/Nu1 - 1 = 0, which can only be
explained by the fact that the frequency of the photon, when it meets
the absorber at *a distance h* from the Earth surface, is red shifted
by gh/c^2, a red shift that exactly cancel the expected blue shift.

The obvious conclusion is that photons lose their energy as they
climb out of the gravitational well and *reach some distance h*,
and not that the energy and frequency of the propagating photons
do not change with height *after emission*.

Why would the above reasoning be flawed?

Marcel Luttgens


Quote:

Marcel Luttgens


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

Marcel Luttgens

John Polasek
Back to top
John C. Polasek
science forum Guru


Joined: 30 Apr 2005
Posts: 321

PostPosted: Wed Jul 19, 2006 6:42 pm    Post subject: Re: Einstein interpretation of gravitational redshift is misleading Reply with quote

On 19 Jul 2006 07:13:45 -0700, mluttgens@wanadoo.fr wrote:

Quote:

John C. Polasek wrote:
On 18 Jul 2006 04:58:46 -0700, mluttgens@wanadoo.fr wrote:


John C. Polasek wrote:
On 17 Jul 2006 09:32:03 -0700, mluttgens@wanadoo.fr wrote:


John C. Polasek wrote:
On 15 Jul 2006 00:41:34 -0700, mluttgens@wanadoo.fr wrote:


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

The conclusion is that photons lose their energy as they
"climb out of the gravitational well", and *not* that the energy and
frequency of the propagating photons do not change with height
AFTER EMISSION.

If the photons from a clock lose 1% climbing out of the well up to an
identical clock which, at higher altitude is running 1% faster, the
frequency comparison will yield a 2% redshift. You can't have that.

Contrarily to GR hypothesis, the identical clock doesn't tick faster
*because* it is at a higher altitude!

Marcel Luttgens
But it does according to Dual Space theory. The gravity well is a
"tired" environment and atoms there click more slowly. If the clock is
slow by 1%, the radiated energy is 1% low and stays that way: no
change in frequency. When it gets to the top clock which is running
faster, it registers 1% redshift.
c also increases 1% and the wavelength also, so the frequency remains
the same. DS does not use time dilation.
The wavelength stretch is the true redshift.
If GR uses constant c, and faster/slower clock and loss in frequency
on the way up, it produces a double redshift so something is wrong.

Has this NG sci.physics.relativity be created only to isolate the
crackpots? I hope not.

- Of course, you will find parrots like Van de Modder, who cannot think

by themselves. Those parrots are generally malicious and dishonest.

- You will also find people who have their own agenda, and who
automatically will reject any idea that contradict their pet theory.
Some of them are clearly crackpots.

- Other people are simply incompetent.

- And one finds the mentally impaired, who take any opportunity
to exude their psychotic venom.

Your broadranging phillipic will appear premature in light of the
asinine algebra you display below.

Quote:
But, fortunately, there are some honest and competent scientists.
I hope to get a honest response from them about the following scenario:


A photon of frequency Nu1 is emitted upwards by an atom at
rest on the surface of the Earth. That photon is absorbed by
an identical atom, which moves in the laboratory frame
with a velocity v = gh/c downwards (and is thus freely falling).

Your erroneous expression for velocity gh/c gives 3*10^-6 m/s for 100
meters. The correct expression for velocity vs distance is V =
sqrt(2g*dist). A fall of 100m gives 45 m/s.

Quote:
The frequency Nu2 of the photon, as seen by the absorbing atom moving
at v = gh/c, should be shifted by the linear Doppler effect by
v/c = gh/c^2 towards the blue.

Not so, the velocity varies all along the path along with Doppler.

Quote:
But, *experimentally*, the shift Nu2/Nu1 - 1 = 0, which can only be
explained by the fact that the frequency of the photon, when it meets
the absorber at *a distance h* from the Earth surface, is red shifted
by gh/c^2, a red shift that exactly cancel the expected blue shift.

As explained above the redshift is constant, the Doppler is variable,
your expression for velocity is faulty.

Quote:
The obvious conclusion is that photons lose their energy as they
climb out of the gravitational well and *reach some distance h*,
and not that the energy and frequency of the propagating photons
do not change with height *after emission*.

