Pound Rebka
in [Physics]
|
Prev: Magnetron Experiments
Next: [DUMBS]: My Personal Observations and Viewpoints About a Variety of Subjects !
From: Dono on 5 Jan 2008 15:15 On Jan 5, 11:45 am, "hanson" <han...(a)quick.net> is the same old: http://eldoradoclub.net/images/wacko-lg_1_.gif
From: mluttgens on 5 Jan 2008 16:26 On Dec 30 2007, 8:06 am, Pentcho Valev <pva...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > On Dec 29, 10:39 am, Pentcho Valev <pva...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Dec 29, 3:01 am, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote in sci.physics: > > > > 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) > > In fact, it is this textbook formula that made the creation of > Einstein zombie world absolutely necessary - in any other world the > transition from this formula to the conclusion that the speed of light > is variable and obeys the equivalent equations c'=c(1+V/c^2) and c'=c > +v would be obvious. In Einstein zombie world half of the Einsteinians > fiercely teach that, in a gravitational > field, the speed of light is CONSTANT: > > http://www.astronomynotes.com/relativity/s4.htm > "Prediction: light escaping from a large mass should lose energy---the > wavelength must increase since the speed of light is constant. > Stronger surface gravity produces a greater increase in the > wavelength. This is a consequence of time dilation. Suppose person A > on the massive object decides to send light of a specific frequency f > to person B all of the time. So every second, f wave crests leave > person A. The same wave crests are received by person B in an interval > of time interval of (1+z) seconds. He receives the waves at a > frequency of f/(1+z). Remember that the speed of light c = (the > frequency f) (the wavelength L). If the frequency is reduced by (1+z) > times, the wavelength must INcrease by (1+z) times: L_atB = (1+z) > L_atA. In the doppler effect, this lengthening of the wavelength is > called a redshift. For gravity, the effect is called a GRAVITATIONAL > REDSHIFT." > > http://helios.gsfc.nasa.gov/qa_sp_gr.html > "Is light affected by gravity? If so, how can the speed of light be > constant? Wouldn't the light coming off of the Sun be slower than the > light we make here? If not, why doesn't light escape a black hole? > Yes, light is affected by gravity, but not in its speed. General > Relativity (our best guess as to how the Universe works) gives two > effects of gravity on light. It can bend light (which includes effects > such as gravitational lensing), and it can change the energy of light. > But it changes the energy by shifting the frequency of the light > (gravitational redshift) not by changing light speed. Gravity bends > light by warping space so that what the light beam sees as "straight" > is not straight to an outside observer. The speed of light is still > constant." Dr. Eric Christian > > When Einstein zombies have already learned by rote that the speed of > light is always CONSTANT, teaching that it is VARIABLE, that is > teaching the truth, can only increase the confusion: > > http://www.math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SpeedOfLight/spe... > "Einstein went on to discover a more general theory of relativity > which explained gravity in terms of curved spacetime, and he talked > about the speed of light changing in this new theory. In the 1920 book > "Relativity: the special and general theory" he wrote: ". . .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 [. . .] > 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." Since Einstein talks of velocity (a vector quantity: speed > with direction) rather than speed alone, it is not clear that he meant > the speed will change, but the reference to special relativity > suggests that he did mean so." > > http://www.physlink.com/Education/AskExperts/ae13.cfm > "So, it is absolutely true that the speed of light is _not_ constant > in a gravitational field [which, by the equivalence principle, applies > as well to accelerating (non-inertial) frames of reference]. If this > were not so, there would be no bending of light by the gravitational > field of stars....Indeed, this is exactly how Einstein did the > calculation in: 'On the Influence of Gravitation on the Propagation of > Light,' Annalen der Physik, 35, 1911. which predated the full formal > development of general relativity by about four years. This paper is > widely available in English. You can find a copy beginning on page 99 > of the Dover book 'The Principle of Relativity.' You will find in > section 3 of that paper, Einstein's derivation of the (variable) speed > of light in a gravitational potential, eqn (3). The result is, > c' = c0 ( 1 + V / c^2 ) > where V is the gravitational potential relative to the point where the > speed of light c0 is measured." > > Pentcho Valev From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pound-Rebka_experiment : "The Pound-Rebka experiment is a well known experiment to test Albert Einstein's theory of general relativity. It was proposed by R. V. Pound and G. A. Rebka Jr. in 1959,[1] and was the last of the classical tests of general relativity to be verified (in the same year). It is a gravitational redshift experiment, which measures the redshift of light moving in a gravitational field, or, equivalently, a test of the general relativity prediction that clocks should run at different rates at different places in a gravitational field. It is considered to be the experiment that ushered in an era of precision tests of general relativity. The energy associated with gravitational redshift over a distance of 22.5 meters is very small. The fractional change in energy is given by äE/E, is equal to gh/c2=2.5x10-15." In fact, the result of the Pound-Rebka experiment (a fractional change in frequency of 2.5x10-15) doesn't need general relativity to be explained: Let Nu the emitted frequency at the top of the tower of height d = 22.5 m. The corresponding energy of the photon is E = hNu, where h is the Plank constant. Let Nu0 the observed frequency at the bottom. Assuming that m = hNu / c^2 represents the photon's mass corresponding to the frequency Nu, and mgd its potential energy at the top, where g = 9.81 m/s^2 is the Earth's gravitational potential (assumed to be constant), the observed energy E0 of the photon is given by E0 = E + mgd = hNu + (hNu / c^2) * gd = hNu (1 + gd/c^2) = E (1 + gd/c^2) , or Nu0 = Nu (1 + gd/c^2) Note that gd/c^2 = 9.81 * 22.5 / 9E16 =~ 2.5E-15 Marcel Luttgens
From: hanson on 5 Jan 2008 16:57 "Dono" <sa_ge(a)comcast.net> wrote that he is very happy over this: < http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/92559824a304ee54 > and he handed me the microphone again to spread his word.
From: Dono on 5 Jan 2008 18:01 On Jan 5, 1:26 pm, mluttg...(a)wanadoo.fr wrote: > Let Nu0 the observed frequency at the bottom. > Assuming that m = hNu / c^2 represents the > photon's mass corresponding to the frequency Nu, Bad assumption, Marcel. Doesn't apply to the photon. It is nice seeing trying mainstream physics instead of your standard fare of pure crackpottery.
From: mluttgens on 6 Jan 2008 05:00
On Jan 6, 12:01 am, Dono <sa...(a)comcast.net> wrote: > On Jan 5, 1:26 pm, mluttg...(a)wanadoo.fr wrote: > > > Let Nu0 the observed frequency at the bottom. > > Assuming that m = hNu / c^2 represents the > > photon's mass corresponding to the frequency Nu, > > Bad assumption, Marcel. Doesn't apply to the photon. > It is nice seeing trying mainstream physics instead of your standard > fare of pure crackpottery. The proof of the pudding is in the eating: With that assumption, one straightforwardly gets E0 = E + mgd = hNu + (hNu / c^2) * gd = hNu (1 + gd/c^2) = E (1 + gd/c^2) This cannot be a mere coincidence. Marcel Luttgens |