wrote:
John C. Polasek wrote:
On 19 Jul 2006 07:13:45 -0700, wrote:


John C. Polasek wrote:
On 18 Jul 2006 04:58:46 -0700, wrote:


John C. Polasek wrote:
On 17 Jul 2006 09:32:03 -0700, wrote:


John C. Polasek wrote:
On 15 Jul 2006 00:41:34 -0700, wrote:


Sue... wrote:
wrote:
snip

The conclusion is that photons lose their energy as they
"climb out of the gravitational well", and *not* that the energy and
frequency of the propagating photons do not change with height
AFTER EMISSION.

If the photons from a clock lose 1% climbing out of the well up to an
identical clock which, at higher altitude is running 1% faster, the
frequency comparison will yield a 2% redshift. You can't have that.

Contrarily to GR hypothesis, the identical clock doesn't tick faster
*because* it is at a higher altitude!

Marcel Luttgens
But it does according to Dual Space theory. The gravity well is a
"tired" environment and atoms there click more slowly. If the clock is
slow by 1%, the radiated energy is 1% low and stays that way: no
change in frequency. When it gets to the top clock which is running
faster, it registers 1% redshift.
c also increases 1% and the wavelength also, so the frequency remains
the same. DS does not use time dilation.
The wavelength stretch is the true redshift.
If GR uses constant c, and faster/slower clock and loss in frequency
on the way up, it produces a double redshift so something is wrong.

Has this NG sci.physics.relativity be created only to isolate the
crackpots? I hope not.

- Of course, you will find parrots like Van de Modder, who cannot think

by themselves. Those parrots are generally malicious and dishonest.

- You will also find people who have their own agenda, and who
automatically will reject any idea that contradict their pet theory.
Some of them are clearly crackpots.

- Other people are simply incompetent.

- And one finds the mentally impaired, who take any opportunity
to exude their psychotic venom.

Your broadranging phillipic will appear premature in light of the
asinine algebra you display below.

;-)


But, fortunately, there are some honest and competent scientists.
I hope to get a honest response from them about the following scenario:


A photon of frequency Nu1 is emitted upwards by an atom at
rest on the surface of the Earth. That photon is absorbed by
an identical atom, which moves in the laboratory frame
with a velocity v = gh/c downwards (and is thus freely falling).

Your erroneous expression for velocity gh/c gives 3*10^-6 m/s for 100
meters. The correct expression for velocity vs distance is V =
sqrt(2g*dist). A fall of 100m gives 45 m/s.

The frequency Nu2 of the photon, as seen by the absorbing atom moving
at v = gh/c, should be shifted by the linear Doppler effect by
v/c = gh/c^2 towards the blue.

Not so, the velocity varies all along the path along with Doppler.

But, *experimentally*, the shift Nu2/Nu1 - 1 = 0, which can only be
explained by the fact that the frequency of the photon, when it meets
the absorber at *a distance h* from the Earth surface, is red shifted
by gh/c^2, a red shift that exactly cancel the expected blue shift.

As explained above the redshift is constant, the Doppler is variable,
your expression for velocity is faulty.

The obvious conclusion is that photons lose their energy as they
climb out of the gravitational well and *reach some distance h*,
and not that the energy and frequency of the propagating photons
do not change with height *after emission*.

Why would the above reasoning be flawed?

That's why.

Thanks very much, I am having a closer look to your arguments.

I should have written:

A photon of frequency Nu1 is emitted upwards by an atom at
rest on the surface of the Earth. That photon is absorbed by
an identical atom.

Let's assume that at the moment of emission (t = 0) the absorber had
zero
velocity. At the time t = h/c , when the photon reaches the absorbing
atom, the latter will have velocity v = gh/c directed downwards.
(adapted from arXiv: physics/ 9907017 v2).

The frequency Nu2 of the photon, as seen by the absorbing atom moving
at v = gh/c, should be shifted by the linear Doppler effect by
v/c = gh/c^2 towards the blue.

But, *experimentally*, the shift Nu2/Nu1 - 1 = 0, which can only be
explained by the fact that the frequency of the photon, when it meets
the absorber at *a distance h* from the Earth surface, is red shifted
by gh/c^2, a red shift that exactly cancel the expected blue shift.

The obvious conclusion is that photons lose their energy as they
climb out of the gravitational well and *reach some distance h*,
and not that the energy and frequency of the propagating photons
do not change with height *after emission*.

Marcel Luttgens

On 19 Jul 2006 14:25:18 -0700, wrote:


wrote:
John C. Polasek wrote:
On 19 Jul 2006 07:13:45 -0700, wrote:


John C. Polasek wrote:
On 18 Jul 2006 04:58:46 -0700, wrote:


John C. Polasek wrote:
On 17 Jul 2006 09:32:03 -0700, wrote:


John C. Polasek wrote:
On 15 Jul 2006 00:41:34 -0700, wrote:


Sue... wrote:
wrote:
snip

The conclusion is that photons lose their energy as they
"climb out of the gravitational well", and *not* that the energy and
frequency of the propagating photons do not change with height
AFTER EMISSION.

If the photons from a clock lose 1% climbing out of the well up to an
identical clock which, at higher altitude is running 1% faster, the
frequency comparison will yield a 2% redshift. You can't have that.

Contrarily to GR hypothesis, the identical clock doesn't tick faster
*because* it is at a higher altitude!

Marcel Luttgens
But it does according to Dual Space theory. The gravity well is a
"tired" environment and atoms there click more slowly. If the clock is
slow by 1%, the radiated energy is 1% low and stays that way: no
change in frequency. When it gets to the top clock which is running
faster, it registers 1% redshift.
c also increases 1% and the wavelength also, so the frequency remains
the same. DS does not use time dilation.
The wavelength stretch is the true redshift.
If GR uses constant c, and faster/slower clock and loss in frequency
on the way up, it produces a double redshift so something is wrong.

Has this NG sci.physics.relativity be created only to isolate the
crackpots? I hope not.

- Of course, you will find parrots like Van de Modder, who cannot think

by themselves. Those parrots are generally malicious and dishonest.

- You will also find people who have their own agenda, and who
automatically will reject any idea that contradict their pet theory.
Some of them are clearly crackpots.

- Other people are simply incompetent.

- And one finds the mentally impaired, who take any opportunity
to exude their psychotic venom.

Your broadranging phillipic will appear premature in light of the
asinine algebra you display below.

;-)


But, fortunately, there are some honest and competent scientists.
I hope to get a honest response from them about the following scenario:


A photon of frequency Nu1 is emitted upwards by an atom at
rest on the surface of the Earth. That photon is absorbed by
an identical atom, which moves in the laboratory frame
with a velocity v = gh/c downwards (and is thus freely falling).

Your erroneous expression for velocity gh/c gives 3*10^-6 m/s for 100
meters. The correct expression for velocity vs distance is V =
sqrt(2g*dist). A fall of 100m gives 45 m/s.

The frequency Nu2 of the photon, as seen by the absorbing atom moving
at v = gh/c, should be shifted by the linear Doppler effect by
v/c = gh/c^2 towards the blue.

