It's actually a very difficult measurement, the Doppler shift due to motion of the surface is comparable to the gravitational effect. There have been some attempts made, the linked paper is from 2012.

https://arxiv.org/abs/1207.0177

Wikipedia: "a test of the general relativity prediction that clocks should run at different rates at different places in a gravitational field."

No. Not the Metrology Instruments do change. The Metrology Standards remain the same. But there is too many nonsense in peer-reviewed Physics, so the sentence in Wikipedia will remain until the Second Coming of Jesus Christ.

Dear Dimitri!

I agree. Wikipedia has to be enjoyed with some caution. The authors want to sell often their opinions. Many experiments are not unaffected by theories resp. positive expectations.

Therefore I asked of the time before Einsteins theories. It is strange that there are no indications of gravitational red shift.

@George: Thanks for the reference to the paper. But in my opinion this experiment is performed with positive expectations.

My Regards!

Hans

`` It is strange that there are no indications of gravitational red shift.''

No, it is not: the effect is of the same order, or in fact rather less, than the one caused by Doppler broadening.

I can understand the preoccupation with the possibility that bias could influence the analysis of an experiment. Nevertheless, such experiments as Pound-Rebka or other experiments involving clocks at different heights, are rather accurate and a negative result would easily have been detected.

As for an observation previous to General Relativity which was explained by it, we have the Mercury perihelion advance.

I remember that the disruptive effects in the experiment of Pound/Rebka were much higher than the espected effect by gravitational redshift. Both scientists could only in the second attempt calculate the espected redshift by analysing the "background noise" as a general decline of radiation energy.

Therefore the redshift of extrasolar spectralines could also caused by other effects.

I stay with the question: It is strange that there are no indications of gravitational red shift before Einstein. The earlier scientists have examined everything very closely.

The direct answer is yes, there will be a gravitational red shift, this will be given by GTR, A slight modification to GTR is required at the event horizon of a black hole in order to obviate infinite red shft

Article Finite Gravitational Time Dilation In Black Holes Using Dyna...

Dear Charles!

Could it be possible that you are mixed up "theory" with "truth"? You are right, I'm in doubt about the theory but not about the truth.

Theories are describing the reality according to the state of our current knowledge.

Sorry, none of the replies of specialists was convincing so far. All the experiments were probably not done in vacuum. There is no vacuum close to the sun too.

My Regards!

Hans

Wikipedia: "a test of the general relativity prediction that clocks should run at different rates at different places in a gravitational field."

Dimitri: No. Not the Metrology Instruments do change. The Metrology Standards remain the same

You are right, it is ambiguous but distinguishing between coordinate time running at different rates while proper time rates do not change would probably just cause more confusion.

“Does the solar electromagnetic radiation show gravitational red shift”

- yes, of course; photons are usual material particles that have inertial and gravitational masses (=h*nu/c2) and so change their energies when move between points with different gravity potentials.

“How reliable is the experiment of Pound and Rebka in 1960?”

- the Pound-Rebka-Snider experiments – as the experiments – were quite reliable. Indeed if photons that are radiated on Earth surface by some atom (nucleus of atom in the experiments), then to absorb these photons by an atom, which is on a height h, this (upper atom) must have the speed V to the surface which correspond to the photons’ frequency shift delta(omega)=gh/c2 – what was obtained by  the experimentalists above.

“How reliable is Einstein’s world view?”

The GR’s world view isn’t reliable, and that just the Pound-Rebka-Snider experiments showed. According to the GR photons in the experiments don’t change their energies/frequencies and registered in the experiments shift appears totally because of so-called “gravitational time dilation”, which for the atoms differs just on the delta(omega)=gh/c2; and it was claimed that the experiments quite well confirmed the GR.

But that is evidently not so. Particles/atoms/nuclei/ bodies…i.e. all/ every material objects that are in different gravity potentials indeed have different rates of changings of their internal states (if some objects are clocks – different clocks’ tick rates) – that is the result of the gravity interactions, which result in the gravitational mass defect.

The mass defect indeed corresponds to delta(omega)=gh/c2 value, but this defect, say, in system of two bodies (Earth + an atom in the experiments) is divided equally between Earth and the atom and so the real atom’s frequency shift is equal to delta(omega)=gh/2c2,

what is twice lesser the GR claims.

Thus in the Pound-Rebka-Snider experiments just the sum [for the case when lower atoms radiate] of the upper atom’s “blue shift” and photons “red shift” (delta(omega)=gh/2c2, also), what both [the “gravitational time dilation” and photons’ frequency shift], again, contradict with the GR.

More see https://www.researchgate.net/publication/265509276_The_informational_model_-_gravity , and

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/277710038_The_informational_model_-_gravity_a_next_experiment

Cheers

Article The informational model – gravity

Research The informational model – gravity; a next experiment

In fact, the history of the gravitational red shift of solar radiation shows that even a strong belief in  theory does not by itself yield experimental results that confirm it. Initially, the results were confusing, because of the Doppler effect both of convective motion and of the Sun's rotation. Some people initially thought the data were good enough to reject relativity, but this turned out not to be the case. Nevertheless, even when general relativity had become well established, no experimental result from solar radiation were forthcoming, because the results were still as difficult as they had always been. 


Instead, of course, people looked at more promising sources, such as the companion of Sirius (a white dwarf) where the effect is 100 time larger (the mass is the same as the Sun's, but the radius 100 times less). 


Then the Moessbauer effect gave the possibility of measuring amazingly small frequency shifts, which led to the Pound-Rebka experiment. You say

``I remember that the disruptive effects in the experiment of Pound/Rebka were much higher than the expected effect by gravitational redshift. Both scientists could only in the second attempt calculate the expected redshift by analysing the "background noise" as a general decline of radiation energy.’’

I have no idea where you get that from. There is no ``analysis of background noise’’. The principle of the experiment is to emit photons from a high-lying oscillatory source and to observe when the Doppler effect induced by that motion cancels the assumed effect of gravity. Disruptive effects were carefully taken carw of. And, in any case, the scientists did not ``calculate’’ the expected red shift (that had been done a while ago): they *observed* it.

Solar electromagnetic radiation showed a redshift. Two references:

[1] E. Perot, Measure de la pression de l’ atmosphere solaire dans la couche du magnesium et verification du principle de relativité, Comptes Rendus de l’ Ac. Des Sciences de Paris, 172, 1921

[2] C.E. St. John, Evidence for the gravitational displacement of lines in the solar spectrum predicted by  Einstein’ s theory, Astrophysical Journal, 67, 1928

The problem is the interpretation of that redshift.

