🚀 go-pugleaf

Max Keon skrev:
> "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@guesswhatuia.no> wrote in message
> news:47B0B5D6.5080404@guesswhatuia.no...
>> Max Keon wrote:
>>> Eric Gisse wrote:
>>>> Max Keon wrote:
> ---
>>>>> My equation gives the correct answer.
>>>> Does it?
>>>>
>>>> Let's see the computation.
>>> Firstly, all clocks are fixed with the ECI frame.
>>>
>>>  1+(GM/r)/c^2: r=6378000 meters for the surface radius clock:
>>>  1+(6.67e-11*5.97e24/6378000)/3e8^2 = 1.000000000694 seconds
>>> per 1 second of a clock that's unaffected by Earth's gravity.
> 
>> Wrong sign.
>> Should be (1-(GM/r)/c^2) = 1 - 6.94e-10
>> A clock at zero altitude, stationary in the ECI frame
>> runs slow by the factor (1 - 6.94e-10) compared to a clock
>> unaffected by Earth's gravity.
> 
> What I was trying to say is that each second at the surface
> radius clock is 1.000000000694 of the unaffected clock seconds.
> The unaffected clock was the benchmark.


OK, but that's an unconventional way of expressing it.

The _rate_ of the ground clock compared to the reference clock
is definitely _less_ than 1 second per second.
Namely (1-(GM/r)/c^2) = (1 - 6.94e-10).


> ---
> 
>>> If radioactive iron is chosen as the frequency generator in an
>>> atomic clock, a GPS radius clock will run _slower_ than the
>>> surface radius clock (all fixed with the ECI frame), by 4.55e-5
>>> seconds per sidereal day. Not faster. The Pound and Rebka
>>> experiment proves that gamma rays are generated in a vastly
>>> different environment to that of lesser frequency rays.
> 
>> How did you arrive at this remarkable conclusion?
>> It is wrong.
> 
> Once again, this is the blurb given in "Basic Physics 2, by
> S.L.Martin and A.K.Connor", (1960+ vintage), briefly describing
> the purpose of the Pound and Rebka experiment.
> 
> -"In 1958 an effect was discovered by Mossbauer, working in U.S.A
> -and known as the Mossbauer effect, which enabled very tiny
> -frequency differences to be detected and measured. In 1960, using
> -the Mossbauer effect, Pound and Rebka succeeded in measuring the
> -extremely small change (only about 1 part in 4e+14) of frequency
> -of the y-rays emitted by a sample of radioactive iron when it
> -was moved from the bottom of the tower to the top of a tower 74
> -feet high. The observed frequency change agreed with the
> -relativity prediction within 5%."
> 
> Notice that this information was gathered around the time when
> the experiment was conducted. The authors would have had very
> detailed knowledge of a recently conducted experiment, surely?
> It's hardly likely that their description is flawed.
> 
> According to the description given, the emitted y ray frequency
> reduced _as the radioactive iron sample was raised to the tower
> top_. That is NOT how a normal Caesium driven atomic clock
> behaves.

According to which description?
Certainly not the quoted one.

> 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? :-)

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.

> That oscillator is running faster deeper into
> Earth's gravity well. A Caesium atomic clock oscillator runs
> slower. Regardless of whether that is so or not, none of that
> has anything to do with redshifted wavelengths on the climb from
> a gravity well, as you will see.
> 
>> where:
>>   f_h = frequency of gamma photon at the top of the tower
>>   f_o = frequency of gamma photon at the bottom of the tower
>>   r = the distance centre of the Earth - top of tower
>>   R = radius of the Earth (at the bottom of the tower)
>>
>>  r = R + h, h = height of tower
>>  f_h/f_o ~= (1 + ((GM/R)/c^2)(1 - R/(R+h))
>>  When h/R << 1 :
>>  R/(R+h) ~= (1-h/R)
>>
>>  f_h/f_o ~= 1 + ((GM/R)/c^2)(h/R)
>>  g = GM/R^2
>>
>>  f_h/f_o ~= 1 + gh/c^2
>>
>>  Which is in accordance with the Pound & Rebka experiment.
> 
> 
> Here's another problem for you, in your reply to Henry Wilson on
> this thread. The experiment you have described in this excerpt
> from that post is seriously flawed.
> 
> -But other experiments are made.
> -In gravity probe A, a hydrogen maser was used as a clock.
> -It transmitted a continuous wave with frequency ca. 1.42 GHz.
> -This frequency can easily be, and was, directly measured
> -from the ground. Every cycle was received.
> -(The received frequency was compared to the frequency of
> -  a signal reflected off the probe, to compensate for
> -  Doppler effect. The gravitational shift was thus measured.)
> -The rocket with the maser was launched straight up, and was
> -inertial for most of the journey. It reached an altitude of 10000km.
> -The relative gravitational frequency shift of the EM-radiation from
> -that altitude was ca. 4.2E-10.

You can read about it here:
http://luth2.obspm.fr/IHP06/lectures/mester-vinet/IHP-2GravRedshift.pdf

> The assumption prior to conducting the experiment was that the
> wavelengths from the ground source would extend enroute to the
> onboard reflector carried on the rocket when the altitude
> ceiling of 10000km was reached, and would then shorten back to
> their original lengths on return to the point of origin.
> 
> The next assumption was that the hydrogen maser clock was
> running faster at the ceiling altitude, according to GM/r/c^2,
> which has been well confirmed.
> 
> Assumption (3) was that the wavelengths in the signal from the
> maser clock would also shorten in the same proportions as the
> return signal from the onboard reflector.
> 
> So, because the frequency in the reflected transmission fell
> short of that from the maser clock, one could only conclude that
> the transmission from the ground source to the reflector had been
> redshifted. But that is not the case at all.
> 
> If the frequency of the round trip signal was constant throughout
> the journey, and if the frequency from the maser clock was
> constant on the journey to the ground based receiver, exactly the
> same result would emerge. The maser clock rate is faster by
> 4.2e-10 seconds than the ground clock second. That's all the
> experiment is demonstrating, regardless of how the clock rates
> are compared.
> 
> Can you not see that?

Sure.
All what was actually measured was that the frequency received
from the probe maser was blue-shifted by the factor (1+4.2e-10)
compared to the ground maser, which is the same as saying that
the maser in the probe was fast by the factor (1+4.2e-10) compared
to the ground maser.

Which is in accordance with the predictions of GR.

What else did you think the experiment was supposed to show?

> 
> Something else you may like to explain is how the frequency of
> the received wave crests shown in this animation can be slowed
> enroute to the reflector carried on the rocket then contract
> closer together on the way back if the speed of light remains
> constant throughout. Frequencies applicable to light are used
> for this demonstration because photons seem to be endowed with
> a mysterious wave property that permits them to behave in a
> manner foreign to any normal E/M wave function. i.e. Photons
> gain or lose energy as though they belong in the matter world.
> Notice that the "photon wavelength" extends and contracts in
> accordance with your theories.
>  http://members.optusnet.com.au/maxkeon/redshft2.html
>   (Image dimensions can only be specified in html)
> 
> That's another impossibility that is _blatantly_ obvious to
> anyone with some measure of intelligence, by the way. Perhaps
> you should think about that too.

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. :-)

-- 
Paul

http://home.c2i.net/pb_andersen/