Why would the above reasoning be flawed?

That's why.
Quote:
Marcel Luttgens



Marcel Luttgens


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

Marcel Luttgens

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


Joined: 11 Sep 2005
Posts: 290

PostPosted: Wed Jul 19, 2006 8:48 pm    Post subject: Re: Einstein interpretation of gravitational redshift is misleading Reply with quote

John C. Polasek wrote:
Quote:
On 19 Jul 2006 07:13:45 -0700, mluttgens@wanadoo.fr wrote:


John C. Polasek wrote:
On 18 Jul 2006 04:58:46 -0700, mluttgens@wanadoo.fr wrote:


John C. Polasek wrote:
On 17 Jul 2006 09:32:03 -0700, mluttgens@wanadoo.fr wrote:


John C. Polasek wrote:
On 15 Jul 2006 00:41:34 -0700, mluttgens@wanadoo.fr wrote:


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

The conclusion is that photons lose their energy as they
"climb out of the gravitational well", and *not* that the energy and
frequency of the propagating photons do not change with height
AFTER EMISSION.

If the photons from a clock lose 1% climbing out of the well up to an
identical clock which, at higher altitude is running 1% faster, the
frequency comparison will yield a 2% redshift. You can't have that.

Contrarily to GR hypothesis, the identical clock doesn't tick faster
*because* it is at a higher altitude!

Marcel Luttgens
But it does according to Dual Space theory. The gravity well is a
"tired" environment and atoms there click more slowly. If the clock is
slow by 1%, the radiated energy is 1% low and stays that way: no
change in frequency. When it gets to the top clock which is running
faster, it registers 1% redshift.
c also increases 1% and the wavelength also, so the frequency remains
the same. DS does not use time dilation.
The wavelength stretch is the true redshift.
If GR uses constant c, and faster/slower clock and loss in frequency
on the way up, it produces a double redshift so something is wrong.

Has this NG sci.physics.relativity be created only to isolate the
crackpots? I hope not.

- Of course, you will find parrots like Van de Modder, who cannot think

by themselves. Those parrots are generally malicious and dishonest.

- You will also find people who have their own agenda, and who
automatically will reject any idea that contradict their pet theory.
Some of them are clearly crackpots.

- Other people are simply incompetent.

- And one finds the mentally impaired, who take any opportunity
to exude their psychotic venom.

Your broadranging phillipic will appear premature in light of the
asinine algebra you display below.

;-)

Quote:

But, fortunately, there are some honest and competent scientists.
I hope to get a honest response from them about the following scenario:


A photon of frequency Nu1 is emitted upwards by an atom at
rest on the surface of the Earth. That photon is absorbed by
an identical atom, which moves in the laboratory frame
with a velocity v = gh/c downwards (and is thus freely falling).

Your erroneous expression for velocity gh/c gives 3*10^-6 m/s for 100
meters. The correct expression for velocity vs distance is V =
sqrt(2g*dist). A fall of 100m gives 45 m/s.

The frequency Nu2 of the photon, as seen by the absorbing atom moving
at v = gh/c, should be shifted by the linear Doppler effect by
v/c = gh/c^2 towards the blue.

Not so, the velocity varies all along the path along with Doppler.

But, *experimentally*, the shift Nu2/Nu1 - 1 = 0, which can only be
explained by the fact that the frequency of the photon, when it meets
the absorber at *a distance h* from the Earth surface, is red shifted
by gh/c^2, a red shift that exactly cancel the expected blue shift.

As explained above the redshift is constant, the Doppler is variable,
your expression for velocity is faulty.

The obvious conclusion is that photons lose their energy as they
climb out of the gravitational well and *reach some distance h*,
and not that the energy and frequency of the propagating photons
do not change with height *after emission*.

Why would the above reasoning be flawed?

That's why.

Thanks very much, I am having a closer look to your arguments.