@ Daniele: it is a bit more complex:

``After almost 50 years of inconclusive or contradictory measurements, the gravitational redshift of solar spectral lines was finally measured reliably. During the early years of GR, the failure to measure this effect in solar lines was seized upon by some as reason to doubt the theory. Unfortunately, the measurement is not simple. Solar spectral lines are subject to the “limb effect”, a variation of spectral line wavelengths between the center of the solar disk and its edge or “limb”; this effect is actually a Doppler shift caused by complex convective and turbulent motions in the photosphere and lower chromosphere,...''

Clifford M. Will, ``The Confrontation between General Relativity

and Experiment’’Living Rev. Relativity, 9, (2006), 3

So reliable measurements are difficult. The first which are quoted by Will are from 1962.

In GR there are two independent end result formula for gravitational red shift and deflection of light. But in following theory these two effects arise from a single formula given by eq.(4.4). Therefore while calculating deflection of light, the gravitational frequency shift is also accounted for, as explained above eq.(4.16).

Article Periodic relativity: Basic framework of the theory

Actually measurements of solar shift are difficult, anyway whether references cited by myself that were performed in 1921 and 1928 or Will's report starting from 1962 seem to confirm the existence of that redshift. I think again the basic problem is a problem of interpretation and understanding. In GR gravitational redshift is caused by the fact "clock moves more slowly if it is placed in the vicinity of weighable masses ". Here we are talking about redshift of quantum electromagnetic energy generated by the Sun and that reaches the Earth, and we don't are talking about clocks that are placed in the vicinity of weighable masses.

Actually, this is an issue of interpretation. But since clocks are supposed to run slow in a gravitational field, and since frequencies of spectral lines do yield clocks, we get this prediction from GR. That we can also view it as an energy conservation result is correct (in fact Einstein first derived it in this way) but it does not cast doubt on the final result.

If all is clear and all is well explained and there is no doubt, then also there is no need of further discussions that have the purpose to teach concepts that are in many chartaceous or online books. Anyway I would want to advise in this case there are two gravitational fields and the question has to be studied with greater care. Here we have e.m. quanta that move into two gravitational fields and not clocks that are placed in the vicinity of weighable masses. We don't know if intrinsic clocks move otherwise in every instant of the travel or if the redshift, measured by observer, is caused by another physical fact. Because e.m. quanta move away from the Sun gravitational field, that is stronger, and they get near to the Earth gravitational field, that is weaker, I would adivise to study the question with greater care.

We have a theory to analyse this and similar questions. It is the general theory of relativity and the predictions are in agreement with experiment. When things can be computed in a well-defined way, it is not obvious what the role of interpretation should be.

The objective reality and our theories about it are very different things.

The reality exists objective and therefore it has not to be proven. Theories are solely depictions of specific parts of reality. We should be careful to accept they as the reality. It is problematic to evaluate the proving experiments only by that theory which has to be proven. Therefore my question and the link below.

The observed light deflection by the gravitational field of fixed stars may be explained also as refraction in the star atmosphere. I do not see any reliable experiment or observation that proved Einsteins assumptions undoubted.

Research Theory and reality on the experiment of Reines/Cowan 1956

HH: The observed light deflection by the gravitational field of fixed stars may be explained also as refraction in the star atmosphere.

Refraction depends on the frequency of the signal, gravitational bending does not. That allows the effect of refraction to be eliminated and the remaining bending matches GR.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tests_of_general_relativity#Gravitational_lensing

https://einstein.stanford.edu/content/relativity/q793.html

On the same subject of refraction: deflection of radio sources can be measured, via VLBI, to accuracy better than a milliarcsecond. Since we have a deflection of the order of arcseconds for nearby stars, we should expect to be able to detect the deflection of radio sources up to very large angles. This is indeed the case: deflection has been measured to be in good agreement with GR for sources making an angle of p to 50 degrees with the Earth-Sun direction. Such rays, of course, are sufficiently distant from the Sun not to be at all refracted. See for example arXiv 0904.3992 astro-ph.CO.

It was measured up to 178 degrees by Hipparcos and GAIA will be even more sensitive. It has also been measured at radio frequencies and shows the same deflection, something that cannot be explained by refraction.

Thanks for the answers!

Please keep in mind that the observations are evaluated by the theoretical predictions like the experiments of Pound/Rebca et al and also of Reines/Cowan.

The red shift of the radiation from Sirius was observed past Einstein but before Hubble.

What happens if electromagnetic radiation cross the solar corona resp. an inhomogeneous plasma with an extension of millions of kilometres?

The described effects (e.g. Doppler shift due to motion of the surface, ...) should broaden the spectral lines. The fact is, that there is no clear observation of gravitational red shift of solar radiation.

HH: What happens if electromagnetic radiation cross the solar corona resp. an inhomogeneous plasma with an extension of millions of kilometres? The described effects (e.g. Doppler shift due to motion of the surface, ...) should broaden the spectral lines.

That's true but the convection motion of the Solar surface is a much bigger influence and has a similar effect. I've linked a time-lapse video that clearly shows the motion. This is what makes the measurement so difficult.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W_Scoj4HqCQ

``Please keep in mind that the observations are evaluated by the theoretical predictions like the experiments of Pound/Rebca ''


I am not sure what you mean. The analysis of the results was performed using the General Theory, that is of course true. However, the only theoretical input necessary for the experiment to work was the behaviour of the nucleus Iron 57 (the fact that it has a very sharp gamma resonance) and the Moessbauer effect, which concerns the quantum theory of crystal vibrations. Additionally, it requires the linear Doppler effect, but that is surely a very elementary feature of ordinary electrodynamics. None of these theoretical assumptions has anything to do with either gravity or the general theory of relativity. So it is, in fact, a very neat test  of the theory: the theoretical prediction only comes in at one point of the experiment, namely in the hypothesis that the frequency of the gamma ray emitted by the iron nucleus is affected by the time at the position of the nucleus, as determined by the effect of the metric. 


I also do not understand your remark about ``The red shift of the radiation from Sirius was observed past Einstein but before Hubble.'' That is true, of course, but why should it matter? It was well-known, since before Einstein, that the companion of Sirius (which is what you meant) has a very small radius and a very large mass (Earth radius and Sun mass, approximately). So clearly the effect is expected to be much larger. Hence seeing the difficulties of finding the redshift in the Sun, it was looked for, and found, in that particular star. 


Finally, even if you believe the redshift in the Sun has not been reliably observed, this clearly cannot be used as an argument against GRT: in the absence of evidence, we cannot conclude anything concerning the Sun's red shift, in particular we cannot conclude that it is not there: this would mean that the Sun behaves, for some reason, differently from both Earth (Pound-Rebka) and the Sirius companion, which would be strange.

We may remember one of Newton’s rules of thought:

RULE II

Therefore, to the same natural effects we must (as far as possible) assign the same causes.

As to respiration in a man, and in a beast; the descent of stones in Europe and in America; the light of our culinary fire and of the Sun; the reflection of light in the Earth and in the Planets.

