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: 4
3
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 8 2019 @ 03:37 AM
link   
Dude, come to terms with the radiation threshold
a reply to: Arbitrageur




posted on Apr, 8 2019 @ 02:10 PM
link   
I had a problem cutting and pasting out of Mathematica so I've inserted equations etc where they belong.




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.


First, I couldn't find a discussion of blueshift in any of the papers being discussed. Here's a list of all the papers regarding this topic:

GRAVITATIONAL RED-SHIFT IN NUCLEAR RESONANCE
R. V. Pound and G. A. Rebka, Jr.
Lyman Laboratory of Physics, Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts
(Received October 15, 1959)

APPARENT WEIGHT OF PHOTONS
R. V. Pound and G. A. Rebka, Jr.
Lyman Laboratory of Physics, Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts
(Received March 9, 1960)

Test of the Einstein Equivalence Principle near the Galactic Center Supermassive Black Hole
A. Amorim,6, 13 M. Baub¨ock,1 J.P. Berger,5 W. Brandner,3 Y. Cl´enet,2 V. Coud´e du Foresto,2 P.T. de Zeeuw,9, 1
et al

GALACTIC-CENTER S STARS AS A PROSPECTIVE TEST OF THE
EINSTEIN EQUIVALENCE PRINCIPLE
Raymond Ang´elil and Prasenjit Saha
Institute for Theoretical Physics, University of Z¨urich,
Winterthurerstrasse 190, CH-8057 Z¨urich, Switzerland
(Dated: April 17, 2018)
Accepted for publication in ApJL

The results in these papers record the value of the redshift in each experiment. There's no mention of blueshift anywhere. And regarding Einstein's predictions, as you will see below, his predictions do not predict a blueshift - they predict a redshift. In any case, here's some analysis:

Pound-Rebka Experiment:

Start with definition of redshift.

Electromagnetic radiation (i.e. photons) that climb OUT of a gravity well.
Transfer of kinetic energy (speed) into potential energy (height)
Photons DO NOT slow down due to speed of light
Photons lose kinetic energy and therefore frequency i.e. LONGER, or REDDER wavelength – REDSHIFT
Reverse occurs when falling INTO a gravitational well. Potential energy is gained and frequency increases.
Therefore SHORTER wavelength and SHORTER frequency = BLUESHIFT

Experiment Illustration:

Pound and Rebka took advantage of the MOSSBAUER effect where the recoil effect of a gamma ray collision from and to a similar atom (57 Fe in this case) was significantly reduced by shielding the atoms in a crystal. This allowed them to observe the nearly true spectral lines which exhibited redshift in a terrestrial setting.



The experiments performed at GRAVITY at the Max Planck Institute ( www.mpe.mpg.de...) split the spectral lines of Helium and Hydrogen at different velocities - essentially creating a helium and hydrogen clock. The redshift from the helium and hydrogen absorption lines were measured during S2's closest approach to a black hole.

The results of both these experiments confirmed Einstein's prediction of redshift and time dilation.

Einstein's predictions match to a first approximation the equations he derived in relativity and special relativity.
The principle of equivalence and the Doppler effect should answer the question as to whether Einstein's predictions were correct. If his predictions were not correct, the Doppler effect should not hold up to scrutiny. From the illustration below - the change in wavelength is related to the change in height which is derived directly from the equivalence principle.



As of this point in time, Einstein's predictions are the only equations which have been verified multiple times under a variety of laboratory setups. To refute this evidence, you need to come up with a similar analysis that demonstrates that GR, as confirmed in the above experiments, doesn't fit the observed data. If you can do that, then all these papers should be retracted.











edit on 8-4-2019 by Phantom423 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 8 2019 @ 04:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phantom423
First, I couldn't find a discussion of blueshift in any of the papers being discussed. Here's a list of all the papers regarding this topic:

APPARENT WEIGHT OF PHOTONS
R. V. Pound and G. A. Rebka, Jr.
Lyman Laboratory of Physics, Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts
(Received March 9, 1960)
Good research. It's nice to see an intelligent posts from you, Eros, OccamsRazor04, and others, in contrast to the barbs and quips devoid of facts from the thread creator who never seems to do any research nor back up his claims.

