Astronomical Observations Debunk Poud Rebka Experiment

a reply to: Hyperboles

It is basically what i said it to be - Using my Cell Phone, sticking my head out of the window, I took pictures on the 3rd floor of the building and another outside on the ground, in a short time span as I could...
The photos where taken AT the sun, with the cell phone set to fixed white balance to prevent any artificial colour shift, iso 100 (lowest it goes on mine) and a ev value of -2 to give me the lowest exposure the camera will do. Each photo has the sun in frame a top left, Time of day was 12:15 local. The Phone used as a somewhat old Samsung Galaxy S4 mini, has a 8M pixel CCD.

Drawing a circle around the centre Sun at 500 pixels and a colour reading made with Apple Digital Colour Meter in order to get the RGB measurements. The measurement is taken along a line directly toward the ground a hillside feature visible in each photograph in order to sample the same spot of sky. The tool is nice as it allows an average to be taken over a range of pixels. The error bar i placed comes from moving the sample point around to give a sense of how much the bit values change over the range.

a huge waste of 10 minutes i might add, in order to prove something that anyone with half a brain cell should be able to tell... and with more of an explanation than you did in that paper...

Photo 1 - Approximate height difference 38ft above ground level
RGB value at the Sun - Saturated
R = 255
G = 255
B = 255
Photometric measurement is thus useless
500 pixels away
R = 56 +-2
G = 94 +-2
B = 120 +-2
RGB values not saturated

Photo 2 - At ground level
RGB value at the sun - Saturated
R = 255
G = 255
B = 255
Photometric measurement is thus useless
500 pixels away, approximately same spot
R = 50 +- 2
G = 85 +- 2
B = 108 +- 2

So the colour changed... OR did it? Well it turns out what actually changed was the brightness of the shot, not the actual colour. If we take each value for R G and B and find the ratio between each measurement we get
R2/R1 = 0.893
G2/G1 = 0.904
B2/B1 = 0.900

The average of which is 0.899 well within the pixel noise showing there is no shift in colour but a shift in brightness.
When applying the average as a correction we get - We should also round to the nearest pixel since the bit depth of the image is 0-255
Rc = 55.6 -> 56
Gc = 94.5 -> 95
Bc =120.1 -> 120

OK so conclusion after way way way way way more effort than the author of the paper did, with a much more scientific explanation for the measurement, how it was performed and how the data was gathered...

While the sky is not a discrete source using it in this manner still makes sense since any shift due to altitude above surface to change the local gravitational field should shift the source of all light. As The sky's blue colour during the day originates from scattering and a long pathlength of sunlight through it, we would expect the same shift in spectrum as predicted by the paper... according to the paper this shift should be huge, so we should see it in the sky spectrum.

Following the train of thought in the paper if it is red shifted we expect more red and blue, more blue... what I have shown, despite my statement that a CCD is not at all a spectrometry instrument, that even on its own terms, the paper is a fine example of poor understanding of not only CCD bit depth, but also instrumentation, experimentation and analysis. I genuinely fear for the lives of those the author sailed with as a engineer of the merchant navy, or instructed during flight school...


Note
I can do the same measurement with greater bit depth using a Nikon D610 and the sun, with a lens stopped down and a fast shutter so I am not burning the CMOS chip, all settings on manual as not to artificially reweighs the colours... I predict exactly the same outcome of... no change at all... If i feel like wasting my time to prove someone who doesn't understand the concept of a spectrometer... i might re-do it.

Furthermore, this panel shows you the colour shift as claimed on the paper.... this is extremely idiotic to believe to be true. If it was true, you would expect that on a flight, the sun should basically be a deep red colour since if 35ft gives you such a extreme red-shift, flying at 40,000 ft would give you something absolutely insane.

Clearly something is wrong with the claim being made in the Nochzwei, Angelic Resurrection, Savvy84 , (and also probably) Hyperboles, paper and their claim of being a flight instructor. Last time i was on an aircraft the sun didn't turn a rich red colour and fade out into infra red due to the altitude change........

just a quicky from the top of my head
hold camera in a jig
set white balance to half scale at 130 each
soften the photons, receive them at a slant
btw the sun blueshifts when you go up, not redshifts
thanks for your effort tho
a reply to: ErosA433

a reply to: Hyperboles

Oh yes sorry wrong way around... so anyway, my data shows the measurement is wrong, and also that using a camera to take such measurement is also wrong because it isn't a spectrometer. All it shows is that the author has no idea about saturation and bit depth.

Also... Set White balance to half scale at 130 each... means nothing white balance is a temperature
soften the photons... recieve them at a slant... again...actually doesn't really help

The same statement remains even the opposite way around... ever been on a flight? you claim to be a pilot so, is the sun a lovely blue colour when you are in the clouds? the prediction made says it would be.

Crazy thread, I've never read such a complex and intense attempt to show the difference between coming and going.

I want to see if I've got this....

Coming : when a photon is heading towards a large mass object it gets blue shifted as it approaches due to increasing gravity and the added energy of gravities pull.

Going : a photon red shifts when traveling away from a large mass object due to the drag of gravity and the loss of energy needed to escape it.