“…the theoretical prediction only comes in at one point of the experiment, namely in the hypothesis that the frequency of the gamma ray emitted by the iron nucleus is affected by the time at the position of the nucleus, as determined by the effect of the metric….”

- at that the GR predicts  the  result of the “affect of the time  at the position of the nucleus”

(even if somebody doesn’t ask – how the time can affect on something in Matter)

 quite evidently twice larger then really possible value; see twice downvoted SS post on 2-d page…

Cheers

Twice downvoted because evidently wrong. That time affects frequency should be obvious. As to sharing the effect equally with the entire Earth: why? Show us an argument and it might be listened to, but mere dogmatic assertions are rightly ignored,

“…That time affects frequency should be obvious…”

That seems rather interesting;

 but – what is indeed obvious -  at that seems would be more interesting to know – what is “time”? how this “time” “affects frequency”? and - frequency of what?

 Cheers

Dear Hans,

since gravitational redshift, according to Einstein's theory, only depends on the difference in speed between two clocks (one at the source, Sun in your example, and one at the observer's location, i.e. Earth in the example), the answer is YES.

You have gravitational redshift whenever there's a difference in gravity between source and detector / observer.

The reason why we detect redshift is simple. If a clock is faster, fewer wave crests will be detected in the unit of time and this corresponds to a redshift. On the contrary case (a slower observer's clock) you get a blueshift. It doesn't affect light. It affects clocks.

I hope this helps.

It turns out that there is a necessity to continue comments, though the “gravitational red shift” problem seems as rather clear.

“….we cannot conclude anything concerning the Sun's red shift, in particular we cannot conclude that it is not there: this would mean that the Sun behaves, for some reason, differently from both Earth (Pound-Rebka) and the Sirius companion, which would be strange…We may remember one of Newton’s rules of thought:… to the same natural effects we must (as far as possible) assign the same causes.”

- yeah, that’s quite correct.

 Including, however, that if somebody claims that a clock/atom’s nucleus, which is placed on a height h near Earth, becomes be “time dilated” because of the “spacetime curvature” that is caused by Earth’s mass with relative frequency shift g1h/c2,

then this somebody must claim also that when Earth is placed on a height h near a clock/atom’s nucleus, Earth becomes be “time dilated” because of the “spacetime curvature” that is caused by the a clock/atom’s nucleus’s mass  with relative frequency shift g2h/c2.

And though g1=GME/R2 is >>g2=Gmc/a/R2 and so the relative the clock's/nucleus’s shift is >> then the Earth’s one, the absolute values of “shifts” are equal and the “shifts” sum corresponds to the gravitational mass defect that is equal, of course, to GMEmc/a/R.

Correspondingly the relative frequency shift (of a clock’s tick rate, of frequency of a nucleus’s internal state changing rate, etc.) is twice lesser then that the GR predicts;

 and in the PRS experiments measured relative shift gh/c2 is the sum of real Fe-57 nuclei frequency gravitational shift and real photons’ frequency/energy shift, which – i.e. a changing of photons’ energy in the gravity fields – is prohibited by the GR also…

Cheers

…

Cheers

SS: And though g1=GME/R2 is >>g2=Gmc/a/R2

That is correct.

SS: the relative frequency shift ... is twice lesser

Not "twice", that would only be the case if g1=g2.

The shift is in theory reduced by (1-g2/g1) = (1-mc/a/ME) and when you compare the mass of the earth to the mass of an atom, that ratio is far smaller than the accuracy of any measurement so mc/a/ME ~ 0.

Similarly, if you measure sunlight at 1AU but far from the Earth, it will have some redshift. Measure it on Earth and the redshift will be slightly less because of the smaller blue shift caused by the gravitational potential of the Earth.

GD:

“…SS: And though g1=GME/R2 is >>g2=Gmc/a/R2

That is correct.

SS: the relative frequency shift ... is twice lesser

Not "twice", that would only be the case if g1=g2…”

- it seems you commented the SS post above too quickly and didn’t read the post attentively enough.

The words “twice lesser” in the SS post above relate to the Pound-Rebka-Snider experiments outcomes, where the relative frequency shift between Fe-57 nuclei, which were placed on different heights (the difference=h), was measured and claimed as be in accordance with the GR prediction of “gravitational time dilation”, i.e. be equal to gh/c2;

- though in the reality the nuclei frequency shift is equal to gh/2c2, when PRS measured the sum of this frequency and real gravitational shift of Fe-57 quanta, which also is equal to gh/2c2.

Including “Not "twice", that would only be the case if g1=g2” is, of course incorrect in this case. g1 is, of course, >>> then g2 and the Earth’s every atom’s/nucleus’s, etc. frequency shift in the gravity field of an Fe-57 nucleus is > then Fe-57 nuclei in the PRS experiments and so the gravitational mass defect in the system Earth+Fe-57 nuclei is equally divided between the system’s components.

 Thus,  because of the changing of frequency of internal processes in material objects is determined by changings of their masses, including because of mass defects in systems of interacting objects,

 the real “total Earth’s shift” corresponds  to gh/2c2, when the real relative of Fe-57 nuclei shift is equal to gh/2c2 also, i.e. twice lesser then the GR predicts, etc. - see the SS posts in this thread

Cheers

SS: - it seems you commented the SS post above too quickly and didn’t read the post attentively enough.

Well I read what you said here:

SS: "Including, however, that if somebody claims that a clock/atom’s nucleus, which is placed on a height h near Earth, becomes be “time dilated” because of the “spacetime curvature” that is caused by Earth’s mass .."

and what came to mind first is atomic clocks at different heights above sea level, but really whether it is Pound-Rebka, the solar redshift, GPS or just calibrating clocks, the physical process we are discussing is the same.

SS: The words “twice lesser” in the SS post above relate to the Pound-Rebka-Snider experiments outcomes, where the relative frequency shift between Fe-57 nuclei, which were placed on different heights (the difference=h), was measured and claimed as be in accordance with the GR prediction of “gravitational time dilation”, i.e. be equal to gh/c2;

The result was indeed in accordance with that formula.

Just a small pedantic point by the way, in English "twice" means "two times larger" so “twice lesser” is contradictory. I am assuming you mean "half as much".

SS: - though in the reality the nuclei frequency shift is equal to gh/2c2

I think you're trying to say that each atom gets a shift and we measure the relative change. If that is the case, note that you have made an error here, if they both changed the same amount, the changes would cancel out. If you want to do it that way (i.e. as measured by some third party, say an observer at infinity), you would need to have both shifted but the one at lower altitude by a greater amount.

GR says the difference is due to the difference in the frames between the two altitudes, not a local effect at all, so trying to allocate half each to the atoms is not correct in GR.

