RELATIVITY HYPNOTISTS EXPLAIN THE POUND AND REBKA EXPERIMENT
Pentcho Valev
sci.physics.relativity:
>>Pound-Rebka (Snider). The higher clock measures frequency as less.
>>Its clockrate is greater by the same amount to reconcile this. Why
>>should light lose energy between FOR's. The same energy is accounted
>>for "fully" by the clockrates that measure it. The textbook statement
>>"AND light loses energy" is mixing FOR's.
> I have read this before, in more detail by Ron Hatch, if I remember
> well he concluded the same, as the GPS measurements obviously validate
> the frequency effect, leaving zero for the energy loss effect; and
> conservation of cycles also forbids the energy loss hypothesis.
Tom Roberts (the Albert Einstein of our generation) replied:
I don't know what you are asking (if anything). But the Pound & Rebka
and Pound & Snider experiments clearly show that the frequency of an
emitted light beam as measured by a receiver depends upon the
respective heights of emitter and receiver in the gravitational field
of the earth.
This can be interpreted in several different ways:
1. Light loses energy as it rises, and gains energy as it falls down;
because for light E=hf this affects its frequency.
This is in direct analogy with massive particles (in that they gain/
lose energy as they fall/rise), But from other experiments (e.g.
rotating moessbauser experiments) it is clear that this is not the
whole story.
2. Clocks tick slower when they are lower in a gravitational field
than when they are higher.
This is the typical elementary explanation. But from other experiments
it is clear that this is not the whole story.
3. Spacetime is curved in accordance with Einstein's field equation,
and light rays follow null geodesics.
This is the GR approach, and it also explains the other experiments.
In the non-quantum domain so far this seems to be the whole story.
While it is not clear to me what the above-quoted statements are tying
to say, it appears to me they are attempting to mix (1) and (2), and
as a result get confused. In (1) and (2) you have to choose whether
clocks are affected, or whether light is affected; assuming both just
leads to confusion (as above). But once you choose, it is then quite
easy to get confused when looking at other situations; (3) does not
have this drawback -- NEITHER light nor clocks are affected by
gravitation, but there is curvature that affects how different
measurements relate to each other.
GR (3) also has the virtue of being quantitative, general, and in
incredibly-accurate agreement with all reproducible experiments within
its domain of applicability.
Tom Roberts tjro...@lucent.com
___________________________________________
[End of Tom Roberts' explanation]
Let me call the attention to two important points:
A. In discussing (1), Tom Roberts obviously thinks of the formula
frequency = (speed of light)/(wavelength)
However Roberts does not mention "speed of light". Why?
B. Roberts is right about the incompatibility of (1) and (2). That is,
the measured frequency variation is due either to the variation of the
speed of light in a gravitational field (confirmed by Einstein and
many relativity hypnotists) or to gravitational time dilation, but by
no means to both. In other words, if the speed of light "varies with
position" in a gravitational field, there is no gravitational time
dilation.
Pentcho Valev
Eric Gisse
[...]
What is it like to have a life so empty that you have to do stuff like
this?
Pentcho Valev
Empty, tragic etc. So empty that additionally I considered this:
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."
Now I am not sure: Is the above text consistent with Master Tom
Roberts' interpretation (1)? Or perhaps with Master Tom Roberts'
interpretation (2)? Why don't you resolve the problem? If you do, you
will become Master Tom Roberts' PhD student. All faithful sycophants
sooner or later become Master Tom Roberts' PhD students. This is
inevitable.
Pentcho Valev
Koobee Wublee
> I don't know what you are asking (if anything). But the Pound & Rebka
> and Pound & Snider experiments clearly show that the frequency of an
> emitted light beam as measured by a receiver depends upon the
> respective heights of emitter and receiver in the gravitational field
> of the earth.
>
> This can be interpreted in several different ways:
>
> 1. Light loses energy as it rises, and gains energy as it falls down;
> because for light E=hf this affects its frequency.
>
> This is in direct analogy with massive particles (in that they gain/
> lose energy as they fall/rise), But from other experiments (e.g.
> rotating moessbauser experiments) it is clear that this is not the
> whole story.
Energy is conserved. Light cannot lose any energy propagating out of
a gravitational field.
Also, energy is an observed quantity. It makes no sense to talk about
the energy of a photon under gravitational influence and out of.
> 2. Clocks tick slower when they are lower in a gravitational field
> than when they are higher.
>
> This is the typical elementary explanation. But from other experiments
> it is clear that this is not the whole story.