Marcel Luttgens

Quote:
Marcel Luttgens



Marcel Luttgens


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

Marcel Luttgens

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


Joined: 11 Sep 2005
Posts: 290

PostPosted: Wed Jul 19, 2006 9:25 pm    Post subject: Re: Einstein interpretation of gravitational redshift is misleading Reply with quote

mluttgens@wanadoo.fr wrote:
Quote:
John C. Polasek wrote:
On 19 Jul 2006 07:13:45 -0700, mluttgens@wanadoo.fr wrote:


John C. Polasek wrote:
On 18 Jul 2006 04:58:46 -0700, mluttgens@wanadoo.fr wrote:


John C. Polasek wrote:
On 17 Jul 2006 09:32:03 -0700, mluttgens@wanadoo.fr wrote:


John C. Polasek wrote:
On 15 Jul 2006 00:41:34 -0700, mluttgens@wanadoo.fr wrote:


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

The conclusion is that photons lose their energy as they
"climb out of the gravitational well", and *not* that the energy and
frequency of the propagating photons do not change with height
AFTER EMISSION.

If the photons from a clock lose 1% climbing out of the well up to an
identical clock which, at higher altitude is running 1% faster, the
frequency comparison will yield a 2% redshift. You can't have that.

Contrarily to GR hypothesis, the identical clock doesn't tick faster
*because* it is at a higher altitude!

Marcel Luttgens
But it does according to Dual Space theory. The gravity well is a
"tired" environment and atoms there click more slowly. If the clock is
slow by 1%, the radiated energy is 1% low and stays that way: no
change in frequency. When it gets to the top clock which is running
faster, it registers 1% redshift.
c also increases 1% and the wavelength also, so the frequency remains
the same. DS does not use time dilation.
The wavelength stretch is the true redshift.
If GR uses constant c, and faster/slower clock and loss in frequency
on the way up, it produces a double redshift so something is wrong.

Has this NG sci.physics.relativity be created only to isolate the
crackpots? I hope not.

- Of course, you will find parrots like Van de Modder, who cannot think

by themselves. Those parrots are generally malicious and dishonest.

- You will also find people who have their own agenda, and who
automatically will reject any idea that contradict their pet theory.
Some of them are clearly crackpots.

- Other people are simply incompetent.

- And one finds the mentally impaired, who take any opportunity
to exude their psychotic venom.

Your broadranging phillipic will appear premature in light of the
asinine algebra you display below.

;-)


But, fortunately, there are some honest and competent scientists.
I hope to get a honest response from them about the following scenario:


A photon of frequency Nu1 is emitted upwards by an atom at
rest on the surface of the Earth. That photon is absorbed by
an identical atom, which moves in the laboratory frame
with a velocity v = gh/c downwards (and is thus freely falling).

Your erroneous expression for velocity gh/c gives 3*10^-6 m/s for 100
meters. The correct expression for velocity vs distance is V =
sqrt(2g*dist). A fall of 100m gives 45 m/s.

The frequency Nu2 of the photon, as seen by the absorbing atom moving
at v = gh/c, should be shifted by the linear Doppler effect by
v/c = gh/c^2 towards the blue.

Not so, the velocity varies all along the path along with Doppler.

But, *experimentally*, the shift Nu2/Nu1 - 1 = 0, which can only be
explained by the fact that the frequency of the photon, when it meets
the absorber at *a distance h* from the Earth surface, is red shifted
by gh/c^2, a red shift that exactly cancel the expected blue shift.

As explained above the redshift is constant, the Doppler is variable,
your expression for velocity is faulty.

The obvious conclusion is that photons lose their energy as they
climb out of the gravitational well and *reach some distance h*,
and not that the energy and frequency of the propagating photons
do not change with height *after emission*.

Why would the above reasoning be flawed?

That's why.

Thanks very much, I am having a closer look to your arguments.

I should have written:

A photon of frequency Nu1 is emitted upwards by an atom at
rest on the surface of the Earth. That photon is absorbed by
an identical atom.

Let's assume that at the moment of emission (t = 0) the absorber had
zero
velocity. At the time t = h/c , when the photon reaches the absorbing
atom, the latter will have velocity v = gh/c directed downwards.
(adapted from arXiv: physics/ 9907017 v2).

The frequency Nu2 of the photon, as seen by the absorbing atom moving
at v = gh/c, should be shifted by the linear Doppler effect by
v/c = gh/c^2 towards the blue.