As for my previous post, note it is still valid. the effect due to the mass of the Earth is vastly greater than the effect due to the mass of the clocks (or atoms).

GD: “…in English "twice" means "two times larger" so “twice lesser” is contradictory. I am assuming you mean "half as much"….”

- English isn’t my native language, but your assumption is very possibly correct. Though I used “twice lesser” earlier and nobody till now wrote to me about that is incorrect.

Besides, again – you write comments too quickly and read the SS posts not attentively enough. An (but non-unique) example:

GD: “…I think you're trying to say that each atom gets a shift and we measure the relative change. If that is the case, note that you have made an error here, if they both changed the same amount, the changes would cancel out. If you want to do it that way (i.e. as measured by some third party,…”

- at measuring of different internal frequency shifts of, say, a pair of nuclei that are placed on different heights, including as that was in the PRS experiments,  there is no necessity in any “third parties”. Each atom [Fe-57 nucleus in the PRS experiments] gets the concrete shift that depends on the gravity potential in the point, where this atom is placed; and at that the difference [=half as much of the GR prediction] for different heights really and objectively exists, nothing cancels out, of course.

- etc. Would you be kind to read the SS posts more attentively? Including, for example

 for CD: “…As for my previous post, note it is still valid. the effect due to the mass of the Earth is vastly greater than the effect due to the mass of the clocks (or atoms)…”

- it was explained already that for “the effect” in considered problem you should differ the notions “total” and “relative”:

“the real “total Earth’s shift” corresponds  to gh/2c2, when the real relative of Fe-57 nuclei shift is equal to gh/2c2 also, i.e. half as much  then the GR predicts, etc.”

Cheers

SS: - English isn’t my native language, but your assumption is very possibly correct. Though I used “twice lesser” earlier and nobody till now wrote to me about that is incorrect.

Usually I ignore such points, we are talking about physics, not worrying about the language. Sometimes though, the meaning can be changed and it is important to make sure we understand the same thing. Obviously it would matter if you mean the change was twice the accepted value rather than half. Some people think you are just nitpicking if you bring up such matters, other people thank you for helping them improve their English.

SS: Besides, again – you write comments too quickly and read the SS posts not attentively enough.

Perhaps, or perhaps I'm struggling with your use of the language. Either way, I think we have a different way of looking at things. Let me see if I can show you what I mean.

SS: - at measuring of different internal frequency shifts of, say, a pair of nuclei that are placed on different heights, including as that was in the PRS experiments, there is no necessity in any “third parties”.

No, measured locally, neither atom is affected at all. An observer at the level of the higher atom will say his clock is running at the correct rate and the lower one is ticking slowly. An observer on a level with the bottom clock will say his is running normally while the higher clock is ticking faster. Both are correct of course.

If you want to split it so that the higher clock appears to run fast by half the amount while the lower clock runs slow by half, then you are talking about measurements made by an observer roughly half way between the clocks.

SS: Each atom [Fe-57 nucleus in the PRS experiments] gets the concrete shift that depends on the gravity potential in the point, where this atom is placed;

That implies that there is a third party observer at zero potential who measures some reference value and that the clock in the potential is shifted relative to that value, that should explain the basis for my previous comment.

SS: and at that the difference [=half as much of the GR prediction] for different heights really and objectively exists, nothing cancels out, of course.

Relative to a distant observer at zero potential, a clock on the top of Mount Everest would appear to run slow and one at the bottom would run slower still. Relative to the one at the top, the lower clock runs slow but by a much smaller amount, the majority of your "concrete shift" would cancel.

- etc. Would you be kind to read the SS posts more attentively? ... it was explained already that for “the effect” in considered problem you should differ the notions “total” and “relative”:

I've tried to include "relative to" in my descriptions above. The total difference between the top and bottom clocks is the difference of the top relative to the bottom which is equal to the ratio of the top clock relative to the distant observer divided by the bottom clock relative to the distant observer.

SS: “the real “total Earth’s shift” corresponds  to gh/2c2, when the real relative of Fe-57 nuclei shift is equal to gh/2c2 also, i.e. half as much  then the GR predicts, etc.”

We are talking about two clocks, I have no idea what you mean by "total Earth’s shift”. What observer is measuring that and what is he observing to assign it a value? Since it applies to the Earth, why doesn't its effect cancel when you take the ratio of the two clocks being discussed, surely any "total Earth" effect would influence them both (or neither).

I see in this discussion many talk continually about clocks. Clocks are instruments of measuring and they are of no uselfulness if there isn't who measures. They would be therefore virtual cloks that is better to avoid in theoretical discussions.

It's common to discuss time effects that way since clocks are our primary means of quantifying time, but it should be taken to include measures such as a natural spectral line depending on the context, a line in the Solar spectrum or an Fe line in the Pound-Rebka experiments for example.

Bear in mind that atomic clocks are just devices constructed to produce an output at a convenient frequency (we use 10MHz as a site reference which is very common) but it is divided down from a microwave spectral line from the Caesium atom.

Yes, I have understood but we are talking about redshift and this isn't measured by clocks but by spectroscopes.

Sadly you didn't understand so perhaps I wasn't clear, a spectral line simply a clock that is less well shielded from its environment than deliberately constructed "atomic clocks".

Yes I agree, frequency is the inverse of the period and atomic clocks can measure indirectly also frequency. Anyway we are talking here about sun gravitational redshift and we are searching fo explaining that redshift. Electromagnetic radiation starts from the Sun and reaches the Earth, the observer is on the Earth and an Earth's atomic clock, duly prearranged, could allow a very precise measurement of that redshift if it exists really.

I think it exists but in physics all has to be confirmed by experimental evidence.

Yes, if you go back over the thread, you'll see that while there is no indication that it is any different from the amount expected, the up-welling of material in convention cells ("granules") and the sinking at their edges is of a speed that produces Doppler shift larger than the gravitational shift. That makes it very hard to separate the gravitational component. The problem is practical, not theoretical.

George ~

 Next time you write a next post too quickly instead of attempts to understand the thread’s (and the GR’s) problem. So seems last my attempt to explain the problem a next time:

“…We are talking about two clocks, I have no idea what you mean by "total Earth’s shift”. What observer is measuring that and what is he observing to assign it a value? Since it applies to the Earth, why doesn't its effect cancel when you take the ratio of the two clocks being discussed, surely any "total Earth" effect would influence them both (or neither)…”

(1) If there are one Earth that has the mass M, and two clocks (“1” and “2”) that have masses m1 and m2 (for simplicity m1=m2=m), which are placed on the heights 0 m and h m above Earth surface, then the gravitational potential energy, W, of this system is equal

W=W1+W2+W3

W1 = -GMm/R

W2= -GMm/(R+h)

W3= -Gm2/h

(2) Since  W3

@ Sergey: Your post also very nicely explains why, when an apple falls from a tree, the apple and the Earth meet halfway, at half the height of the tree above the ground.