If the speed of light is measured the same for one inside and outside
of gravitational influence, then this issue cannot explain
gravitational redshift.
If not measured the same, it is time to bury both SR and GR under 6
feet of nonsense build-up in the past 100 years or so.
> 3. Spacetime is curved in accordance with Einstein's field equation,
> and light rays follow null geodesics.
The curvature of spacetime is more general than the field equations or
GR. The field equations define what the curvature is.
Which geodesic path does light travel since every possible path has
null geodesics?
To be more specific for example, if we have 4 numbers below.
** 0, 0, 0, 0
Which one of the four numbers above is greater than the others?
Elementary school children should have no problems answering this
one. However, physicists for 100 years seem to have so much trouble
understanding this one. WHY?
> This is the GR approach, and it also explains the other experiments.
> In the non-quantum domain so far this seems to be the whole story.
The current interpretation of GR is utterly absurd.
The bottom line is that GR cannot explain gravitational redshift
PERIOD
John C. Polasek
It's not enough, Tom, to say spacetime curvature causes the redshift.
It needs further explication, specifics, such as below. GR isn't all
that clear. (In MTW Gravitation they have the helpful hint "just the
redshift to be expected....bla bla bla ...falling Lorentz frames".
They try to invoke the equivalence principle applied to falling
masses; it is not only unconvincing, but there is a bit of duplicity).
Pound Rebka redshift can be analyzed very easily in Dual Space
theory. Take the case of 1% impact from the well.
DST says the clock radiator that goes down in the well will become
slow by 1%, and c is also reduced by 1%, so the native wavelength is
unaffected.
The clock naturally radiates at the lower frequency and on the way up
as c regains 1%, so also it stretches the wavelength 1%. The frequency
retains its lower value that was generated by a lower energy
environment.
In any preferred explanation it should be possible to assign 1%'s to
all of a table of F, WL, c,or time and then be able to prove that it
doesn't violate either double redshift or loss of energy through
fatigue and the like. DS case:
time freq WL c
UP 1 1 1 1
DN 1 .9 1 .9
UpOut 1 .9 1.1 1
The usual claim of loss of frequency gh/c^2 combined with a faster
test clock upstairs, gives double redshift.
You don't need time dilation. In DST the region of the gravitating
mass is weakened by removal of material from pairspace to create the
said mass, so the clock and c are both less springy.
My equation dc^2/2dt = MG/r^2 tells how c recovers it speed on the way
out, and when integrated delivers the proper expression for redshift,
c' being the lower value of c:
Dc^2 = 2MG/r (int from R to oo)
c'/c = sqrt(1-2MG/r^2c)
Thus the redshift comes about as I explained above with this equation
to verify that
John Polasek
Eric Gisse
[....]
> The bottom line is that GR cannot explain gravitational redshift
> PERIOD
Oh shut the fuck up. You have no idea what you are talking about.
Eric Gisse
[snip stupidity]
Kill yourself, and spare everyone your misery.
Koobee Wublee
> On May 18, 11:55 am, Koobee Wublee <koobee.wub...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > The bottom line is that GR cannot explain gravitational redshift
> > PERIOD
>
> Oh shut the fuck up. You have no idea what you are talking about.
Did you miss something? Here it goes again.
Energy is conserved. Light cannot lose any energy propagating out of
a gravitational field.
Also, energy is an observed quantity. It makes no sense to talk about
the energy of a photon under gravitational influence and out of.
If the speed of light is measured the same for one inside and outside
of gravitational influence, then this issue cannot explain
gravitational redshift.
If not measured the same, it is time to bury both SR and GR under 6
feet of nonsense build-up in the past 100 years or so.
The curvature of spacetime is more general than the field equations or
GR. The field equations define what the curvature is.
Which geodesic path does light travel since every possible path has
null geodesics?
To be more specific for example, if we have 4 numbers below.
** 0, 0, 0, 0
Which one of the four numbers above is greater than the others?
Elementary school children should have no problems answering this
one. However, physicists for 100 years seem to have so much trouble
understanding this one. WHY?
The current interpretation of GR is utterly absurd.
Koobee Wublee
Did you miss something? Here it goes again.
Energy is conserved. Light cannot lose any energy propagating out of
a gravitational field.
Also, energy is an observed quantity. It makes no sense to talk about
the energy of a photon under gravitational influence and out of.
If the speed of light is measured the same for one inside and outside
of gravitational influence, then this issue cannot explain
gravitational redshift.
