On May 22, 4:56 am, Rock Brentwood <markw...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Pound-Rebka experiment
Proposed by R. V. Pound and G. A. Rebka Jr. in 1959,[1]
A gravitational redshift experiment, which measures the redshift of
light moving in a gravitational field, or, equivalently, a test of the
general relativity prediction that clocks should run at different
rates at different places in a gravitational field. It is considered
to be the experiment that ushered in an era of precision tests of
general relativity.
[...]
GR predicts gravitational red, blue, or no shift depending on which
element of the metric employed to do so. Thus speaking, this
experiment proves only one of the contradictory predictions of GR.
shrug
Experimental confirmation of time dilation:
The routine work carried on in particle accelerators since the 1950s,
such as those at CERN, is a continuously running test of the time
dilation of special relativity. Specifically the mass-momentum-energy
relation E^2 - (pc)^2 = (mc^2)^2 is verified (equivalent to the
kinetic energy formula p^2 - 2mT - (1/c)^2 T^2 = 0 for kinetic energy
T) is verified in the particle trajectories resulting from particle
collision processes, while p^2 - 2mT = 0 is ruled out.
In gravitational red shift under gravitational time dilation, the
energy of a photon decreases. Under time dilation of SR, energy
increases. Thus, it should be so obvious to conclude that time
dilation does not necessary have anything to do with energy. Thus,
this experiment trying to use energy to prove time dilation is very
lame.
Specific experiments:
Ives and Stilwell (1938, 1941), "An experimental study of the rate of
a moving clock", in two parts. These experiments measured the Doppler
shift of the radiation emitted from cathode rays, when viewed from
directly in front and from directly behind.
The high and low frequencies detected were not the classical values
predicted, while the Lorentz factor was confirmed.
This does not prove the Lorenz transform valid. There are other
transformations out there that incorporates the so called gamma factor
or 1 / sqrt(1 - v^2 / c^2). For example, the transformation that the
Lorenz transform evolved from is the Voigt transform which predates
the Lorentz transform by at least one decade.
Rossi and Hall (1941) compared the population of cosmic-ray produced
muons at the top of a mountain to that observed at sea level. Although
the travel time for the muons from the top of the mountain to the base
is several muon half-lives, the muon sample at the base was only
moderately reduced.
That is to say, the muons are decaying about 10 times slower than they
would in a rest frame (that is, for "stationary observers").
[A more striking example of this is the existece of neutrons -- which
have a half life of only about 10 minutes coming across light years
distance from deep interstellar space]
Now, if you get prove the world also slow down by 10 times looking
from the muon's point of view, then you are said to have proven the
validity of the Lorentz transform. In the meantime, you just have
farce. <shrug
Hasselkamp, Mondry, and Scharmann (1979) measured the Doppler shift
from a source moving at right angles to the line of sight (the
transverse Doppler shift).
Stronger than the Ives-Stillwell experiment: there is no classical
transverse Doppler shift.
The Hasselkamp experiment has very little coverage in English. It is
rather difficult to evaluate the merit of this experiment.
Hefele and Keating, in 1971, flew cesium atomic clocks east and west
around the Earth in commercial airliners, to compare the elapsed time
against that of a clock that remained at the US Naval Observatory.
The Hefele-Keating experiment after nulling out the effect of
gravitational time dilation proves the principle of relativity wrong.
Properly interpreting the result of this experiment really spells out
the doom for validity of the Lorentz transform and the BS (also known
as SR) that is based on this mathematics. <shrug
In 2005, the National Physical Laboratory in the United Kingdom,
report their limited replication of this experiment. The NPL
experiment differed from the original in that the cesium clocks were
sent on a shorter trip (London-Washingon D. C. return), but the clocks
were more accurate. The reported results are within 4% of the
predictions of relativity.
This spells more trouble for SR.
The Global Positioning System can be considered a continuously
operating experiment in both special and general relativity. The in-
orbit clocks are corrected for both special and general relativistic
time-dilation effects so they run at the same (average) rate as clocks
at the surface of the Earth. In addition, but not directly time-
dilation related, general relativistic correction terms are built into
the model of motion that the satellites broadcast to receivers -
uncorrected, these effects would result in an approximately 7-metre
oscillation in the pseudo-ranges measured by a receiver over a cycle
of 12 hours.
This is a total myth (basically a lie) that GR is employed into the
design of GPS. See below.
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/GPS/GPS.htm
