WHERE THE GRAVITATIONAL REDSHIFT FACTOR COMES FROM
Pentcho Valev
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."
Pentcho Valev
eugene_st...@usa.net
Hi Pentcho,
actually, explanation of the Shapiro time delay requires a slightly
different formula for the speed of light in the gravitational field
c'=c(1+2V/c^2). The gravitational redshift factor is, indeed, given by
(1+V/c^2). This difference is discussed in my paper www.arxiv.org/physics/0612019.
Regards.
Eugene.
Pentcho Valev
You don't seem to have applied the formula
frequency = (speed of light)/(wavelength)
It would be very difficult to reconcile this formula with speed
c'=c(1+2V/c^2) and redshift factor (1+V/c^2). By the way, when
relativists reject Einstein's 1911 equation c'=c(1+V/c^2), do they
imply that not c'=c(1+V/c^2) but, rather, c'=c(1+2V/c^2) is correct?
See this:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/browse_frm/thread/9f3d13a5863cbd34?tvc=1
Tom Roberts:
Pentcho Valev wrote:
> [...] Einstein's 1911 equation c'=c(1+V/c^2) [...]
"You clearly do not have a clue -- that equation is at best an
APPROXIMATION, and is applicable only to a very limited class of
physical situations. But no matter, because Einstein got it right when
he published GR in 1915.... [later] I see I over-spoke, and realize
now that it is not any approximation, and is not valid for any
physical situation."
Pentcho Valev
eugene_st...@usa.net
> You don't seem to have applied the formula
>
> frequency = (speed of light)/(wavelength)
>
> It would be very difficult to reconcile this formula with speed
> c'=c(1+2V/c^2) and redshift factor (1+V/c^2). By the way, when
> relativists reject Einstein's 1911 equation c'=c(1+V/c^2), do they
> imply that not c'=c(1+V/c^2) but, rather, c'=c(1+2V/c^2) is correct?
Hi Pentcho,
The gravitational redshift factor is (1+V/c^2), and the speed of light
is modified in gravity as c'=c(1+2V/c^2). The factors are different,
but there is no contradiction. These are two separate effects which
arise from different parts of the Hamiltonian. Both of them are
confirmed in experiments. It took me a while to realize this
difference, but now I am sure I understand this. This point is briefly
discussed on page 18 (see also footnote 21) of my paper www.arxiv.org/physics/0612019.
Let me know if you would like a more detailed explanation.
Eugene.
eugene_st...@usa.net
> By the way, when
> relativists reject Einstein's 1911 equation c'=c(1+V/c^2), do they
> imply that not c'=c(1+V/c^2) but, rather, c'=c(1+2V/c^2) is correct?
If you assume that c'=c(1+V/c^2) and integrate 1/c' along the linear
return path
Earth-Sun-Mars-Sun-Earth you'll get a time delay value, which is 2x
smaller than the one measured in Shapiro radar echo experiments. The
correct speed of light reduction factor is (1+2V/c^2).
Eugene.
Ahmed Ouahi, Architect
However, when the structure along the physics would be controlled along the
constants.
Therefore, would be G = 0, generally in that moment, it would not be the
gravity, as the c would be equal to an infinity, or even 1 / c = 0 means a
simply, no transmitions any more along anything, all along, and this what is
all about, a definitely as a matter a fact.
--
Ahmed Ouahi, Architect
Best Regards!
<eugene_st...@usa.net> wrote in message
news:1178729964.4...@e65g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
John C. Polasek
Actually not. There is another test, Brault's.
The correct expression purely for the increase in c is c'/c=sqrt(1 +
2MG/Rc^2) = sqrt(1+2V/c^2) ~ 1+ V/c^2 = 1+MG/Rc^2
This is demonstrated in Brault's experiment on the Sun's D-line which
he quantified as an increase of +635 m/s in c on leaving the sun.