Double post....

a reply to: nemonimity
Yes that's the general idea though I think part of what confused hyperboles is that in his question about an airplane at 30,000 feet, you can make a decent approximation of the amount of blueshift of photons going from the airplane to the ground based radio without considering a change in gravity, because gravity is not that much different at 30,000 feet. So the "as it approaches due to increasing gravity" is part of it, however from the airplane to the ground an increase in gravity is not the main reason photons gets blue-shifted, you can approximate the shift from a conversion of gravitational potential energy to energy of the photon, which is a decent approximation. So hyperboles read that answer and the "approximation" part didn't register and now he thinks relativity is wrong because he thought that approximation example of the airplane was supposed to apply to all distances. It wasn't. He asked about the airplane and he got a good answer about an approximate shift value for the airplane. Then he took that answer and said "but that doesn't work if you're talking about being lots of light years away."

He's right that approximation doesn't hold at very large distances like light years, but that wasn't the question he asked, he asked about an airplane, and he got a good answer to that specific question. So I gave him a more precise equation instead of an approximation, expressed in the "coming" form as you put it, and now hyperpoles can't seem to grasp that same effect is reversed when the photon is "going" like you figured out.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

I have to give it to yourself and the others in the thread, you have the patience of saints, I don't think I could stay in the game as long as you all have and remain level headed, good on you guys for spreading the knowledge in a friendly and decent manner..

a reply to: Hyperboles

Just for s**t's and giggles, a thought experiment on red and blue shifts. Now, presuming matter could travel at the speed of light (which is highly improbable, but for this experiment it can), two jupiter sized objects are in play. One travelling towards you and at a distance of about 50 million miles, the other travelling away from you at 1 million miles, both are travelling at the speed of light. Which can you see, both or none?

Now, let's say, the object travelling towards you has spectral emissions of 900nm (infrared) and 650nm (visible red) and is travelling at half the speed of light. The object moving away from you has spectral emissions of 450nm (visible blue) and 325nm (high ultraviolet). Can you see them and if so, what colour are they?

Travelling at a percentage of the speed of light creates a relativistic change in the measurable wavelength. Redshift would be caused by an object travelling away from the observer. It is questionable as to whether spatial expansion would create an actual Redshift as expansion is generally uniform and effects everything proportionally within the area of expansion (universe). During expansion, wavelengths would be longer in an absolute sense, but in a relativistic sense would remain the same. This applies to spatial compression and blueshift as well. Redshift and blueshift require that the object is moving relative to its environment and not subject to expansion or contraction of the surrounding space (unless it is localized expansion/contraction and not universal). We should see blueshift during consumption by a black hole and we do in the form of xrays and gamma Ray's.

Cheers - Dave

a reply to: nemonimity

You can likely tell i lost most of my patience long ago... but... you know... so far iv proved his paper on the colour of sun light to be totally incorrect, and all i got back was some unintelligible babble about white balance and a "Nice effort"

You know... not a... oh hey, you are right this is interesting, just a side step. Going to repeat the experiment today because, i like to waste time apparently.

a reply to: ErosA433

And yet you persevere! I know how draining it can be trying to point out errors we make, we're not great at seeing past our own thought process breakdowns, but still, I think you guys did a bang up job without letting it descend into insults and ( i guess ironically) hyperbole..

Haha well the D610 with a 105 macro, set at iso 50, shutter speed to 4000 still results in a saturated CMOS, so just how it is expected that a standard phone camera ccd is able to disprove GR based on a hugely over saturated CCD is... beyond all logical reasoning.

If I have a ND filter ill see about using it.

Lol, blue shift means blue color to you, does it?
a reply to: ErosA433

there is no coming or going with photons. higher gravity means redshift and vice versa. the direction which the photon is going is immaterial.
a reply to: nemonimity

as I said earlier, no unidirectional equations are allowed in physics.
a reply to: Arbitrageur

hey mate, read up on Doppler shifts. what gravity does to the shifts, I have explained above
a reply to: bobs_uruncle

a reply to: Hyperboles

I think all that photons do is come and go, and its definitely material as the direction the photon is traveling will determine which mediums it passes through.

originally posted by: nemonimity
a reply to: Hyperboles

I think all that photons do is come and go, and its definitely material as the direction the photon is traveling will determine which mediums it passes through.

that's true, the medium for the most part is empty space. tho space does contain dust and atmosphere near planets and stars

a reply to: Hyperboles

That's my thinking, I'm not sure that we've ever observed it but I wouldn't be surprised if there's a lot more red and blue shifting that goes on especially for far off light sources, probably a lot of frequency changes over the course of a photons life as it passes through the galaxy.

originally posted by: Hyperboles
hey mate, read up on Doppler shifts. what gravity does to the shifts, I have explained above
a reply to: bobs_uruncle

You didn't answer my questions lol. On another comment you made...

"there is no coming or going with photons. higher gravity means redshift and vice versa. the direction which the photon is going is immaterial."

The direction a photon is travelling relative to the observer is quite material and relevant to the observed change in frequency.

Cheers - Dave