Astronomical Observations Debunk Poud Rebka Experiment

a reply to: Hyperboles

This post shows you do not understand the basics of GR

originally posted by: Hyperboles
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

Wrong, that's the opposite of what this illustration shows, which is that higher gravity results in blueshift. The light closest to the massive object is higher frequency or blueshifted. The higher the gravity the more the blueshift.

But like many things in physics, observations depend on the observer's reference frame, so if we make the massive object on the right the supermassive black hole at the center of the Milky Way, the light seen on Earth from star S02 will be redshifted to varying degrees as the star follows an elliptical orbit, because we observers on earth are further from the gravitational mass. So we are on the left looking at redshifted light, the supermassive black hole is on the right where blue shifting is most pronounced, and star S02 is at varying places as it orbits the supermassive black hole.

originally posted by: ErosA433
a reply to: Hyperboles

This post shows you do not understand the basics of GR

why should I worry about understanding garbage

The article clearly states the opposite of what you have posted. It says that ' higher gravity causes the vibrations of light wave to reduce and thus is red shifted', which is opposite of what GR states. The article is about the observed red shift in higher gravity.
a reply to: Arbitrageur

a reply to: Hyperboles
You left out the most important part of the quote, "from earth". As I already explained, observations depend on the observer's frame of reference. Here is the full quote:

" "Gravitational redshift occurs because intense gravity on the star's surface slows the vibration of light waves, stretching them and making the star appear redder than normal from Earth." "

The star does appear redder than normal from earth, but if you changed your frame of reference to be in a close orbit around star S02, you would see the star's light is actually more blue shifted.

I already explained the redshift seen by the earth on the left of this diagram:


"the light seen on Earth from star S02 will be redshifted to varying degrees as the star follows an elliptical orbit, because we observers on earth are further from the gravitational mass."

But the diagram also shows that even though what is seen from earth is red-shifted light, that's because at the source of star S02 orbiting the black hole the light is blue-shifted.
You do not grok the simple diagram above, nor the concept of a reference frame and that different reference frames result in different observations of the same phenomena, and comments like this lead me to believe you don't want to try:

originally posted by: Hyperboles
why should I worry about understanding garbage

Yes I know reference frames. you like the article are making a feeble attempt at defending GR, but failing. You will see a redshift regardless from earth or elsewhere., because the source itself is redshifted.
a reply to: Arbitrageur

originally posted by: Hyperboles
Yes I know reference frames. you like the article are making a feeble attempt at defending GR, but failing. You will see a redshift regardless from earth or elsewhere., because the source itself is redshifted.
a reply to: Arbitrageur

The logic here makes no sense, if they wanted to defend it because it was wrong, they would have just not bothered to publish. By not putting the information out for scrutiny they would ultimately protect 'GR' What they did was to test GR and found that, once again, its alive, kicking and pretty solid.

what is not solid, is your understanding, as Arbitrageur said, i think also you do not want to even try, you really don't understand frames of reference or even the basics of GR. I mean its forgivable, GR is a little mind bending, but the basics are not too bad. What you appear to have done is chased an idea and are searching desperately for a proof so hard that anything sounds remotely like it confirms your bias, you jump on as hard evidence without understanding any of the work done.

a reply to: Hyperboles

So since you think GR is wrong, what do you think the best theory is?

They did not realize that, someone like me would catch it.
So after 94 years GR is finally debunked. But be my guest and believe as you please about GR or my understanding on any matter whatsoever.
a reply to: ErosA433

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: Hyperboles

So since you think GR is wrong, what do you think the best theory is?

Theory on gravity, or what? Our understanding of gravity may come in the future but it certainly ain't GR.

This argument sounds like two nerds flinging cotton balls at each other, or it's an April Fools joke.

a reply to: Hyperboles

So everyone is wrong, and only you know it.

PHYSICAL REVIEW LETTERS 122, 101102 (2019) page 4, Figure 3, Please explain why the other 13 data point also prove GR is wrong by your definition. Well at least the top 8... seems like the info has been around since the 60s

a reply to: ErosA433
Yes, Pound-Rebka wasn't the only experiment to test gravitational redshift, just the first of its kind, done in 1959. More accurate experiments of that kind were done in subsequent years as discussed with hyperboles in another thread, and I see some results of those are plotted in the figure 3 you mention.