It's possible if you do a search for the word "blueshift" it's not in that paper (I couldn't find it), however according to the definition of blueshift you posted, both redshift and blueshift contributed to the experimental results, even if the word "blueshift" is not mentioned.


Photons lose kinetic energy and therefore frequency i.e. LONGER, or REDDER wavelength – REDSHIFT
Reverse occurs when falling INTO a gravitational well. Potential energy is gained and frequency increases.
Therefore SHORTER wavelength and SHORTER frequency = BLUESHIFT
If you read the "APPARENT WEIGHT OF PHOTONS" paper you cited, you will find a reference to the EM radiation shift difference between going up (rising) and down (falling) respectively, so it is a reference to both redshift and blueshift effects, even if the word "blueshift" is not used:

"The difference of the shift seen with gamma rays rising and that with gamma rays falling should be the result of gravity."

So in some sense the Pound Rebka experiment was a comparison of the redshift and blueshift of gamma rays going up and down respectively, even if they didn't use the term blueshift, which by the way is not as good a term as redshift, because it's really more like violet shift if we are referring to the most extreme color at the edges of the visible color spectrum, but nobody calls it violet shift. Gamma rays are so far outside the visible spectrum those visible light references aren't such a great fit for gamma ray experiments, but I can see reasons for preferring the word redshift over blueshift, because red really is at the edge of the long visible wavelengths, while blue isn't really at the edge.*

OccamsRazor04 already mentioned the Pound-Rebka experiment considered both redshift and blueshift back on page 1, in this good comment:

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
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.


*On that topic, I find this question and answer very entertaining.
Have astronomers ever observed a violet shift like they have blue shifts and red shifts?

Violet shifts happen all the time. We call them blue shifts.


Apparently my statement that nobody calls them "violet shifts" wasn't completely accurate; one person did. So that is some insight into one possible reason why people may prefer to talk about redshift even if blueshift is just as common, because redshift doesn't carry the baggage of the blueshift/violetshift issue related to that question.

edit on 201948 by Arbitrageur because: clarification



posted on Apr, 8 2019 @ 05:41 PM
link   
a reply to: Arbitrageur

Thanks so much for catching that - I learned something - I was focusing exclusively on redshift and missed some important points.

The illustration below is from the Pound-Rebka paper 1960 "The Apparent Weight of Photons"



I haven't been able to identify the absorber-detector - and what is the role of the flowing Helium? In other words, I can't figure out how the thing works!

I learned a lot reading those papers - similar to the papers that Eros posted on dark matter - it's always worth the effort to read the papers a dozen times!



posted on Apr, 8 2019 @ 07:22 PM
link   
a reply to: Phantom423
The absorber-detector is denoted at the bottom of the helium filled space by the symbol FE57, but it's just a schematic and not a very accurate diagram of the actual experiment.
Apparently the reason they filled the space with helium instead of air is that air had more of a tendency to absorb the gamma rays than helium did, from the "APPARENT WEIGHT OF PHOTONS" paper:

"The absorption of the 14.4-kev gamma ray by air in the path was reduced by running a 16-in. diameter, cylindrical, Mylar bag with thin end windows and filled with helium through most of the distance between source and absorber."

The way it works is that if there was no gravitational frequency change, the absorber would absorb efficiently, but if there's a small frequency change due to gravitational redshift or blueshift (or temperature change so they had to monitor temperature closely), the frequency mismatch will cause absorption to drop off. So the way they determine how much the frequency changed due to gravity was to introduce a doppler shift to offset the gravitational frequency shift, by moving the source, thus allowing the absorber to absorb efficiently again. They did that in both up and down directions and the difference in the shifts was the result of gravitational frequency shift.



posted on Apr, 8 2019 @ 11:26 PM
link   
All gobbledygook again?
v = nlambda. so work out time flow or use vectors. btw c is not const. as thought so far, c reduces when the rate of time flow increases.



posted on Apr, 9 2019 @ 07:57 AM
link   

originally posted by: Hyperboles
All gobbledygook again?
v = nlambda. so work out time flow or use vectors. btw c is not const. as thought so far, c reduces when the rate of time flow increases.