I very much like your Universe's beautiful symmetry. It is unfortunate that the real world is  not so made.

@ F.Leyvraz:

“….@ Sergey: Your post also very nicely explains why, when an apple falls from a tree, the apple and the Earth meet halfway, at half the height of the tree above the ground…”

- it seems you indeed think that the equality of the defect masses of, say, a pair of bodies in a gravitational system – what is determined by the gravity potential energy of the system; and

- transformations of  this energy into the kinetic energy,  when, say, an apple freely falls  – what is determined by the gravity gradient

are the same.

Though, for example, if two of some atomic clocks are placed on heights 0 m and h m above Earth surface, then upper clock will tick faster then the lower one – because in this case just the defect mass works.

But if two of some pendulum or sand glass clocks are placed on heights 0 m and h m above Earth surface, then upper clock will tick slower then the lower one  – because in this case just the gradient works.

Besides here a next the GR’s flaw becomes be revealed – if the clocks showings in presence of some mass is totally determined by the “spacetime curvature”, then this curvature must act equally on any clock. “Time is what clock show” – Einstein possibly isn’t an author of this claim, but it is well known that he often used it. And pendulum or sand glass clocks "show time" totally (besides the precision, of course) equally as the atomic clocks…

Cheers

@hans

The classical equation is 1+z = 1/sqrt(1-2GM/Rc^2)

But this runs into problems at the black hole event horizon

A better formula is given in the paper below

Article Finite Gravitational Time Dilation In Black Holes Using Dyna...

SS: Next time you write a next post too quickly instead of attempts to understand the thread’s (and the GR’s) problem. So seems last my attempt to explain the problem a next time:

OK, one last attempt as to a large extent we are talking past each other. Please note the word in italics as these emphasise the subtle point you have missed.

SS: (1) If there are one Earth that has the mass M, and two clocks (“1” and “2”) that have masses m1 and m2 (for simplicity m1=m2=m), which are placed on the heights 0 m and h m above Earth surface, then the gravitational potential energy, W, of this system is equal

SS: W=W1+W2+W3

SS: W1 = -GMm/R

SS: W2= -GMm/(R+h)

SS: W3= -Gm2/h

Right, these reflect the amount of energy that can be removed from each system by allowing the objects to approach each other.

SS: (2) Since  W3

GD: “…No, each clock measured locally has the same frequency regardless of its location. The apparent reduction of the frequency as seen by a remote observer is due to the change of frame…”

- here are no any “remote observers and frames”; here is a simple static system  where clocks tick with different rates dependently on gravity potentials in points where they are.

GD: “…What we observe is only a shift that is caused when the signal from one clock moves between the locations at different potentials…”

- there don’t exist some abstract “signals”, and any signal cannot cause some shift.  Thus if we have some concrete “signal” say, gamma quanta in the Pound-Rebka-Snider experiments, then indeed, just some parameter of the signal can be shifted, when photons move between the locations at different potentials. But the GR claims that photons don’t change their energy/frequency at motion in the gravity field.

“…SS: Since the internal frequency of a mass is proportional to the mass, ..

If that were correct, the frequency of the two clocks, both of the same mass m, would be affected by the same amount so there would be no measured difference between the two…”

The internal frequency of an object/mass in the SS post means the frequency of every particle and system of particles that constitute given mass and it is proportional to the mass, or, more correct – to the [in the absolute frame] energy of this mass. When this frequency is changed, then frequencies of all “second and more level organization” processes in the object change proportionally to this frequency, but, of course, different objects at that can have different processes’ rates. But for identical objects – again, say for Fe-57 atoms in the PRS experiments, atoms having different mass defects have different frequencies/ level energies.

GD: “…For your picture, you need to calculate…”

- considered  problem hasn’t some relation to the “point mass/charge…” infinite potential problem.

.CD: “..SS: – the system has a negative gravitational mass defect.

Correct the system has a reduced total but the individual masses are not reduced.”

- comparing with the above this remark is indeed essential. The suggestion that the system’s negative mass defect is the result of mass defects of individual masses in the informational model and SS posts on the RG is indeed some reasonable, but only a premise. The system’s mass defect indeed can be a result of decreasing of the energy of the system’s gravity field – which seems indeed decreases.

But this problem hasn’t a solution in physics till now, although the GR “solves” it, this solution seems as rather questionable – see, for example, the SS answer to  F. Leyvraz above in this page. But it seems possible to clear it experimentally – see https://www.researchgate.net/publication/277710038_The_informational_model_-_gravity_a_next_experiment

where the net difference of exposed  on different heights clocks’  showings (so with exclusion of possible contribution of photons) is measured. If this [relative] difference will be gh/2c2, that will confirm (after comparing with the PRS result) at least the fact that the photons change their energy at motion in the gravity. Besides such result will confirm also that the tick rate difference well correlate with individual mass defect;

 when the explanation – why that is so and what then the decreasing of the energy of the gravity field means – this very interesting problem will be put forward clearly (now the problem doesn’t exist because of the GR solution).

And this experiment could be made seems in a week – for that is enough to move a pair of good clocks, for example in Dubai; and to expose one clock in a couple of hours on a height near 500 m…

Cheers

Research The informational model – gravity; a next experiment

SS: here are no any “remote observers and frames”; here is a simple static system where clocks tick with different rates dependently on gravity potentials in points where they are.

Different rates as measured by whom? Measured locally, they will both tick normally because the only thing you can use to measure the rate is another local clock ;-)

SS: But the GR claims that photons don’t change their energy/frequency at motion in the gravity field.

I don't know why you say that, it's not true, obviously (see below).

SS: But it seems possible to clear it experimentally ... where the net difference of exposed  on different heights clocks’  showings (so with exclusion of possible contribution of photons) is measured. If this [relative] difference will be gh/2c2, that will confirm ... And this experiment could be made seems in a week ...

I'm not sure what you are suggesting. For example would putting two identical atomic clocks at different heights and comparing the difference not be adequate? Hewlett Packard (as was) used to have this problem all the time, they had two factories manufacturing clocks and they had to offset the calibration slightly because the factories were at different altitudes. The offset required was exactly what GR predicts. Many years ago, I chatted to an engineer who was part of the calibration team so that's direct information.

The difference was small but seems to match your suggestion, There are much better tests though, the clocks in the GPS satellites for example tick faster than those on Earth by 45us per day due to the gravitational effect (but also 7us per day slower due to their orbital speed), again exactly in accordance with GR.