Using the mass and radius of the sun,
dc = c*MG/Rc^2 = 635 m/s
In the Shapiro effect there is space dilation also that gives the
doubling effect and there it would be 1+ 2V/c^2.
Brault's experiment is in MTL Gravitation.
John Polasek
eugene_st...@usa.net
> Actually not. There is another test, Brault's.
> The correct expression purely for the increase in c is c'/c=sqrt(1 +
> 2MG/Rc^2) = sqrt(1+2V/c^2) ~ 1+ V/c^2 = 1+MG/Rc^2
> This is demonstrated in Brault's experiment on the Sun's D-line which
> he quantified as an increase of +635 m/s in c on leaving the sun.
> Using the mass and radius of the sun,
> dc = c*MG/Rc^2 = 635 m/s
> In the Shapiro effect there is space dilation also that gives the
> doubling effect and there it would be 1+ 2V/c^2.
> Brault's experiment is in MTL Gravitation.
> John Polasek
Unfortunately, I don't have MTL Gravitation, but I have two dozen of
articles about the gravitational shift of Solar spectral lines. At
some point I was interested in this phenomenon and spent a lot of time
reading about it. I suspect you misunderstood the speed of 635 m/s
which is often quoted in connection with the Sun redshift. In my
understanding, this is the (imaginary) speed which produces a Doppler
shift numerically identical to the gravitational redshift observed on
the Sun's surface. Nobody is saying that this is the actual speed of
atoms on the Sun's surface. Moreover, this is not the amount by which
the speed of light changes. This is just a convenient (though rather
abstract) measure of the effect of Sun's gravity on spectral line
frequencies.
Eugene.
Koobee Wublee
> ... GRAVITATIONAL REDSHIFT FACTOR."
Consider the common Schwarzschild spacetime as described by the
equation below.
ds^2 = c^2 (1 - 2 U) dt^2 - dr^2 / (1 - 2 U) - r^2 dO^2
Where
** U = G M / c^2 / r
The case for gravitational red shift under the hypothesis known as the
general theory of relativity (GR) is solely from the element of the
metric associated with dt^2. It gives a nice prediction of
gravitational red shift. This leads to arguments that time dilation
results in red shift, but this is in direct collision course with
another hypothesis know as the special theory of relativity (SR).
Under SR, the transverse Doppler shift is blue. Thus, under SR, time
dilation represents a blue shift in frequency. Before you throw up
you hands in the air on bother GR and SR, if you consider the other
element of the metric represented by the equation above, you will find
the following contradicting predictions.
** dr^2 / (1 - 2 U) = gravitational blue shift
** r^2 dO^2 = gravitational no shift
** c^2 (1 - 2 U) dt^2 = gravitational red shift
It sounds like GR got all bases covered. It is very capable of
predicting anything that fits any observation. <shrug>
Eric Gisse
[...]
Why are you comparing SR and GR, stupid?
Brain-W...@webtv.net
Eric Gisse
> text_html_part
> 1KDownload
Idiot. Get a real computer.
John C. Polasek
No, I didn't use anything from MTL, except to cite Brault's
experiment.
I derived it from own theory of gravity which you can see on my
website http://www.dualspace.net, the gravity paper. I added 2 terms
to Newton's equation to explain the actual cause of gravity.
Eq. 3 says
cdc/dr = MG/r^2
which when integrated from Rsun to oo gives
Dc = +Mg/Rc =+635m/s Sun, or 0.208m/s for Earth.
Eq. 3 says that c is reduced in gravity and the equation tells what
velocity it gains on the way out. Furthermore, the frequency in the
well becomes low and retains the same depressed value, but the
wavelength in the well remains the same since L = c/f (both reduced).
The net result is the wavelength stretches on the way out and keeps
its reduced frequency.
If you integrate the other new term dc^2/2dr from R to oo on you get
c'/coo = sqrt(1-2MG/Rcoo^2)
the reduced velocity c' giving the redshift.
