Pound Rebka
in [Physics]
|
Prev: Magnetron Experiments
Next: [DUMBS]: My Personal Observations and Viewpoints About a Variety of Subjects !
From: Max Keon on 4 Jan 2008 06:36 Pentcho Valev wrote: > Pentcho Valev wrote: >> BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >> >>> Light is blueshifted on its way into gravity. >>> Light is redshifted on its way out. >> >> Sometimes even Einsteinians explain this correctly: >> >> http://www.blazelabs.com/f-g-gcont.asp"The first confirmation of a >> long range variation in the speed of light travelling in space came in >> 1964. Irwin Shapiro, it seems, was the first to make use of a >> previously forgotten facet of general relativity theory -- that the >> speed of light is reduced when it passes through a gravitational >> field.... Faced with this evidence, Einstein stated:"In the second >> place our result shows that, according to the general theory of >> relativity, the law of the constancy of the velocity of light in >> vacuo, which constitutes one of the two fundamental assumptions in the >> special theory of relativity and to which we have already frequently >> referred, cannot claim any unlimited validity. A curvature of rays of >> light can only take place when the velocity of propagation of light >> varies with position."......Today we find that since the Special >> Theory of Relativity unfortunately became part of the so called >> mainstream science, it is considered a sacrilege to even suggest that >> the speed of light be anything other than a constant. This is somewhat >> surprising since even Einstein himself suggested in a paper "On the >> Influence of Gravitation on the Propagation of Light," Annalen der >> Physik, 35, 1911, that the speed of light might vary with the >> gravitational potential. Indeed, the variation of the speed of light >> in a vacuum or space is explicitly shown in Einstein's calculation for >> the angle at which light should bend upon the influence of gravity. >> One can find his calculation in his paper. The result is c'= c(1+V/c^2) >> where V is the gravitational potential relative to the point where the >> measurement is taken. 1+V/c^2 is also known as the GRAVITATIONAL >> REDSHIFT FACTOR." > Pound and Rebka found experimentally that the GRAVITATIONAL REDSHIFT > obeys the equation f'= f(1+V/c^2), which is consistent with Einstein's > 1911 equation c'= c(1+V/c^2) and the textbook formula > > frequency = (speed of light)/(wavelength) This is the blurb given in "Basic Physics 2 by S.L.Martin and A.K.Connor", (1960+ vintage), briefly describing the purpose of the Pound and Rebka experiment. "In 1958 an effect was discovered by Mossbauer, working in U.S.A and known as the Mossbauer effect, which enabled very tiny frequency differences to be detected and measured. In 1960, using the Mossbauer effect, Pound and Rebka succeeded in measuring the extremely small change (only about 1 part in 4e+14) of frequency of the y-rays emitted by a sample of radioactive iron when it was moved from the bottom of the tower to the top of a tower 74 feet high. The observed frequency change agreed with the relativity prediction within 5%." According to your equation f'= f(1+V/c^2) V(a) and V(b) for the tower base and tower top is: G = 6.67E-11 M = 5.97E+24 ra = 6378000 Tower base radii rb = 6378023 Tower top radii (+23 meters (74 feet) high) Va = G * M / ra ^ 2 = 9.7888378648735791276869837432118 Vb = G * M / rb ^ 2 = 9.7887672652959533370556770582427 The problem is that, according to your equation, even a 1.4e+21 hz gamma ray only generates a change of 1 part in 1.4e+21. f = 1.4e+21 f'= f(1+Va/c^2) = 1400000000000000152270.8112313668 f'= f(1+Vb/c^2) = 1400000000000000152269.7130157148 The difference is 1.098, which is near enough to 1 added cycle in 1.4e+21 cycles. A 1.4e+21 hz gamma ray generates a frequency change of only 1 part per 1.4e+21 cycles, when the observed change was 1 part in 4e+14 cycles. That's 3.5 million times less than observed. That's a long way short of the 5% accuracy claim, isn't it? But what did the experiment prove anyway? It seems to have only demonstrated that the gamma ray was created in an entirely different environment to the one in which most other natural oscillators function. The charge structure of the Caesium atom configuration that drives the oscillator of an atomic clock, obviously functions in the realm outside a proton or neutron, as apparently