Not so, the velocity varies all along the path along with Doppler.

But, *experimentally*, the shift Nu2/Nu1 - 1 = 0, which can only be
explained by the fact that the frequency of the photon, when it meets
the absorber at *a distance h* from the Earth surface, is red shifted
by gh/c^2, a red shift that exactly cancel the expected blue shift.

As explained above the redshift is constant, the Doppler is variable,
your expression for velocity is faulty.

The obvious conclusion is that photons lose their energy as they
climb out of the gravitational well and *reach some distance h*,
and not that the energy and frequency of the propagating photons
do not change with height *after emission*.

Why would the above reasoning be flawed?

That's why.

Thanks very much, I am having a closer look to your arguments.

I should have written:

A photon of frequency Nu1 is emitted upwards by an atom at
rest on the surface of the Earth. That photon is absorbed by
an identical atom.

Let's assume that at the moment of emission (t = 0) the absorber had
zero
velocity. At the time t = h/c , when the photon reaches the absorbing
atom, the latter will have velocity v = gh/c directed downwards.
(adapted from arXiv: physics/ 9907017 v2).

The frequency Nu2 of the photon, as seen by the absorbing atom moving
at v = gh/c, should be shifted by the linear Doppler effect by
v/c = gh/c^2 towards the blue.

But, *experimentally*, the shift Nu2/Nu1 - 1 = 0, which can only be
explained by the fact that the frequency of the photon, when it meets
the absorber at *a distance h* from the Earth surface, is red shifted
by gh/c^2, a red shift that exactly cancel the expected blue shift.

The obvious conclusion is that photons lose their energy as they
climb out of the gravitational well and *reach some distance h*,
and not that the energy and frequency of the propagating photons
do not change with height *after emission*.

Marcel Luttgens
OK I get a little different picture. Yes, the reshift is
v/c = gh/c^2 which is where you get
v = gh/c as the Doppler neutralizer
but the latter v has nothing to do with free falling. gh/c would
neutralize the gh/c^2 redshift, but it is extremely hard to do it.
The velocity is too small; just falling is out of the picture.

I analyzed the famous Pound Rebka redshift test at Harvard, a drop
through 22.5 meters. They neutralized the red shift by Doppler, using
an audio speaker cone carrying the detector, moving at the lowest
audio frequency of the time (1960) (10 Hz, I assumed). I found that
they needed v = 7x10^-7 m/s, which meant the amplitude of excursion
of the speaker cone would be 1.8x10^-9 meters or only 35 times the
Bohr radius of hydrogen! This seems almost impossible, but the
Mossbauer detector has a sharp bandwidth of about 10^-12 to help
along.

John Polasek

John C. Polasek wrote:
On 19 Jul 2006 14:25:18 -0700, wrote:


wrote:
John C. Polasek wrote:
On 19 Jul 2006 07:13:45 -0700, wrote:


John C. Polasek wrote:
On 18 Jul 2006 04:58:46 -0700, wrote:


John C. Polasek wrote:
On 17 Jul 2006 09:32:03 -0700, wrote:


John C. Polasek wrote:
On 15 Jul 2006 00:41:34 -0700, wrote:


Sue... wrote:
wrote:
snip

The conclusion is that photons lose their energy as they
"climb out of the gravitational well", and *not* that the energy and
frequency of the propagating photons do not change with height
AFTER EMISSION.

If the photons from a clock lose 1% climbing out of the well up to an
identical clock which, at higher altitude is running 1% faster, the
frequency comparison will yield a 2% redshift. You can't have that.

Contrarily to GR hypothesis, the identical clock doesn't tick faster
*because* it is at a higher altitude!

Marcel Luttgens
But it does according to Dual Space theory. The gravity well is a
"tired" environment and atoms there click more slowly. If the clock is
slow by 1%, the radiated energy is 1% low and stays that way: no
change in frequency. When it gets to the top clock which is running
faster, it registers 1% redshift.
c also increases 1% and the wavelength also, so the frequency remains
the same. DS does not use time dilation.
The wavelength stretch is the true redshift.
If GR uses constant c, and faster/slower clock and loss in frequency
on the way up, it produces a double redshift so something is wrong.

Has this NG sci.physics.relativity be created only to isolate the
crackpots? I hope not.

- Of course, you will find parrots like Van de Modder, who cannot think

by themselves. Those parrots are generally malicious and dishonest.

- You will also find people who have their own agenda, and who
automatically will reject any idea that contradict their pet theory.
Some of them are clearly crackpots.

- Other people are simply incompetent.

- And one finds the mentally impaired, who take any opportunity
to exude their psychotic venom.

Your broadranging phillipic will appear premature in light of the
asinine algebra you display below.

;-)


But, fortunately, there are some honest and competent scientists.
I hope to get a honest response from them about the following scenario:


A photon of frequency Nu1 is emitted upwards by an atom at
rest on the surface of the Earth. That photon is absorbed by
an identical atom, which moves in the laboratory frame
with a velocity v = gh/c downwards (and is thus freely falling).

Your erroneous expression for velocity gh/c gives 3*10^-6 m/s for 100
meters. The correct expression for velocity vs distance is V =
sqrt(2g*dist). A fall of 100m gives 45 m/s.

The frequency Nu2 of the photon, as seen by the absorbing atom moving
at v = gh/c, should be shifted by the linear Doppler effect by
v/c = gh/c^2 towards the blue.

Not so, the velocity varies all along the path along with Doppler.

But, *experimentally*, the shift Nu2/Nu1 - 1 = 0, which can only be
explained by the fact that the frequency of the photon, when it meets
the absorber at *a distance h* from the Earth surface, is red shifted
by gh/c^2, a red shift that exactly cancel the expected blue shift.

As explained above the redshift is constant, the Doppler is variable,
your expression for velocity is faulty.

The obvious conclusion is that photons lose their energy as they
climb out of the gravitational well and *reach some distance h*,
and not that the energy and frequency of the propagating photons
do not change with height *after emission*.

Why would the above reasoning be flawed?

That's why.

Thanks very much, I am having a closer look to your arguments.

I should have written:

A photon of frequency Nu1 is emitted upwards by an atom at
rest on the surface of the Earth. That photon is absorbed by
an identical atom.

Let's assume that at the moment of emission (t = 0) the absorber had
zero
velocity. At the time t = h/c , when the photon reaches the absorbing
atom, the latter will have velocity v = gh/c directed downwards.
(adapted from arXiv: physics/ 9907017 v2).

The frequency Nu2 of the photon, as seen by the absorbing atom moving
at v = gh/c, should be shifted by the linear Doppler effect by
v/c = gh/c^2 towards the blue.

But, *experimentally*, the shift Nu2/Nu1 - 1 = 0, which can only be
explained by the fact that the frequency of the photon, when it meets
the absorber at *a distance h* from the Earth surface, is red shifted
by gh/c^2, a red shift that exactly cancel the expected blue shift.

The obvious conclusion is that photons lose their energy as they
climb out of the gravitational well and *reach some distance h*,
and not that the energy and frequency of the propagating photons
do not change with height *after emission*.

