Einstein interpretation of gravitational redshift is misleading
---------------------------------------------------------------

Excerpts from arXiv: physics/ 9907017 v2 27 Jul 1999

ON THE INTERPRETATION OF THE REDSHIFT IN A STATIC GRAVITATIONAL FIELD
L.B. OKUN and K.G. SELIVANOV
ITEP, Moscow, 117218, Russia
e-mail: ,
and
V.L. TELEGDI
EP Division, CERN, CH - 1211 Geneva 23
e-mail:

Excerpt:

"ABSTRACT

The classical phenomenon of the redshift of light in a static
gravitational potential, usually called the gravitational redshift,
is described in the literature essentially in two ways:

on the one hand the phenomenon is explained through the behaviour
of clocks which 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.

On the other hand the phenomenon is alternatively discussed
(even in some authoritative texts) in terms of an energy loss of
a photon as it overcomes the gravitational attraction of the massive
body. This second approach operates with notions such as the
"gravitational mass" or the "potential energy" of a photon and
we assert that it is misleading.

We do not claim to present any original ideas or to give a
comprehensive review of the subject, our goal being essentially
a pedagogical one."


Let's consider that photons loose energy as they overcome the
gravitational attraction of the Earth:

A light signal of frequency Nu1 is emitted by an atom at rest on the
surface of the earth. The energy of a photon is thus E1 = hNu1 and
its "mass" m = E1/c^2 = hNu1/c^2.

At a height H, i.e. at a distance d = Rearth + H from the Earth's
center, the frequency of the received signal is Nu2, hence the
photon's energy is E2 = hNu2.
Its potential energy is Ep = m * gm * H, where gm = GMearth/(Rearth*d).
From E2 = E1 - Ep, one gets
hNu2 = hNu1 - hNu1/c^2 * GMearth/(Rearth*d) * (d-Rearth)
Nu2 = Nu1 * (1 - GMearth/c^2 * (1/Rearth - 1/d)
The corresponding shift Nu2/Nu1 - 1 = -GMearth/c^2 * (1/Rearth - 1/d),
which is a redshift.

The same shift would be obtained using GR.

To simplify, one could consider, like the authors of the paper did,
that g is approximately constant when H is small.
Then Ep = m * g * H = hNu1/c^2 * g * H (where g = GMearth/Rearth^2)
hNu2 = hNu1 - hNu1/c^2 * g * H = hNu1 (1 - g*H/c^2)
The shift then reduces to -g*H/c^2.

It is easy to show that the interpretation according to which
"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" is wrong.
It suffices to consider the case when the signal receiver is freely
falling.

Excerpt:

"Consider now another situation, when the upper atom (absorber) moves
in the laboratory frame with a velocity v = gH/c downwards. Then in
the elevator frame it will have zero velocity at the moment of
absorption and hence it will be able to absorb the photon resonantly
in complete agreement with experiments [4, 5]. Obviously, in the
elevator frame there is no room for the interpretation of the redshift
in terms of a photon
losing its energy as it climbs out of the gravitational well."

"[4] R.V. Pound and G.A. Rebka, "Apparent weight of photons", Phys.
Rev.
Lett. 4, 337-341 (1960); "Variation with temperature of the energy of
recoil-free gamma rays from solids", Phys. Rev. Lett. 4, 274-275
(1960); "Gravitational red-shift in nuclear resonance", Phys. Rev.
Lett. 3, 439-441 (1959).
[5] R. Pound, Uspekhi Fiz. Nauk 72, 673-683 (1960); "On the weight of
photons", Sov. Phys. Uspekhi 3, 875-883 (1961) (English translation)."

In such situation, for the freely falling absorber, the signal emitted
from the ground would appear *Doppler blue shifted* by gH/c^2 if it
were
not *beforehand* red shifted by gH/c^2 by "the gravitational attraction

of the massive body". Iow, for the absorber, the signal is not shifted
at all. This is a logical proof that the signal is red shifted when
it leaves the emitter.

