It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Astronomical Observations Debunk Poud Rebka Experiment

page: 1
3
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 2 2019 @ 06:22 AM
link   
Hi All,

Recently came across an article that talks about gravitational redshift as opposed to the pound rebka expt that talks about gravitational blue shift. There is a stark contradiction between the two. While the artcle makes a feeble attempt to defend GR, but the observations suggest otherwise.

Here is the article

phys.org...

Just wondering how ats'ers will articulate on this.




posted on Apr, 2 2019 @ 06:25 AM
link   
a reply to: Hyperboles

I hope gravity turns out to be force generated by some natural process. Otherwise, we will never have anti-gravity cars!



posted on Apr, 2 2019 @ 06:55 AM
link   
a reply to: Hyperboles

Your post is very unclear. How is it debunked. What observations do you refer to. What are the experimenters claims. What are your claims and how are they backed up.

You say the article defends GR .. no, the evidence and researchers do.

"The past year was exceptionally successful for the GRAVITY collaboration," Widmann said. "For the first time, we observed relativistic effects in the orbit of a star around a supermassive black hole and used this star to test the Equivalence Principle."

Habibi said. "The vibration of light waves was measured by fitting the line-of-sight velocity of the S2's spectrum using the Hydrogen and Helium spectral lines separately. By measuring the difference in frequency change for both atoms we were able to give an upper limit on the LPI violation during the pericenter passage. If there was an obvious violation of LPI, we should have measured very different vibration of light waves, from the helium and hydrogen lines."


You seem to be claiming this experiment debunks general relativity even though the experiment proves general relativity correct. That's my confusion.
edit on 2-4-2019 by OccamsRazor04 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 2 2019 @ 08:48 AM
link   
Seems you have problem with the English language
a reply to: OccamsRazor04



posted on Apr, 2 2019 @ 09:03 AM
link   

originally posted by: Hyperboles
Hi All,

Recently came across an article that talks about gravitational redshift as opposed to the pound rebka expt that talks about gravitational blue shift. There is a stark contradiction between the two. While the artcle makes a feeble attempt to defend GR, but the observations suggest otherwise.

Here is the article

phys.org...

Just wondering how ats'ers will articulate on this.
You either don't understand the Pound-Rebka experiment, general relativity, or both. The article clearly says the observations are consistent with predictions (of general relativity), as was the Pound Rebka experiment, so the only thing debunked is the idea that you might understand the predictions of GR:

"Star S2, one of the brightest stars in the Milky Way's innermost region, has its closest encounter with the galactic center supermassive black hole at a distance of 16.3 light hours...

"As it was predicted, and we showed in a previous study published in June 2018, during the closest approach of the star S2 to the black hole we observe the 'gravitational redshift' in the light of the star," Habibi explained.

I'll attempt to allay your confusion but it may be a hopeless cause since you seem to think general relativity is wrong, probably because you don't understand it, but maybe others can benefit from this explanation if you can't. Here is a diagram which illustrates how light is redshifted when leaving the Earth, which means it loses energy somewhat like if you attempt to throw an apple up, it loses energy:



So intuitively the concept is not hard, the redshift loss of energy as light shines away from the Earth can be compared to the kinetic energy lost of an object moving away from the earth. (The kinetic energy of the apple isn't really lost, it's converted to gravitational potential energy).

Now why did Pound-Rebka talk about blue shift instead of redshift? Because they aimed their "light" or electromagnetic frequencies toward the earth (The frequencies they used were higher than visible light). So imagine dropping the apple from a tall building, it accelerates and gains kinetic energy, so in the above analogy with the apple, blueshifting is how light gains energy, which means the wavelengths appear to get shorter because the clocks used to measure the wavelengths are affected by gravity.

So in the following illustration of a massive object on the right:

-Light traveling toward the massive object is blue shifted and gains energy somewhat like a falling apple gains energy.
-Light traveling away from the massive object is red shifted and loses energy somewhat like an apple you toss up loses energy.


edit on 201942 by Arbitrageur because: clarification



posted on Apr, 2 2019 @ 09:11 AM
link   
a reply to: Hyperboles

No, not at all, I read the paper, there is no contention stated in the paper. They tested GR using a method id previously discussed on how you can attempt to prove GR being universal throughout space.

The paper discusses that in the circumstances of the experiment, namely observing light emanating from an object that is moving through a high gravitational field, there should be a slight redshift as PREDICTED BY GR.

What they are testing is local position invariance via looking at redshift. There is not much contention here other than, placing an upper limit on LPI of roughly 5x10^-2, it makes no claim that GR is ruled out or bad, only that the measurement has not been done yet for an object at such distance and gravitational gradient. It states that because of the difficulty of the measurement and the systematics involved, that it is not competitive with similar measurements made on Earth previously although is useful as a future outlook when larger instrumentation comes online.


We have no problem with the English Language... I read the paper and also say "So where is this proving GR is wrong exactly?"



posted on Apr, 2 2019 @ 09:21 AM
link   
Lol read the article again.
besides E = Hv, so amplitude is not factored in?
gravitation is shifting the light to redder side whereas in GR, it should become bluer as they claim in the pound rebka expt.
a reply to: Arbitrageur



posted on Apr, 2 2019 @ 09:25 AM
link   

originally posted by: ErosA433
a reply to: Hyperboles
I read the paper and also say "So where is this proving GR is wrong exactly?"
My understanding of hyperboles objection is that Pound-Rebka said that general relativity predicted a blueshift of EM radiation moving toward the Earth.

