Deutsch English Français Italiano |
<676340b2$1$29715$426a74cc@news.free.fr> View for Bookmarking (what is this?) Look up another Usenet article |
Path: ...!3.eu.feeder.erje.net!2.eu.feeder.erje.net!feeder.erje.net!feeder1-2.proxad.net!proxad.net!feeder1-1.proxad.net!cleanfeed3-a.proxad.net!nnrp1-2.free.fr!not-for-mail Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity Subject: Re: Gravitational time dilation HOAX along the years From: nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) Reply-To: jjlxa31@xs4all.nl (J. J. Lodder) Date: Wed, 18 Dec 2024 22:37:54 +0100 References: <84deac76f160f1f681f5275e10d7e683@www.novabbs.com> <e47a7acd067fb390d71e6fc9b6a76061@www.novabbs.com> <snA8P.4$511.3@fx08.ams4> <d5b6c7336db1a2bbf3805d67372fc551@www.novabbs.com> Organization: De Ster Mail-Copies-To: nobody User-Agent: MacSOUP/2.8.5 (ea919cf118) (Mac OS 10.12.6) Lines: 87 Message-ID: <676340b2$1$29715$426a74cc@news.free.fr> NNTP-Posting-Date: 18 Dec 2024 22:37:54 CET NNTP-Posting-Host: 213.10.137.58 X-Trace: 1734557874 news-3.free.fr 29715 213.10.137.58:54732 X-Complaints-To: abuse@proxad.net Bytes: 4249 rhertz <hertz778@gmail.com> wrote: > On Wed, 18 Dec 2024 13:48:34 +0000, Paul B. Andersen wrote: > > > Den 17.12.2024 23:58, skrev rhertz: > >> Einstein wrote, in his 1911 paper: > >> > >> ..................................... > >> 3. Time and the Velocity of Light in the Gravitational Field > >> > >> If the radiation emitted in the uniformly accelerated system K0 in S2 > >> toward S1 had the frequency f2 relative to the clock at S2, then, > >> relative to S1, at its arrival at S1 it no longer has the frequency f2 > >> relative to an identical clock at S1, but a greater frequency f1, such > >> that, to a first approximation > >> > >> (2) f1 = f2 (1 + gh/c?) > >> > >> *************************************************************************** > >> > >> (2') h?f1 = f2 (1 + gh/c?) > >> > >> > >> (2'') E1(1 photon) - E2 (1 photon) = h?f2 gh/c? > >> > >> > >> h?: Planck's constant > >> > >> S2 is a point on the z axis at a distance h of point S1, located at the > >> z origin. > >> > >> Einstein described how a photon falling vertically from a height h, > >> under gravity acceleration g, gained energy gh/c?. It meant that the > >> photon's frequency was blue-shifted while it fell due to gravity. > >> > >> By that epoch (1911), he kept talking about clocks as reference of time. > >> By today standards and the use of ANY atomic clock, the frequency of the > >> EM energy is what counts in his theory. It doesn't matter what kind of > >> EM clock is, as it ONLY counts cycles/sec of such EM energy, either at > >> 9.6 Ghz for Cesium, 1.4 Ghz for Hydrogen maser or ANY derived frequency > >> that is obtained by digitally down scaling the frequency. The same > >> formula applies to 9.6 Ghz oscillation or a derived 1 Mhz signal. Clocks > >> just COUNT pulses. > > > > Forget the 1911 paper. > > > > Einstein's last word on the matter is GR. > > > > What GR predicts for the Pound - Rebka experiment: > > > > https://paulba.no/pdf/PoundRebka.pdf > > > > --------------- > > > > Let's count pulses. > > > > We have two equal, very precise atomic clocks. > > These clocks are emitting the exact frequency f = 10 GHz. > > We place one clock on the ground, and the other clock above > > it in a tower with height h = 22.56 m. > > > > After one day the ground clock will show ?? = 86400 s > > and it will have emitted N? = 0.864e15 cycles. > > > > The clock on the ground will have received: > > N? = N??(1+g?h/c?) = N??(1+2.5e-15) = (0.864e15 + 2) > > which means that that the clock in the tower will show: > > ?? = 86400 s + 0.2 ns > > > > After one year ?? - ?? = 78.2 ns > > > Your comment is worthless, as you're ACCEPTING THAT EINSTEIN WAS RIGHT > IN 1911. Of course he was, in the Newtonian limit of GR. > Then, your calculations based on the 1911 formula shows a parasitic > dependence on Einstein's words, without ANY SINGLE PROOF IN 113 YEARS. Nonsense. Most GR textbooks (see MTW for example) give a derivation of the Newtonian limit of GR. And for all practical purposes the Newtonian limit is adequate. (excepting only neutron stars and black holes) [snip the same nonsense in more words] Jan