Marcel Luttgens
OK I get a little different picture. Yes, the reshift is
v/c = gh/c^2 which is where you get
v = gh/c as the Doppler neutralizer
but the latter v has nothing to do with free falling. gh/c would
neutralize the gh/c^2 redshift, but it is extremely hard to do it.
The velocity is too small; just falling is out of the picture.

I analyzed the famous Pound Rebka redshift test at Harvard, a drop
through 22.5 meters. They neutralized the red shift by Doppler, using
an audio speaker cone carrying the detector, moving at the lowest
audio frequency of the time (1960) (10 Hz, I assumed). I found that
they needed v = 7x10^-7 m/s, which meant the amplitude of excursion
of the speaker cone would be 1.8x10^-9 meters or only 35 times the
Bohr radius of hydrogen! This seems almost impossible, but the
Mossbauer detector has a sharp bandwidth of about 10^-12 to help
along.

Thank you very much.

You are right, the velocity is extremely small, but even if the
the Pound Rebka test gave somewhat questionable results, it
could nevertheless be considered as a thought experiment, whose
logical conclusion is hardly arguable, and that conclusion is that
that the energy and frequency of photons change with height
after their emission.

Marcel Luttgens


John Polasek

On 20 Jul 2006 03:14:12 -0700, wrote:


John C. Polasek wrote:
On 19 Jul 2006 14:25:18 -0700, wrote:


wrote:
John C. Polasek wrote:
On 19 Jul 2006 07:13:45 -0700, wrote:


John C. Polasek wrote:
On 18 Jul 2006 04:58:46 -0700, wrote:


John C. Polasek wrote:
On 17 Jul 2006 09:32:03 -0700, wrote:


John C. Polasek wrote:
On 15 Jul 2006 00:41:34 -0700, wrote:


Sue... wrote:
wrote:
snip

The conclusion is that photons lose their energy as they
"climb out of the gravitational well", and *not* that the energy and
frequency of the propagating photons do not change with height
AFTER EMISSION.

If the photons from a clock lose 1% climbing out of the well up to an
identical clock which, at higher altitude is running 1% faster, the
frequency comparison will yield a 2% redshift. You can't have that.

Contrarily to GR hypothesis, the identical clock doesn't tick faster
*because* it is at a higher altitude!

Marcel Luttgens
But it does according to Dual Space theory. The gravity well is a
"tired" environment and atoms there click more slowly. If the clock is
slow by 1%, the radiated energy is 1% low and stays that way: no
change in frequency. When it gets to the top clock which is running
faster, it registers 1% redshift.
c also increases 1% and the wavelength also, so the frequency remains
the same. DS does not use time dilation.
The wavelength stretch is the true redshift.
If GR uses constant c, and faster/slower clock and loss in frequency
on the way up, it produces a double redshift so something is wrong.

Has this NG sci.physics.relativity be created only to isolate the
crackpots? I hope not.

- Of course, you will find parrots like Van de Modder, who cannot think

by themselves. Those parrots are generally malicious and dishonest.

- You will also find people who have their own agenda, and who
automatically will reject any idea that contradict their pet theory.
Some of them are clearly crackpots.

- Other people are simply incompetent.

- And one finds the mentally impaired, who take any opportunity
to exude their psychotic venom.

Your broadranging phillipic will appear premature in light of the
asinine algebra you display below.

;-)


But, fortunately, there are some honest and competent scientists.
I hope to get a honest response from them about the following scenario:


A photon of frequency Nu1 is emitted upwards by an atom at
rest on the surface of the Earth. That photon is absorbed by
an identical atom, which moves in the laboratory frame
with a velocity v = gh/c downwards (and is thus freely falling).

Your erroneous expression for velocity gh/c gives 3*10^-6 m/s for 100
meters. The correct expression for velocity vs distance is V =
sqrt(2g*dist). A fall of 100m gives 45 m/s.

The frequency Nu2 of the photon, as seen by the absorbing atom moving
at v = gh/c, should be shifted by the linear Doppler effect by
v/c = gh/c^2 towards the blue.

Not so, the velocity varies all along the path along with Doppler.

But, *experimentally*, the shift Nu2/Nu1 - 1 = 0, which can only be
explained by the fact that the frequency of the photon, when it meets
the absorber at *a distance h* from the Earth surface, is red shifted
by gh/c^2, a red shift that exactly cancel the expected blue shift.

As explained above the redshift is constant, the Doppler is variable,
your expression for velocity is faulty.

The obvious conclusion is that photons lose their energy as they
climb out of the gravitational well and *reach some distance h*,
and not that the energy and frequency of the propagating photons
do not change with height *after emission*.

Why would the above reasoning be flawed?

That's why.

Thanks very much, I am having a closer look to your arguments.

I should have written:

A photon of frequency Nu1 is emitted upwards by an atom at
rest on the surface of the Earth. That photon is absorbed by
an identical atom.

Let's assume that at the moment of emission (t = 0) the absorber had
zero
velocity. At the time t = h/c , when the photon reaches the absorbing
atom, the latter will have velocity v = gh/c directed downwards.
(adapted from arXiv: physics/ 9907017 v2).

The frequency Nu2 of the photon, as seen by the absorbing atom moving
at v = gh/c, should be shifted by the linear Doppler effect by
v/c = gh/c^2 towards the blue.

But, *experimentally*, the shift Nu2/Nu1 - 1 = 0, which can only be
explained by the fact that the frequency of the photon, when it meets
the absorber at *a distance h* from the Earth surface, is red shifted
by gh/c^2, a red shift that exactly cancel the expected blue shift.

The obvious conclusion is that photons lose their energy as they
climb out of the gravitational well and *reach some distance h*,
and not that the energy and frequency of the propagating photons
do not change with height *after emission*.

Marcel Luttgens
OK I get a little different picture. Yes, the reshift is
v/c = gh/c^2 which is where you get
v = gh/c as the Doppler neutralizer
but the latter v has nothing to do with free falling. gh/c would
neutralize the gh/c^2 redshift, but it is extremely hard to do it.
The velocity is too small; just falling is out of the picture.

I analyzed the famous Pound Rebka redshift test at Harvard, a drop
through 22.5 meters. They neutralized the red shift by Doppler, using
an audio speaker cone carrying the detector, moving at the lowest
audio frequency of the time (1960) (10 Hz, I assumed). I found that
they needed v = 7x10^-7 m/s, which meant the amplitude of excursion
of the speaker cone would be 1.8x10^-9 meters or only 35 times the
Bohr radius of hydrogen! This seems almost impossible, but the
Mossbauer detector has a sharp bandwidth of about 10^-12 to help
along.

Thank you very much.

You are right, the velocity is extremely small, but even if the
the Pound Rebka test gave somewhat questionable results, it
could nevertheless be considered as a thought experiment, whose
logical conclusion is hardly arguable, and that conclusion is that
that the energy and frequency of photons change with height
after their emission.

Marcel Luttgens


John Polasek
But Pound and Rebka first called their paper "On the apparent weight
of photons" as if gravity had to do with weight and energy, and
changed it later to "Effect of gravity on nuclear resonance" or
something like that to indicate change in clock rate. That's a lot
more palatable then to assign a synthetic mass to a photon.
But some interpretations of GR still treat bending of light as gravity
affecting the trajectory of the photon as if it had mass.

