🚀 go-pugleaf

Dr. Henri Wilson wrote:
> On Mon, 11 Feb 2008 21:53:42 +0100, "Paul B. Andersen"
> <paul.b.andersen@guesswhatuia.no> wrote:
> 
>> Max Keon skrev:
>>> "Eric Gisse" <jowr.pi@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>> news:cf7fd5a6-005e-4d73-aef9-ba788194923d@s8g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
> 
>> How did you arrive at this remarkable conclusion?
>> It is wrong.
>>
>> f_h/f_o = (1-(GM/r)/c^2)/(1-(GM/R)/c^2)~= 1-(GM/r)/c^2 + (GM/R)/c^2
>> 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.
> 
> ...which is exactly in acordance with BaTh.
> 
> PE (per unit mass) at top = gh.
> Increase in KE as light falls = [1/2(c+v)^2]-[1/2c^2]  = ~ cv
> 
> So: v = gh/c
> 
> f1/f_0 = (c+v)/c = [c + (gh/c)]/c = 1 + gh/c^2
> 
> Strange, eh?...and much, much simpler than Einstein's nonsensical method of
> inserting a gradient into space in order to maintain a constant light speed.

No it isn't strange at all, quite the contrary.
Of course the kinetic energy must increase by the difference
in gravitational potential whether you use GR or NM.
So if you assume that a photon has a (unspecified) mass, and that
the kinetic energy is the Newtonian one, then this is the obvious
answer.
In the Pound & Rebka experiment gamma rays are used.
They are very "particle like", and we have no continuous wave.
Sure the Pound & Rebka can be explained by "falling light".
(If you insist that the Mossbauer effect only detect the photons
  going exactly at c.)

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.

Look at my animation:
http://home.c2i.net/pb_andersen/Satellites.html
Scenario: "Two ballistic rockets"
The path of the red one is almost identical to gravity probe A,
and the result is as observed by the probe.
(Pause it at the top, read the rate.)

Explain that with "falling light". No fairies, please!
Of course you can't, because it simply doesn't add up.
You can't make a continuous wave increase its frequency
by speeding it up. It is the wavelength that will change.

So what do you do?
Insist that gravity prove A was no "believable" experiment,
of course. As if it were a matter of belief!
It's hard evidence. Facts!

Gravity probe A was a very precise experiment, and the results
were in accordance with the predictions of GR.

"Falling light" can't explain it.
Which means that it is falsified.
By gravity probe A and innumerable other experiments.

-- 
Paul

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