General relativity does it this way
dtau/dt = sqrt(-g00) = sqrt(1-2MG/Rc^2)
It's the same expression except relativity tries to squeeze time and
I'm saying it can't be done.
John Polasek
karand...@yahoo.com
The persistent cretin, Koobee-Wublee has written down some formulas.
Now he's comparing the GR REDSHIFT (due to variation in gravitational
potential) with the SR TDE BLUESHIFT (due to motion between source and
receptor) and he's wondering why aren't the two the same COLOR. There
is no accounting for your Alzheimer, KW!
Pentcho Valev
I would like a simple explanation in terms of both the equation
frequency = (speed of light)/(wavelength)
and Pound and Rebka's 1960 result
f' = f(1 + V/c^2)
Pentcho Valev
Koobee Wublee
> > Consider the common Schwarzschild spacetime as described by the
> > equation below.
>
> > ds^2 = c^2 (1 - 2 U) dt^2 - dr^2 / (1 - 2 U) - r^2 dO^2
>
> > Where
>
> > ** U = G M / c^2 / r
>
> > The case for gravitational red shift under the hypothesis known as the
> > general theory of relativity (GR) is solely from the element of the
> > metric associated with dt^2. It gives a nice prediction of
> > gravitational red shift. This leads to arguments that time dilation
> > results in red shift, but this is in direct collision course with
> > another hypothesis know as the special theory of relativity (SR).
> > Under SR, the transverse Doppler shift is blue. Thus, under SR, time
> > dilation represents a blue shift in frequency. Before you throw up
> > you hands in the air on bother GR and SR, if you consider the other
> > element of the metric represented by the equation above, you will find
> > the following contradicting predictions.
>
> > ** dr^2 / (1 - 2 U) = gravitational blue shift
>
> > ** r^2 dO^2 = gravitational no shift
>
> > ** c^2 (1 - 2 U) dt^2 = gravitational red shift
>
> > It sounds like GR got all bases covered. It is very capable of
> > predicting anything that fits any observation. <shrug>
The juvenile Einstein Dingleberries need to explain why time dilation
of GR and the time dilation of SR are different.
eugene_st...@usa.net
> > Hi Pentcho,
>
> > The gravitational redshift factor is (1+V/c^2), and the speed of light
> > is modified in gravity as c'=c(1+2V/c^2). The factors are different,
> > but there is no contradiction. These are two separate effects which
> > arise from different parts of the Hamiltonian. Both of them are
> > confirmed in experiments. It took me a while to realize this
> > difference, but now I am sure I understand this. This point is briefly
> > discussed on page 18 (see also footnote 21) of my paper www.arxiv.org/physics/0612019.
> > Let me know if you would like a more detailed explanation.
>
> I would like a simple explanation in terms of both the equation
>
> frequency = (speed of light)/(wavelength)
>
> and Pound and Rebka's 1960 result
>
> f' = f(1 + V/c^2)
>
> Pentcho Valev
I can give an explanation based on my theory of gravity in
www.arxiv.org/physics/0612019. Equation numbers mentioned below
correspond to that paper. If you would like to know GR explanation,
then you should ask GR experts.