This proof falsifies Einstein's view:

Excerpt:

"The gravitational redshift is a classical effect of Einstein's
General
Relativity (GR), one predicted by him [1] well before that theory
was created [2] (for the historical background, see e.g., [3]).
Phenomenologically one can simply affirm that the frequency of light
emitted by two identical atoms is smaller for the atom which sits
deeper in the gravitational potential.

[1] A. Einstein, ¨ Ueber das Relativitaetsprinzip und die aus
demselben gezogenen Folgerungen, "Jahrb. d. Radioaktivitaet
u. Elektronik 4, 411-462 (1907); ¨Ueber den Einfluss der
Schwerkraft auf die Ausbreitung des Lichtes, "Ann. Phys. 35, 898-908
(1911).
[2] A. Einstein, "Die Grundlage der allgemeinen Relativitaetstheorie",
Ann. Phys. 49, 769-822 (1916) §22; The Meaning of Relativity
(Princeton
University Press, New York, 1921), Eq.(106).
[3] A. Pais, 'Subtle is the Lord ...', The Science and the Life of
Albert Einstein (Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1982), Chapter 9."


Marcel Luttgens

wrote:
snipped

Idiot **** Eater , here is the directquote from their paper:

"We do not claim to present any original ideas or to give a
comprehensive review of the subject, our goal being essentially
a pedagogical one."


Do you still **** your mother in your free time?

On 13 Jul 2006 05:46:50 -0700, wrote:

Einstein interpretation of gravitational redshift is misleading
---------------------------------------------------------------

Excerpts from arXiv: physics/ 9907017 v2 27 Jul 1999

ON THE INTERPRETATION OF THE REDSHIFT IN A STATIC GRAVITATIONAL FIELD
L.B. OKUN and K.G. SELIVANOV
ITEP, Moscow, 117218, Russia
e-mail: ,
and
V.L. TELEGDI
EP Division, CERN, CH - 1211 Geneva 23
e-mail:

Excerpt:

"ABSTRACT

The classical phenomenon of the redshift of light in a static
gravitational potential, usually called the gravitational redshift,
is described in the literature essentially in two ways:

on the one hand the phenomenon is explained through the behaviour
of clocks which 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.

On the other hand the phenomenon is alternatively discussed
(even in some authoritative texts) in terms of an energy loss of
a photon as it overcomes the gravitational attraction of the massive
body. This second approach operates with notions such as the
"gravitational mass" or the "potential energy" of a photon and
we assert that it is misleading.

We do not claim to present any original ideas or to give a
comprehensive review of the subject, our goal being essentially
a pedagogical one."


Let's consider that photons loose energy as they overcome the
gravitational attraction of the Earth:

A light signal of frequency Nu1 is emitted by an atom at rest on the
surface of the earth. The energy of a photon is thus E1 = hNu1 and
its "mass" m = E1/c^2 = hNu1/c^2.

At a height H, i.e. at a distance d = Rearth + H from the Earth's
center, the frequency of the received signal is Nu2, hence the
photon's energy is E2 = hNu2.
Its potential energy is Ep = m * gm * H, where gm = GMearth/(Rearth*d).
From E2 = E1 - Ep, one gets
hNu2 = hNu1 - hNu1/c^2 * GMearth/(Rearth*d) * (d-Rearth)
Nu2 = Nu1 * (1 - GMearth/c^2 * (1/Rearth - 1/d)
The corresponding shift Nu2/Nu1 - 1 = -GMearth/c^2 * (1/Rearth - 1/d),
which is a redshift.

The same shift would be obtained using GR.

To simplify, one could consider, like the authors of the paper did,
that g is approximately constant when H is small.
Then Ep = m * g * H = hNu1/c^2 * g * H (where g = GMearth/Rearth^2)
hNu2 = hNu1 - hNu1/c^2 * g * H = hNu1 (1 - g*H/c^2)
The shift then reduces to -g*H/c^2.

It is easy to show that the interpretation according to which
"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" is wrong.
It suffices to consider the case when the signal receiver is freely
falling.