GD: “…Different rates as measured by whom? Measured locally, they will both tick normally because the only thing you can use to measure the rate is another local clock ;-) “

- indeed in certain sense the corresponding passage in the last SS post is not totally correct. But when the experiment in the link in the last SS post could be made, a non-too-remote observer could bring pair of not exotic clocks in Dubai’s Burj Khalifa, set both clocks to zero, one clock lift on ~ 500 m height floor, wait a couple of hours,  return to the clock on the first floor;

- and compare of the clocks’ showings…

GD: “…SS: But the GR claims that photons don’t change their energy/frequency at motion in the gravity field.

I don't know why you say that, it's not true, obviously…”

- ?

- see, for example,  https://www.researchgate.net/publication/231149107_Gravitation_photons_clocks

GD: “…For example would putting two identical atomic clocks at different heights and comparing the difference not be adequate? Hewlett Packard (as was) used to have this problem all …” etc.

For me it isn’t known experiments that would be concrete analogues of the suggested in the SS post link above experiment; seems we cannot consider some Hewlett Packard technical problems in this case.

GD: “…the clocks in the GPS satellites for example tick faster than those on Earth by 45us per day due to the gravitational effect … again exactly in accordance with GR…”

- GPS operating seems can be considered as a scientific experiment with an essential precaution also, for that is a lot of reasons. Besides, what is important here, GPS operates as some analogue of the PRS experiment – in “clock’s tick rates measurements” both effects take part – the relative shift of frequencies of clocks on Earth and on satellites and the shift of frequencies of [radio] photons that travel between Earth and satellites.

Cheers

Article Gravitation, photons, clocks

The cause of the red shift of electromagnetic radiation is a decrease of the energy. The question is, what caused the reduction of energy. To state electromagnetic radiation lost energy by moving up in a gravitational field is problematic. In this case physics presupposed what is called into question. Gravitational red shift is obviously not observable at the solar radiation. If electromagnatic radiation cross air it happens interactions and the result is a lower average energy. Therefore experiments like this of Pound/Rebka has to performed in vacuum.

What about photon-photon-interactions? What happens with electromagnetic radiation if it  crosses 14.000.000.000 years the universe? It is very unlikely that no encounters are happen with other electromagnetic radiation or material particles. The pictures of "early galaxies" show the same shape as current galaxies. That should give us food for thought about theories like "big bang" and not to presuppose what is called into question.

"Scientists before Einstein would have observed it undoubted. I am thinking of Bunsen, Fresnel et al. It should be possible by comparing spectral lines to prove this red shift."

 It was experimentally detected in 1963 (James W. Brault, "Gravitational redshift of solar lines", Bull. Am. Astron. Soc. 8, 28, 1963). My guess is that the effect is too small to have been noticed with the technology available to Bunsen, Fresnel, et al.

 Dear Eric,

At first why the Ether theory is not in contradiction with quantum and the Copenhagen school? Instead of the Ether theory we can consider the vacuum energy!! That will lead simply to quantization of gravity. According to SRT and GR, that is impossible. The problem is in the reciprocity. There is no way to prove the reciprocity or the paradoxes of SRT in order to prove the reciprocity. 

You said "My guess is that the effect is too small to have been noticed with the technology available to Bunsen, Fresnel, et al."

No problem, but now we can understand why GR and quantum theory do not merge. Because relativists wants to keep on the materialism through the reciprocity principle in SRT which proposed according to the Geometry. If we want to test relativity well, there are too many methods we can test relativity. But in this case relativists will appear how relativity is wrong in the reciprocity principle. That means the death of materialism. And in this case they prove how quantum theory is working in macro and micro. \

The cause that the effect is too small to have been noticed with the technology is not the real cause. But the real cause they do not want to appear how the reciprocity is wrong in relativity, and there is no materialism. This is the reality!!!

To those people (relativists)  who down-voting

if they are real honest and they have the courage to discuss, then if we take this transformation which expressing about the wave-particle duality and the uncertainty;

x=R^2(x'-vt') t=R^2(t'-vx'/c^2) y=Ry' z=Rz' R is the Lorentz factor.

take time term in the transformation t=R^2(t'-vx'/c^2) then t+= R^2(t'+vx'/c^2) and t-= R^2(t'-vx'/c^2), then delta t=R^2 (2Lv/c^2) where space is invariant and x'=x=L. That exactly the same result of explaining Sangnac effect in the framework of the ether theory, by considering t'=t, but here is depending on quantum theory (Copenhagen school). Review this paper for Saganc effect http://arxiv.org/abs/1404.4075 And compare the classical result with my calculations of Sagnac effect, it is exactly the same...why?

In fact, the classical treatment of time is deeply intertwined with the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics, and, thus, with the conceptual foundations of quantum theory: all measurements of observables are made at certain instants of time and probabilities are only assigned to such measurements. 

That illustrates  why the Ether theory is not in contradiction with quantum and the Copenhagen school? Instead of the Ether theory we can consider the vacuum energy!!

.

A calculation of the effect of gravity at the experiment of Pound/Rebka and at the solar radiation up to the earth

The experiment of Pound/Rebka was done over a distance about 42m (or 4,2E01m) in the gravitational field of the earth. The gravitational field is nearly constant in this case, the earth acceleration is 9,81m/s².

The solar radiation crosses a distance of 1,493E11m and starts at the sun acceleration with 274m/s². The average acceleration up to the earth is 0,0122m/s².

The gravitational effect in the experiment of Pound/Rebka is proportional about 9,81∙4,2E01=4,12E02

The gravitational effect at the solar radiation up to the earth is proportional about 0,0122∙1,493E11=1,82E09

The gravitational effect is in case of the solar radiation up to the earth ≈4,42E06 or over four million times higher than the effect in the Pound/Rebka-experiment.

The very small effect is clearly observable but it's very difficult to observe the much more higher effect!?!

I was just going to post the numbers Charles, your reply says it so much more clearly.

Dear Charles!

I think this comparison is on several grounds not right. One of the grounds is the fact, that the disturbing effects in the experiment of Pound/Rebka were much higher than the expected effects. They have heard the pin drop in the rock concert! You could also say that they have selectet in the background noise of events resp. deviations only such in accordance (in German: in Übereinstimmung) with the expections.

Dear Azzam!

I agree with you in regards to downvoting.

My Regards!

Hans

``One of the grounds is the fact, that the disturbing effects in the experiment of Pound/Rebka were much higher than the expected effects''

That is simply not correct. Gamma ray emission is a process which takes place with very little influence from the rest of the world, and the Moessbauer effect takes care of the one major problem, which is nuclear recoil. If you look at the Pound/Rebka paper, it is surely a remarkably careful experiment, but you will see that no heroic shielding measures were necessary. The main problem was temperature, because of the effect of ordinary time dilation due to the random molecular velocities. To avoid this, they needed to take special care that the temperatures of the upper and lower emitter remained close to each other. Apart from this, there are no significant background effects to guard against.