When you construct the metric tensor for your hypothesis let us know. Thanks



posted on Apr, 9 2019 @ 11:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phantom423

originally posted by: Hyperboles
All gobbledygook again?
v = nlambda. so work out time flow or use vectors. btw c is not const. as thought so far, c reduces when the rate of time flow increases.


When you construct the metric tensor for your hypothesis let us know. Thanks


so you cant extrapolate and are interested in 2nd or 3rd order tensors? they will be there in my GUT when it gets published. in the meantime go to school and get some education



posted on Apr, 10 2019 @ 04:14 AM
link   
a reply to: Hyperboles

Projecting much?

its all i ever see from you



posted on Apr, 10 2019 @ 09:35 AM
link   

originally posted by: ErosA433
a reply to: Hyperboles

Projecting much?

its all i ever see from you

The GUT is quite complicated. So its gonna be a while, before I can work out all the bugs. But its outside the scope of this thread



posted on Apr, 10 2019 @ 11:34 AM
link   
iv seen your writing on the garfield machine and i believe the opening equation was interpreted completely incorrectly showing not only a lack of understanding of algebra but also unit analysis... so... ill not hold my breath

Oh yeah btw the EHT published their data of a the supermassive blackhole in M87... turns out the prediction made using GR gives the correct result there too...



posted on Apr, 10 2019 @ 11:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: ErosA433
iv seen your writing on the garfield machine and i believe the opening equation was interpreted completely incorrectly showing not only a lack of understanding of algebra but also unit analysis... so... ill not hold my breath

Oh yeah btw the EHT published their data of a the supermassive blackhole in M87... turns out the prediction made using GR gives the correct result there too...
you have done this a few times already. Link me to this Garfield and EHT thingy and i'll take a peek



posted on Apr, 11 2019 @ 01:17 AM
link   
a reply to: Hyperboles
The garfield thing is your antigravity machine that heats up metal and warps it and you measure the warp and say wow look at the anti-gravity, but you already know this. It's linked here with your anti-Einstein papers but what's really apparent in this thread is you don't even understand relativity well enough to discuss it, much less debunk it.

www.scribd.com...

Comments like this remove all doubt that you are completely clueless about the predictions and observations of general relativity:


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?


It's not an either/or thing and if you understood relativity at all you would know that, but you don't understand it.



posted on Apr, 11 2019 @ 09:02 AM
link   
so which is it
higher gravity = blueshift or
higher gravity = redshift
i'll take a look t the link
a reply to: Arbitrageur



posted on Apr, 11 2019 @ 10:27 AM
link   
a reply to: Hyperboles

Fairly certain you are well aware of it, you have had other accounts here before.
Back on the Ask Anything about Physics thread, it was uncanny that the previous incarnations basically ranted in exactly the same way, about exactly the same things, using exactly the same tactics and deflection, exactly the same misunderstanding of things. Even down to the same insults and same styles of insults.

It raises so so many flags of being the same person...
I also see now the writings are being published in a known fake journal too IOSR Journal of Applied Physics (IOSR-JAP) basically a "We will publish anything for a bit of cash"

The most recent paper being absolutely hilarious in just how bad a scientist the author appears to be... the writing is also sloppy, and of extremely poor scientific quality.

Any journal that publishes a paper that basically says

"SO i did an experiment with google colour analyzer and got an a few different RGB values" and then snow RGB for white light being 255 255 255 (basically the camera is railing, but hey ignore that)

And then move somewhere else and saying "Look the colour is different its 255,241,241!" is a journal not worth any scientific credibility whats so ever. Is shows how naive and simple minded the authors treatment of scientific approach, analysis and in general... everything is. A phone camera and its drivers will typically white balance things, and the author showing white light data as being 255 255 255 shows he is saturating the CCD... clearly showing he has no grasp at all about how his instrument works at all. Nore does he understand bit depth... something that id expect an engineer to maybe understand, maybe not a marine engineer but id still expect someone who has used any instrumentation to understand it, especially someone who is a pilot and all round GR disproving genius... clearly there is some disparity here and a massive gap in said persons learning.

