Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #420298 > unrolled thread

How the Pound-Rebka Experiment Refutes Einstein

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity

Contents

  How the Pound-Rebka Experiment Refutes Einstein Pentcho Valev <pvalev@yahoo.com> - 2017-05-22 14:09 -0700
    Re: How the Pound-Rebka Experiment Refutes Einstein JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2017-05-22 15:31 -0700
      Re: How the Pound-Rebka Experiment Refutes Einstein Seki Ushisa <sis@iscauhw.ea> - 2017-05-23 20:25 +0000
        Re: How the Pound-Rebka Experiment Refutes Einstein Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2017-05-24 00:51 +0200
          Re: How the Pound-Rebka Experiment Refutes Einstein Priscilia Wagenknecht <pw@ewwulciwnu.ue> - 2017-05-24 14:29 +0000
            Re: How the Pound-Rebka Experiment Refutes Einstein Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2017-05-24 16:38 +0200
    Re: How the Pound-Rebka Experiment Refutes Einstein Pentcho Valev <pvalev@yahoo.com> - 2017-05-23 03:18 -0700
      Re: How the Pound-Rebka Experiment Refutes Einstein JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2017-05-25 13:05 -0700
        Re: How the Pound-Rebka Experiment Refutes Einstein mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-05-25 13:12 -0700
          Re: How the Pound-Rebka Experiment Refutes Einstein Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-05-25 15:37 -0700
        Re: How the Pound-Rebka Experiment Refutes Einstein xxein1x1@gmail.com - 2017-05-25 20:34 -0700

#420298 — How the Pound-Rebka Experiment Refutes Einstein

Premise: "If we accept the principle of equivalence, we must also accept that light falls in a gravitational field with the same acceleration as material bodies."  http://sethi.lamar.edu/bahrim-cristian/Courses/PHYS4480/4480-PROBLEMS/optics-gravit-lens_PPT.pdf 

Conclusion: Gravitational time dilation does not exist - the gravitational redshift is caused by the variation of the speed of light predicted by Newton's emission theory of light: 

https://courses.physics.illinois.edu/phys419/sp2011/lectures/Lecture13/L13r.html 
 University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign: "Consider a falling object. ITS SPEED INCREASES AS IT IS FALLING. Hence, if we were to associate a frequency with that object the frequency should increase accordingly as it falls to earth. Because of the equivalence between gravitational and inertial mass, WE SHOULD OBSERVE THE SAME EFFECT FOR LIGHT. So lets shine a light beam from the top of a very tall building. If we can measure the frequency shift as the light beam descends the building, we should be able to discern how gravity affects a falling light beam. This was done by Pound and Rebka in 1960. They shone a light from the top of the Jefferson tower at Harvard and measured the frequency shift. The frequency shift was tiny but in agreement with the theoretical prediction. Consider a light beam that is travelling away from a gravitational field. Its frequency should shift to lower values. This is known as the gravitational red shift of light." 

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

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

http://journals.aps.org/prl/pdf/10.1103/PhysRevLett.4.337 
 R. V. Pound and G. A. Rebka, Jr, APPARENT WEIGHT OF PHOTONS 

http://virgo.lal.in2p3.fr/NPAC/relativite_fichiers/pound.pdf 
 R. V. Pound and J. L. Snider, Effect of Gravity on Gamma Radiation: "It is not our purpose here to enter into the many-sided discussion of the relationship between the effect under study and general relativity or energy conservation. It is to be noted that no strictly relativistic concepts are involved and the description of the effect as an "apparent weight" of photons is suggestive. The velocity difference predicted is identical to that which a material object would acquire in free fall for a time equal to the time of flight." 

Pentcho Valev

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#420318

On Monday, May 22, 2017 at 2:09:03 PM UTC-7, Pentcho Valev wrote:
> Premise: "If we accept the principle of equivalence, we must also accept that light falls in a gravitational field with the same acceleration as material bodies."  http://sethi.lamar.edu/bahrim-cristian/Courses/PHYS4480/4480-PROBLEMS/optics-gravit-lens_PPT.pdf 

This is like 100th time you bring this pointlessness up.

--
Jan

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#420425

JanPB wrote:

> On Monday, May 22, 2017 at 2:09:03 PM UTC-7, Pentcho Valev wrote:
>> Premise: "If we accept the principle of equivalence, we must also
>> accept that light falls in a gravitational field with the same
>> acceleration as material bodies."
>> http://sethi.lamar.edu/bahrim-cristian/Courses/PHYS4480/4480-PROBLEMS/
optics-gravit-lens_PPT.pdf
> 
> This is like 100th time you bring this pointlessness up.

Well, light comes from material bodies, it makes pretty much sense. The 
light follows the body.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#420438

Seki Ushisa wrote:

> JanPB wrote:
>> On Monday, May 22, 2017 at 2:09:03 PM UTC-7, Pentcho Valev wrote:
>>> Premise: "If we accept the principle of equivalence, we must also
>>> accept that light falls in a gravitational field with the same
>>> acceleration as material bodies."
>>> http://sethi.lamar.edu/bahrim-cristian/Courses/PHYS4480/4480-PROBLEMS/
> optics-gravit-lens_PPT.pdf
>> 
>> This is like 100th time you bring this pointlessness up.
> 
> Well, light comes from material bodies,

That does not mean anything.  In particular, it does not mean that light 
would have material properties.

> it makes pretty much sense.

Only to you, ’nym-shifting Tensor troll.  To you, even the greatest nonsense 
makes sense.  Or so you say.

> The light follows the body.

The esotherics seminar is next door.