Excerpt:

"Consider now another situation, when the upper atom (absorber) moves
in the laboratory frame with a velocity v = gH/c downwards. Then in
the elevator frame it will have zero velocity at the moment of
absorption and hence it will be able to absorb the photon resonantly
in complete agreement with experiments [4, 5]. Obviously, in the
elevator frame there is no room for the interpretation of the redshift
in terms of a photon
losing its energy as it climbs out of the gravitational well."

"[4] R.V. Pound and G.A. Rebka, "Apparent weight of photons", Phys.
Rev.
Lett. 4, 337-341 (1960); "Variation with temperature of the energy of
recoil-free gamma rays from solids", Phys. Rev. Lett. 4, 274-275
(1960); "Gravitational red-shift in nuclear resonance", Phys. Rev.
Lett. 3, 439-441 (1959).
[5] R. Pound, Uspekhi Fiz. Nauk 72, 673-683 (1960); "On the weight of
photons", Sov. Phys. Uspekhi 3, 875-883 (1961) (English translation)."

In such situation, for the freely falling absorber, the signal emitted
from the ground would appear *Doppler blue shifted* by gH/c^2 if it
were
not *beforehand* red shifted by gH/c^2 by "the gravitational attraction

of the massive body". Iow, for the absorber, the signal is not shifted
at all. This is a logical proof that the signal is red shifted when
it leaves the emitter.

This proof falsifies Einstein's view:

Excerpt:

"The gravitational redshift is a classical effect of Einstein's
General
Relativity (GR), one predicted by him [1] well before that theory
was created [2] (for the historical background, see e.g., [3]).
Phenomenologically one can simply affirm that the frequency of light
emitted by two identical atoms is smaller for the atom which sits
deeper in the gravitational potential.

[1] A. Einstein, ¨ Ueber das Relativitaetsprinzip und die aus
demselben gezogenen Folgerungen, "Jahrb. d. Radioaktivitaet
u. Elektronik 4, 411-462 (1907); ¨Ueber den Einfluss der
Schwerkraft auf die Ausbreitung des Lichtes, "Ann. Phys. 35, 898-908
(1911).
[2] A. Einstein, "Die Grundlage der allgemeinen Relativitaetstheorie",
Ann. Phys. 49, 769-822 (1916) §22; The Meaning of Relativity
(Princeton
University Press, New York, 1921), Eq.(106).
[3] A. Pais, 'Subtle is the Lord ...', The Science and the Life of
Albert Einstein (Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1982), Chapter 9."


Marcel Luttgens

If according to GR you maintain c constant, and that a higher clock
runs faster and the frequency is reduced on the way out of a gravity
well, you will calculate a double redshift.

What really happens is that the lowerclock will run slower, the
frequency (and energy) of emission is lower and does not change, but c
increases out of the well, so that the wavelength stretches to give
redshift, without change in frequency.
A comparative higher test clock will see single redshift, because
Nu1as emitted is constant and the higher Nu2 of the upper clock
detects the redshift. (With the latter true I don't also need a
reduction in Nu1 or I get 2 shifts).

Dropping clocks mean nothing; the intensity of the gravity in the well
is the environment that governs clock rate, irrespective of
acceleration. See my website.

John Polasek
http://www.dualspace.net

wrote in message
ups.com...
Einstein interpretation of gravitational redshift is misleading
---------------------------------------------------------------

SNIP

OKUN:

on the one hand the phenomenon is explained through the behaviour
of clocks which 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.

On the other hand the phenomenon is alternatively discussed
(even in some authoritative texts) in terms of an energy loss of
a photon as it overcomes the gravitational attraction of the massive
body. This second approach operates with notions such as the
"gravitational mass" or the "potential energy" of a photon and
we assert that it is misleading.

That is correct.


SNIP

LUTGENS:

It is easy to show that the interpretation according to which
"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" is wrong.

No, that is correct when using a universal reference frame; and the above
article explained it rather well! (It appeared in the AJP if I'm not
mistaken).


LUTGENS:

This proof falsifies Einstein's view:
Excerpt:
"The gravitational redshift is a classical effect of Einstein's General
Relativity (GR), one predicted by him [1] well before that theory
was created [2] (for the historical background, see e.g., [3]).
Phenomenologically one can simply affirm that the frequency of light
emitted by two identical atoms is smaller for the atom which sits
deeper in the gravitational potential.

