In transit gravitational redshift

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Jim</i>
<br />Can I assume then you are saying the atom is forced to emit photons of a lower frequency when in a stronger gravity field? Not what I say that the effect is after the emition?
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">


Yes, that’s the way I understand the situation. I wouldn’t say that the atoms are “forced” to emit light of a lower frequency, I would say that they just “do” emit light of a lower frequency in a stronger gravity field. This is apparently the way they were designed. Sometimes we forget that what happens at the surface of the earth doesn’t represent the entire universal “standard” for everything. So, what atoms do here at the surface is vibrate “normally” for what ever gravitational potential they are experiencing. They do the same thing on Jupiter, on the sun, etc. All their different vibration rates are “normal” for what every gravity field they are inside, and whatever frequency of light they emit is “normal” for where ever they are located.

What irritates me about mainstream physics and astronomy, is that a lot of this very basic and simple stuff is kept a secret, so as to help pretend Einstein discovered something very important, such as “time dilation”. This is nonsense. Lorentz, in 1895 already predicted that atoms moving through fields and experiencing acceleration would vibrate more slowly and emit light of a lower frequency, and there’s no big deal about that. That’s just what atoms do. Einstein mistook that phenomenon for true “time dilation”, and, at first, in 1905, he thought all clocks would slow down at the same rates as Lorentz’s atoms, but he later found out they would not. So basically all Einstein said in his GR theory about “time” is that atomic clocks will vibrate more slowly in a strong gravity field. So all he “discovered” or “predicted” was a new type of clock slow-down. This was the very same thing other people had discovered centuries earlier, when they discovered that pendulum clocks slowed down on mountains, and balance wheel clocks ticked erratically when aboard a rocking ship.

It was the popular media in Germany, Europe, and America, that turned Einstein’s simple atomic clock discovery into a type of “mystic” happening, because he called it “time dilation”, rather than just a “clock rate slowdown”. Newton, had he wanted a lot of newspaper publicity, could have done the same thing by calling pendulum clock slowdowns on mountains “time dilation”. This “time dilation” stuff is a bunch of public relations nonsense, designed for the mass media and the gullible public. But now it has become part of the mythology of modern physics.

First of all the coverup you suggest is not really happening-they in fact don't know or care. That is a normal why to act for established forces in any field. Anyway, back to the main issue here-you say the atom emits lower frequency photons when a force is applied-is this correct? The force can be gravity of velocity-right? I am still sure the atom emits photons of the same frequency when a force is applied and the photon is redshifted by velocity or gravity. I have no interest in any of the clocks you are researching but the process of a photon being emitted is very interesting. Also, other off topic issues such as relativity should be posted on other threads. I think there is a reason it is claimed that atoms emit photons of a lower frequency when in a force field but there is no data indicating this. You posted several links to opinions of other people who all use the same logic to get the wrong result.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Jim</i>
<br />Also, other off topic issues such as relativity should be posted on other threads. <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Off topic? This is a relativity thread. See the head and sub-head at the top of this page.

Jim,
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Jim</i>
<br />First of all the coverup you suggest is not really happening-they in fact don't know or care. That is a normal why to act for established forces in any field. Anyway, back to the main issue here-you say the atom emits lower frequency photons when a force is applied-is this correct? The force can be gravity of velocity-right? I am still sure the atom emits photons of the same frequency when a force is applied and the photon is redshifted by velocity or gravity. I have no interest in any of the clocks you are researching but the process of a photon being emitted is very interesting. Also, other off topic issues such as relativity should be posted on other threads. I think there is a reason it is claimed that atoms emit photons of a lower frequency when in a force field but there is no data indicating this. You posted several links to opinions of other people who all use the same logic to get the wrong result.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Why not put an atomic clock on the rim of a rotating platform? The centrifugal acceleration should slow the clock since it can be viewed as a gravitational well. Thus, the photons should redshift while the clock is rotating.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Jan</i>
<br />
Why not put an atomic clock on the rim of a rotating platform? The centrifugal acceleration should slow the clock since it can be viewed as a gravitational well. Thus, the photons should redshift while the clock is rotating.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
Hey! Look at this!

“The experiment involves putting a digital clock under immense force by spinning it on a centrifuge.
The basic idea behind the experiment is to speed up the frequency of the pulses, or ticks, produced by the clock with force to push it ahead.”

LINK TO SOURCE

LOL! This is funny! All the guy is doing is speeding up the crystal oscillator, or whatever is the timing device for the clock (I assume he has already conducted this experiment before).

Look, set your digital wrist watch and synchronize it with another one. Let them tick for a few days to see which one runs a little faster than the other. Ok, then put the faster one in the freezer of your refrigerator for about 4-5 days, and notice how it slows down in the cold.

This is just CLOCK RATE CHANGES caused by different environmental conditions and by the type of clock being used.

Some clocks will speed up in a centrifuge, while others will slow down. This is NOT “time dilation” in the freezer or the centrifuge. This is merely altering the tick rate of the “clock” by subjecting it to some force, or by taking some force away from it. The same thing with atomic clocks.

I used to see this all the time with industrial electronic and mechanical timing devices. This is normal and is nothing mysterious.

This “time dilation” hoax has been going on for nearly a hundred years.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by DAVID</i>
<br /><blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Jan</i>
<br />
Why not put an atomic clock on the rim of a rotating platform? The centrifugal acceleration should slow the clock since it can be viewed as a gravitational well. Thus, the photons should redshift while the clock is rotating.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
Hey! Look at this!

“The experiment involves putting a digital clock under immense force by spinning it on a centrifuge.
The basic idea behind the experiment is to speed up the frequency of the pulses, or ticks, produced by the clock with force to push it ahead.”

LINK TO SOURCE

LOL! This is funny! All the guy is doing is speeding up the crystal oscillator, or whatever is the timing device for the clock (I assume he has already conducted this experiment before).

Look, set your digital wrist watch and synchronize it with another one. Let them tick for a few days to see which one runs a little faster than the other. Ok, then put the faster one in the freezer of your refrigerator for about 4-5 days, and notice how it slows down in the cold.

This is just CLOCK RATE CHANGES caused by different environmental conditions and by the type of clock being used.

Some clocks will speed up in a centrifuge, while others will slow down. This is NOT “time dilation” in the freezer or the centrifuge. This is merely altering the tick rate of the “clock” by subjecting it to some force, or by taking some force away from it. The same thing with atomic clocks.

I used to see this all the time with industrial electronic and mechanical timing devices. This is normal and is nothing mysterious.

This “time dilation” hoax has been going on for nearly a hundred years.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">


It is actually quit funny, because I recently asked my mother if she still had this ancient centrifuge we used when I was little. Today's washing machines have a centrifuge build-in, but in the old days, the centrifuge was a separate appliance to be loaded from the top. So what's the deal? Well, I wanted to drop my 80's wrist watch into this centrifuge and see whether a week of non-stop spinning could slow or speed it up. What was I thinking ....