Search All of the Math Forum:
Views expressed in these public forums are not endorsed by
NCTM or The Math Forum.



Re: Albert Einstein Institute Inadvertently Disproves Relativity
Posted:
Sep 30, 2017 8:33 AM


Another inadvertent disproval of Einstein's relativity:
Albert Einstein Institute: "One of the three classical tests for general relativity is the gravitational redshift of light or other forms of electromagnetic radiation. However, in contrast to the other two tests  the gravitational deflection of light and the relativistic perihelion shift , you do not need general relativity to derive the correct prediction for the gravitational redshift. A combination of Newtonian gravity, a particle theory of light, and the weak equivalence principle (gravitating mass equals inertial mass) suffices. [...] The gravitational redshift was first measured on earth in 196065 by Pound, Rebka, and Snider at Harvard University..." http://www.einsteinonline.info/spotlights/redshift_white_dwarfs
Newton's particle theory of light says that the speed of falling light varies like the speed of ordinary falling bodies  on the Earth the acceleration of falling photons is g. But this implies that there is no gravitational time dilation. So by confirming the variable speed of light predicted by Newton's theory, the PoundRebka experiment has disproved gravitational time dilation.
Banesh Hoffmann says essentially the same: In a gravitational field "all the clocks go at the same rate" (that is, THERE IS NO GRAVITATIONAL TIME DILATION)  the gravitational redshift "arises from what befalls light signals as they traverse space and time in the presence of gravitation":
Banesh Hoffmann: "In an accelerated sky laboratory, and therefore also in the corresponding earth laboratory, the frequence of arrival of light pulses is lower than the ticking rate of the upper clocks even though all the clocks go at the same rate. [...] As a result the experimenter at the ceiling of the sky laboratory will see with his own eyes that the floor clock is going at a slower rate than the ceiling clock  even though, as I have stressed, both are going at the same rate. [...] The gravitational red shift does not arise from changes in the intrinsic rates of clocks. It arises from what befalls light signals as they traverse space and time in the presence of gravitation." http://www.amazon.com/RelativityItsRootsBaneshHoffmann/dp/0486406768
What "befalls light signals as they traverse space and time in the presence of gravitation"? They accelerate of course, like ordinary falling bodies  as predicted by Newton's emission theory of light and in violation of Einstein's relativity:
"If we accept the principle of equivalence, we must also accept that light falls in a gravitational field with the same acceleration as material bodies." http://sethi.lamar.edu/bahrimcristian/Courses/PHYS4480/4480PROBLEMS/opticsgravitlens_PPT.pdf
University of Illinois at UrbanaChampaign: "Consider a falling object. ITS SPEED INCREASES AS IT IS FALLING. Hence, if we were to associate a frequency with that object the frequency should increase accordingly as it falls to earth. Because of the equivalence between gravitational and inertial mass, WE SHOULD OBSERVE THE SAME EFFECT FOR LIGHT. So lets shine a light beam from the top of a very tall building. If we can measure the frequency shift as the light beam descends the building, we should be able to discern how gravity affects a falling light beam. This was done by Pound and Rebka in 1960. They shone a light from the top of the Jefferson tower at Harvard and measured the frequency shift. The frequency shift was tiny but in agreement with the theoretical prediction. Consider a light beam that is travelling away from a gravitational field. Its frequency should shift to lower values. This is known as the gravitational red shift of light." https://courses.physics.illinois.edu/phys419/sp2011/lectures/Lecture13/L13r.html
Pentcho Valev