? As long as they are observed, Phenomena *can't* be falsified...


Harald

wrote in message ups.com...
Einstein interpretation of gravitational redshift is misleading

How would you know?
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/di...es/LutLog.html
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/di...erivation.html
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/di...inlyWrong.html
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/di...idntUseSR.html

Dirk Vdm

wrote:
Einstein interpretation of gravitational redshift is misleading
---------------------------------------------------------------

Excerpts from arXiv: physics/ 9907017 v2 27 Jul 1999

ON THE INTERPRETATION OF THE REDSHIFT IN A STATIC GRAVITATIONAL FIELD
L.B. OKUN and K.G. SELIVANOV
ITEP, Moscow, 117218, Russia
e-mail: ,
and
V.L. TELEGDI
EP Division, CERN, CH - 1211 Geneva 23
e-mail:

Excerpt:

"ABSTRACT

The classical phenomenon of the redshift of light in a static
gravitational potential, usually called the gravitational redshift,
is described in the literature essentially in two ways:
on the one hand the phenomenon is explained through the behaviour
of clocks which 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.

On the other hand the phenomenon is alternatively discussed
(even in some authoritative texts) in terms of an energy loss of
a photon as it overcomes the gravitational attraction of the massive
body. This second approach operates with notions such as the
"gravitational mass" or the "potential energy" of a photon and
we assert that it is misleading.

We do not claim to present any original ideas or to give a
comprehensive review of the subject, our goal being essentially
a pedagogical one."


This proof falsifies Einstein's view:

Excerpt:

"The gravitational redshift is a classical effect of Einstein's
General
Relativity (GR), one predicted by him [1] well before that theory
was created [2] (for the historical background, see e.g., [3]).
Phenomenologically one can simply affirm that the frequency of light
emitted by two identical atoms is smaller for the atom which sits
deeper in the gravitational potential.


I'm sorry, Marcel. I don't see any conflict.
Okun says that redshift is better understood that as a time dilation
effect than as a change of energy effect.
The statement at bottom says the effect occurs. It does not say that
this effect is due to a change of energy.

PD

PD wrote:
wrote:
Einstein interpretation of gravitational redshift is misleading
---------------------------------------------------------------

Excerpts from arXiv: physics/ 9907017 v2 27 Jul 1999

ON THE INTERPRETATION OF THE REDSHIFT IN A STATIC GRAVITATIONAL FIELD
L.B. OKUN and K.G. SELIVANOV
ITEP, Moscow, 117218, Russia
e-mail: ,
and
V.L. TELEGDI
EP Division, CERN, CH - 1211 Geneva 23
e-mail:

Excerpt:

"ABSTRACT

The classical phenomenon of the redshift of light in a static
gravitational potential, usually called the gravitational redshift,
is described in the literature essentially in two ways:
on the one hand the phenomenon is explained through the behaviour
of clocks which 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.

On the other hand the phenomenon is alternatively discussed
(even in some authoritative texts) in terms of an energy loss of
a photon as it overcomes the gravitational attraction of the massive
body. This second approach operates with notions such as the
"gravitational mass" or the "potential energy" of a photon and
we assert that it is misleading.

We do not claim to present any original ideas or to give a
comprehensive review of the subject, our goal being essentially
a pedagogical one."


This proof falsifies Einstein's view:

Excerpt:

"The gravitational redshift is a classical effect of Einstein's
General
Relativity (GR), one predicted by him [1] well before that theory
was created [2] (for the historical background, see e.g., [3]).
Phenomenologically one can simply affirm that the frequency of light
emitted by two identical atoms is smaller for the atom which sits
deeper in the gravitational potential.


I'm sorry, Marcel. I don't see any conflict.
Okun says that redshift is better understood that as a time dilation
effect than as a change of energy effect.
The statement at bottom says the effect occurs. It does not say that
this effect is due to a change of energy.