Now he reads this article and sees that what was measured in a completely different scenario was a redshift, not a blueshift, so he apparently thinks that is in contradiction to the pound rebka experiment. Of course it's not, the difference is just whether light is traveling toward a massive object or away from it.


originally posted by: Hyperboles
Lol read the article again.
besides E = Hv, so amplitude is not factored in?
gravitation is shifting the light to redder side whereas in GR, it should become bluer as they claim in the pound rebka expt.
a reply to: Arbitrageur
As I thought, the misunderstanding is on your side.

It's not part of general relativity, but Einstein also knew about quantum mechanics. An individual photon has an energy defined by its frequency, so the concept of "amplitude" of an individual photon doesn't have any meaning. To invoke some idea of amplitude like how bright the light is, we would consider something like the quantity of photons per unit area per unit time, but all the photons of a given frequency have the same energy.

Generally for star light the brightness versus distance tends to follow the inverse square law, so at twice the distance the star seems only one quarter as bright, because there are only one quarter as many photons per unit area. For stars like S02 in this research, there's a lot of dust in the way, so brightness can also be affected by how much the dust blocks the star light, which varies by the frequency of the light.

edit on 201942 by Arbitrageur because: clarification



posted on Apr, 2 2019 @ 09:56 AM
link   
a reply to: Hyperboles

Seems you yet again made a post without anyone having idea what you are talking about.



posted on Apr, 2 2019 @ 10:09 AM
link   
a reply to: Hyperboles

Thank you for finally claiming what you are talking about. So basically you just have no idea what GR states or what Pound-Rebka stated. Relativity says we should see blueshift and redshift, depending on the circumstances. It seems you think only one should be possible. Pound-Rebka's experiment also used redshift to cancel out the blueshift. These two experiments are in no way in conflict with each other, both results are consistent with GR.



posted on Apr, 2 2019 @ 11:35 AM
link   
PREDICTED ? Are you kidding, GR is garbage and its predictions are garbage, bit like GIGO.
Moving THRU a gravitational field? It has to enter and leave, so what is happening to the shifts? Do you see the absurdity in your talk.
a reply to: ErosA433



posted on Apr, 2 2019 @ 11:38 AM
link   
a reply to: Hyperboles

Yes, predicted. Your ignorance in what is predicted and what is experimentally found to be true doesn't make them any less real.



posted on Apr, 2 2019 @ 11:40 AM
link   
Yes the contradiction is very clear gravitational blue shift vs gravitational red shift. How can you not see that they contradict each other.
Individual photon has intensity, yes most definitely.
Yes I am familiar with the inverse square law.
a reply to: Arbitrageur



posted on Apr, 2 2019 @ 11:41 AM
link   

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: Hyperboles

Seems you yet again made a post without anyone having idea what you are talking about.
Ob really? says who?



posted on Apr, 2 2019 @ 12:17 PM
link   
The star S2 Doesn't really move into and out of a gravitational field, since the influence of SagA* is very large, there is no hard stop in reality. What is important is how close to SagA*, S2 is at any point in its orbit and for when the measurement is taken, along with subtracting any shift generated by the observation that S2 passes extremely close to and thus moves at partial relativistic velocity.

Once you have all that you can check the shift you get, based upon the spectral lines of known frequency as measured on the Earth, and their separation as a cross check. As S2 moves to its closest pass to SagA* you expect the shift to be maximal as it moves further away, you expect that shift to reduce or vanish dependant upon the systematics on the instrument and environmental factors which cause distortion to the spectral lines.



posted on Apr, 2 2019 @ 12:25 PM
link   
a reply to: Hyperboles

The Pound-Rebka experiment used redshift. Deny ignorance.



posted on Apr, 2 2019 @ 01:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: Hyperboles

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: Hyperboles

Seems you yet again made a post without anyone having idea what you are talking about.
Ob really? says who?


Here's my proof that if religions did not exist at all we would have the same level of argument and violence in the World. If nerds can't get along what has the world come to?



posted on Apr, 2 2019 @ 01:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: dfnj2015

originally posted by: Hyperboles

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: Hyperboles

Seems you yet again made a post without anyone having idea what you are talking about.
Ob really? says who?


Here's my proof that if religions did not exist at all we would have the same level of argument and violence in the World. If nerds can't get along what has the world come to?
I for one subscribe to our Lord Jesus Christ. Praise the Lord



posted on Apr, 2 2019 @ 01:43 PM
link   
At its closest approach, the resultant gravity in the region is higher, leading to a redshift, which is opposite to what GRR surmises or hypothesises .
a reply to: ErosA433



posted on Apr, 2 2019 @ 01:47 PM
link   
a reply to: Hyperboles

Last post to you on the subject. Redshift is predicted by GR.

General relativity predicts that the wavelength of this light will be shifted by a small amount due to the galaxies' mass, in an effect called gravitational redshift.

"We have independent measurements of the cluster masses, so we can calculate what the expectation for gravitational redshift based on general relativity is," said University of Copenhagen astrophysicist Rados?aw Wojtak. "It agrees exactly with the measurements of this effect."

www.livescience.com...



new topics

top topics



 
3
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join