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 1 of 5 [65 Posts] View previous topic :: View next topic
Goto page:  1, 2, 3, 4, 5 Next
Author Message
mluttgens@wanadoo.fr
science forum Guru Wannabe


Joined: 11 Sep 2005
Posts: 290

PostPosted: Fri Jul 21, 2006 11:08 am    Post subject: Re: Einstein interpretation of gravitational redshift is misleading Reply with quote

John C. Polasek wrote:
Quote:
On 20 Jul 2006 08:24:24 -0700, mluttgens@wanadoo.fr wrote:


John C. Polasek wrote:
On 20 Jul 2006 03:14:12 -0700, mluttgens@wanadoo.fr wrote:


John C. Polasek wrote:
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


John Polasek
But Pound and Rebka first called their paper "On the apparent weight
of photons" as if gravity had to do with weight and energy, and
changed it later to "Effect of gravity on nuclear resonance" or
something like that to indicate change in clock rate. That's a lot
more palatable then to assign a synthetic mass to a photon.
But some interpretations of GR still treat bending of light as gravity
affecting the trajectory of the photon as if it had mass.

Anyhow, my scenario, which is not exactly similar to the Pound and
Rebka experiment, leads to the conclusion that the absence of shift
"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."
Assigning a mass hNu/c^2 to photons not only leads to formulae
which are identical to GR formulae, but allows to derive formulae
that are practically impossible to obtain with GR. One could claim that
Occam's razor is not GR's friend.

Marcel Luttgens

John Polasek
I think we agreed your blue shift velocity would be gh/c and that it
would be about 3 micro-meters/second and so you can see it's a
temporary condition that is true only for about 1/3d of a microsecond
due to acceleration of g, and never thereafter. You aren't showing
enough algebra, just wrestling with gh/c2 and gh/c.
If you think dropping the detector frees it from gravity, that's a
misconception, and as you see there are more fundamentala logistic
problems. The Doppler velocity varies and is only true once, and
acceleration is constant but does not impinge on the clock rate.

John Polasek

I think we agreed your blue shift velocity would be gh/c and that it
would be about 3 micro-meters/second and so you can see it's a
temporary condition that is true only for about 1/3d of a microsecond
due to acceleration of g, and never thereafter.

You are perfectly right.

Quote:
You aren't showing enough algebra, just wrestling with gh/c2
and gh/c.

If, at h, the detector is falling at v = gt = gh/c (thus at a time
t = h/c), it should *instantaneoulsly* "see" a blue shift v/c = gh/c^2.
But in fact, it doesn't detect such shift, because, *at the height h*,
the emitted signal is redshifted by -gh/c^2, a shift which is due to
the Earth gravity.

Quote:
If you think dropping the detector frees it from gravity,
that's a misconception,

I don't have such misconception.

Quote:
and as you see there are more fundamental logistic
problems. The Doppler velocity varies and is only true once, and
acceleration is constant but does not impinge on the clock rate.

In a thought experiment, one could consider that the detector has
exactly the velocity gt at the height h.
I agree that such scenario is purely theoretical, but not more that
the situations imagined by Einstein when he derived the Lorentz
transformations.

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


Joined: 30 Apr 2005
Posts: 321

PostPosted: Fri Jul 21, 2006 12:08 am    Post subject: Re: Einstein interpretation of gravitational redshift is misleading Reply with quote

On 20 Jul 2006 08:24:24 -0700, mluttgens@wanadoo.fr wrote:

Quote:

John C. Polasek wrote:
On 20 Jul 2006 03:14:12 -0700, mluttgens@wanadoo.fr wrote:


John C. Polasek wrote:
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


John Polasek
But Pound and Rebka first called their paper "On the apparent weight
of photons" as if gravity had to do with weight and energy, and
changed it later to "Effect of gravity on nuclear resonance" or
something like that to indicate change in clock rate. That's a lot
more palatable then to assign a synthetic mass to a photon.
But some interpretations of GR still treat bending of light as gravity
affecting the trajectory of the photon as if it had mass.