PD

what redshift

yo misiterpret light bein a wave

it cant be wave in no medium

wave is pressure - underpressure variation
in a medium

take 1d pde equation relating directly to
strings for instance, ther is pressure -
underressure / tension variations in
the material makin up the string

yo can detect tha 1d wave yo being
in a 2d or in 3d

take tha 2d wave pde eqn relatin directly to
the surface of water for instance, the pressures
underpressures takes place again in tha
water material, tha molecules are in pressure -
underpressure also deeper into tha material
not only at surface, but is okay becus only 2d

so yo can see 2d from 3d

in 3d the waves are spherical, 100% plane not
pussible, to see this yu need 4d but yo only have
3d, so yo cant see

light as wave is impossible

its an artifact hundred procent for sure, unless yo
consider propagation thro ether

wrote:
PD wrote:
wrote:
Einstein interpretation of gravitational redshift is misleading
---------------------------------------------------------------

Excerpts from arXiv: physics/ 9907017 v2 27 Jul 1999

ON THE INTERPRETATION OF THE REDSHIFT IN A STATIC GRAVITATIONAL FIELD
L.B. OKUN and K.G. SELIVANOV
ITEP, Moscow, 117218, Russia
e-mail: ,
and
V.L. TELEGDI
EP Division, CERN, CH - 1211 Geneva 23
e-mail:

Excerpt:

"ABSTRACT

The classical phenomenon of the redshift of light in a static
gravitational potential, usually called the gravitational redshift,
is described in the literature essentially in two ways:
on the one hand the phenomenon is explained through the behaviour
of clocks which 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.

On the other hand the phenomenon is alternatively discussed
(even in some authoritative texts) in terms of an energy loss of
a photon as it overcomes the gravitational attraction of the massive
body. This second approach operates with notions such as the
"gravitational mass" or the "potential energy" of a photon and
we assert that it is misleading.

We do not claim to present any original ideas or to give a
comprehensive review of the subject, our goal being essentially
a pedagogical one."


This proof falsifies Einstein's view:

Excerpt:

"The gravitational redshift is a classical effect of Einstein's
General
Relativity (GR), one predicted by him [1] well before that theory
was created [2] (for the historical background, see e.g., [3]).
Phenomenologically one can simply affirm that the frequency of light
emitted by two identical atoms is smaller for the atom which sits
deeper in the gravitational potential.


I'm sorry, Marcel. I don't see any conflict.
Okun says that redshift is better understood that as a time dilation
effect than as a change of energy effect.
The statement at bottom says the effect occurs. It does not say that
this effect is due to a change of energy.

PD

For a freely falling absorber, the signal emitted from the ground
would appear *Doppler blue shifted* by gH/c^2 if it were not
*beforehand* red shifted by gH/c^2 by "the gravitational attraction
of the massive body".

Because of the Doppler effect, one has to accept that the energy and
frequency of the propagating photon change with height, and that clocks
don't run the faster the higher they are located in the potential.

The photon doesn't propagte. Its light does.
http://nobelprize.org/physics/articl...ong/index.html

That is why the Mossbauer
experments are intepreted as changes in nuclear resonance.

R. V. Pound and J. L. Snider, Effect of Gravity on Nuclear
Resonance, Phys. Rev. Lett. 13, 539 (1964). [3] The more
accurate measurement with Snider.

Just consider that the moving masses in the atoms have to
follow more curved paths near the planets surface and that
robs the oscillation of energy, reducing its frequency.
Then you don't get into all the causality issues created by
propagation effects that are patently absurd.

Sue...




Marcel Luttgens

wrote:
PD wrote:
wrote:
Einstein interpretation of gravitational redshift is misleading
---------------------------------------------------------------

Excerpts from arXiv: physics/ 9907017 v2 27 Jul 1999

ON THE INTERPRETATION OF THE REDSHIFT IN A STATIC GRAVITATIONAL FIELD
L.B. OKUN and K.G. SELIVANOV
ITEP, Moscow, 117218, Russia
e-mail: ,
and
V.L. TELEGDI
EP Division, CERN, CH - 1211 Geneva 23
e-mail:

Excerpt:

"ABSTRACT

The classical phenomenon of the redshift of light in a static
gravitational potential, usually called the gravitational redshift,
is described in the literature essentially in two ways:
on the one hand the phenomenon is explained through the behaviour
of clocks which 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.