John Polasek

John C. Polasek wrote:
On 20 Jul 2006 03:14:12 -0700, wrote:


John C. Polasek wrote:
On 19 Jul 2006 14:25:18 -0700, wrote:


wrote:
John C. Polasek wrote:
On 19 Jul 2006 07:13:45 -0700, wrote:


John C. Polasek wrote:
On 18 Jul 2006 04:58:46 -0700, wrote:


John C. Polasek wrote:
On 17 Jul 2006 09:32:03 -0700, wrote:


John C. Polasek wrote:
On 15 Jul 2006 00:41:34 -0700, wrote:


Sue... wrote:
wrote:
snip

The conclusion is that photons lose their energy as they
"climb out of the gravitational well", and *not* that the energy and
frequency of the propagating photons do not change with height
AFTER EMISSION.

If the photons from a clock lose 1% climbing out of the well up to an
identical clock which, at higher altitude is running 1% faster, the
frequency comparison will yield a 2% redshift. You can't have that.

Contrarily to GR hypothesis, the identical clock doesn't tick faster
*because* it is at a higher altitude!

Marcel Luttgens
But it does according to Dual Space theory. The gravity well is a
"tired" environment and atoms there click more slowly. If the clock is
slow by 1%, the radiated energy is 1% low and stays that way: no
change in frequency. When it gets to the top clock which is running
faster, it registers 1% redshift.
c also increases 1% and the wavelength also, so the frequency remains
the same. DS does not use time dilation.
The wavelength stretch is the true redshift.
If GR uses constant c, and faster/slower clock and loss in frequency
on the way up, it produces a double redshift so something is wrong.

Has this NG sci.physics.relativity be created only to isolate the
crackpots? I hope not.

- Of course, you will find parrots like Van de Modder, who cannot think

by themselves. Those parrots are generally malicious and dishonest.

- You will also find people who have their own agenda, and who
automatically will reject any idea that contradict their pet theory.
Some of them are clearly crackpots.

- Other people are simply incompetent.

- And one finds the mentally impaired, who take any opportunity
to exude their psychotic venom.

Your broadranging phillipic will appear premature in light of the
asinine algebra you display below.

;-)


But, fortunately, there are some honest and competent scientists.
I hope to get a honest response from them about the following scenario:


A photon of frequency Nu1 is emitted upwards by an atom at
rest on the surface of the Earth. That photon is absorbed by
an identical atom, which moves in the laboratory frame
with a velocity v = gh/c downwards (and is thus freely falling).

Your erroneous expression for velocity gh/c gives 3*10^-6 m/s for 100
meters. The correct expression for velocity vs distance is V =
sqrt(2g*dist). A fall of 100m gives 45 m/s.

The frequency Nu2 of the photon, as seen by the absorbing atom moving
at v = gh/c, should be shifted by the linear Doppler effect by
v/c = gh/c^2 towards the blue.

Not so, the velocity varies all along the path along with Doppler.

But, *experimentally*, the shift Nu2/Nu1 - 1 = 0, which can only be
explained by the fact that the frequency of the photon, when it meets
the absorber at *a distance h* from the Earth surface, is red shifted
by gh/c^2, a red shift that exactly cancel the expected blue shift.

As explained above the redshift is constant, the Doppler is variable,
your expression for velocity is faulty.

The obvious conclusion is that photons lose their energy as they
climb out of the gravitational well and *reach some distance h*,
and not that the energy and frequency of the propagating photons
do not change with height *after emission*.

Why would the above reasoning be flawed?

That's why.

Thanks very much, I am having a closer look to your arguments.

I should have written:

A photon of frequency Nu1 is emitted upwards by an atom at
rest on the surface of the Earth. That photon is absorbed by
an identical atom.

Let's assume that at the moment of emission (t = 0) the absorber had
zero
velocity. At the time t = h/c , when the photon reaches the absorbing
atom, the latter will have velocity v = gh/c directed downwards.
(adapted from arXiv: physics/ 9907017 v2).

The frequency Nu2 of the photon, as seen by the absorbing atom moving
at v = gh/c, should be shifted by the linear Doppler effect by
v/c = gh/c^2 towards the blue.

But, *experimentally*, the shift Nu2/Nu1 - 1 = 0, which can only be
explained by the fact that the frequency of the photon, when it meets
the absorber at *a distance h* from the Earth surface, is red shifted
by gh/c^2, a red shift that exactly cancel the expected blue shift.

The obvious conclusion is that photons lose their energy as they
climb out of the gravitational well and *reach some distance h*,
and not that the energy and frequency of the propagating photons
do not change with height *after emission*.

Marcel Luttgens
OK I get a little different picture. Yes, the reshift is
v/c = gh/c^2 which is where you get
v = gh/c as the Doppler neutralizer
but the latter v has nothing to do with free falling. gh/c would
neutralize the gh/c^2 redshift, but it is extremely hard to do it.
The velocity is too small; just falling is out of the picture.

I analyzed the famous Pound Rebka redshift test at Harvard, a drop
through 22.5 meters. They neutralized the red shift by Doppler, using
an audio speaker cone carrying the detector, moving at the lowest
audio frequency of the time (1960) (10 Hz, I assumed). I found that
they needed v = 7x10^-7 m/s, which meant the amplitude of excursion
of the speaker cone would be 1.8x10^-9 meters or only 35 times the
Bohr radius of hydrogen! This seems almost impossible, but the
Mossbauer detector has a sharp bandwidth of about 10^-12 to help
along.

Thank you very much.

You are right, the velocity is extremely small, but even if the
the Pound Rebka test gave somewhat questionable results, it
could nevertheless be considered as a thought experiment, whose
logical conclusion is hardly arguable, and that conclusion is that
that the energy and frequency of photons change with height
after their emission.

Marcel Luttgens


John Polasek
But Pound and Rebka first called their paper "On the apparent weight
of photons" as if gravity had to do with weight and energy, and
changed it later to "Effect of gravity on nuclear resonance" or
something like that to indicate change in clock rate. That's a lot
more palatable then to assign a synthetic mass to a photon.
But some interpretations of GR still treat bending of light as gravity
affecting the trajectory of the photon as if it had mass.

Anyhow, my scenario, which is not exactly similar to the Pound and
Rebka experiment, leads to the conclusion that the absence of shift
"can only be explained by the fact that the frequency of the photon,
when it meets the absorber at *a distance h* from the Earth surface,
is red shifted by gh/c^2, a red shift that exactly cancel the expected
blue shift."
Assigning a mass hNu/c^2 to photons not only leads to formulae
which are identical to GR formulae, but allows to derive formulae
that are practically impossible to obtain with GR. One could claim that
Occam's razor is not GR's friend.