do the natural oscillators which generate the characteristic spectral lines of an atom. All of these oscillators obey the same rule, that the rate of oscillation increases with increasing distance from a gravity source. The wavelength of a gamma ray is short enough to have been generated entirely within a proton, requiring that there be some sort of charge structure configuration within, which will resonate in tune within the proton (black hole) confines. We only see it when part of it escapes. It's more likely that the increasingly "intense" environment deeper into a gravity well is going to increase, rather than decrease the forces acting to restrain the proton contents, hence the frequency increases. The truth is that time (not clocks) runs faster with increasing depth. http://members.optusnet.com.au/maxkeon/the1-1a.html ----- Max Keon
From: Eric Gisse on 4 Jan 2008 13:45 On Jan 4, 2:36 am, "Max Keon" <maxk...(a)optusnet.com.au> wrote: > Pentcho Valev wrote: > > Pentcho Valev wrote: > >> BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > >>> Light is blueshifted on its way into gravity. > >>> Light is redshifted on its way out. > > >> Sometimes even Einsteinians explain this correctly: > > >>http://www.blazelabs.com/f-g-gcont.asp"The first confirmation of a > >> long range variation in the speed of light travelling in space came in > >> 1964. Irwin Shapiro, it seems, was the first to make use of a > >> previously forgotten facet of general relativity theory -- that the > >> speed of light is reduced when it passes through a gravitational > >> field.... Faced with this evidence, Einstein stated:"In the second > >> place our result shows that, according to the general theory of > >> relativity, the law of the constancy of the velocity of light in > >> vacuo, which constitutes one of the two fundamental assumptions in the > >> special theory of relativity and to which we have already frequently > >> referred, cannot claim any unlimited validity. A curvature of rays of > >> light can only take place when the velocity of propagation of light > >> varies with position."......Today we find that since the Special > >> Theory of Relativity unfortunately became part of the so called > >> mainstream science, it is considered a sacrilege to even suggest that > >> the speed of light be anything other than a constant. This is somewhat > >> surprising since even Einstein himself suggested in a paper "On the > >> Influence of Gravitation on the Propagation of Light," Annalen der > >> Physik, 35, 1911, that the speed of light might vary with the > >> gravitational potential. Indeed, the variation of the speed of light > >> in a vacuum or space is explicitly shown in Einstein's calculation for > >> the angle at which light should bend upon the influence of gravity. > >> One can find his calculation in his paper. The result is c'= c(1+V/c^2) > >> where V is the gravitational potential relative to the point where the > >> measurement is taken. 1+V/c^2 is also known as the GRAVITATIONAL > >> REDSHIFT FACTOR." > > Pound and Rebka found experimentally that the GRAVITATIONAL REDSHIFT > > obeys the equation f'= f(1+V/c^2), which is consistent with Einstein's > > 1911 equation c'= c(1+V/c^2) and the textbook formula > > > frequency = (speed of light)/(wavelength) > > This is the blurb given in "Basic Physics 2 by S.L.Martin and > A.K.Connor", (1960+ vintage), briefly describing the purpose of > the Pound and Rebka experiment. > "In 1958 an effect was discovered by Mossbauer, working in U.S.A > and known as the Mossbauer effect, which enabled very tiny > frequency differences to be detected and measured. In 1960, using > the Mossbauer effect, Pound and Rebka succeeded in measuring the > extremely small change (only about 1 part in 4e+14) of frequency > of the y-rays emitted by a sample of radioactive iron when it > was moved from the bottom of the tower to the top of a tower 74 > feet high. The observed frequency change agreed with the > relativity prediction within 5%." > > According to your equation f'= f(1+V/c^2) > V(a) and V(b) for the tower base and tower top is: > G = 6.67E-11 > M = 5.97E+24 > ra = 6378000 Tower base radii > rb = 6378023 Tower top radii (+23 meters (74 feet) high) > Va = G * M / ra ^ 2 = 9.7888378648735791276869837432118 > Vb = G * M / rb ^ 2 = 9.7887672652959533370556770582427 Potential energy is GM/r, idiot. You wrote down force. [snip remaining]