If not measured the same, it is time to bury both SR and GR under 6
feet of nonsense build-up in the past 100 years or so.
The curvature of spacetime is more general than the field equations or
GR. The field equations define what the curvature is.
Which geodesic path does light travel since every possible path has
null geodesics?
To be more specific for example, if we have 4 numbers below.
** 0, 0, 0, 0
Which one of the four numbers above is greater than the others?
Elementary school children should have no problems answering this
one. However, physicists for 100 years seem to have so much trouble
understanding this one. WHY?
The current interpretation of GR is utterly absurd.
The bottom line is that GR cannot explain gravitational redshift
PERIOD
Eric Gisse
> On May 18, 1:59 pm, Eric Gisse <jowr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On May 18, 11:55 am, Koobee Wublee <koobee.wub...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > The bottom line is that GR cannot explain gravitational redshift
> > > PERIOD
>
> > Oh shut the fuck up. You have no idea what you are talking about.
>
> Did you miss something? Here it goes again.
>
> Energy is conserved. Light cannot lose any energy propagating out of
> a gravitational field.
I cannot fucking BELIEVE you would say something so stupid - but here
you are, saying it.
[snip stupidity]
Koobee Wublee
So, what part of what I said do you not understand?
How about this example?
> > Which geodesic path does light travel since every possible path has
> > null geodesics?
> >
> > To be more specific for example, if we have 4 numbers below.
> >
> > ** 0, 0, 0, 0
> >
> > Which one of the four numbers above is greater than the others?
>
> > Elementary school children should have no problems answering this
> > one. However, physicists for 100 years seem to have so much trouble
> > understanding this one. WHY?
The current interpretation of GR is utterly absurd.
The bottom line is that GR cannot explain gravitational redshift
PERIOD
Eric Gisse
[snip stooopidity]
Why should I bother to explain exactly why you are wrong? You won't
understand, and you will run away from the discussion.
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.astro/msg/295ab523645ae61f?dmode=source
Still waiting for the math. Still waiting for the literature
references. Still waiting for the derivations. Still waiting for you
to do something other than talk talk talk talk!
Tom Roberts
> The bottom line is that GR cannot explain gravitational redshift
> PERIOD
Not true. The actual bottom line is that KOOBEE WUBLEE cannot use GR to
explain it. In actual fact, the explanation in GR is elementary:
The frequency of a light pulse P measured by an observer O is just
P.O where P represents the wave 4-vector of the light pulse and O
represents the 4-momentum of the observer. Gravitational redshift
is just the difference between P.O and P'.O', where P' is P
parallel-transported along its null geodesic to the second
observer O', and O' is the 4-momentum of that observer; note
the metric used in the two dot products is evaluated at the
location of the observation.
Note the entire effect is _geometrical_ -- the parallel transport and
the different values of the metric are pure geometry. This should be
obvious, because in GR gravitation is just geometry.
Tom Roberts
Koobee Wublee
> The frequency of a light pulse P measured by an observer O is just
> P.O where P represents the wave 4-vector of the light pulse and O
> represents the 4-momentum of the observer. Gravitational redshift
> is just the difference between P.O and P'.O', where P' is P
> parallel-transported along its null geodesic to the second
> observer O', and O' is the 4-momentum of that observer; note
> the metric used in the two dot products is evaluated at the
> location of the observation.
Please provide the whole equation and/or derivation.
> Note the entire effect is _geometrical_ -- the parallel transport and
> the different values of the metric are pure geometry. This should be
> obvious, because in GR gravitation is just geometry.
No, it is not obvious.
Einstein's prediction of gravitational red shift is utterly absurd.
He was confusing speed with acceleration. The man was very much a
clown and very shallow in any mental deduction. It is beyond the
absolute amazement that Einstein has so many followers just like the
likes of Jesus Christ, Mohamed, Reverend Moon, our very own great
Reverend Hammond, etc.
The most popular explanation of gravitational red shift involves with
gravitational time dilation in which this explanation is totally
violating the prediction of transverse Doppler shift through the
Lorentz transformation. <shrug>
Eric Gisse
Koobee Wublee wrote:
[snip stupidity]
>
> The current interpretation of GR is utterly absurd.
YOUR interpretation of GR is utterly absurd.
>
> The bottom line is that GR cannot explain gravitational redshift
> PERIOD
The bottom line is you don't know what the hell you are talking about,
and are continually unwilling to learn anything about the subjects of
which you babble.