On the other hand, there is, to put it mildly, no equivalent of the Moessbauer effect to protect Solar radiation from the Doppler effect. So the effect of the convective motion strongly dominates the effect searched for, which explains why people did not see it.

Dear Hans,

Do not care about down-voting. They do not have now more than down-voting. The beast is in clinical death!!  Let them express  about their feelings!! I know it is a big shock for them!!!

It is only psychological game by them!!! They played the same game with me more than 20 years. I trusted in them, and I thought they are my friends, and I was thinking they are really right and I'm wrong. Now I waked up, and I understood during 20 years, they were cheating me in order to keep silent. 

OK, since this is degenerating into childish insults, let's try to get back to the science by looking at the numbers.

By my reckoning, the gravitational time dilation due to the mass of the Sun at its surface is about 2123 parts per billion (ppb) and at 1AU it is 987.3ppb. That due to the mass of the Earth is only about 0.7ppb at its surface so is negligible. The measurable difference is 1135ppb.

Solar convection cell velocities can be up to 3km/s for the shortest lived cells. The resulting Doppler shift is therefore up to 10000ppb or nearly 9 times larger than the gravitational time dilation.

Charles is quite correct, and this is well known. As has been said, this problem doesn't apply to Sirius where the GR prediction has been successfully tested.

George Dishman,

OK, since this is degenerating into childish insults, let's try to get back to the science,

so can reply to me; 

 Proponents of the theory of General Relativity offer three different conflicting explanations of the results of the Pound and Rebka experiment that are said to be equivalent to each other and therefore all equally correct. All make the claim that the results of the Pound-Rebka Experiment are “proof” of the Equivalence Principle even though nothing in these measurements suggests any need for the Equivalence Principle. So, can we discuss the three different conflicting explanations of the results of the Pound and Rebka ???

Also I want to discuss with you this problem which is related also the Pound and Rebka experiment;

Treating light as a quantum object, the change in a photon's velocity depends not on the strength of the gravitational field, but on the gravitational potential

itself. However, this leads to a violation of Einstein's equivalence principle – that gravity and acceleration are indistinguishable – because, in a gravitational field, the

gravitational potential is created along with mass, whereas in a frame of reference accelerating in free fall, it is not.???

So can you discuss that? Charles refused to discuss that!!! I do not know why?

Dear Charles!

Unanimity in science would mean the end of science. Different opinions should be respected and stimulate the thoughts of the opposite side.

However I don't see in this discussion new and reliable arguments for the gravitational red shift. The mental energy is spent to declare, why in one case we can observe a very small red shift and in the other case we cannot observe a big one. (I hope you can understand my English.) I am becoming more and more convinced that grvitational red shift is not existing. As I asked my question I was only a little in doubt about it.

The red shift of solar radiation has to be so striking, that it would be observable on the scale of a spectrometer at least by comparing spectral lines. Furthermore there is another way to test the gravitational red shift. The experimental arrangement should be similar to the Michelson-Morley-experiment - and it should be done in vacuum!

In connection with the fundamental experiment of Pound/Rabka I should like to draw your attention on the first proof of neutrinos in 1956. You can find in this case also another explantion.

My Regards!

Hans

Research Theory and reality on the experiment of Reines/Cowan 1956

HH: However I don't see in this discussion new and reliable arguments for the gravitational red shift. The mental energy is spent to declare, why in one case we can observe a very small red shift and in the other case we cannot observe a big one. (I hope you can understand my English.)

That's not really true. The effort has been to answer your original question, why isn't it seen on the Solar Spectrum, the answeer being that it is drowned out by the Doppler shift. However, the point has been made several times that it has been measured in the spectrum of Sirius, it has been successfully measured by Pound and Rebka, it is thoroughly proven every day in the GPS system and it is easily measured by atomic clocks manufactured in factories at different sites.

You have chosen to ask about a single instance where it occurs but is difficult to measure, there is no other doubt about the existence of the effect as a result of all the other confirmations.

Charles and George Dishman 

I know relativists will not discuss the Pound and Rebka experiment, in order to not show how their Geometry in SRT and GR is only fake. And which explains the Pound and Rebka experiment well the wave-particle duality and the uncertainty principle (The Copenhagen school) according to my transformation and my equivalence principle which leading to gravity is gauge theory in my paper http://vixra.org/abs/1509.0059

I told you your Geometry is fake and there is no reciprocity and thus there is no materialism!!! LOL!!!

I advice those people to review the following link about the equivalence principle

http://www.circlon-theory.com/HTML/poundRebka.html

http://www.circlon-theory.com/HTML/poundRebka.html

Charles and George Dishman 

Again and again you must understand  how we make the measurement in our material world at a certain point in space, what is the wave-particle duality during the motion which is defined by 4-D and when we make the measurement at a certain point in space which leading to the collapse of the wave-function, and this case it translated from 4-D to 2-D in my transformation. How the uncertinaty principle working in this case and how the entanglement. All of that is explained in my transformation by refusing the reciprocity and destroying the Geometry.  Review this video; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A9tKncAdlHQ

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A9tKncAdlHQ

AKA: I know relativists will not discuss the Pound and Rebka experiment, in order to not show how their Geometry in SRT and GR is only fake.

I'm happy to discuss it but this question raised by Hans is specifically about measuring the gravitational shift in the Solar spectrum so that's what I have answered. I tend to ignore spammers who flood groups with their own postings and don't respect the question raised by the originator.

AKA: I told you your Geometry is fake ...

I've had hundreds of crackpots tell me SR or GR are wrong over the years, in almost every case they were clueless idiots who didn't even understand the basics.

AKA: there is no reciprocity

In Pound-Rebka? Of course not. It looks as though you don't understand it either, unless you are now talking about SR which is even farther from Hans's question.

George Dishman,

Look how you are saying only words!!! ok! 

Can you tell me 

Just Which Equivalence Principle Do You Believe In The Pound-Rebka Experiment!!!?

Please tell me, I'm really want to understand!!!

Review this site:

http://www.circlon-theory.com/HTML/poundRebka.html

Please do not tell me words... I need physics. Reply to me in physics, not words!!! I give you physics, give me physics.

http://www.circlon-theory.com/HTML/poundRebka.html

George Dishman,

I've had hundreds of crackpots tell me SR or GR are wrong over the years, in almost every case they were clueless idiots who didn't even understand the basics.

That was in the past before we understand the reality!!!

Before, there was not any theory competes relativity, and there was no any transformation can compete the Lorentz transformation. Now there is new transformation and there is new theory can compete and beat  relativity,  SRT and GR!!!

You said "I tend to ignore spammers who flood groups with their own postings and don't respect the question raised by the originator."

No! you want to escape from the discussion, because you understand well relativity of Einstein will let you down. You do not trust in relativity.