From: Dono on 4 Jan 2008 13:54 On Jan 4, 10:45 am, Eric Gisse <jowr...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > Potential energy is GM/r, idiot. You wrote down force. > Do you think this will stop him? :-)
From: John C. Polasek on 4 Jan 2008 16:45 On Fri, 4 Jan 2008 22:36:50 +1100, "Max Keon" <maxkeon(a)optusnet.com.au> wrote: > >Pentcho Valev wrote: >> Pentcho Valev wrote: >>> BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >>> >>>> Light is blueshifted on its way into gravity. >>>> Light is redshifted on its way out. >>> >>> Sometimes even Einsteinians explain this correctly: >>> >>> http://www.blazelabs.com/f-g-gcont.asp"The first confirmation of a >>> long range variation in the speed of light travelling in space came in >>> 1964. Irwin Shapiro, it seems, was the first to make use of a >>> previously forgotten facet of general relativity theory -- that the >>> speed of light is reduced when it passes through a gravitational >>> field.... Faced with this evidence, Einstein stated:"In the second >>> place our result shows that, according to the general theory of >>> relativity, the law of the constancy of the velocity of light in >>> vacuo, which constitutes one of the two fundamental assumptions in the >>> special theory of relativity and to which we have already frequently >>> referred, cannot claim any unlimited validity. A curvature of rays of >>> light can only take place when the velocity of propagation of light >>> varies with position."......Today we find that since the Special >>> Theory of Relativity unfortunately became part of the so called >>> mainstream science, it is considered a sacrilege to even suggest that >>> the speed of light be anything other than a constant. This is somewhat >>> surprising since even Einstein himself suggested in a paper "On the >>> Influence of Gravitation on the Propagation of Light," Annalen der >>> Physik, 35, 1911, that the speed of light might vary with the >>> gravitational potential. Indeed, the variation of the speed of light >>> in a vacuum or space is explicitly shown in Einstein's calculation for >>> the angle at which light should bend upon the influence of gravity. >>> One can find his calculation in his paper. The result is c'= c(1+V/c^2) >>> where V is the gravitational potential relative to the point where the >>> measurement is taken. 1+V/c^2 is also known as the GRAVITATIONAL >>> REDSHIFT FACTOR." > >> Pound and Rebka found experimentally that the GRAVITATIONAL REDSHIFT >> obeys the equation f'= f(1+V/c^2), which is consistent with Einstein's >> 1911 equation c'= c(1+V/c^2) and the textbook formula >> >> frequency = (speed of light)/(wavelength) > >This is the blurb given in "Basic Physics 2 by S.L.Martin and >A.K.Connor", (1960+ vintage), briefly describing the purpose of >the Pound and Rebka experiment. >"In 1958 an effect was discovered by Mossbauer, working in U.S.A >and known as the Mossbauer effect, which enabled very tiny >frequency differences to be detected and measured. In 1960, using >the Mossbauer effect, Pound and Rebka succeeded in measuring the >extremely small change (only about 1 part in 4e+14) of frequency >of the y-rays emitted by a sample of radioactive iron when it >was moved from the bottom of the tower to the top of a tower 74 >feet high. The observed frequency change agreed with the >relativity prediction within 5%." > >According to your equation f'= f(1+V/c^2) > V(a) and V(b) for the tower base and tower top is: > G = 6.67E-11 > M = 5.97E+24 > ra = 6378000 Tower base radii > rb = 6378023 Tower top radii (+23 meters (74 feet) high) > Va = G * M / ra ^ 2 = 9.7888378648735791276869837432118 > Vb = G * M / rb ^ 2 = 9.7887672652959533370556770582427 > >The problem is that, according to your equation, even a >1.4e+21 hz gamma ray only generates a change of 1 part in >1.4e+21. > > f = 1.4e+21 > f'= f(1+Va/c^2) = 1400000000000000152270.8112313668 > f'= f(1+Vb/c^2) = 1400000000000000152269.7130157148 >The difference is 1.098, which is near enough to 1 added cycle >in 1.4e+21 cycles. > >A 1.4e+21 hz gamma ray generates a frequency change of only 1 >part per 1.4e+21 cycles, when the observed change was 1 part in >4e+14 cycles. That's 3.5 million times less than observed. That's >a long way short of the 5% accuracy claim, isn't it? > >But what did the experiment prove anyway? It seems to have only >demonstrated that the gamma ray was