1. RED SHIFT. To explain the Pound and Rebka experiment one doesn't
need to bother about relativistic corrections to gravitational
interactions. It is sufficient to know the Newtonian Hamiltonian for
the body of mass m (e.g., Fe^57 crystal) in the gravitational field of
a bigger mass M (e.g., Earth)
H = H_0 - GMm/r
where H_0 is the kinetic energy term, which can be approximated simply
by H_0=mc^2 (I omitted a huge constant term Mc^2 which doesn't play
any role here), G is the gravitational constant, and r is the
distance. It is convenient to represent the potential energy as V(r)m
where V(r) = -GM/r is the gravitational potential. So, the total
energy of the system Earth+crystal is
H = mc^2 + V(r)m = mc^2(1 + V(r)/c^2) (23a)
In the Pound-Rebka experiment one is interested in a transition
between two energy levels in Fe^57 nucleus. Suppose that far from
Earth these energy levels are E1 and E2, so that the energy of emitted
gamma-quantum is E= E2-E1, and its frequency is f = E/hbar. Now, the
question is this: what is the energy difference E'=E2'-E1' of the
Fe^57 nucleus on the Earth's surface? As we see from (23a) the total
energy in the gravitational field is scaled by the factor (1 + V(r)/
c^2). It is natural to assume that the same scale factor applies to
all energy differences, i.e.,
E' = E(1 + V(r)/c^2)
and thus to frequencies
f' = f(1 + V(r)/c^2) (24)
So, if we have two Fe^57 nuclei: one at a lower elevation (a lower
gravitational potential V1) and the other at a higher elevation (a
higher gravitational potential V2), then the separations of their
nuclear levels will be different by the factor
(1 + [V2-V1]/c^2). The resonance will be destroyed. This is what Pound
and Rebka measured in 1960.
2. SLOWER SPEED OF LIGHT. In order to know how light behaves in the
gravitational field one needs a Hamiltonian for the 2-body system Earth
+photon. In my theory this Hamiltonian is
H = cp - GMp/(cr) (19)
where p is the photon's momentum (Here, again, I omitted huge but
constant term Mc^2). By solving Hamilton's equations of motions with
(19) one can derive the light deflection by Sun's gravity (section
3.2) and the reduction of the light speed in the gravitational field
c' = c - 2GM/(cr)
= c (1 - 2GM/(rc^2))
= c (1 + 2V(r)/c^2) (22)
This formula fully explains the observed Shapiro time delay. Note that
the scaling factor here is different from that in (24).
3. DOES GRAVITY AFFECT PHOTON'S ENERGY (FREQUENCY)?
This is a tricky question, and it took me some time to figure out the
answer. On the one hand in section 1. above we fully explained Pound-
Rebka experiment without assuming any effect of gravity on the energy
of photons. All we needed was the effect of gravity on the energies
(and energy differences) of massive bodies (like Fe^57 nuclei) which
emit or absorb photons.
On the other hand, photons do interact with gravity, as eq. (19)
shows. Shall we take into account this interaction in our explanation
of the Pound-Rebka experiment? The answer is NO. The reason is this:
The photon's energy in the gravitational field consists (as usual) of
two parts (see eq. (19)) - the kinetic energy cp and the potential
energy -GMp/(cr). When the photon moves in the field both these terms
change, but their sum - the total energy - remains constant. It is
exactly this sum which should be used as an indication of the measured
photon's energy. When photon's energy is measured the photon is fully
absorbed by the detector. So, the photon disappears completely. Both
its kinetic and potential energies disappear with him. Photon's
frequency should be defined as E/hbar, where E is the TOTAL energy
which does not depend on the photon's location in the field.
If you assume that photon's frequency changes in the field (e.g., it
becomes lower at higher elevations) you can easily find a
contradiction when considering a sinusoidal light source on the ground
and a light detector on a mountain. The number of wave maxima emitted
by the source during certain period of time will be greater than the
number of wave maxima received by the detector. Where do these extra
maxima go? This is like a room with an entrance door and an exit door.
If we allow people to enter more frequently than we allow them to
leave, eventually the room will be crowded.
So, returning to your equation
frequency = (speed of light)/(wavelength)
we have established that "frequency" remains constant and that "speed
of light" changes as in (22). You can now figure out yourself what
happens to the wavelength.
Eugene.
John C. Polasek
>On May 10, 6:01 am, John C. Polasek <jpola...@cfl.rr.com> wrote:
>
>> No, I didn't use anything from MTL [Misner, Thorne, Wheeler?],
>> except to cite Brault's experiment.