That article is behind a paywall but the preprint isn't. Hopefully figure 3 looks the same in the preprint:

arxiv.org...

In a way it would be exciting if the observations weren't consistent with general relativity, since that would give theoretical physicists something to do to come up with a modified theory or new theory to explain observations, but the observations seem to be consistent with GR so far.

I noticed in figure 2 they had three data points with the error bars outside of predictions, but most of data points match predictions and I don't think it's that unusual to have a few outliers like that, maybe caused by some random errors in the data that weren't understood or accounted for, so I don't see any real problem with the data.

If anybody wants to see a real problem with astronomical data (unlike this completely fictitious problem suggested by hyperboles), check out the tension in the Hubble constant observations where the error bars don't even overlap, meaning something is wrong. We don't understand something or we are missing something. This is what a data problem looks like:

arxiv.org...

the currently estimated error bars do not overlap. Is the discrepancy real or is this a ‘tension in a teapot’? The obvious possibility is that one or both of the methods may suffer from unknown systematic errors.

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: Hyperboles

So everyone is wrong, and only you know it.

Maybe, they just want to go along with GR as their careers depend on agreeing with einstein

What gobbledy gook sheites are you on about now?
a reply to: Arbitrageur

a reply to: Hyperboles

Just Stop please, Arbitrageur and I have tried to explain why your OP is incorrect and you are quite confused about what GR actually predicts. You are also trying to use a theory to predict that itself is wrong... you say that GR doesn't work, and yet want to use GR to prove it doesn't. It makes no sense.

And exactly has Arbitrageur and I have said, it is clear that you have either not read the paper, or have no way of understanding what the paper actually says and once again now we are at this point, similar to other times you have ended up being proven wrong or in a corner, you resort to illogical statements or insults.

Arbitrageur is also right, the Hubble contention is way more interesting than the paper you cited. Showing also that even at trying to find holes to support your own (albeit weird) ideas is missing the mark by miles. Id stick to the garfield machine you posted as one of your 4 other pseudonyms

Hey extrapolate, read and re read, till understanding dawns upon you that GR, or for that matter the pound - rebka expt, has been fairly and squarely debunked
" "Gravitational redshift occurs because intense gravity on the star's surface slows the vibration of light waves, stretching them and making the star appear redder than normal from Earth." "
a reply to: ErosA433

a reply to: Hyperboles
No attempt to state the theory of general relativity in a single sentence like that will be successful in accurately communicating all the implications of the theory, that is just intended to communicate that the light coming from stars around the supermassive black hole will tend to look redder to observers on Earth. I think the diagram I posted conveys a better picture of how the redder frequencies we see from earth are not fixed at all possible points of observation. This is consistent with the old "picture is worth a thousand words" saying, so try to understand the diagram or general relativity itself and don't focus too much on a single quote which was never intended to convey the entire meaning of GR.

I added the Earth and star S02 to the diagram and labeled the supermassive black hole. There is actually a little bit of blueshifting again as the light from star S02 approaches Earth (not shown), but it's dwarfed by the amount of redshifting from the supermassive black hole which has 4 million times the sun's mass and over a trillion times the Earth's mass.

The quote you keep repeating is talking about frequency F2, observed from earth and so far you have not demonstrated that you understand that frequency F1 is a different, higher frequency.

If i might use the diagram you posted there and try to exaggerate what is going on for Hyperboles it is like this...

If you have a line in a spectrum, for sake of argument ill say it is at 1000nm. GR says the following.

"At the reference frame of the producer, it will appear to be 1000nm"

So we look at star S02 and we figure out it's stellar class based on the spectrum and the line patters, this is independent on redshift.

We then measure its spectrum at its closest position to SagA* and look for a feature (as i said above) that is the 1000nm line.

In the case of that line, the 1000nm light climbed out of SagA*'s gravitational field, and was redshifted, ill exaggerate but for the sake of this example, it was shifted by a massive 10nm, so while it is travelling through the milky way, it is redshifted to 1010nm.

When the light comes to us on Earth, it then goes back into a gravitational field, and is blue shifted, however because the field is so so small, the shift is (again exaggerated for this example) 0.01nm... so we detect it and we observe light at 1009.99nm

It is thus net redshifted... as predicted by GR and as demonstrated by experiment. GR=not debunked