Astronomical Observations Debunk Poud Rebka Experiment

Read it again, the source itself is redshifted , so what does the tell you about observations from anywhere?
Your picture is bollox but a good attempt to defend GR
a reply to: Arbitrageur

Lol, read it again, you are not extrapolating correctly. 'Massive Gravity of the star, reduces the freq. ' So what does that tell you about Time in that gravitational field, and what does GR say about Time in that gravitational field?
Thus GR = Debunked
a reply to: ErosA433

originally posted by: Hyperboles
Read it again, the source itself is redshifted

You're misinterpreting once sentence which talks about how observations from earth appear redshifted and pretending that sentence is somehow an explanation of general relativity. It's not.

To understand general relativity, read the actual theory or a textbook explaining it in more detail.

It's no wonder you're confused if you form your opinions of what general relativity says from random quotes like this taken out of context without studying the actual theory.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

I've been reading this thread trying to figure out what Hyperboles objects to in GR. The tests are self explanatory. The original work by Einstein (which I posted below) is also self explanatory. To date, every experiment has verified GR in some way or another. My question is, does anyone understand why Hyperboles disagrees with GR? Has he ever posted a mathematical challenge to GR? How does one prove that the GR is wrong with experiments? I don't get it.

This is what the experiment was about - and how they did it. What's wrong with their approach? How does it not verify LPI?

LOCAL POSITION INVARIANCE

The main part of this work focuses on the LPI, which states that local nongravitational measurements are independent of their location in spacetime. To test this we use the star S2 as it moves on its eccentric orbit through the gravitational potential of Sgr A*. A violation of the LPI would imply a coupling of fundamental atomic constants, such as the fine structure constant, to the gravitational potential. LPI experiments can therefore be used to constrain coupling constants of different atomic properties [7, 32]. As such couplings are expected to be nonlinear it is especially important to perform such experiments with strong changes in potential. According to the LPI, the gravitational redshift of a clock moving through a weak gravitational field (/c2 ≪ 1) with a varying potential
, depends only on the change of the potential:
/ =
/c2, where  is the clock frequency and
 the shift due to the gravitational potential. The formula implies that the shift in frequency does not depend on the internal structure of the clock, which is another way to formulate the LPI. To test this assumption one introduces a violation to the formula, commonly parametrized as :
  = (1 + )
 c2 (1) To test the LPI with a single type of clock one needs to compare two identical clocks in different gravitational potentials. Alternatively one can measure the frequency change of two non-identical clocks moving through a time-dependent potential (t) = 0 +
(t). In this case a violation of the LPI would again be visible in the fractional frequency difference:

  ! =
2 2 −
1 1 = ( 2 − 1)
(t) c2 =

 c2 (2)

Why is the spectral analysis from the 2019 paper wrong? Can someone explain how the data and observation does not agree with the theory?







To Hyperboles: It took Einstein 10 years to develop his field equations. You have 10 minutes, or 10 hours - take your pick - to come up with yours that disprove Einstein's.

Lol, you are dodging. Now go back to the ques in your thread( ask any ques in physics) about an airplane at 30000 ft receiving radio communications and see your illustrations in this thread, they certainly don't jive with the replies posted there, do they?
a reply to: Arbitrageur

LPI is only a feeble and vain attempt to defend GR. The astronomical observation , is I would say historical in debunking GR after 114 years in that it proves Time runs faster in higher gravity, which is opposite to what GR hypothesises.
a reply to: Phantom423

a reply to: Hyperboles
The airplane at 30,000 feet dealt only with the Earth's gravitational redshift. That was a simpler problem and you didn't seem to understand that.

This is somewhat more involved and involves three masses at least, the Earth, Star S02 and the SuperMassive Black Hole with a mass over a trillion times the mass of the Earth. So it's not just an 800 pound gorilla in the room your reference to the airplane question overlooks, it's the trillion+ earth mass SMBH, quite a bit bigger than a gorilla wouldn't you say? That wasn't in the airplane question.

dodging again. multiple masses or their magnitude don't change any equations
go on dig out the equations you posted there. extrapolate and see the absurdities you encounter on both these threads
a reply to: Arbitrageur

originally posted by: Hyperboles
LPI is only a feeble and vain attempt to defend GR. The astronomical observation , is I would say historical in debunking GR after 114 years in that it proves Time runs faster in higher gravity, which is opposite to what GR hypothesises.
a reply to: Phantom423

Fine. So show the proof. Where's your analysis - your hypothesis, the tensors, the experiment, the results?

originally posted by: Phantom423

originally posted by: Hyperboles
LPI is only a feeble and vain attempt to defend GR. The astronomical observation , is I would say historical in debunking GR after 114 years in that it proves Time runs faster in higher gravity, which is opposite to what GR hypothesises.
a reply to: Phantom423

Fine. So show the proof. Where's your analysis - your hypothesis, the tensors, the experiment, the results?

Lol work it out yourself, time flow in 2 situations of gravitational redshift and gravitational blue shift.
The experiment is the astronomical observation as mentioned in the op

originally posted by: Hyperboles

originally posted by: Phantom423

originally posted by: Hyperboles
LPI is only a feeble and vain attempt to defend GR. The astronomical observation , is I would say historical in debunking GR after 114 years in that it proves Time runs faster in higher gravity, which is opposite to what GR hypothesises.
a reply to: Phantom423

Fine. So show the proof. Where's your analysis - your hypothesis, the tensors, the experiment, the results?