created in an entirely >different environment to the one in which most other natural >oscillators function. > >The charge structure of the Caesium atom configuration that >drives the oscillator of an atomic clock, obviously functions in >the realm outside a proton or neutron, as apparently do the >natural oscillators which generate the characteristic spectral >lines of an atom. All of these oscillators obey the same rule, >that the rate of oscillation increases with increasing distance >from a gravity source. > >The wavelength of a gamma ray is short enough to have been >generated entirely within a proton, requiring that there be >some sort of charge structure configuration within, which will >resonate in tune within the proton (black hole) confines. We only >see it when part of it escapes. > >It's more likely that the increasingly "intense" environment >deeper into a gravity well is going to increase, rather than >decrease the forces acting to restrain the proton contents, hence >the frequency increases. > >The truth is that time (not clocks) runs faster with increasing >depth. > > http://members.optusnet.com.au/maxkeon/the1-1a.html > >----- > >Max Keon > You are all wrong in important places. For one thing the V in V/c^2 is potential MG/r not acceleration MG/r^2. (Units, units) For another the clock was not moved. The radiation of 1 curie of the stuff rose in a helium filled tunnel to the top. It is puerile to carry out whole number calculations to ridiculous extremes when differentials would do it easier. The energy is 14.4Kev with a hz frequency 3.482e18. The rate of time never changes; that is relativity's false claim. Clocks in a gravity well encounter a deprived environment and thus run slower there. Nobody compared any frequency. It's not possible. The detector was moved on a voice coil and the Doppler effect recentered the frequency to the resonance at the top filter. John Polasek
From: hanson on 4 Jan 2008 17:42
"Eric Gisse" <jowr.pi(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:30d40ddf-3af0-4765-9287-ca83ba2b25a5(a)i29g2000prf.googlegroups.com... > Mitch Raemsch aka BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: Light is blueshifted on its way into gravity. Light is redshifted on its way out. > Pentcho Valev wrote: Sometimes even Einsteinians explain this correctly: < http://www.blazelabs.com/f-g-gcont.asp > ... .... since even Einstein himself suggested in a paper "On the Influence of Gravitation on the Propagation of Light," Annalen der Physik, 35, 1911, that the speed of light might vary with the gravitational potential. One can find his calculation in his paper. The result is c'= c(1+V/c^2) where V is the gravitational potential relative to the point where the measurement is taken. 1+V/c^2 is also known as the GRAVITATIONAL REDSHIFT FACTOR." > Pentcho Valev wrote: Pound and Rebka found experimentally that the GRAVITATIONAL REDSHIFT obeys the equation f'= f(1+V/c^2), which is consistent with Einstein's 1911 equation c'= c(1+V/c^2) and the textbook formula: --- frequency = (speed of light)/(wavelength) >> "Max Keon" <maxk...(a)optusnet.com.au> wrote: In 1960, using the Mossbauer effect, Pound and Rebka succeeded in measuring the extremely small change (only about 1 part in 4e+14) of frequency of the ** y-rays ** emitted by a sample of radioactive iron when it was moved from the bottom of the tower to the top of a tower 74 feet high. The observed frequency change agreed with the relativity prediction within 5%." According to your equation f'= f(1+V/c^2) V(a) and V(b) for the tower base and tower top is: G = 6.67E-11 M = 5.97E+24 ra = 6378000 Tower base radii rb = 6378023 Tower top radii (+23 meters (74 feet) high) Va = G * M / ra ^ 2 = 9.7888378648735791276869837432118 Vb = G * M / rb ^ 2 = 9.7887672652959533370556770582427 > [Eric Gisse] Potential energy is GM/r, idiot. You wrote down force. [snip remaining] > [hanson] It is not very clear what Potential *energy* Eric is talking about and for that matter what force. When I look at Eric's equation of Potential energy = GM/r where presumably G = L^3*M^-1*T^-2 then Eric's Potential energy becomes a phenomenon, an event, with the dimension of L^2/T^2, a squared velocity, which is as mysterious as are Keon's "y-rays"... but both of which appear to produce a mutual benefit for the mysterious term of "idiot". Thanks for the laughs, guys... ahahahaha... ahahahanson |