But, *experimentally*, the shift Nu2/Nu1 - 1 = 0, which can only be
explained by the fact that the frequency of the photon, when it meets
the absorber at *a distance h* from the Earth surface, is red shifted
by gh/c^2, a red shift that exactly cancel the expected blue shift.

The obvious conclusion is that photons lose their energy as they
climb out of the gravitational well and *reach some distance h*,
and not that the energy and frequency of the propagating photons
do not change with height *after emission*.

Marcel Luttgens
Back to top
John C. Polasek
science forum Guru


Joined: 30 Apr 2005
Posts: 321

PostPosted: Wed Jul 19, 2006 11:58 pm    Post subject: Re: Einstein interpretation of gravitational redshift is misleading Reply with quote

On 19 Jul 2006 14:25:18 -0700, mluttgens@wanadoo.fr wrote:

Quote:

mluttgens@wanadoo.fr wrote:
John C. Polasek wrote:
On 19 Jul 2006 07:13:45 -0700, mluttgens@wanadoo.fr wrote:


John C. Polasek wrote:
On 18 Jul 2006 04:58:46 -0700, mluttgens@wanadoo.fr wrote:


John C. Polasek wrote:
On 17 Jul 2006 09:32:03 -0700, mluttgens@wanadoo.fr wrote:


John C. Polasek wrote:
On 15 Jul 2006 00:41:34 -0700, mluttgens@wanadoo.fr wrote:


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

The conclusion is that photons lose their energy as they
"climb out of the gravitational well", and *not* that the energy and
frequency of the propagating photons do not change with height
AFTER EMISSION.

If the photons from a clock lose 1% climbing out of the well up to an
identical clock which, at higher altitude is running 1% faster, the
frequency comparison will yield a 2% redshift. You can't have that.

Contrarily to GR hypothesis, the identical clock doesn't tick faster
*because* it is at a higher altitude!

Marcel Luttgens
But it does according to Dual Space theory. The gravity well is a
"tired" environment and atoms there click more slowly. If the clock is
slow by 1%, the radiated energy is 1% low and stays that way: no
change in frequency. When it gets to the top clock which is running
faster, it registers 1% redshift.
c also increases 1% and the wavelength also, so the frequency remains
the same. DS does not use time dilation.
The wavelength stretch is the true redshift.
If GR uses constant c, and faster/slower clock and loss in frequency
on the way up, it produces a double redshift so something is wrong.

Has this NG sci.physics.relativity be created only to isolate the
crackpots? I hope not.

- Of course, you will find parrots like Van de Modder, who cannot think

by themselves. Those parrots are generally malicious and dishonest.

- You will also find people who have their own agenda, and who
automatically will reject any idea that contradict their pet theory.
Some of them are clearly crackpots.

- Other people are simply incompetent.

- And one finds the mentally impaired, who take any opportunity
to exude their psychotic venom.

Your broadranging phillipic will appear premature in light of the
asinine algebra you display below.

;-)


But, fortunately, there are some honest and competent scientists.
I hope to get a honest response from them about the following scenario:


A photon of frequency Nu1 is emitted upwards by an atom at
rest on the surface of the Earth. That photon is absorbed by
an identical atom, which moves in the laboratory frame
with a velocity v = gh/c downwards (and is thus freely falling).

Your erroneous expression for velocity gh/c gives 3*10^-6 m/s for 100
meters. The correct expression for velocity vs distance is V =
sqrt(2g*dist). A fall of 100m gives 45 m/s.

The frequency Nu2 of the photon, as seen by the absorbing atom moving
at v = gh/c, should be shifted by the linear Doppler effect by
v/c = gh/c^2 towards the blue.

Not so, the velocity varies all along the path along with Doppler.

But, *experimentally*, the shift Nu2/Nu1 - 1 = 0, which can only be
explained by the fact that the frequency of the photon, when it meets
the absorber at *a distance h* from the Earth surface, is red shifted
by gh/c^2, a red shift that exactly cancel the expected blue shift.

As explained above the redshift is constant, the Doppler is variable,
your expression for velocity is faulty.

The obvious conclusion is that photons lose their energy as they
climb out of the gravitational well and *reach some distance h*,
and not that the energy and frequency of the propagating photons
do not change with height *after emission*.

Why would the above reasoning be flawed?

That's why.

