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.
You're misinterpreting once sentence which talks about how observations from earth appear redshifted and pretending that sentence is somehow an explanation of general relativity. It's not.
originally posted by: Hyperboles
Read it again, the source itself is redshifted
LOCAL POSITION INVARIANCE
The main part of this work focuses on the LPI, which states that local nongravitational measurements are independent of their location in spacetime. To test this we use the star S2 as it moves on its eccentric orbit through the gravitational potential of Sgr A*. A violation of the LPI would imply a coupling of fundamental atomic constants, such as the fine structure constant, to the gravitational potential. LPI experiments can therefore be used to constrain coupling constants of different atomic properties [7, 32]. As such couplings are expected to be nonlinear it is especially important to perform such experiments with strong changes in potential. According to the LPI, the gravitational redshift of a clock moving through a weak gravitational field (/c2 ≪ 1) with a varying potential , depends only on the change of the potential: / = /c2, where is the clock frequency and the shift due to the gravitational potential. The formula implies that the shift in frequency does not depend on the internal structure of the clock, which is another way to formulate the LPI. To test this assumption one introduces a violation to the formula, commonly parametrized as : = (1 + ) c2 (1) To test the LPI with a single type of clock one needs to compare two identical clocks in different gravitational potentials. Alternatively one can measure the frequency change of two non-identical clocks moving through a time-dependent potential (t) = 0 + (t). In this case a violation of the LPI would again be visible in the fractional frequency difference: ! = 2 2 − 1 1 = ( 2 − 1) (t) c2 = c2 (2)
originally posted by: Hyperboles
LPI is only a feeble and vain attempt to defend GR. The astronomical observation , is I would say historical in debunking GR after 114 years in that it proves Time runs faster in higher gravity, which is opposite to what GR hypothesises.
a reply to: Phantom423
Lol work it out yourself, time flow in 2 situations of gravitational redshift and gravitational blue shift.
originally posted by: Phantom423
originally posted by: Hyperboles
LPI is only a feeble and vain attempt to defend GR. The astronomical observation , is I would say historical in debunking GR after 114 years in that it proves Time runs faster in higher gravity, which is opposite to what GR hypothesises.
a reply to: Phantom423
Fine. So show the proof. Where's your analysis - your hypothesis, the tensors, the experiment, the results?
originally posted by: Hyperboles
Lol work it out yourself, time flow in 2 situations of gravitational redshift and gravitational blue shift.
originally posted by: Phantom423
originally posted by: Hyperboles
LPI is only a feeble and vain attempt to defend GR. The astronomical observation , is I would say historical in debunking GR after 114 years in that it proves Time runs faster in higher gravity, which is opposite to what GR hypothesises.
a reply to: Phantom423
Fine. So show the proof. Where's your analysis - your hypothesis, the tensors, the experiment, the results?
The experiment is the astronomical observation as mentioned in the op
originally posted by: Hyperboles
show me from your equations that time slows down in a gravitational field or that em wave redshifts in that field. Both contradict each other , don't they?
a reply to: Phantom423
originally posted by: Hyperboles
show me from your equations that time slows down in a gravitational field or that em wave redshifts in that field. Both contradict each other , don't they?
a reply to: Phantom423
originally posted by: Hyperboles
Lol, is that the best you can come up with?
a reply to: ErosA433
You are welcome, mate
originally posted by: ErosA433
originally posted by: Hyperboles
Lol, is that the best you can come up with?
a reply to: ErosA433
Case and point, thanks Hyperboles
So you don't get the throwing the apple analogy?
originally posted by: Hyperboles
Lol good attempt word salad. If gravity causes redshift, then the pound rebka expt was wrong, which found gravity causes blue shift. so which of the 2 expts is correct?
a reply to: Arbitrageur