🚀 go-pugleaf

"Eric Gisse" <jowr.pi@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:30d40ddf-3af0-4765-9287-ca83ba2b25a5@i29g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> On Jan 4, 2:36 am, "Max Keon" <maxk...@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
>> Pentcho Valev wrote:
---
>>> Pound and Rebka found experimentally that the GRAVITATIONAL REDSHIFT
>>> obeys the equation f'= f(1+V/c^2), which is consistent with Einstein's
>>> 1911 equation c'= c(1+V/c^2) and the textbook formula
>>>
>>> frequency = (speed of light)/(wavelength)
>>
>> 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%."
>>
>> According to your equation  f'= f(1+V/c^2)
>>   V(a) and V(b) for the tower base and tower top is:
>>   G = 6.67E-11
>>   M = 5.97E+24
>>   ra = 6378000   Tower base radii
>>   rb = 6378023   Tower top radii (+23 meters (74 feet) high)
>>   Va = G * M / ra ^ 2  = 9.7888378648735791276869837432118
>>   Vb = G * M / rb ^ 2  = 9.7887672652959533370556770582427

> Potential energy is GM/r, idiot. You wrote down force.

I was under the impression that potential energy _increases_ with
altitude? GM/r does the opposite. Anything at rest at the Earth's
center of mass can't have potential energy, surely? Perhaps you
were referring to something other than gravitational potential,
although it wouldn't seem to be relevant for this case.

Anyway, here are the updated figures according to your
correction.

According to  f'= f(1+V/c^2)
  V(a) and V(b) for the tower base and tower top is:
  G = 6.67E-11
  M = 5.97E+24
  ra = 6378000   Tower base radii
  rb = 6378023   Tower top radii (+23 meters (74 feet) high)
  Va = G * M / ra = 62433207.902163687676387582314205
  Vb = G * M / rb = 62432982.759704692190667860558044

  f = 1.4e+21
  f'= f(1+Va/c^2) = 1400000000971183234033.6573638549
  f'= f(1+Vb/c^2) = 1400000000971179731817.6285451882

The difference is now 3502216 added cycles in 1.4e+21 cycles,
which is near enough to what is observed.

Previously:
>> A 1.4e+21 hz gamma ray generates a frequency change of only 1
>> part per 1.4e+21 cycles, when the observed change was 1 part in
>> 4e+14 cycles. That's 3.5 million times less than observed. That's
>> a long way short of the 5% accuracy claim, isn't it?

I knew my reasoning was in error somewhere, that's why I posted it.
Your help is appreciated.

But getting back to the other point of the post. What did the
experiment prove?

All E/M radiation was necessarily created by a charge interaction
somewhere, and that's a mandatory requirement for gamma rays (and
neutrinos) as well. So why do gamma ray frequencies decrease with
altitude while the frequencies of most other natural oscillators
increase? e.g. Atomic clocks, spectral line absorption and
emission. And even Big Ben.

Now don't nod off here because you really need to pay attention.
This formula  G*M/(r*c^2) gives the clock slowing rate per
second according to radius, while  f'= f*(1+V/c^2) , which
becomes  f' = f*(1+(G*M/r)/c^2) , gives the frequency change
rate per radius from a gravity source. But there is a catch22
in that the two formulae contradict each other.

These are the results from the two formulae, for the Earth
surface radius and for a (e.g.) GPS satellite radius.
 f = 1.4e21

 r = 6378000
 6.937e-10 sec/sec clock speed slowing rate.
 1.400000000971183e21 cycles per second.

 r = 26570000
 1.665e-10 sec/sec clock speed slowing rate.
 1.400000000233128e21 cycles per second.

Notice that the clock speed slowing rate has decreased in the
second set of figures, meaning that time is running faster. Then
notice that frequency has also decreased, meaning that time is
running slower.

That's a very obvious contradiction, and it comes about because
gamma rays are created in an entirely different environment to
the natural oscillators listed above, an environment which is
in complete isolation, as it would be if it took place in a black
hole.

The inner workings of a proton-neutron only appear in the
conversion between proton and neutron states. That's a fair
indication that the proton-neutron is a black hole.

The divergence angle of a ray emerging through what would be the
smallest possible opening in a black hole event horizon will also
be close to zero, giving rise to the illusion of a particle
transmission of light.

But whatever the case, what has been proven is that, in the realm
where a gamma ray is created, the natural interaction rate alters
according to  f'= f(1+V/c^2). I really can't grumble about that
because it's what I would expect anyway.

-----

Max Keon