Thanks very much, I am having a closer look to your arguments.

I should have written:

A photon of frequency Nu1 is emitted upwards by an atom at
rest on the surface of the Earth. That photon is absorbed by
an identical atom.

Let's assume that at the moment of emission (t = 0) the absorber had
zero
velocity. At the time t = h/c , when the photon reaches the absorbing
atom, the latter will have velocity v = gh/c directed downwards.
(adapted from arXiv: physics/ 9907017 v2).

The frequency Nu2 of the photon, as seen by the absorbing atom moving
at v = gh/c, should be shifted by the linear Doppler effect by
v/c = gh/c^2 towards the blue.

But, *experimentally*, the shift Nu2/Nu1 - 1 = 0, which can only be
explained by the fact that the frequency of the photon, when it meets
the absorber at *a distance h* from the Earth surface, is red shifted
by gh/c^2, a red shift that exactly cancel the expected blue shift.

The obvious conclusion is that photons lose their energy as they
climb out of the gravitational well and *reach some distance h*,
and not that the energy and frequency of the propagating photons
do not change with height *after emission*.

Marcel Luttgens
OK I get a little different picture. Yes, the reshift is

v/c = gh/c^2 which is where you get
v = gh/c as the Doppler neutralizer
but the latter v has nothing to do with free falling. gh/c would
neutralize the gh/c^2 redshift, but it is extremely hard to do it.
The velocity is too small; just falling is out of the picture.

I analyzed the famous Pound Rebka redshift test at Harvard, a drop
through 22.5 meters. They neutralized the red shift by Doppler, using
an audio speaker cone carrying the detector, moving at the lowest
audio frequency of the time (1960) (10 Hz, I assumed). I found that
they needed v = 7x10^-7 m/s, which meant the amplitude of excursion
of the speaker cone would be 1.8x10^-9 meters or only 35 times the
Bohr radius of hydrogen! This seems almost impossible, but the
Mossbauer detector has a sharp bandwidth of about 10^-12 to help
along.

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


Joined: 11 Sep 2005
Posts: 290

PostPosted: Thu Jul 20, 2006 10:14 am    Post subject: Re: Einstein interpretation of gravitational redshift is misleading Reply with quote

John C. Polasek wrote:
Quote:
On 19 Jul 2006 14:25:18 -0700, mluttgens@wanadoo.fr wrote:


mluttgens@wanadoo.fr wrote:
John C. Polasek wrote:
On 19 Jul 2006 07:13:45 -0700, mluttgens@wanadoo.fr wrote:


John C. Polasek wrote:
On 18 Jul 2006 04:58:46 -0700, mluttgens@wanadoo.fr wrote:


John C. Polasek wrote:
On 17 Jul 2006 09:32:03 -0700, mluttgens@wanadoo.fr wrote:


John C. Polasek wrote:
On 15 Jul 2006 00:41:34 -0700, mluttgens@wanadoo.fr wrote:


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

The conclusion is that photons lose their energy as they
"climb out of the gravitational well", and *not* that the energy and
frequency of the propagating photons do not change with height
AFTER EMISSION.

If the photons from a clock lose 1% climbing out of the well up to an
identical clock which, at higher altitude is running 1% faster, the
frequency comparison will yield a 2% redshift. You can't have that.

Contrarily to GR hypothesis, the identical clock doesn't tick faster
*because* it is at a higher altitude!

Marcel Luttgens
But it does according to Dual Space theory. The gravity well is a
"tired" environment and atoms there click more slowly. If the clock is
slow by 1%, the radiated energy is 1% low and stays that way: no
change in frequency. When it gets to the top clock which is running
faster, it registers 1% redshift.
c also increases 1% and the wavelength also, so the frequency remains
the same. DS does not use time dilation.
The wavelength stretch is the true redshift.
If GR uses constant c, and faster/slower clock and loss in frequency
on the way up, it produces a double redshift so something is wrong.

Has this NG sci.physics.relativity be created only to isolate the
crackpots? I hope not.

- Of course, you will find parrots like Van de Modder, who cannot think

by themselves. Those parrots are generally malicious and dishonest.

- You will also find people who have their own agenda, and who
automatically will reject any idea that contradict their pet theory.
Some of them are clearly crackpots.