Lol work it out yourself, time flow in 2 situations of gravitational redshift and gravitational blue shift.
The experiment is the astronomical observation as mentioned in the op

Sorry that doesn't work. It's your idea and your hypothesis. It's up to you to demonstrate that Einstein's equations (which I posted above) written in the General Theory are wrong. As far as I can see, the data and the observations from the March 2019 paper match GR. So it's up to you to demonstrate why they're wrong.

Here's a link to the unabridged translation of Einstein, Lorentz, Weyl and Minkowski:

www.amazon.com...=sr_1_2?keywords=the+principle+of+relativity&qid=1554567572&s=g ateway&sr=8-2

Why are all these scientists wrong?

a reply to: Hyperboles
General relativity does contain some ideas which seem non-intuitive and I doubt it's the ultimate theory we will be using 500 years from now, but so far it matches observation with every test we throw at it like the one mentioned in the opening post. The people that understand general relativity like the authors of the research you referenced, and all the other researchers who performed more refined gravitational redshift tests all found them to be consistent with general relativity, and I have not seen any contention of all these tests that can be taken seriously.

You haven't provided any scientific refutation of these experiments. Instead you have misinterpreted a quote from the article about observations from earth instead of trying to research the actual general relativity theory, which it's apparent that you don't understand. It's not the easiest theory in the world to understand but I find the analogy of mass transferring kinetic energy to gravitational potential energy (like the apple thrown up and slowing down) to give the redshift idea an intuitive aspect, when the radio waves traveling up to the airplane at 30000 feet also lose a little energy, also converted to gravitational potential energy.

The gravitational redshift effects occur most strongly close to the mass or masses being considered. Extrapolating creates no absurdities that I can see because the further from the mass, the less significant the effect, which is why we can neglect the supermassive black hole effect when comparing frequencies on the Earth's surface to frequencies at 30,000 feet that an airplane receives. The SMBH is something like 25,000 light years away. You could try to calculate the gravitational redshift effect from the SMBH on the airplane 30,000 feet above earth's surface, but you will find that the delta or change from adding 30,000 feet to ~25,000 light years is negligible. The SMBH effects are not negligible for star S02 in a relatively close orbit to it so this is why we can neglect the SMBH effects in one problem and not neglect them in another problem, even when applying the same theory.

What you think are absurdities resulting from gravitational redshift predictions from general relativity are undoubtedly the result of your lack of understanding of general relativity.

show me from your equations that time slows down in a gravitational field or that em wave redshifts in that field. Both contradict each other , don't they?
a reply to: Phantom423

Lol good attempt word salad. If gravity causes redshift, then the pound rebka expt was wrong, which found gravity causes blue shift. so which of the 2 expts is correct?
a reply to: Arbitrageur

originally posted by: Hyperboles
show me from your equations that time slows down in a gravitational field or that em wave redshifts in that field. Both contradict each other , don't they?
a reply to: Phantom423

I'll prepare something and post later on this morning. As far as redshift is concerned, however, I think it depends on the position of the observer - but as I said, I'll put something together and post later on today.

I'm not an expert like Arbitrageur or Eros, but I like to pull stuff apart and study it - so let's do it.

originally posted by: Hyperboles
show me from your equations that time slows down in a gravitational field or that em wave redshifts in that field. Both contradict each other , don't they?
a reply to: Phantom423

I see no reason why Phantom has to do so... you have thus far provided zero calculations and zero evidence to back up any of your clames for the entirety of your membership and the 4 other previously banned ones either.... so.... gonna start demanding we do your work? Sorry but no because let me predict something in my General Theory of Hyperboles.

"Any statement made by users who disagree with Hyperboles will be met with being called stupid, dodging or idiots."

Evidence needed? Well, you have 764 posts at the time of writing, i think you just need to look at about 600-700 of them to get all the evidence required.

SOoooo gonna provide some math for us? or going to do the usual thing and call us all idiots?

Lol, is that the best you can come up with?
a reply to: ErosA433

originally posted by: Hyperboles
Lol, is that the best you can come up with?
a reply to: ErosA433

Case and point, thanks Hyperboles

originally posted by: ErosA433

originally posted by: Hyperboles
Lol, is that the best you can come up with?
a reply to: ErosA433

Case and point, thanks Hyperboles

You are welcome, mate

originally posted by: Hyperboles
Lol good attempt word salad. If gravity causes redshift, then the pound rebka expt was wrong, which found gravity causes blue shift. so which of the 2 expts is correct?
a reply to: Arbitrageur

So you don't get the throwing the apple analogy?

Throw an apple up, and kinetic energy is converted to gravitational potential energy, it slows down.
Throw an apple down, and gravitational potential energy is converted to kinetic energy, it speeds up.

So your question in the analogy is: "if I throw an apple, does it speed up or does it slow down? I'm confused because in one experiment it speeds up, and in another experiment it slows down".

It's really not that confusing why an apple (or light) gains or loses energy (converted from or to gravitational potential energy), so you're either very easily confused or just pretending to be confused to push your anti-relativity rhetoric.