Pentcho Valev
Absolutely correct, Roberts Roberts. You used to say Einstein's 1911
equation c'=c(1+V/c^2) was wrong and initially only Dirk Moortel and
Paul Andersen believed it but now Gisse, jeckyl and karandash, your
bright new students, also believe it. The equation says the speed of
light varies with the gravitational potential but Master Tom Roberts
says gravitation is just geometry so how can the speed of light vary
with something that does not exist, Gisse asks. Absurd, declare jeckyl
and karandash. Does the speed of light vary at all, Gisse asks again.
Who cares, reply enthusiastically Moortel, Andersen, jeckyl and
karandash. (Gisse is so active because he is going to become, as he
puts it, "Master Tom Roberts' PhD student").
Joseph Stalin had a principle:
There is a man, there is a problem. No man, no problem.
Einstein's criminal cult:
There is gravitation, there is a problem. No gravitation, no problem.
Pentcho Valev
Eric Gisse
> On May 19, 6:26 am, Tom Roberts <tjroberts...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
> > The frequency of a light pulse P measured by an observer O is just
> > P.O where P represents the wave 4-vector of the light pulse and O
> > represents the 4-momentum of the observer. Gravitational redshift
> > is just the difference between P.O and P'.O', where P' is P
> > parallel-transported along its null geodesic to the second
> > observer O', and O' is the 4-momentum of that observer; note
> > the metric used in the two dot products is evaluated at the
> > location of the observation.
>
> Please provide the whole equation and/or derivation.
Name one time you have produced a derivation of anything upon request.
>
> > Note the entire effect is _geometrical_ -- the parallel transport and
> > the different values of the metric are pure geometry. This should be
> > obvious, because in GR gravitation is just geometry.
>
> No, it is not obvious.
That is because you don't know what you are talking about.
>
> Einstein's prediction of gravitational red shift is utterly absurd.
Yet it has been observed. In terrestrial and astrophysical situations.
Isn't that curious?
> He was confusing speed with acceleration. The man was very much a
> clown and very shallow in any mental deduction. It is beyond the
> absolute amazement that Einstein has so many followers just like the
> likes of Jesus Christ, Mohamed, Reverend Moon, our very own great
> Reverend Hammond, etc.
Only an IDIOT would confuse speed and acceleration. You are the same
malicious idiot who thinks Einstein had difficulties with simple
algebra.
>
> The most popular explanation of gravitational red shift involves with
> gravitational time dilation in which this explanation is totally
> violating the prediction of transverse Doppler shift through the
> Lorentz transformation. <shrug>
IDIOT. Lorentz transformations do not apply in general relativity.
Koobee Wublee
> On May 19, 10:18 pm, Koobee Wublee <koobee.wub...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Name one time you have produced a derivation of anything upon request.
Every single time. If done in the past, it is done. <shrug>
> > > Note the entire effect is _geometrical_ -- the parallel transport and
> > > the different values of the metric are pure geometry. This should be
> > > obvious, because in GR gravitation is just geometry.
>
> > No, it is not obvious.
>
> That is because you don't know what you are talking about.
Hello!!! I am not the one doing the claim. <shrug>
> > Einstein's prediction of gravitational red shift is utterly absurd.
>
> Yet it has been observed. In terrestrial and astrophysical situations.
> Isn't that curious?
Einstein's method of predicting gravitational red shift is utterly
absurd.
> Only an IDIOT would confuse speed and acceleration.
So, you are calling Einstein an IDIOT.
> You are the same
> malicious idiot who thinks Einstein had difficulties with simple
> algebra.
No, I am no malicious idiot. You are the malicious Einstein
Dingleberry who tried to alter the history. Einstein had so much
trouble with simple mathematics. It showed in his 1905 papers as well
as his 1920 book. <shrug>
> > The most popular explanation of gravitational red shift involves with
> > gravitational time dilation in which this explanation is totally
> > violating the prediction of transverse Doppler shift through the
> > Lorentz transformation. <shrug>
>
> IDIOT. Lorentz transformations do not apply in general relativity.
Yes, it does since SR is a special case of GR. <shrug>
Eric Gisse
> On May 19, 10:51 pm, Eric Gisse <jowr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On May 19, 10:18 pm, Koobee Wublee <koobee.wub...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Name one time you have produced a derivation of anything upon request.
>
> Every single time. If done in the past, it is done. <shrug>
hahahahah liar
>
> > > > Note the entire effect is _geometrical_ -- the parallel transport and
> > > > the different values of the metric are pure geometry. This should be
> > > > obvious, because in GR gravitation is just geometry.