The author claims to be a marine engineer and a flight instructor... both claims i have seen you make, well you claimed flight instruction which yep totally appears to give us the opinion that... yep you are the same person.
edit on 11-4-2019 by ErosA433 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 11 2019 @ 10:56 AM
link   

originally posted by: Hyperboles
so which is it
higher gravity = blueshift or
higher gravity = redshift
i'll take a look t the link
a reply to: Arbitrageur
Again this question indicates that you don't understand general relativity, but also that you don't understand the Pound Rebka experiment. It also shows that you can't follow the discussions in this thread where this aspect of the Pound Rebka experiment has been explained in some detail, first by Occam'sRazor04 on page 1 where he addressed this and then I explained it further.

I don't hold high hopes that this third explanation will sink in for you either but here goes.
Pound and Rebka put the gamma ray source on top and the absorber detector underneath it in which case general relativity predicts the gamma rays at the absorber detector will be blueshifted.
They also ran more tests with the gamma ray source on bottom and the absorber detector on top in which case general relativity predicts the gamma rays at the absorber detector will be redshifted.

So by asking the question you keep asking about which is it, redshift or blueshift, you keep demonstrating that you don't understand general relativity at all, nor do you understand the Pound Rebka experiment.

edit on 2019411 by Arbitrageur because: clarification



posted on Apr, 11 2019 @ 11:50 AM
link   
The question is specific to gravity.
While general relativity, a mans creation can play gobbledygook on you, whereas Light , being God's creation will not play gobbledygook on you and it cannot have for the same reason any uni directional equations
So either light blueshifts or redshifts in higher gravity. It cannot be both
Btw that dude on the link deserves a nobel prize for shredding general relativity to bits, tho his machine is a bit intriguing
a reply to: Arbitrageur



posted on Apr, 11 2019 @ 12:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: Hyperboles
The question is specific to gravity.
While general relativity, a mans creation can play gobbledygook on you, whereas Light , being God's creation will not play gobbledygook on you and it cannot have for the same reason any uni directional equations
So either light blueshifts or redshifts in higher gravity. It cannot be both
Btw that dude on the link deserves a nobel prize for shredding general relativity to bits, tho his machine is a bit intriguing
a reply to: Arbitrageur



Wow that was the fastest read through and promotion of the entire works of someone who also doesn't understand GR, in exactly the same way as you don't understand GR, said with the same confidence as the person who wrote it, and posted here with 3 different pseudonyms before... and a call for a nobel prize for some very inaccurate assessment of GR made with a CellPhone, some candles and a machine that makes noise and heat...

Cute to pretend you are not connected at all isn't it Hyperboles.

SO anyway, we are still waiting on a mathematical proof that shows you are right Hyperboles/Nochzwei/Savvy. Still waiting for you to prove you understand the basic principle of thermal expansion also.



posted on Apr, 11 2019 @ 01:20 PM
link   
a reply to: Hyperboles
Your "higher gravity" doesn't specify the relative positions of source versus detector. What is in higher gravity, the source or the detector? In contrast, I specified the relative positions of the source and detector and the shifts predicted by relativity, so there should be no ambiguity in my explanation, but you still don't get it.


originally posted by: Arbitrageur
I don't hold high hopes that this third explanation will sink in for you either...

It's a good thing I didn't get my hopes up. That was as clear as I can make it. Maybe you'll never get it.



posted on Apr, 11 2019 @ 01:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: Hyperboles
so which is it
higher gravity = blueshift or
higher gravity = redshift
i'll take a look t the link
a reply to: Arbitrageur



As Arbitrageur has stated along with others many times is that your understanding of reference frames and how the General Theory of Relativity works is deeply flawed or naive.

The frame of reference is the most important thing when considering difference between locations. If you take photons of 1 wavelength, produced in a high gravitational field, and transport them to a location where you detect them in a relative low gravitational field, you totally expect that light to be redshifted as predicted by the theory of relativity.
This is what was measured in the paper. There is no contention what so ever.




top topics



 
3
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join