xyzt

This is where your thread belongs, you did not ask a question, you pushed your fringe misconceptions, over and over despite being given quite clear answers. The responsibility for your thread being moved is all yours, you have been given mainstream answers, some containing a lot of detail that you persisted in ignoring.

Since this thread has degenerated into an incessant trolling on the same fringe claims, I would like to restore it to a semblamce of science. The above expressions for frequency change can be found in a slightly different form, a form that illustrates the differential influences. Indeed, if one uses a Taylor expansion, one gets: [math]\frac{f_2}{f_1}=0.5((r_s/r_2-r_s/r_1)+(dr^2/(cdt)^2)/(1-r_s/r_2)-(dr^2/(cdt)^2)/(1-r_s/r_1)+((v_2/c)^2-(v_1/c)^2))[/math] The above form applies only when [math]r_s/r[/math], [math]v[/math], etc are much smaller than 1 (which is often the case). Since the gravitational potential is expressed as [math]\Phi=-\frac{k}{r}[/math], one can also see the form: [math]\frac{f_2}{f_1}=0.5((\Phi_1-\Phi_2)+(dr^2/(cdt)^2)/(1-r_s/r_2)-(dr^2/(cdt)^2)/(1-r_s/r_1)+((v_2/c)^2-(v_1/c)^2))[/math] or [math]\frac{f_2}{f_1}=0.5((\Phi_1-\Phi_2)(1+(v_r/c)^2)+((v_2/c)^2-(v_1/c)^2))[/math] frequency ratio [math]\frac{d \tau_1}{d \tau_2}=0.5((\Phi_1-\Phi_2)(1+(v_r/c)^2)+((v_2/c)^2-(v_1/c)^2))[/math] clock period ratio where [math]v_r=\frac{dr}{dt}[/math], [math]v_i=r_i\frac{d \theta}{dt}[/math] are respectively the radial and the tangential speeds. To fix the ideas, the term [math](\Phi_1-\Phi_2)(1+(v_r/c)^2)[/math] (called "gravitational term") has always the opposite sign from the term [math](v_2/c)^2-(v_1/c)^2[/math] (called "kinematic term"). There is a certain altitude where the two terms cancel each other. For example, if [math]r_2>r_1[/math] then [math](v_2/c)^2-(v_1/c)^2>0 [/math] and [math]\Phi_1-\Phi_2 <0[/math]. For example, the above is seen in the explanation of the Hafele-Keating experiment. Wiki used to host some not so bad, not so good equations on HK but they removed them, so I thought I'd post the correct equations. Lastly, the above methodology (using the Schwarzschild metric) works equally well for the case when the experiment takes place within the Earth shell, like in a mineshaft. The only thing that need to be done is the replacement of the external Schwarzschild solution with the internal one. This is done trivially by replacing the exterior gravitational potential with the gravitational potential inside the Earth into the Schwarzschild solution. Actually, this approach is so general that it allows for the source and the observer to be situated on opposing sides of the Earth crust.

This is not what you have been saying. If you do not realize what you are saying then this is an even bigger problem. See below: Actually , in BOTH 1 AND 2, the flashes are received at the SAME interval. The above is just ONE of your many distortions of basic physics.

It is not clear how you consistently manage to get things wrong: 1. In the frame of the emitter (atom) the frequency does not change 2. In the frame of the receiver, the frequency is detected as being either blue or red shifted, depending on the gravitational potential difference (difference in the Schwarzschild radial coordinate). 3. All em radiation (light included) is affected the same way. Take a break from posting while you try to learn the above.

You are making these false claims. And you do it repeatedly, despite the fact that several of us have corrected you.

You keep repeating this false claim, several of us have debunked your claim. The radiation is received at a frequency lower than the value at which it was emitted. You keep repeating this other false claim, light frequency is affected the same way as any other em radiation. I have shown you the exact equations that account for the gravitational redshift.

Einstein's view from 1911 is not GR. You can stop beating this particular strawman. There are no such "deficiencies". The only deficiency is in your understanding.

Then, you have no foot to stand on. The language of the ENTIRE physics, not only GR is math. You don't know the math, you have no valid argument. Period.

Thank you. One cannot EVER let real science get in the way of fringe misconceptions

It is clear that you do not understand what you are posting.

No, it doesn't, it suffers a form of frequency shift akin to the Doppler effect. I gave you the exact mathematical description, why do you keep repeating the same fallacy? If what you were saying were true, GPS wouldn't work. Since it works, it means that you keep making the same false claim.