On the other hand the phenomenon is alternatively discussed
(even in some authoritative texts) in terms of an energy loss of
a photon as it overcomes the gravitational attraction of the massive
body. This second approach operates with notions such as the
"gravitational mass" or the "potential energy" of a photon and
we assert that it is misleading.

We do not claim to present any original ideas or to give a
comprehensive review of the subject, our goal being essentially
a pedagogical one."


This proof falsifies Einstein's view:

Excerpt:

"The gravitational redshift is a classical effect of Einstein's
General
Relativity (GR), one predicted by him [1] well before that theory
was created [2] (for the historical background, see e.g., [3]).
Phenomenologically one can simply affirm that the frequency of light
emitted by two identical atoms is smaller for the atom which sits
deeper in the gravitational potential.


I'm sorry, Marcel. I don't see any conflict.
Okun says that redshift is better understood that as a time dilation
effect than as a change of energy effect.
The statement at bottom says the effect occurs. It does not say that
this effect is due to a change of energy.

PD

For a freely falling absorber, the signal emitted from the ground
would appear *Doppler blue shifted* by gH/c^2 if it were not
*beforehand* red shifted by gH/c^2 by "the gravitational attraction
of the massive body".

Because of the Doppler effect, one has to accept that the energy and
frequency of the propagating photon change with height, and that clocks
don't run the faster the higher they are located in the potential.


I see you learned nothing from reading Lev Okun's article.

PD

"PD" wrote in message ups.com...

wrote:
PD wrote:
wrote:
Einstein interpretation of gravitational redshift is misleading
---------------------------------------------------------------

Excerpts from arXiv: physics/ 9907017 v2 27 Jul 1999

ON THE INTERPRETATION OF THE REDSHIFT IN A STATIC GRAVITATIONAL FIELD
L.B. OKUN and K.G. SELIVANOV
ITEP, Moscow, 117218, Russia
e-mail: ,
and
V.L. TELEGDI
EP Division, CERN, CH - 1211 Geneva 23
e-mail:

Excerpt:

"ABSTRACT

The classical phenomenon of the redshift of light in a static
gravitational potential, usually called the gravitational redshift,
is described in the literature essentially in two ways:
on the one hand the phenomenon is explained through the behaviour
of clocks which 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.

On the other hand the phenomenon is alternatively discussed
(even in some authoritative texts) in terms of an energy loss of
a photon as it overcomes the gravitational attraction of the massive
body. This second approach operates with notions such as the
"gravitational mass" or the "potential energy" of a photon and
we assert that it is misleading.

We do not claim to present any original ideas or to give a
comprehensive review of the subject, our goal being essentially
a pedagogical one."


This proof falsifies Einstein's view:

Excerpt:

"The gravitational redshift is a classical effect of Einstein's
General
Relativity (GR), one predicted by him [1] well before that theory
was created [2] (for the historical background, see e.g., [3]).
Phenomenologically one can simply affirm that the frequency of light
emitted by two identical atoms is smaller for the atom which sits
deeper in the gravitational potential.


I'm sorry, Marcel. I don't see any conflict.
Okun says that redshift is better understood that as a time dilation
effect than as a change of energy effect.
The statement at bottom says the effect occurs. It does not say that
this effect is due to a change of energy.

PD

For a freely falling absorber, the signal emitted from the ground
would appear *Doppler blue shifted* by gH/c^2 if it were not
*beforehand* red shifted by gH/c^2 by "the gravitational attraction
of the massive body".

Because of the Doppler effect, one has to accept that the energy and
frequency of the propagating photon change with height, and that clocks
don't run the faster the higher they are located in the potential.


I see you learned nothing from reading Lev Okun's article.

Marcel learns nothing from anywhere.
We know that since more than 5 years :-)

Dirk Vdm