🚀 go-pugleaf

On Mon, 18 Feb 2008 22:45:13 +1100, "Max Keon" <maxkeon@optusnet.com.au> wrote:

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

>
>>> But perhaps I've just misinterpreted the description.
>
>> You certainly have.
>> Do you think the Pound & Rebka experiment would be
>> considered to be a confirmation of GR if it had
>> measured the opposite of what GR predicts? :-)
>
>GR predicts that clock oscillator frequencies are slower in a
>gravity well, while the frequency of an inward traveling photon
>increases.
>
>This was the purpose of the Pound and Rebka experiment
>according to Brittanica;
>-By Einstein's theory of general relativity a photon produced
>-near the Earth's surface should be higher in frequency by 1.09
>-parts in 1016 for each metre above sea level. In 1960 the U.S.
>-physicists Robert V. Pound and Glen A. Rebka measured the
>-difference between the frequencies of photons produced at
>-different elevations and found that it agreed very closely
>-with what was predicted.
>
>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.

.....and their result was fully supportive of ballistic theory.
>
>> 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

>
>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.

In reality, atomic clocks don't change rates when raised to higher
levels....except for the 'free fall' effect.



>> Sure, if you postulate that Galilean relativity applies,
>> it is indeed _blatantly_ obvious impossible.
>>
>> That's why it is _blatantly_ obvious to anyone with some measure
>> of intelligence that since frequencies and wavelengths factually
>> are gravitationally shifted, Galilean relativity is falsified.
>>
>> You seem to have a lot in common with Henri Wilson. :-)
>
>Perhaps we should all take a long hard look at ourself in a
>mirror sometimes Paul.

Paul has no idea what photon 'wavelength' or 'frequency' actually mean.
Nor does anyone else, for that matter.


>Max Keon
>
>



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.