🚀 go-pugleaf

On Mon, 18 Feb 2008 21:31:32 +0100, "Paul B. Andersen"
<paul.b.andersen@guesswhatuia.no> wrote:

>Max Keon skrev:
>> "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@guesswhatuia.no> wrote in message
>> news:47B5E7DE.8080307@guesswhatuia.no...
>>> Max Keon wrote:

>> 
>> Pound and Rebka were not out to prove that an atomic clock runs
>> slower in a gravity well at all, they were out to prove that a
>> photon frequency decreases and wavelength increases as it travels
>> upward from a gravity well.
>
>What you don't seem to understand is that the (loosely expressed)
>statement "atomic clock runs slower in a gravity well" and the
>(loosely expressed) statement "a photon frequency decreases as
>  it travels upward from a gravity well" express the same phenomenon.
>See below.

It doesn't.

>> 
>>> You can read about the P&R experiment here:
>>> http://luth2.obspm.fr/IHP06/lectures/mester-vinet/IHP-2GravRedshift.pdf
>>> http://focus.aps.org/story/v16/st1
>> 
>>>> It really
>>>> doesn't matter though, the theory of gravitationally redshifted
>>>> light is still wrong.
>>>>
>>>>> f_h/f_o = (1-(GM/r)/c^2)/(1-(GM/R)/c^2)~= 1-(GM/r)/c^2 + (GM/R)/c^2
>>>> Which is .9999999999999919 tower top seconds per 1 second at
>>>> the tower base.
>> 
>>> No, you have got it backwards again.
>>> If you insert the relevant numbers in the equation above,
>>> (or in the equation below, f_h/f_o ~= 1 + gh/c^2)
>>> you get:
>>> f_h/f_o = 1 + 2.46E-15
>>>
>>> That is, the frequency on the top is _higher_ than
>>> the frequency on the bottom.
>> 
>> I know what the clock frequencies will be at the tower base and
>> tower top, but what will be the frequency of a photon that has
>> traveled from the tower base to the top? According to GR, it's
>> going to be _lower_ at the top than it was at the bottom.
>
>Please read the following carefully.
>We have a tower.
>If em-radiation is emitted from one end of the tower, and received at
>the other end, all frequencies must change by the exactly the same factor.
>That means that if the em-radiation is gamma, the frequency shift
>delta_f/f must be the same as when the em-radiation is RF.

That is not true. A gamma 'ray' is a single, high energy photon. A radio wave
is created out of variations in photon density.
The frequency of a radio wave (or clock) should not change when falling...its
wavelength (distance between wavecrests) will. 

>If the em-radiation is a series of pulses (or flashes),
>the repetition frequency of these flashes must also change by
>the same delta_f/f as above.
>Now, imagine that we have a clock at each end of the tower,
>emitting one flash per second (let the clocks be Cs clocks,
>emitting one flash per SI-second).
>If the em-radiation going up is shifted to lower frequencies,
>then the observer on the top will count fewer flashes from
>clock at the bottom, than from his own clock. While he
>is counting N pulses from his own clock, he will have counted
>only N-n pulses from the bottom clock. This process is cumulative,
>so he will see that the bottom clock is lagging more and more
>behind his own clock. The bottom clock is running slower than
>the top clock.

That proves that either his own clock has changed due to being launched into
free fall orbit OR the fairies are active again..





Henri Wilson. ASTC,BSc,DSc(T)
www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm

Einstein's  Relativity is easy to understand if one has the IQ of a parrot and a gullibility index >0.95.