Marcel Luttgens

John Polasek

On 20 Jul 2006 08:24:24 -0700, wrote:


John C. Polasek wrote:
On 20 Jul 2006 03:14:12 -0700, wrote:


John C. Polasek wrote:
On 19 Jul 2006 14:25:18 -0700, wrote:


wrote:
John C. Polasek wrote:
On 19 Jul 2006 07:13:45 -0700, wrote:


John C. Polasek wrote:
On 18 Jul 2006 04:58:46 -0700, wrote:


John C. Polasek wrote:
On 17 Jul 2006 09:32:03 -0700, wrote:


John C. Polasek wrote:
On 15 Jul 2006 00:41:34 -0700, wrote:


Sue... wrote:
wrote:
snip

The conclusion is that photons lose their energy as they
"climb out of the gravitational well", and *not* that the energy and
frequency of the propagating photons do not change with height
AFTER EMISSION.

If the photons from a clock lose 1% climbing out of the well up to an
identical clock which, at higher altitude is running 1% faster, the
frequency comparison will yield a 2% redshift. You can't have that.

Contrarily to GR hypothesis, the identical clock doesn't tick faster
*because* it is at a higher altitude!

Marcel Luttgens
But it does according to Dual Space theory. The gravity well is a
"tired" environment and atoms there click more slowly. If the clock is
slow by 1%, the radiated energy is 1% low and stays that way: no
change in frequency. When it gets to the top clock which is running
faster, it registers 1% redshift.
c also increases 1% and the wavelength also, so the frequency remains
the same. DS does not use time dilation.
The wavelength stretch is the true redshift.
If GR uses constant c, and faster/slower clock and loss in frequency
on the way up, it produces a double redshift so something is wrong.

Has this NG sci.physics.relativity be created only to isolate the
crackpots? I hope not.

- Of course, you will find parrots like Van de Modder, who cannot think

by themselves. Those parrots are generally malicious and dishonest.

- You will also find people who have their own agenda, and who
automatically will reject any idea that contradict their pet theory.
Some of them are clearly crackpots.

- Other people are simply incompetent.

- And one finds the mentally impaired, who take any opportunity
to exude their psychotic venom.

Your broadranging phillipic will appear premature in light of the
asinine algebra you display below.

;-)


But, fortunately, there are some honest and competent scientists.
I hope to get a honest response from them about the following scenario:


A photon of frequency Nu1 is emitted upwards by an atom at
rest on the surface of the Earth. That photon is absorbed by
an identical atom, which moves in the laboratory frame
with a velocity v = gh/c downwards (and is thus freely falling).

Your erroneous expression for velocity gh/c gives 3*10^-6 m/s for 100
meters. The correct expression for velocity vs distance is V =
sqrt(2g*dist). A fall of 100m gives 45 m/s.

The frequency Nu2 of the photon, as seen by the absorbing atom moving
at v = gh/c, should be shifted by the linear Doppler effect by
v/c = gh/c^2 towards the blue.

Not so, the velocity varies all along the path along with Doppler.

But, *experimentally*, the shift Nu2/Nu1 - 1 = 0, which can only be
explained by the fact that the frequency of the photon, when it meets
the absorber at *a distance h* from the Earth surface, is red shifted
by gh/c^2, a red shift that exactly cancel the expected blue shift.

As explained above the redshift is constant, the Doppler is variable,
your expression for velocity is faulty.

The obvious conclusion is that photons lose their energy as they
climb out of the gravitational well and *reach some distance h*,
and not that the energy and frequency of the propagating photons
do not change with height *after emission*.

Why would the above reasoning be flawed?

That's why.

Thanks very much, I am having a closer look to your arguments.

I should have written:

A photon of frequency Nu1 is emitted upwards by an atom at
rest on the surface of the Earth. That photon is absorbed by
an identical atom.

Let's assume that at the moment of emission (t = 0) the absorber had
zero
velocity. At the time t = h/c , when the photon reaches the absorbing
atom, the latter will have velocity v = gh/c directed downwards.
(adapted from arXiv: physics/ 9907017 v2).

The frequency Nu2 of the photon, as seen by the absorbing atom moving
at v = gh/c, should be shifted by the linear Doppler effect by
v/c = gh/c^2 towards the blue.

But, *experimentally*, the shift Nu2/Nu1 - 1 = 0, which can only be
explained by the fact that the frequency of the photon, when it meets
the absorber at *a distance h* from the Earth surface, is red shifted
by gh/c^2, a red shift that exactly cancel the expected blue shift.

The obvious conclusion is that photons lose their energy as they
climb out of the gravitational well and *reach some distance h*,
and not that the energy and frequency of the propagating photons
do not change with height *after emission*.

Marcel Luttgens
OK I get a little different picture. Yes, the reshift is
v/c = gh/c^2 which is where you get
v = gh/c as the Doppler neutralizer
but the latter v has nothing to do with free falling. gh/c would
neutralize the gh/c^2 redshift, but it is extremely hard to do it.
The velocity is too small; just falling is out of the picture.

I analyzed the famous Pound Rebka redshift test at Harvard, a drop
through 22.5 meters. They neutralized the red shift by Doppler, using
an audio speaker cone carrying the detector, moving at the lowest
audio frequency of the time (1960) (10 Hz, I assumed). I found that
they needed v = 7x10^-7 m/s, which meant the amplitude of excursion
of the speaker cone would be 1.8x10^-9 meters or only 35 times the
Bohr radius of hydrogen! This seems almost impossible, but the
Mossbauer detector has a sharp bandwidth of about 10^-12 to help
along.

Thank you very much.

You are right, the velocity is extremely small, but even if the
the Pound Rebka test gave somewhat questionable results, it
could nevertheless be considered as a thought experiment, whose
logical conclusion is hardly arguable, and that conclusion is that
that the energy and frequency of photons change with height
after their emission.

Marcel Luttgens


John Polasek
But Pound and Rebka first called their paper "On the apparent weight
of photons" as if gravity had to do with weight and energy, and
changed it later to "Effect of gravity on nuclear resonance" or
something like that to indicate change in clock rate. That's a lot
more palatable then to assign a synthetic mass to a photon.
But some interpretations of GR still treat bending of light as gravity
affecting the trajectory of the photon as if it had mass.

Anyhow, my scenario, which is not exactly similar to the Pound and
Rebka experiment, leads to the conclusion that the absence of shift
"can only be explained by the fact that the frequency of the photon,
when it meets the absorber at *a distance h* from the Earth surface,
is red shifted by gh/c^2, a red shift that exactly cancel the expected
blue shift."
Assigning a mass hNu/c^2 to photons not only leads to formulae
which are identical to GR formulae, but allows to derive formulae
that are practically impossible to obtain with GR. One could claim that
Occam's razor is not GR's friend.

Marcel Luttgens

John Polasek
I think we agreed your blue shift velocity would be gh/c and that it
would be about 3 micro-meters/second and so you can see it's a
temporary condition that is true only for about 1/3d of a microsecond
due to acceleration of g, and never thereafter. You aren't showing
enough algebra, just wrestling with gh/c2 and gh/c.
If you think dropping the detector frees it from gravity, that's a
misconception, and as you see there are more fundamentala logistic
problems. The Doppler velocity varies and is only true once, and
acceleration is constant but does not impinge on the clock rate.

