Astronomical Observations Debunk Poud Rebka Experiment

a reply to: Hyperboles

Nope

Blue shift to me means a shift to lower wavelength.

In the case of a 'white light' source, that shift will be a slight 'bluing' of our perception of that light. On a CCD IF exposed to a black body spectrum, that shift will push the peak of the curve to a slightly lower wavelength.

However, as has been said so so many times, the perception of colour of our eyes or what a CCD detects based upon its RGB filters, IS NOT acceptable as a spectrometer.

To suggest otherwise is to not understand spectrometry in the slightest.

Iv done spectrometry, iv done Vacuum UV spectrometry in the 120-400nm range with a 0.25nm spectral width device. I can tell you on no uncertain terms... a set of 3 filters and a CCD is not capable of anything useful in determining and shifts, blue or otherwise.

correct, ideally a spectrometer is desirable. in absence of that a ccd is the next best thing to detect any shifts, tho not as accurate as a spectrometer, but for the trend, it is enough
a reply to: ErosA433

originally posted by: nemonimity
a reply to: Hyperboles

That's my thinking, I'm not sure that we've ever observed it but I wouldn't be surprised if there's a lot more red and blue shifting that goes on especially for far off light sources, probably a lot of frequency changes over the course of a photons life as it passes through the galaxy.

Not sure what you mean by off light sources

originally posted by: bobs_uruncle

originally posted by: Hyperboles
hey mate, read up on Doppler shifts. what gravity does to the shifts, I have explained above
a reply to: bobs_uruncle

You didn't answer my questions lol. On another comment you made...

"there is no coming or going with photons. higher gravity means redshift and vice versa. the direction which the photon is going is immaterial."

The direction a photon is travelling relative to the observer is quite material and relevant to the observed change in frequency.

Cheers - Dave

Lol to observe a photon, the photon has to reach the observers eye or the detector, does it not?

originally posted by: Hyperboles
Not sure what you mean by off light sources

far off, not off

originally posted by: Hyperboles
Lol to observe a photon, the photon has to reach the observers eye or the detector, does it not?

In the Pound-Rebka experiment there were two configurations:
1. Source above the detector, photons traveled down to the detector and were blueshifted.
2. Source below the detector, photons traveled up to the detector and were redshifted.

So yes the photons must reach the detector but when they reach it from different directions you get different shifts, so the direction does make a difference. How can you still not get this? It's amazing.

I don't trust the pound rebka jokers at all, who merely interpreted their results to suit GR
the photon whether travelling down to up or vice versa will always redhift at higher gravity , which is what the astronomical observation in the op talks about
a reply to: Arbitrageur

a reply to: Hyperboles
The mass of the black hole in the astronomical observation is over a trillion times larger than the mass of the Earth. So the earth is at lower gravity than the supermassive black hole, and redshift was observed, which debunks your idea that "the photon whether travelling down to up or vice versa will always redhift at higher gravity".

Pound Rebka, the observations you mention in the OP, and at least 8 other papers have all cited observations consistent with general relativity. You on the other hand have consistently demonstrated that you don't even understand general relativity theory. Once you understand it, then you can talk about whether it's right, but the post this replies to only embarrasses you and screams that you don't understand GR theory. Please learn what general relativity actually says, before you talk about whether it's right or wrong.

Lol read the op again. ' intense gravity on the stars surface, lengthens the wavelength of light'. in other words freq reduces. now is that consistent with GR?
a reply to: Arbitrageur

a reply to: Hyperboles
If you don't understand GR and take it out of context like you're doing, the confusion you have results.

If you do understand GR and take it in context by including the full quote which specifically mentions observations made from Earth, then yes the observations made from earth are consistent with general relativity. I already pointed this out to you before in this thread, that you left out the "earth" part of the quote and you can be forgiven for missing it once, but to do it again now, is willful ignorance.

Lol, how do observations from earth change what is happening on the stars surface?
a reply to: Arbitrageur

originally posted by: Hyperboles
Lol, how do observations from earth change what is happening on the stars surface?
a reply to: Arbitrageur

That's your misunderstanding. You don't understand general relativity. When you look at the star's surface from earth it looks different than if you were closer to the star, but if you understood relativity you would know that. It's actually because earth is in lower gravity that you see the redshifting.

If you shined a light from earth toward S02, and went near the star S02, you would be in higher gravity near the black hole and the light from Earth would appear blueshifted, so it's blueshifting that occurs when the detector is in higher gravity than the source, not redshifting as you incorrectly seem to think.

So, you have a lot of things backwards or don't understand them at all. I'd suggest you quit taking out of context quotes from some article and read a good source about general relativity if you want to understand it.

originally posted by: Hyperboles
I don't trust the pound rebka jokers at all, who merely interpreted their results to suit GR
the photon whether travelling down to up or vice versa will always redhift at higher gravity , which is what the astronomical observation in the op talks about
a reply to: Arbitrageur

Since all you seem to be able to do is quote that astronomical article out of context and leave out the observation reference frame, I found a textbook passage for you which corrects both of your incorrect claims.

archive.org...
page 206

So you're wrong that the direction doesn't matter, and you're wrong about redshift in higher gravity.

That says "The frequency of light increases upon approaching the Earth's surface" which is a reference to blueshifting in higher gravity, "and decreases as we move away from the earth". Gravity from the earth gets lower as you move away from it so it's redshifting as the gravity gets lower further away from the earth, and clearly they indicate the direction matters, whether the light is moving toward the mass (earth in this case) or away from it. The frequency shift happens in opposite directions depending on whether the light is traveling up or down.

Lol you have everything backwards and you know it, and are clutching at straws to defend GR, in vain, I might add. Observation from any sort of gravity well will not change what is happening on the surface of the star in question
a reply to: Arbitrageur

again, you have got it all backwards there mate. time speeds up in higher gravity and a photon will behave exactly the same whether going up or down, to or from the surface of earth.
a reply to: Arbitrageur

a reply to: Hyperboles

All the observations are consistent with general relativity.
Your claims are not consistent with either observations or general relativity.

Lol, nice pic.
I am not wrong, had waited 11 years for both these astronomical observations to vindicate my thought processes.
Relax, advise you to analyse again over a cup of coffee or a chilled beer
a reply to: Arbitrageur

a reply to: Hyperboles

11 years... ever since the Garfield machine? and seriously, for someone who believes ccd cell phone cameras = spectrometer... claiming GR is wrong with ZERO evidence to prove it is a pretty tall order.

originally posted by: ErosA433
a reply to: Hyperboles

11 years... ever since the Garfield machine? and seriously, for someone who believes ccd cell phone cameras = spectrometer... claiming GR is wrong with ZERO evidence to prove it is a pretty tall order.

you do have a problem with the English language, looks like. read the entire thread again before posting crap

Lol, has your understanding improved any? or is your head still buried in the sand?