The Math Forum

Search All of the Math Forum:

Views expressed in these public forums are not endorsed by NCTM or The Math Forum.

Math Forum » Discussions » sci.math.* » sci.math

Notice: We are no longer accepting new posts, but the forums will continue to be readable.

Replies: 3   Last Post: Aug 20, 2014 2:19 AM

Advanced Search

Back to Topic List Back to Topic List Jump to Tree View Jump to Tree View   Messages: [ Previous | Next ]
Pentcho Valev

Posts: 6,212
Registered: 12/13/04
Posted: Aug 20, 2014 2:19 AM
  Click to see the message monospaced in plain text Plain Text   Click to reply to this topic Reply

A desperately lying Einsteinian (who has not yet left the sinking ship):
Brian Koberlein: "When we shine the flashlight upward, Newtonian gravity would say that the light is unaffected, since light is massless, but under general relativity light is affected by gravity, so as the light travels upward it must lose energy. But how is that possible if it can't slow down?"

Newtonian gravity would not say so, Brian Koberlein. It says that, in a gravitational field, the speed of light varies like the speed of ordinary bodies - this is confirmed by the Pound-Rebka experiment:
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 1960-65 by Pound, Rebka, and Snider at Harvard University..."
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign: "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."

As for Einstein's general relativity, it says that, in a gravitational field, the speed of light varies twice as fast as the speed of ordinary bodies (see references up in the thread) - this makes it incompatible with (refuted by) the Pound-Rebka experiment.

Pentcho Valev

Point your RSS reader here for a feed of the latest messages in this topic.

[Privacy Policy] [Terms of Use]

© The Math Forum at NCTM 1994-2018. All Rights Reserved.