>
> > > No, it is not obvious.
>
> > That is because you don't know what you are talking about.
>
> Hello!!! I am not the one doing the claim. <shrug>
duh.
who cares if it is obvious to you?
>
> > > Einstein's prediction of gravitational red shift is utterly absurd.
>
> > Yet it has been observed. In terrestrial and astrophysical situations.
> > Isn't that curious?
>
> Einstein's method of predicting gravitational red shift is utterly
> absurd.
maybe to you, yet it is oddly consistent with experiment. how come
there is no empirical falsification of general relativity, malicious
crank?
>
> > Only an IDIOT would confuse speed and acceleration.
>
> So, you are calling Einstein an IDIOT.
no, i am calling you an idiot. einstein made no such confusion.
>
> > You are the same
> > malicious idiot who thinks Einstein had difficulties with simple
> > algebra.
>
> No, I am no malicious idiot. You are the malicious Einstein
> Dingleberry who tried to alter the history. Einstein had so much
> trouble with simple mathematics. It showed in his 1905 papers as well
> as his 1920 book. <shrug>
yea, so much trouble that he managed to get a nobel in physics and
revolutionized physics through the following subjects unrelated to
relativity:
statistical mechanics via explaining brownian motion of particles, and
the bose einstein condensate.
quantum mechanics via :
photoelectric effect which spawned the goddamn field and got a nobel
for
his derivation of the heat capacity of a quantum solid, which matched
experiment much better than the classical models as well as helped
solidify quantum mechanics as an accepted field
he also made notable predictions unrelated to relativity:
the bose-einstein condensate, which have become supremely important in
the last decade. let us not forget the einstein A-B coefficients, the
theoretical basis for the laser.
your complete inability to understand einstein's works is not a valid
critique against einstein, especially since so many others [including
myself] manage _just fine_.
>
> > > The most popular explanation of gravitational red shift involves with
> > > gravitational time dilation in which this explanation is totally
> > > violating the prediction of transverse Doppler shift through the
> > > Lorentz transformation. <shrug>
>
> > IDIOT. Lorentz transformations do not apply in general relativity.
>
> Yes, it does since SR is a special case of GR. <shrug>
special relativity is only true on curved manifolds in sufficiently
local regimes. lorentz transforms do _not_ apply. all these years of
arguing about relativity and you still don't know the most basic of
stuff? fuckin' unbelievable
Pentcho Valev
You forget Einstein's 1911 equation c'=c(1+V/c^2), Gisse. Perhaps
because you want to become Master Tom Roberts' PhD student and you
know Master Tom Roberts does not like this equation. Is that the
reason?
Pentcho Valev
Eric Gisse
[snip all]
Nothing you say is worth reading. Stop posting.
Jeff…Relf
Eric Gisse
> G.R. integrates S.R., " e = .5 * gamma * m * c^2 ".
No stooopid, GR does nothing of the sort. Don't talk about subjects
you don't know anything about.
Eric Gisse
His first attempt at gravity was wrong. Obsess about something else,
luantic.
>
> Pentcho Valev
Henri Wilson
www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm
Einstein's Relativity - the greatest HOAX since jesus christ's virgin mother.
Henri Wilson
wrote:
All experiments involving gravity, light and motion are carried out in 3space
and time.
Would you mind in future translating your messages into a language that can be
assessed in terms of available experimental data, instead of wandering off
aimlessly into fairyland.
>
>
>Tom Roberts
Pentcho Valev
Tom Roberts' fairyland is called Oceania:
http://www.online-literature.com/orwell/1984/ George Orwell "1984":
"In the end the Party would announce that two and two made five, and
you would have to believe it. It was inevitable that they should make
that claim sooner or later: the logic of their position demanded it.
Not merely the validity of experience, but the very existence of
external reality, was tacitly denied by their philosophy. The heresy
of heresies was common sense. And what was terrifying was not that
they would kill you for thinking otherwise, but that they might be
right. For, after all, how do we know that two and two make four? OR
THAT THE FORCE OF GRAVITY WORKS? Or that the past is unchangeable? If
both the past and the external world exist only in the mind, and if
the mind itself is controllable what then?"
The problem is that we all live in Oceania and cannot even imagine a
different country.
