| Deutsch English Français Italiano |
|
<33d24e0725bce6be67ef33c1745c087b@www.novabbs.com> View for Bookmarking (what is this?) Look up another Usenet article |
Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!i2pn.org!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: hertz778@gmail.com (rhertz) Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity Subject: Re: The HOAX of GR effects in GPS and other artificial satellites, Date: Fri, 20 Sep 2024 23:10:04 +0000 Organization: novaBBS Message-ID: <33d24e0725bce6be67ef33c1745c087b@www.novabbs.com> References: <55dd6d7aedf3d92af90dfb33b2854ef5@www.novabbs.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Info: i2pn2.org; logging-data="2819737"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org"; posting-account="hWiuCAeR3KEZYJfTvV11n0qrRi6oqW/zjvEZQQGun9A"; User-Agent: Rocksolid Light X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0 X-Rslight-Site: $2y$10$tJw0lFvPO6U3J1LAkJ41YuaOXndKcQ4LJ4zD5W5MXzf6ODFjvERFK X-Rslight-Posting-User: f685b96694175b2ad43ead343ead0a9c0082fe88 Bytes: 6391 Lines: 157 Extract from the OP: ************************************************************************ In particular, and derived from 110 years old Schwarzchild's solution to a VERY BASIC PROBLEM, it has been widely spread between relativistic circles that ANY CLOCK raised to ANY HEIGHT above ground presents a time or frequency difference (gravitational blue shift, from Schwarzschild metric) of: Δf/f = (GMe/c²) (1/R - 1/a) , where R is the Earth's radius and "a" is the height of the clock above ground. The above equation came from 1911 Einstein's paper, ratified later in 1915 through GR, that THE GRAVITATIONAL POTENTIAL Φ = -GMe/R affects EM radiation by a factor Φ/c², increasing its energy (as the clock is raised) to a value of Eo (1 + Φ/c²), where Eo is the energy at ground level. ************************************************************************ Actually, in 1911 Einstein (Point 2. On the Gravitation of Energy) imagined a "light-generator" above the ground level, sending light downward with an energy E2. The actual formula (N° 1a) was: E1 = E2 (1 + Φ/c²), where Φ = -GMe/r; r: distance to the center of Earth. He wrote: ******************************************************* The theory of relativity shows that the inertial mass of a body increases with the energy it contains; if the increase of energy amounts to E, the increase in inertial mass is equal to E=c2, where c denotes the velocity of light. Now, is there an increase of gravitational mass corresponding to this increase of inertial mass? If not, then a body would fall in the same gravitational field with varying acceleration according to the energy it contained. And then the highly satisfactory result of the theory of relativity, by which the law of the conservation of mass leads to the law of conservation of energy, could not be maintained, because it would compel us to abandon the law of the conservation of mass in its old form for inertial mass, but maintain it for gravitational mass. This must be regarded as very improbable. ............................... HE CONTINUED HIS THOUGHTS Therefore, by the ordinary theory of relativity the radiation arriving at S1 does not possess the energy E2, but a greater energy E1, which is related to E2; to a first approximation, by the equation: ****************************************************** S2 and S1 are MATERIAL systems located on the z axis of a system K. S2 system contains the light generator above the origin of z axis in the system of reference K, which is placed in a homogeneous gravitational field. By SR theory PLUS the equivalence principle, he used a system K', which was placed in a gravity-free environment, but it's moving with constant acceleration along the positive z axis. The KEY POINT is what he wrote after the above text: "At the moment when the radiation energy E2 is emitted from S2 toward S1, let the velocity of K´ relative to K0 be zero. The radiation will arrive at S1 when the time h/c has elapsed (to a first approximation). But at this moment the velocity of S1 relative to K0 is h/c = v. Therefore E1 = E2 (1 + v/c) = E2 (1 + Yh/c²) OR E1 = E2 (1 + Φ/c²), where Φ = -GMe/r ********************************************************* From the messy considerations that he wrote in Point 2, it emerges the idea (accepted by Pound and Rebka EVEN by 1961) that PHOTONS HAD MASS, and that such (electromagnetic) mass was: M2 = E2/c² And that, after falling a distance h with acceleration Y, that mass was M1 = E1/c² By 1911, it was accepted that a quanta of energy (later photon) possessed energy E = hf. It was easy to accept that, due to the formulae E1 = E2 (1 + Φ/c²) = E2 (1 + Yh/c²) then hf1 = hf2 (1 + Φ/c²) = hf2 (1 + Yh/c²) or, finally (and JUST FOR ONE PHOTON) f1 = f2 (1 + Φ/c²) = f2 (1 + Yh/c²) OR THAT f1 - f2 = Δf = f2 Yh/c² = f2 gh/c², which is the widely used formula for gravitational red/blue shifting Δf/f2 = gh/c² (used by Pound-Rebka, with h = 22.1 meters). Or, in a more complete form (Mudrak 2017) Δf/f = (GMe/c²) (1/R - 1/a) ; R: Earth's radius, a: height of satellite. ***************************************************************** Besides all of the above 100 years old narrative (or fairy tale), there is ONE QUESTION that emerges: The above subjects were derived from the original thought of ONE PHOTON descending on the z axis of the reference. My question is: What if AN INCREDIBLE ENERGETIC BEAM OF COHERENT LIGHT took the same path? Say something like 1,000,000,000 TeraEv? Would Earth's gravitational field have ANY significant role on this? Because SR and GR are based mainly in times, lengths and gravity. But it doesn't work well accounting energy (like the one of the light). I extend my doubts to the case of light deflection grazing Sun's surface. WHAT IF AN INCREDIBLY ENERGETIC LIGHT, FROM A SUPERNOVA EXPLOSION, IS MEASURED WHEN GRAZING THE SUN'S SURFACE. Would relativists still consider that it is going to be deflected by 1.75 seconds of an arc? Assume that the far supernova has a luminosity much greater than Venus, observed from the Earth. Questions, doubts, no accountability, narratives, fairy tales, pseudoscience. That's what relativity is, and much more.