John Polasek

John C. Polasek wrote:
On 20 Jul 2006 08:24:24 -0700, wrote:


John C. Polasek wrote:
On 20 Jul 2006 03:14:12 -0700, wrote:


John C. Polasek wrote:
On 19 Jul 2006 14:25:18 -0700, wrote:


wrote:
John C. Polasek wrote:
On 19 Jul 2006 07:13:45 -0700, wrote:


John C. Polasek wrote:
On 18 Jul 2006 04:58:46 -0700, wrote:


John C. Polasek wrote:
On 17 Jul 2006 09:32:03 -0700, wrote:


John C. Polasek wrote:
On 15 Jul 2006 00:41:34 -0700, wrote:


Sue... wrote:
wrote:
snip

The conclusion is that photons lose their energy as they
"climb out of the gravitational well", and *not* that the energy and
frequency of the propagating photons do not change with height
AFTER EMISSION.

If the photons from a clock lose 1% climbing out of the well up to an
identical clock which, at higher altitude is running 1% faster, the
frequency comparison will yield a 2% redshift. You can't have that.

Contrarily to GR hypothesis, the identical clock doesn't tick faster
*because* it is at a higher altitude!

Marcel Luttgens
But it does according to Dual Space theory. The gravity well is a
"tired" environment and atoms there click more slowly. If the clock is
slow by 1%, the radiated energy is 1% low and stays that way: no
change in frequency. When it gets to the top clock which is running
faster, it registers 1% redshift.
c also increases 1% and the wavelength also, so the frequency remains
the same. DS does not use time dilation.
The wavelength stretch is the true redshift.
If GR uses constant c, and faster/slower clock and loss in frequency
on the way up, it produces a double redshift so something is wrong.

Has this NG sci.physics.relativity be created only to isolate the
crackpots? I hope not.

- Of course, you will find parrots like Van de Modder, who cannot think

by themselves. Those parrots are generally malicious and dishonest.

- You will also find people who have their own agenda, and who
automatically will reject any idea that contradict their pet theory.
Some of them are clearly crackpots.

- Other people are simply incompetent.

- And one finds the mentally impaired, who take any opportunity
to exude their psychotic venom.

Your broadranging phillipic will appear premature in light of the
asinine algebra you display below.

;-)


But, fortunately, there are some honest and competent scientists.
I hope to get a honest response from them about the following scenario:


A photon of frequency Nu1 is emitted upwards by an atom at
rest on the surface of the Earth. That photon is absorbed by
an identical atom, which moves in the laboratory frame
with a velocity v = gh/c downwards (and is thus freely falling).

Your erroneous expression for velocity gh/c gives 3*10^-6 m/s for 100
meters. The correct expression for velocity vs distance is V =
sqrt(2g*dist). A fall of 100m gives 45 m/s.

The frequency Nu2 of the photon, as seen by the absorbing atom moving
at v = gh/c, should be shifted by the linear Doppler effect by
v/c = gh/c^2 towards the blue.

Not so, the velocity varies all along the path along with Doppler.

But, *experimentally*, the shift Nu2/Nu1 - 1 = 0, which can only be
explained by the fact that the frequency of the photon, when it meets
the absorber at *a distance h* from the Earth surface, is red shifted
by gh/c^2, a red shift that exactly cancel the expected blue shift.

As explained above the redshift is constant, the Doppler is variable,
your expression for velocity is faulty.

The obvious conclusion is that photons lose their energy as they
climb out of the gravitational well and *reach some distance h*,
and not that the energy and frequency of the propagating photons
do not change with height *after emission*.

Why would the above reasoning be flawed?

That's why.

Thanks very much, I am having a closer look to your arguments.

I should have written:

A photon of frequency Nu1 is emitted upwards by an atom at
rest on the surface of the Earth. That photon is absorbed by
an identical atom.

Let's assume that at the moment of emission (t = 0) the absorber had
zero
velocity. At the time t = h/c , when the photon reaches the absorbing
atom, the latter will have velocity v = gh/c directed downwards.
(adapted from arXiv: physics/ 9907017 v2).

The frequency Nu2 of the photon, as seen by the absorbing atom moving
at v = gh/c, should be shifted by the linear Doppler effect by
v/c = gh/c^2 towards the blue.

But, *experimentally*, the shift Nu2/Nu1 - 1 = 0, which can only be
explained by the fact that the frequency of the photon, when it meets
the absorber at *a distance h* from the Earth surface, is red shifted
by gh/c^2, a red shift that exactly cancel the expected blue shift.

The obvious conclusion is that photons lose their energy as they
climb out of the gravitational well and *reach some distance h*,
and not that the energy and frequency of the propagating photons
do not change with height *after emission*.

Marcel Luttgens
OK I get a little different picture. Yes, the reshift is
v/c = gh/c^2 which is where you get
v = gh/c as the Doppler neutralizer
but the latter v has nothing to do with free falling. gh/c would
neutralize the gh/c^2 redshift, but it is extremely hard to do it.
The velocity is too small; just falling is out of the picture.

I analyzed the famous Pound Rebka redshift test at Harvard, a drop
through 22.5 meters. They neutralized the red shift by Doppler, using
an audio speaker cone carrying the detector, moving at the lowest
audio frequency of the time (1960) (10 Hz, I assumed). I found that
they needed v = 7x10^-7 m/s, which meant the amplitude of excursion
of the speaker cone would be 1.8x10^-9 meters or only 35 times the
Bohr radius of hydrogen! This seems almost impossible, but the
Mossbauer detector has a sharp bandwidth of about 10^-12 to help
along.

Thank you very much.

You are right, the velocity is extremely small, but even if the
the Pound Rebka test gave somewhat questionable results, it
could nevertheless be considered as a thought experiment, whose
logical conclusion is hardly arguable, and that conclusion is that
that the energy and frequency of photons change with height
after their emission.

Marcel Luttgens


John Polasek
But Pound and Rebka first called their paper "On the apparent weight
of photons" as if gravity had to do with weight and energy, and
changed it later to "Effect of gravity on nuclear resonance" or
something like that to indicate change in clock rate. That's a lot
more palatable then to assign a synthetic mass to a photon.
But some interpretations of GR still treat bending of light as gravity
affecting the trajectory of the photon as if it had mass.

Anyhow, my scenario, which is not exactly similar to the Pound and
Rebka experiment, leads to the conclusion that the absence of shift
"can only be explained by the fact that the frequency of the photon,
when it meets the absorber at *a distance h* from the Earth surface,
is red shifted by gh/c^2, a red shift that exactly cancel the expected
blue shift."
Assigning a mass hNu/c^2 to photons not only leads to formulae
which are identical to GR formulae, but allows to derive formulae
that are practically impossible to obtain with GR. One could claim that
Occam's razor is not GR's friend.

Marcel Luttgens

John Polasek
I think we agreed your blue shift velocity would be gh/c and that it
would be about 3 micro-meters/second and so you can see it's a
temporary condition that is true only for about 1/3d of a microsecond
due to acceleration of g, and never thereafter. You aren't showing
enough algebra, just wrestling with gh/c2 and gh/c.
If you think dropping the detector frees it from gravity, that's a
misconception, and as you see there are more fundamentala logistic
problems. The Doppler velocity varies and is only true once, and
acceleration is constant but does not impinge on the clock rate.

