🚀 go-pugleaf

On Fri, 4 Jan 2008 22:36:50 +1100, "Max Keon"
<maxkeon@optusnet.com.au> wrote:

>
>Pentcho Valev wrote:
>> Pentcho Valev wrote:
>>> BURT <macromi...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Light is blueshifted on its way into gravity.
>>>> Light is redshifted on its way out.
>>>
>>> Sometimes even Einsteinians explain this correctly:
>>>
>>> http://www.blazelabs.com/f-g-gcont.asp"The first confirmation of a
>>> long range variation in the speed of light travelling in space came in
>>> 1964. Irwin Shapiro, it seems, was the first to make use of a
>>> previously forgotten facet of general relativity theory -- that the
>>> speed of light is reduced when it passes through a gravitational
>>> field.... Faced with this evidence, Einstein stated:"In the second
>>> place our result shows that, according to the general theory of
>>> relativity, the law of the constancy of the velocity of light in
>>> vacuo, which constitutes one of the two fundamental assumptions in the
>>> special theory of relativity and to which we have already frequently
>>> referred, cannot claim any unlimited validity. A curvature of rays of
>>> light can only take place when the velocity of propagation of light
>>> varies with position."......Today we find that since the Special
>>> Theory of Relativity unfortunately became part of the so called
>>> mainstream science, it is considered a sacrilege to even suggest that
>>> the speed of light be anything other than a constant. This is somewhat
>>> surprising since even Einstein himself suggested in a paper "On the
>>> Influence of Gravitation on the Propagation of Light," Annalen der
>>> Physik, 35, 1911, that the speed of light might vary with the
>>> gravitational potential. Indeed, the variation of the speed of light
>>> in a vacuum or space is explicitly shown in Einstein's calculation for
>>> the angle at which light should bend upon the influence of gravity.
>>> One can find his calculation in his paper. The result is c'= c(1+V/c^2)
>>> where V is the gravitational potential relative to the point where the
>>> measurement is taken. 1+V/c^2 is also known as the GRAVITATIONAL
>>> REDSHIFT FACTOR."
>
>> 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
>
>The problem is that, according to your equation, even a
>1.4e+21 hz gamma ray only generates a change of 1 part in
>1.4e+21.
>
>  f = 1.4e+21
>  f'= f(1+Va/c^2) = 1400000000000000152270.8112313668
>  f'= f(1+Vb/c^2) = 1400000000000000152269.7130157148
>The difference is 1.098, which is near enough to 1 added cycle
>in 1.4e+21 cycles.
>
>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?
>
>But what did the experiment prove anyway? It seems to have only
>demonstrated that the gamma ray was created in an entirely
>different environment to the one in which most other natural
>oscillators function.
>
>The charge structure of the Caesium atom configuration that
>drives the oscillator of an atomic clock, obviously functions in
>the realm outside a proton or neutron, as apparently do the
>natural oscillators which generate the characteristic spectral
>lines of an atom. All of these oscillators obey the same rule,
>that the rate of oscillation increases with increasing distance
>from a gravity source.
>
>The wavelength of a gamma ray is short enough to have been
>generated entirely within a proton, requiring that there be
>some sort of charge structure configuration within, which will
>resonate in tune within the proton (black hole) confines. We only
>see it when part of it escapes.
>
>It's more likely that the increasingly "intense" environment
>deeper into a gravity well is going to increase, rather than
>decrease the forces acting to restrain the proton contents, hence
>the frequency increases.
>
>The truth is that time (not clocks) runs faster with increasing
>depth.
>
> http://members.optusnet.com.au/maxkeon/the1-1a.html
>
>-----
>
>Max Keon
>
You are all wrong in important places. For one thing the V in V/c^2 is
potential MG/r not acceleration MG/r^2. (Units, units) 
For another the clock was not moved. The radiation of 1 curie of the
stuff rose in a helium filled tunnel to the top. 
It is puerile to carry out whole number calculations to ridiculous
extremes when differentials would do it easier.
The energy is 14.4Kev with a hz frequency 3.482e18.
The rate of time never changes; that is relativity's false claim.
Clocks in a gravity well encounter a deprived environment and thus run
slower there.
Nobody compared any frequency. It's not possible. The detector was
moved on a voice coil and the Doppler effect recentered the frequency
to the resonance at the top filter. 
John Polasek