Anyhow, my scenario, which is not exactly similar to the Pound and
Rebka experiment, leads to the conclusion that the absence of shift
"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."
Assigning a mass hNu/c^2 to photons not only leads to formulae
which are identical to GR formulae, but allows to derive formulae
that are practically impossible to obtain with GR. One could claim that
Occam's razor is not GR's friend.

Marcel Luttgens

John Polasek
I think we agreed your blue shift velocity would be gh/c and that it

would be about 3 micro-meters/second and so you can see it's a
temporary condition that is true only for about 1/3d of a microsecond
due to acceleration of g, and never thereafter. You aren't showing
enough algebra, just wrestling with gh/c2 and gh/c.
If you think dropping the detector frees it from gravity, that's a
misconception, and as you see there are more fundamentala logistic
problems. The Doppler velocity varies and is only true once, and
acceleration is constant but does not impinge on the clock rate.

John Polasek
Back to top
dda1
science forum Guru


Joined: 06 Feb 2006
Posts: 762

PostPosted: Thu Jul 20, 2006 5:33 pm    Post subject: Fucking Cretin , Marcel Luttgens strikes again Reply with quote

mluttgens@wanadoo.fr wrote:
:
Quote:
One could claim that
Occam's razor is not GR's friend.

Marcel Luttgens


It would be good if Occam's razor cut your dick and stuffed it in your
mouth, so you stopped spewing cretinisms.
Back to top
mluttgens@wanadoo.fr
science forum Guru Wannabe


Joined: 11 Sep 2005
Posts: 290

PostPosted: Thu Jul 20, 2006 3:24 pm    Post subject: Re: Einstein interpretation of gravitational redshift is misleading Reply with quote

John C. Polasek wrote:
Quote:
On 20 Jul 2006 03:14:12 -0700, mluttgens@wanadoo.fr wrote:


John C. Polasek wrote:
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


John Polasek
But Pound and Rebka first called their paper "On the apparent weight
of photons" as if gravity had to do with weight and energy, and
changed it later to "Effect of gravity on nuclear resonance" or
something like that to indicate change in clock rate. That's a lot
more palatable then to assign a synthetic mass to a photon.
But some interpretations of GR still treat bending of light as gravity
affecting the trajectory of the photon as if it had mass.

Anyhow, my scenario, which is not exactly similar to the Pound and
Rebka experiment, leads to the conclusion that the absence of shift
"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."
Assigning a mass hNu/c^2 to photons not only leads to formulae
which are identical to GR formulae, but allows to derive formulae
that are practically impossible to obtain with GR. One could claim that
Occam's razor is not GR's friend.

Marcel Luttgens
Quote:

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


Joined: 30 Apr 2005
Posts: 321

PostPosted: Thu Jul 20, 2006 1:49 pm    Post subject: Re: Einstein interpretation of gravitational redshift is misleading Reply with quote

On 20 Jul 2006 03:14:12 -0700, mluttgens@wanadoo.fr wrote:

Quote:

John C. Polasek wrote:
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


John Polasek
But Pound and Rebka first called their paper "On the apparent weight

of photons" as if gravity had to do with weight and energy, and
changed it later to "Effect of gravity on nuclear resonance" or
something like that to indicate change in clock rate. That's a lot
more palatable then to assign a synthetic mass to a photon.
But some interpretations of GR still treat bending of light as gravity
affecting the trajectory of the photon as if it had mass.

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
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: 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
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
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 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: 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: 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
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
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
Google

Back to top
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 1 of 5 [65 Posts] Goto page:  1, 2, 3, 4, 5 Next
View previous topic :: View next topic
The time now is Sat Sep 13, 2014 3:10 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: 0.0930s ][ Queries: 16 (0.0223s) ][ GZIP on - Debug on ]