John Polasek

I think we agreed your blue shift velocity would be gh/c and that it
would be about 3 micro-meters/second and so you can see it's a
temporary condition that is true only for about 1/3d of a microsecond
due to acceleration of g, and never thereafter.

You are perfectly right.

You aren't showing enough algebra, just wrestling with gh/c2
and gh/c.

If, at h, the detector is falling at v = gt = gh/c (thus at a time
t = h/c), it should *instantaneoulsly* "see" a blue shift v/c = gh/c^2.
But in fact, it doesn't detect such shift, because, *at the height h*,
the emitted signal is redshifted by -gh/c^2, a shift which is due to
the Earth gravity.

If you think dropping the detector frees it from gravity,
that's a misconception,

I don't have such misconception.

and as you see there are more fundamental logistic
problems. The Doppler velocity varies and is only true once, and
acceleration is constant but does not impinge on the clock rate.

In a thought experiment, one could consider that the detector has
exactly the velocity gt at the height h.
I agree that such scenario is purely theoretical, but not more that
the situations imagined by Einstein when he derived the Lorentz
transformations.

Marcel Luttgens

On 21 Jul 2006 04:08:40 -0700, wrote:


John C. Polasek wrote:
On 20 Jul 2006 08:24:24 -0700, wrote:


John C. Polasek wrote:
On 20 Jul 2006 03:14:12 -0700, wrote:


John C. Polasek wrote:
On 19 Jul 2006 14:25:18 -0700, wrote:


wrote:
John C. Polasek wrote:
On 19 Jul 2006 07:13:45 -0700, wrote:


John C. Polasek wrote:
On 18 Jul 2006 04:58:46 -0700, wrote:


John C. Polasek wrote:
On 17 Jul 2006 09:32:03 -0700, wrote:


John C. Polasek wrote:
On 15 Jul 2006 00:41:34 -0700, wrote:


Sue... wrote:
wrote:
snip

The conclusion is that photons lose their energy as they
"climb out of the gravitational well", and *not* that the energy and
frequency of the propagating photons do not change with height
AFTER EMISSION.

If the photons from a clock lose 1% climbing out of the well up to an
identical clock which, at higher altitude is running 1% faster, the
frequency comparison will yield a 2% redshift. You can't have that.

Contrarily to GR hypothesis, the identical clock doesn't tick faster
*because* it is at a higher altitude!

Marcel Luttgens
But it does according to Dual Space theory. The gravity well is a
"tired" environment and atoms there click more slowly. If the clock is
slow by 1%, the radiated energy is 1% low and stays that way: no
change in frequency. When it gets to the top clock which is running
faster, it registers 1% redshift.
c also increases 1% and the wavelength also, so the frequency remains
the same. DS does not use time dilation.
The wavelength stretch is the true redshift.
If GR uses constant c, and faster/slower clock and loss in frequency
on the way up, it produces a double redshift so something is wrong.

Has this NG sci.physics.relativity be created only to isolate the
crackpots? I hope not.

- Of course, you will find parrots like Van de Modder, who cannot think

by themselves. Those parrots are generally malicious and dishonest.

- You will also find people who have their own agenda, and who
automatically will reject any idea that contradict their pet theory.
Some of them are clearly crackpots.

- Other people are simply incompetent.

- And one finds the mentally impaired, who take any opportunity
to exude their psychotic venom.

Your broadranging phillipic will appear premature in light of the
asinine algebra you display below.

;-)


But, fortunately, there are some honest and competent scientists.
I hope to get a honest response from them about the following scenario:


A photon of frequency Nu1 is emitted upwards by an atom at
rest on the surface of the Earth. That photon is absorbed by
an identical atom, which moves in the laboratory frame
with a velocity v = gh/c downwards (and is thus freely falling).

Your erroneous expression for velocity gh/c gives 3*10^-6 m/s for 100
meters. The correct expression for velocity vs distance is V =
sqrt(2g*dist). A fall of 100m gives 45 m/s.

The frequency Nu2 of the photon, as seen by the absorbing atom moving
at v = gh/c, should be shifted by the linear Doppler effect by
v/c = gh/c^2 towards the blue.

Not so, the velocity varies all along the path along with Doppler.

But, *experimentally*, the shift Nu2/Nu1 - 1 = 0, which can only be
explained by the fact that the frequency of the photon, when it meets
the absorber at *a distance h* from the Earth surface, is red shifted
by gh/c^2, a red shift that exactly cancel the expected blue shift.

As explained above the redshift is constant, the Doppler is variable,
your expression for velocity is faulty.

The obvious conclusion is that photons lose their energy as they
climb out of the gravitational well and *reach some distance h*,
and not that the energy and frequency of the propagating photons
do not change with height *after emission*.

Why would the above reasoning be flawed?

That's why.

Thanks very much, I am having a closer look to your arguments.

I should have written:

A photon of frequency Nu1 is emitted upwards by an atom at
rest on the surface of the Earth. That photon is absorbed by
an identical atom.

Let's assume that at the moment of emission (t = 0) the absorber had
zero
velocity. At the time t = h/c , when the photon reaches the absorbing
atom, the latter will have velocity v = gh/c directed downwards.
(adapted from arXiv: physics/ 9907017 v2).

The frequency Nu2 of the photon, as seen by the absorbing atom moving
at v = gh/c, should be shifted by the linear Doppler effect by
v/c = gh/c^2 towards the blue.

But, *experimentally*, the shift Nu2/Nu1 - 1 = 0, which can only be
explained by the fact that the frequency of the photon, when it meets
the absorber at *a distance h* from the Earth surface, is red shifted
by gh/c^2, a red shift that exactly cancel the expected blue shift.

The obvious conclusion is that photons lose their energy as they
climb out of the gravitational well and *reach some distance h*,
and not that the energy and frequency of the propagating photons
do not change with height *after emission*.

Marcel Luttgens
OK I get a little different picture. Yes, the reshift is
v/c = gh/c^2 which is where you get
v = gh/c as the Doppler neutralizer
but the latter v has nothing to do with free falling. gh/c would
neutralize the gh/c^2 redshift, but it is extremely hard to do it.
The velocity is too small; just falling is out of the picture.

I analyzed the famous Pound Rebka redshift test at Harvard, a drop
through 22.5 meters. They neutralized the red shift by Doppler, using
an audio speaker cone carrying the detector, moving at the lowest
audio frequency of the time (1960) (10 Hz, I assumed). I found that
they needed v = 7x10^-7 m/s, which meant the amplitude of excursion
of the speaker cone would be 1.8x10^-9 meters or only 35 times the
Bohr radius of hydrogen! This seems almost impossible, but the
Mossbauer detector has a sharp bandwidth of about 10^-12 to help
along.

Thank you very much.

You are right, the velocity is extremely small, but even if the
the Pound Rebka test gave somewhat questionable results, it
could nevertheless be considered as a thought experiment, whose
logical conclusion is hardly arguable, and that conclusion is that
that the energy and frequency of photons change with height
after their emission.

