0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Removing light (massless) from the remit of gravitational potential.
That light 'gets' it's energy from the gravitational field.
Can we agree that the Pound Rebka experiment can possibly be considered indicative that any redshift observations must be being observed at the point of weakest gravity between the light source and the receptor mass?
Distances do not dilate.
Yes... and this is a direct consequence of GR lacking an absolute reference frame in which to place these clocks, (or spectrum in this case).
Again - can we agree that by means of the Pound Rebka experiment, that in viewing a redshifted light source, that we must indeed be viewing light at the point of weakest gravity field between the body of mass of the light source and the mass of our solar system...
GR can't describe an absolute reference frame because there isn't one, and its nonexistence is the basis of GR.
No. We have no idea where the minimum is and it certainly isn't on the surface of the earth.GR can't describe an absolute reference frame because there isn't one, and its nonexistence is the basis of GR.
P.S. Ethos, you are aware that GR has problems describing our universe? That GR is a theory of gravity, and that gravity has yet to be linked to quantum, or the Maxwell equations? Because if not, then please go read "The Trouble With Physics" Lee Smolin, before you make further comment here.
Far as I am aware, the experiment showed that: light moving from bottom to top of tower is redshifted from both perspectives, and light moving from top to bottom of tower is blue shifted from both perspectives.
Quote from: timey on 21/02/2016 02:29:52Far as I am aware, the experiment showed that: light moving from bottom to top of tower is redshifted from both perspectives, and light moving from top to bottom of tower is blue shifted from both perspectives.No, it showed that the gravitational blueshift of a "falling" photon could be measured by matching it with the Doppler shift of a moving Mossbauer target.