- Other people are simply incompetent.

- And one finds the mentally impaired, who take any opportunity
to exude their psychotic venom.

Your broadranging phillipic will appear premature in light of the
asinine algebra you display below.

;-)


But, fortunately, there are some honest and competent scientists.
I hope to get a honest response from them about the following scenario:


A photon of frequency Nu1 is emitted upwards by an atom at
rest on the surface of the Earth. That photon is absorbed by
an identical atom, which moves in the laboratory frame
with a velocity v = gh/c downwards (and is thus freely falling).

Your erroneous expression for velocity gh/c gives 3*10^-6 m/s for 100
meters. The correct expression for velocity vs distance is V =
sqrt(2g*dist). A fall of 100m gives 45 m/s.

The frequency Nu2 of the photon, as seen by the absorbing atom moving
at v = gh/c, should be shifted by the linear Doppler effect by
v/c = gh/c^2 towards the blue.

Not so, the velocity varies all along the path along with Doppler.

But, *experimentally*, the shift Nu2/Nu1 - 1 = 0, which can only be
explained by the fact that the frequency of the photon, when it meets
the absorber at *a distance h* from the Earth surface, is red shifted
by gh/c^2, a red shift that exactly cancel the expected blue shift.

As explained above the redshift is constant, the Doppler is variable,
your expression for velocity is faulty.

The obvious conclusion is that photons lose their energy as they
climb out of the gravitational well and *reach some distance h*,
and not that the energy and frequency of the propagating photons
do not change with height *after emission*.

Why would the above reasoning be flawed?

That's why.

Thanks very much, I am having a closer look to your arguments.

I should have written:

A photon of frequency Nu1 is emitted upwards by an atom at
rest on the surface of the Earth. That photon is absorbed by
an identical atom.

Let's assume that at the moment of emission (t = 0) the absorber had
zero
velocity. At the time t = h/c , when the photon reaches the absorbing
atom, the latter will have velocity v = gh/c directed downwards.
(adapted from arXiv: physics/ 9907017 v2).

The frequency Nu2 of the photon, as seen by the absorbing atom moving
at v = gh/c, should be shifted by the linear Doppler effect by
v/c = gh/c^2 towards the blue.

But, *experimentally*, the shift Nu2/Nu1 - 1 = 0, which can only be
explained by the fact that the frequency of the photon, when it meets
the absorber at *a distance h* from the Earth surface, is red shifted
by gh/c^2, a red shift that exactly cancel the expected blue shift.

The obvious conclusion is that photons lose their energy as they
climb out of the gravitational well and *reach some distance h*,
and not that the energy and frequency of the propagating photons
do not change with height *after emission*.

Marcel Luttgens
OK I get a little different picture. Yes, the reshift is
v/c = gh/c^2 which is where you get
v = gh/c as the Doppler neutralizer
but the latter v has nothing to do with free falling. gh/c would
neutralize the gh/c^2 redshift, but it is extremely hard to do it.
The velocity is too small; just falling is out of the picture.

I analyzed the famous Pound Rebka redshift test at Harvard, a drop
through 22.5 meters. They neutralized the red shift by Doppler, using
an audio speaker cone carrying the detector, moving at the lowest
audio frequency of the time (1960) (10 Hz, I assumed). I found that
they needed v = 7x10^-7 m/s, which meant the amplitude of excursion
of the speaker cone would be 1.8x10^-9 meters or only 35 times the
Bohr radius of hydrogen! This seems almost impossible, but the
Mossbauer detector has a sharp bandwidth of about 10^-12 to help
along.

Thank you very much.

You are right, the velocity is extremely small, but even if the
the Pound Rebka test gave somewhat questionable results, it
could nevertheless be considered as a thought experiment, whose
logical conclusion is hardly arguable, and that conclusion is that
that the energy and frequency of photons change with height
after their emission.

Marcel Luttgens

Quote:

John Polasek
Back to top
Google

Back to top
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 4 of 5 [65 Posts] Goto page:  Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5 Next
View previous topic :: View next topic
The time now is Sun Jun 28, 2015 6:12 pm | 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: 0.1467s ][ Queries: 16 (0.0817s) ][ GZIP on - Debug on ]