Marcel Luttgens


John Polasek
But Pound and Rebka first called their paper "On the apparent weight
of photons" as if gravity had to do with weight and energy, and
changed it later to "Effect of gravity on nuclear resonance" or
something like that to indicate change in clock rate. That's a lot
more palatable then to assign a synthetic mass to a photon.
But some interpretations of GR still treat bending of light as gravity
affecting the trajectory of the photon as if it had mass.

Anyhow, my scenario, which is not exactly similar to the Pound and
Rebka experiment, leads to the conclusion that the absence of shift
"can only be explained by the fact that the frequency of the photon,
when it meets the absorber at *a distance h* from the Earth surface,
is red shifted by gh/c^2, a red shift that exactly cancel the expected
blue shift."
Assigning a mass hNu/c^2 to photons not only leads to formulae
which are identical to GR formulae, but allows to derive formulae
that are practically impossible to obtain with GR. One could claim that
Occam's razor is not GR's friend.

Marcel Luttgens

John Polasek
I think we agreed your blue shift velocity would be gh/c and that it
would be about 3 micro-meters/second and so you can see it's a
temporary condition that is true only for about 1/3d of a microsecond
due to acceleration of g, and never thereafter. You aren't showing
enough algebra, just wrestling with gh/c2 and gh/c.
If you think dropping the detector frees it from gravity, that's a
misconception, and as you see there are more fundamentala logistic
problems. The Doppler velocity varies and is only true once, and
acceleration is constant but does not impinge on the clock rate.

John Polasek

I think we agreed your blue shift velocity would be gh/c and that it
would be about 3 micro-meters/second and so you can see it's a
temporary condition that is true only for about 1/3d of a microsecond
due to acceleration of g, and never thereafter.

You are perfectly right.

You aren't showing enough algebra, just wrestling with gh/c2
and gh/c.

If, at h, the detector is falling at v = gt = gh/c (thus at a time
t = h/c),

h is the depth of the well about 100 meters, and H is the drop
distance to attain Doppler velocity of 3 microns per second. (Ans: H =
4.6x10^-13 m to attain 3 microns/sec).
You are equating h and H unintentionally.
I don't think we can talk any more.

it should *instantaneoulsly* "see" a blue shift v/c = gh/c^2.
But in fact, it doesn't detect such shift, because, *at the height h*,
or more properly, "due to depth h" (photons don't get tired, they
are born that way at the bottom of the well.)
the emitted signal is redshifted by -gh/c^2, a shift which is due to
the Earth gravity.

If you think dropping the detector frees it from gravity,
that's a misconception,

I don't have such misconception.

and as you see there are more fundamental logistic
problems. The Doppler velocity varies and is only true once, and
acceleration is constant but does not impinge on the clock rate.

In a thought experiment, one could consider that the detector has
exactly the velocity gt at the height h.
I agree that such scenario is purely theoretical, but not more that
the situations imagined by Einstein when he derived the Lorentz
transformations.

Marcel Luttgens
John Polasek

wrote:
I think we agreed your blue shift velocity would be gh/c and that it
would be about 3 micro-meters/second and so you can see it's a
temporary condition that is true only for about 1/3d of a microsecond
due to acceleration of g, and never thereafter.

You are perfectly right.

You aren't showing enough algebra, just wrestling with gh/c2
and gh/c.

If, at h, the detector is falling at v = gt = gh/c (thus at a time
t = h/c),

h is the depth of the well about 100 meters, and H is the drop
distance to attain Doppler velocity of 3 microns per second. (Ans: H =
4.6x10^-13 m to attain 3 microns/sec).
You are equating h and H unintentionally.
I don't think we can talk any more.

We have examined the scenario from different points of views, and
perhaps
forgotten that it corresponds to a thought experiment.

Let's remember that, at a time t = 0, an emitter situated at the
Earth's surface sends an EM signal of frequency Nu1 towards a receiver
situated a a height h.
At a time t = h/c, the receiver at h is *assumed* to be freely falling
with a velocity v = gt = gh/c downwards.
In a thought experiment, such assumption is possible.

I would much appreciate if you could talk just a little more,
and respond to the following question:

What is, according to GR, the frequency Nu2 detected by the receiver.
Why?

I hope that you will play fair, and not bring forward your drop
distance H, even if it would be justified if the experiment were
a real one. I know that my question is a tricky one, but your answer
should be of interest to many readers.

OK, you don't react. The following opinions could nevertheless help
you.
You will see that GR is a wonderful tool, those who use it cannot be
wrong!

According to Tom Roberts (see
http://groups.google.fr/group/sci.ph...c966485405a82b
Fri, Apr 14 2006), there are three possible GR explanations:

1) Clocks run the faster the higher they are located in the potential,
whereas the energy and frequency of the propagating photon do not
change with height. The light thus appears to be redshifted relative

to the frequency of the clock.
2) Photons lose energy when they overcome the gravitational attraction
of a massive body or gain energy when they are "attracted" by
a massive body, and the clock position in the gravitational well
plays no role.
3) Both the clock rates vary and the energy/frequency of the light
vary.]

He adds that "GR itself is independent of coordinate choice, but
clock rate, energy, and frequency are not. These interpretations are
based on different choices of coordinates, that's all.
[There are also possible interpretations in which both the
clock rates vary and the energy/frequency of the light vary.]
Note in either interpretation the actual _measurements_ remain the
same.
That's because all physical measurements yield values that are
independent of coordinates."

See also

From: Koobee Wublee
Date: Sat, Apr 1 2006

wrote in message
oups.com...

What is the GR formula giving the frequency shift for the following
case:

Two non-rotating spherical celestial objects 1 and 2 are orbiting along
their common center of gravity.

GR is the most amazing theory ever. It is the only theory out there
which can predict all the following.

** Gravitational red shift through time dilation, g_00
** Gravitational blue shift through radial wavelength, 1 / g_00
** Gravitational no shift through tangential wavelength, 1

Where

** ds^2 = c^2 g_00 dt^2 - dr^2 / g_00 - r^2 dH^2

So, it depends on the experimental data. Whatever it comes out with,
GR can predict it. On a historical note, gravitational red shift was
predicted by Einstein after he declared the Equivalence Principle. It
is nothing more than an event when Einstein finally understood gravity
= acceleration and acceleration = gravity just as Newton had said many
centuries ago. From his derivation of Doppler shift after peeking at
Voigt's paper, Einstein somehow decided v^2 is sort of the same as
acceleration. He thus decided gravitational acceleration as giving the

same effect as if the source of gravitation (the sun, the planet, etc.)

is moving away. Galilean mechanics would tell you that velocity is not

the same as acceleration. This is as basic in the study of physics as
it can get, and yet Einstein screwed it up.

While the faithful believers of GR are patting on each other's back for

the general belief, let's be a little more scientific about addressing
this issue. As you know, energy must be conserved. As Planck has
pointed out which Einstein re-iterated,

E = h f

A photon must retain its energy. Yet, Einstein's wrong analysis
actually gave the correct result from various modern experiments.
While the faithful would argue for Einstein's gifted intuition in this
case, something else must be at work here. The t