>
>Hi John,
>
>Sorry, I probably misunderstood your reference to 635 m/s. Anyway, if
>you are interested in observations of the red shift of Solar spectral
>lines, I can recommend you this site:
>http://www.newtonphysics.on.ca/Chromosphere/CHROMOSPHERE.html
>It has a lot of references.
>
>Eugene.
The paper highlights the difficulties of making accurate observations
and concerns itself with observed changes in redshift across the disk.
They mention there is line broadening greater than the redshift 2.2e-6
which is probably why Brault [32 op cit] used an oscillating apparatus
to scan the D1 line.
Fig. 2 does show the relativistic 0.635 km/s but they are not much
conerned with it. But our interest is in the theoretical gravitational
derivation, theirs with thermodynamics.
It is an interesting paper, but I think it's more interesting that I
have produced gravity expressions that predict the velocity change
that make redshift.
Compare with MTL's Gravitation p. 1058 'helpful' explanation:
"This is just the redshift to be expected if the local Lorentz frames
...fall in step with freely falling test bodies".
JOhn Polasek
karand...@yahoo.com
> The juvenile Einstein Dingleberries need to explain WHY time dilation
> of GR and the time dilation of SR are different.
KW,
We all knew that you are an idiot, there is no need to demonstrate it
on a daily basis.
I mean, for a PRETENDER, you are pretty bad.
Androcles
<eugene_st...@usa.net> wrote in message
news:1178752687.7...@y80g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
Fortunately I don't have Misner, Taylor and Wheeler's "Gravitation", or even
MTL Gravitation, either.
It makes one suspect Lopasek can't spell his own name, let alone read
"Gravitation".
John C. Polasek
Aside from quenching your insatiable appetite to see your name in
print, can you define the point of your comment?
Apparently you can't read (except to snip away my other message). The
first thing I said was
"No, I didn't use anything from MTL, except to cite Brault's
experiment". I further said Eq. 3 was my new equation for gravity,
which when integrated gives the same velocity change as Brault's from
MTL as one verification of the equation.
What is your equation for gravity?
John Polasek
John C. Polasek
This is a repost. My message disappeared somehow.
Androcles
"John C. Polasek" <jpol...@cfl.rr.com> wrote in message
news:d7ce43lrp9dv7b6rl...@4ax.com...
: On Sun, 13 May 2007 11:31:22 GMT, "Androcles"
: <Engi...@hogwarts.physics> wrote:
: >Fortunately I don't have Misner, Taylor and Wheeler's "Gravitation", or
: >MTL Gravitation, either.
: >It makes one suspect Lopasek can't spell his own name, let alone read
: >"Gravitation".
: >
: Aside from quenching your insatiable appetite to see your name in
: print, can you define the point of your comment?
: Apparently you can't read (except to snip away my other message). The
: first thing I said was
: "No, I didn't use anything from MTL, except to cite Brault's
: experiment". I further said Eq. 3 was my new equation for gravity,
: which when integrated gives the same velocity change as Brault's from
: MTL as one verification of the equation.
: What is your equation for gravity?
: John Polasek
Why would you call Charlie Misner "M", Kip Thorne "T" and Archie wheeLer
"L",
Pon Lushajek?
http://www.amazon.com/Gravitation-Physics-Kip-S-Thorne/dp/0716703440
It's you that's dyslexic and can't read.
Aside from feeding your insatiable ego to see your name in
print, how do you spell your name?
Gravitation by MTW, you fuckwit; MTL is mass, length and time.
Not that they know anything anyway, Uranus was discovered 4
years after Le Verrier died, hence he had an "anomaly" in his
calculation of the advance of longitude of perihelion of Mercury
but had quite understandably not accounted for it.
That puts paid to GR, Einstein had 43 arc seconds per century error
and Newton is exact.
Androcles
What the FUCK is "MTL Gravitation", and how many Polaseks
does it take to change a light bulb?