*PLONK*

-- 
PointedEars

Twitter: @PointedEars2
Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#420499

Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:

> Seki Ushisa wrote:
> 
>> JanPB wrote:
>>> On Monday, May 22, 2017 at 2:09:03 PM UTC-7, Pentcho Valev wrote:
>>>> Premise: "If we accept the principle of equivalence, we must also
>>>> accept that light falls in a gravitational field with the same
>>>> acceleration as material bodies."
>>>> http://sethi.lamar.edu/bahrim-cristian/Courses/PHYS4480/4480-PROBLEMS/
>> optics-gravit-lens_PPT.pdf
>>> 
>>> This is like 100th time you bring this pointlessness up.
>> 
>> Well, light comes from material bodies,
> 
> That does not mean anything.  In particular, it does not mean that light
> would have material properties.
> 
>> it makes pretty much sense.
> 
> Only to you, ’nym-shifting Tensor troll.  To you, even the greatest
> nonsense makes sense.  Or so you say.

This is 2nd time you are plonking Dr. Seki, by quoting each and every 
interesting lines, you lying bitch. Moreover, you seems to be the local 
village idiot around here, not knowing that Matter and material objects 
are the one and the only origin of EM radiation, light. What am I crazy, 
you are so stupid loosing two wars in less than a half century. Then a 
four wheels car to put together, without cheating, is not one of your 
capabilities.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#420502

The ’nym-shifting troll trolled as "Priscilia Wagenknecht":

> Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>> Seki Ushisa wrote:
>>> it makes pretty much sense.
>> Only to you, ’nym-shifting Tensor troll.  To you, even the greatest
>> nonsense makes sense.  Or so you say.
> 
> This is 2nd time you are plonking Dr. Seki, […]

There is no “Dr. Seki” outside of your deranged mind.

New pseudonym, new "address".  Same idiot.  *PLONK*

-- 
PointedEars

Twitter: @PointedEars2
Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#420349

In Einstein's schizophrenic world experiments allegedly confirming Einstein's relativity actually refute it or are inconclusive. So Einsteinians measure the gravitational redshift but then inform the brainwashed world that the experiment has confirmed gravitational time dilation, a miraculous effect fabricated by Einstein in 1911: 

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

http://www.theguardian.com/science/2015/apr/22/record-breaking-clock-invented-which-only-loses-a-second-in-15-billion-years 
 "Einstein's relativity theory states a clock must tick faster at the top of a mountain than at its foot, due to the effects of gravity. "Our performance means that we can measure the gravitational shift when you raise the clock just two centimetres (0.78 inches) on the Earth's surface," said study co-author Jun Ye."

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

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

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

https://courses.physics.illinois.edu/phys419/sp2011/lectures/Lecture13/L13r.html 
 University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign: "Consider a falling object. ITS SPEED INCREASES AS IT IS FALLING. Hence, if we were to associate a frequency with that object the frequency should increase accordingly as it falls to earth. Because of the equivalence between gravitational and inertial mass, WE SHOULD OBSERVE THE SAME EFFECT FOR LIGHT. So lets shine a light beam from the top of a very tall building. If we can measure the frequency shift as the light beam descends the building, we should be able to discern how gravity affects a falling light beam. This was done by Pound and Rebka in 1960. They shone a light from the top of the Jefferson tower at Harvard and measured the frequency shift. The frequency shift was tiny but in agreement with the theoretical prediction. Consider a light beam that is travelling away from a gravitational field. Its frequency should shift to lower values. This is known as the gravitational red shift of light."  x 

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

Pentcho Valev

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#420584

On Tuesday, May 23, 2017 at 3:18:20 AM UTC-7, Pentcho Valev wrote:
> In Einstein's schizophrenic world experiments allegedly confirming Einstein's relativity actually refute it or are inconclusive.

Meanwhile, in the real world:
https://rd.springer.com/article/10.12942/lrr-2014-4 
http://www.phys.ufl.edu/~cmw/ 
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html 

--
Jan

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#420585

W dniu czwartek, 25 maja 2017 22:05:59 UTC+2 użytkownik JanPB napisał:
> On Tuesday, May 23, 2017 at 3:18:20 AM UTC-7, Pentcho Valev wrote:
> > In Einstein's schizophrenic world experiments allegedly confirming Einstein's relativity actually refute it or are inconclusive.
> 
> Meanwhile, in the real world:

Syntax schmyntax!!!!!

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#420596

On Thursday, May 25, 2017 at 2:12:56 PM UTC-6, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote:
>
> W dniu czwartek, 25 maja 2017 22:05:59 UTC+2 użytkownik JanPB napisał:
> >
> > On Tuesday, May 23, 2017 at 3:18:20 AM UTC-7, Pentcho Valev wrote:
> > >
> > > In Einstein's schizophrenic world experiments allegedly confirming
> > > Einstein's relativity actually refute it or are inconclusive.
> > 
> > Meanwhile, in the real world:
> 
> Syntax schmyntax!!!!!

Miserable Loser Weasel Orangutan posted non sequitur nonsense, snipping
the important links and refusing to address their content.  IOW, this
loser is just a stumblebum and a stupid pest.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#420613

On Thursday, May 25, 2017 at 4:05:59 PM UTC-4, JanPB wrote:
> On Tuesday, May 23, 2017 at 3:18:20 AM UTC-7, Pentcho Valev wrote:
> > In Einstein's schizophrenic world experiments allegedly confirming Einstein's relativity actually refute it or are inconclusive.
> 
> Meanwhile, in the real world:
> https://rd.springer.com/article/10.12942/lrr-2014-4 
> http://www.phys.ufl.edu/~cmw/ 
> http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html 
> 
> --
> Jan

xxein:  Sorry to say but your 'real world' does not survive outside of a collective imagination.  By turning GR sort of inside-out you may come closer.

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity

csiph-web