You realize that everybody else, not just me, has figured out that you have no clue and that your "theory" is just hot air. I asked you a few predictions , you couldn't do even one. How about the calculation of the advancement of the perihelion of Mercury? If you cannot do it, just admit it.

You are not a scientist, so you cannot pass valid judgement.

Ignorance is no excuse, you don't get to make up your own terms, at odds with mainstream science.

Of course it doesn't, if it did, it would be reason for you to cease trolling. And you can't allow this to happen, you need to keep posting ad nauseaum. Were you aware that the model IS the math? No? Fact is that it HASN'T. So, you can stop beating the poor strawman. The explanation I gave you is the standard, contemporary explanation for : GPS, gravitational time dilation (Pound Rebka), "twins paradox" or differential total elapsed proper time (Hafele-Keating, Vessot).

All electromagnetic radiations are affected EQUALLY. So, you can stop beating the strawman "light itself is not affected by this curvature". One of the tenents of logic is that , if you start with garbage assumptions, you can end up with any conclusions, in most cases garbage as well. Here is the standard proof: All periodical processes are affected equally by gravitation. Start with the Schwarzschild solution to the EFE's: [math](cd\tau)^2=(1-r_s/r)(cdt)^2-dr^2/(1-r_s/r)-(rd\theta)^2[/math] For two periodical processes located at Schwarzschild radial coordinates [math]r_1[/math] and [math]r_2[/math] one can write: [math](cd\tau_1)^2=(1-r_s/r_1)(cdt)^2-dr^2/(1-r_s/r_1)-(r_1d\theta)^2[/math] [math](cd\tau_2)^2=(1-r_s/r_2)(cdt)^2-dr^2/(1-r_s/r_2)-(r_2d\theta)^2[/math] Dividing the two one gets, expressed in clock periods: [math]\frac{d\tau_1}{d\tau_2}=\sqrt{\frac{1-r_s/r_1-(dr^2/(cdt)^2)/(1-r_s/r_1)-(r_1/cd\theta/dt)^2}{1-r_s/r_2-(dr^2/(cdt)^2)/(1-r_s/r_2)-(r_2/cd\theta/dt)^2}}[/math] Most often, the above is expressed in terms of frequencies : [math]\frac{f_2}{f_1}=\sqrt{\frac{1-r_s/r_1-(dr^2/(cdt)^2)/(1-r_s/r_1)-(r_1/cd\theta/dt)^2}{1-r_s/r_2-(dr^2/(cdt)^2)/(1-r_s/r_2)-(r_2/cd\theta/dt)^2}}[/math] The above is the general equation that governs the functionality of GPS, so, its validity is confirmed on a daily basis, every second of it. The above also represents the most rigorous explanation of the Pound-Rebka experiment since it factors in not only the difference in altitude but also the difference in tangential speeds. [math]\frac{f_2}{f_1}=\sqrt{\frac{1-r_s/r_1-(dr^2/(cdt)^2)/(1-r_s/r_1)-(v_1/c)^2}{1-r_s/r_2-(dr^2/(cdt)^2)/(1-r_s/r_2)-(v_2/c)^2}}[/math] With a little effort, I can show you how the above explains the Hafele-Keating experiment (one needs to execute an integral wrt. coordinate time)..

Yes, I could be more congenial. A few things that you need to be aware of: 1. I did not describe myself as 'curmudgeon'. the administrators did 2. I am congenial with the people that really want to learn, it is the cranks with an agenda that annoy me. 3. Lately, this forum has seen a true infestation by the latter category. So, just you know...

I'll have to agree, you aren't doing any physics. I , on the other hand, am. I pointed out his errors , using mainstream physics. This means doing physics.

Then show the math. Or admit you have nothing. Based on the above, you have nothing, you are just another sad sack relativity denier.

See here

Actually, the "rest" is more valuable. You clearly do not know what you are talking about and you are making up stuff. Anyone educated in the field can see that. You would gain a lot more from taking a class than wasting your time posting made up stuff on forums.

Schwarzschild. Radius, not metric. In addition, the gravitating body must start with a minimum mass.

False, applies to ANY spherical gravitating body. And it is not inside the EH, it is inside the body proper. So, you are 0 for 2. Look, stop making up stuff, take a class, you will be gaining a lot this way.

No, you didn't. You just waffled. Please post math, not waffling. I asked you for math, not for waffleng. ...and even more waffling. Look, the language of physics is math. You do not have ANY math, so you do not have any theory, you just have a giant waffle.

Actually, I DID point out your errors. On the other hand I never managed to convince a crank that he's a crank. This is why the crank is a crank.