Pentcho Valev
Art Deco
>On 20 May 2007 00:38:35 -0700, Eric Gisse <jow...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>On May 19, 10:22 pm, Pentcho Valev <pva...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>[snip all]
>
>Nothing you say is worth reading. Stop posting.
How do you propose to make him?
>
>
>
>www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm
>
>Einstein's Relativity - the greatest HOAX since jesus christ's virgin mother.
Congratulations on being part of the group nomination of the
anti-relativists for the Victor von Frankenstein Weird Science Award,
Henri, it has been officially accepted:
<ttp://www.caballista.org/auk/nominations.html>
--
Supreme Leader of the Brainwashed Followers of Art Deco
"Causation of gravity is missing frame field always attempting
renormalization back to base memory of equalized uniform momentum."
-- nightbat the saucerhead-in-chief
"Of doing Venus in person would obviously incorporate a composite
rigid airship, along with it's internal cache of frozen pizza and
ice cold beer."
-- Brad Guth, bigoted racist
"You really are one of the litsiest people I know, Mr. Deco."
--Kali, quoted endlessly by David Tholen as evidence of "something"
John C. Polasek
snip
>
>Tom Roberts (the Albert Einstein of our generation) replied:
>
>I don't know what you are asking (if anything). But the Pound & Rebka
>and Pound & Snider experiments clearly show that the frequency of an
>emitted light beam as measured by a receiver depends upon the
>respective heights of emitter and receiver in the gravitational field
>of the earth.
>
>This can be interpreted in several different ways:
>
>1. Light loses energy as it rises, and gains energy as it falls down;
>because for light E=hf this affects its frequency.
>
>This is in direct analogy with massive particles (in that they gain/
>lose energy as they fall/rise), But from other experiments (e.g.
>rotating moessbauser experiments) it is clear that this is not the
>whole story.
>
>2. Clocks tick slower when they are lower in a gravitational field
>than when they are higher.
>
>This is the typical elementary explanation. But from other experiments
>it is clear that this is not the whole story.
>
>3. Spacetime is curved in accordance with Einstein's field equation,
>and light rays follow null geodesics.
>
>This is the GR approach, and it also explains the other experiments.
>In the non-quantum domain so far this seems to be the whole story.
snip
> (3) does not >have this drawback -- NEITHER light nor clocks are affected by
>gravitation, but there is curvature that affects how different
>measurements relate to each other.
>
snip
>
>Tom Roberts tjro...@lucent.com
>___________________________________________
>[End of Tom Roberts' explanation]
>
>Let me call the attention to two important points:
>
>A. In discussing (1), Tom Roberts obviously thinks of the formula
>
>frequency = (speed of light)/(wavelength)
>
>However Roberts does not mention "speed of light". Why?
>
>B. Roberts is right about the incompatibility of (1) and (2). That is,
>the measured frequency variation is due either to the variation of the
>speed of light in a gravitational field (confirmed by Einstein and
>many relativity hypnotists) or to gravitational time dilation, but by
>no means to both. In other words, if the speed of light "varies with
>position" in a gravitational field, there is no gravitational time
>dilation.
>
>Pentcho Valev
This is quite pathetic. The topic is the Pound-Rebka experiment that
is to be debated and explained, yet most of the bandwidth is taken up
by Laurel and Hardy sniping at each other. Neither one has an
explanation it appears.
I provided an explanation in the form of an ultra simple schedule of
the sequence of events in this experiment, so that any other
explanation would necessarily enter different numbers in the table to
provide a different explanation. No one has done this.
I directly contradicted Roberts statement:
"(3) does not have this drawback -- NEITHER light nor clocks are
affected by gravitation" when I asserted that both light velocity and
clock rate are equally reduced by gravity.
I derived the equation for the redshift as the acceleration of c out
of the well, correcting Einstein's early effort (1-v^2/c^2). My same
equation can be integrated to agree with Brault's experiment of 635
m/s at the sun.
As between Bob and Ray, I'd say Kooblee has fouled out and should be
sent to the locker room. There's a need for some kind of housekeeping,
but peer-reviewd censorship quickly creates tyrants.
John Polasek
Eric Gisse
> On 20 May 2007 00:38:35 -0700, Eric Gisse <jowr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >On May 19, 10:22 pm, Pentcho Valev <pva...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >[snip all]
>
> Nothing you say is worth reading. Stop posting.
>
> www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm
>
> Einstein's Relativity - the greatest HOAX since jesus christ's virgin mother.
Sorry Ralph, people who post under pseudonyms and forge their degrees
don't get to tell me what to do.