CHALES said; In fact the word science means, literally, knowledge. Disagreement only means that someone lacks knowledge.

Do not forget there is also the science fiction! You can express about this fiction on a paper by geometry, like Sally in wonderland!! Each time I review your website, I remember Sally in wonderland, when I was watching it while I was young!! Now we become old, and we understand all of that was only fiction.

You said "You have decided to ignore fact. That is your choice, but do not then pretend that you are anything other than antagonistic to science. 

If Sally in wonderland is fact, then the reciprocity in SRT, and then the Geometry in GR are facts!!!

Charles wants to convince the world Sally in wonderland is fact!!! LOOOOOL!

Charles! Are not the wave-particle duality, the uncertainty principle, and the entanglement facts??? Why you want to ignore these facts in our world!?

AKA: Just Which Equivalence Principle Do You Believe In The Pound-Rebka Experiment!!!?

There is only one, it says that locally, a static observer in a uniform gravitational field is equivalent to an accelerated observer in flat space. Note that "locally" here means over distances small enough that tidal effects can be ignored.

AKA: Please do not tell me words... I need physics. Reply to me in physics, not words!!! I give you physics, give me physics.

OK, if you want to analyse Pound-Rebka using the equivalence principle, here's how I would go about it, there are four steps. The physics is included below.

First consider dropping a brick down a tower on the Earth onto a flat plate. The height is short enough that we can treat the acceleration as constant (value g) during the drop. It is released at rest but hits the plate with some velocity and that means it has gained (kinetic) energy. The result is a dent in the plate.

Now apply the equivalence principle. You can perform the same experiment in deep space far from any mass using a rocket the same length as the height of the tower. Fire the engines to accelerate the rocket at g and release the same brick at rest against the bulkhead at the front of the ship. The brick now floats inertially in space ("free-fall") while the rocket accelerates past it. After a short time, the same as the drop time in the tower, the plate at the bottom of the rocket hits the brick. The result is a dent in the plate identical to the one produced in the tower.

Now apply this to an experiment similar to Pound-Rebka. The setup is the same but we fire a brief flash from a laser instead of a brick. Think of the rocket version first. If the rocket wasn't firing its engines, the colour of the light that hits the base plate would be the same as emitted by the laser. If the engines are running however, the plate is moving towards the light source when the laser flash reaches it, so an observer on the plate will see it Doppler shifted, the frequency will be measured to be higher.

Here's the physics.

The time of flight is:

t = h / c

where h is the internal length of the rocket (or height of the tower) and c is the speed of light.

During that time the rocket increases its speed by:

dv = g t = g h / c

where g is the acceleration.

The Doppler shift of the emitted frequency f is:

df / f = dv / c

hence

df / f = g h / c2

QED.

Now repeat that experiment in the tower. The equivalence principle means that the result must be the same, the frequency measured at the bottom must be increased by the same value as in the rocket version. That frequency shift is what Pound, Rebka and Snider measured.

AKA: Please tell me, I'm really want to understand!!!

Well, if you read that explanation carefully, I think you should be able to see how I've used the equivalence principle to derive the standard weak field result.

AKA: Review this site:

I can't from here, it has a blocked category for some reason. I might give it a glance from home this evening. The link below might be of some help.

http://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/support/docs/security/web-security-appliance/117930-technote-csc.html

George Dishman,

All what you say is nonsense, and you can only use it for the students in high school. 

According to the Schwarzschild Geometry;

f'=(1-2GM/c^2r)^0.5 f and this equation is used in case of weak gravitational field. Now you approximate this equation also to f'=(1-GM/c^2r) f. You understand well now 2GM/r is the square of the escape velocity, and according to Schwarzschild Geometry the escape velocity is not concerned, but it is appeared suddenly! Now you understand well also when we make the approximation it is resulted with you f'=(1-GM/c^2r) f where GM/r is the gravitational potential. Now take this equation which is an approximation from the equation f'=(1-2GM/c^2r)^0.5 f, and take  the difference between two points in space in the gravitational field separated by a distance h, you get Delta f / f = g h / c^2

Why? because in this case h much less than the radius of the earth and in this case the equation f'=(1-GM/c^2r) f which expressing about the potential is approximated to Delta f / f = g h / c^2.   

Now we can get the photon lose energy according to delta(E)/E=delta(phi)/c^2, this what is by said the equation f'=(1-2GM/c^2r)^0.5 f then we can't write it as dE/E=d(phi)/c^2 and then we have redshift as exponential law. v1/v2=exp(delta(phi)/c^2) the frequency ratio is exponential.  To make that dE/E=d(phi)/c^2 consistent with the Schwarzschild approximation is to make c variable, and that will not give you even the exponential law. To understand why? review my transformation and my equivalence principle. Now everything becomes clear and very simple.

Is not the Swarzschild Geometry says the measured light speed is not constant, and it is variable?? And what about the decrease in the speed of light according to our discussion, depends on the gravitational potential or on the strength of the field? (Thanks to Stefano Quattrini let me to understand this point).

After that review this paper J D Franson 2014 New J. Phys. 16 065008

doi:10.1088/1367-2630/16/6/065008 , it is very important for our discussion

In this paper it is calculated that, treating light as a quantum object, the change in a photon's velocity depends not on the strength of the gravitational field, but on the gravitational potential itself. However, this leads to a violation of Einstein's equivalence principle – that gravity and acceleration are indistinguishable – because, in a gravitational field, the gravitational potential is created along with mass, whereas in a frame of reference accelerating in free fall, it is not. Therefore, one could distinguish gravity from acceleration by whether a photon slows down or not when it undergoes particle–antiparticle creation. Now you can compare the results of this paper with the previous discussion of the Pound and Rebka experiment.

Look how according to your explanations cheating people!! You go from approximation to approximation...How many approximations you did. It is enough Schwarzschild geometry is an approximation working in weak gravitational field.

You said "I think you should be able to see how I've used the equivalence principle to derive the standard weak field result."

LOOOL! So what bout in case of strong gravitational field??? What about the infinities!!?

AKA: All what you say is nonsense, and you can only use it for the students in high school.

Yet it seems to be beyond you.

AKA: According to the Schwarzschild Geometry ....

You asked me to do the analysis using the equivalence principle and that is what I did. If you can't cope with that, don't waste my time, and don't try to change to a different method if you can't deal with what you asked for.

AKA: You go from approximation to approximation...How many approximations you did.

No Azzam, those were your approximations in your alternative approach. Don't complain about your own limitations if you can't respond to my version. You said before "No! you want to escape from the discussion" but now it is clear that you are the one who is running away.

AKA: It is enough Schwarzschild geometry is an approximation working in weak gravitational field.

No it isn't, it is an approximation only in that it assumes zero angular momentum and if you want to deal with that, you could use the Kerr Metric.

AKA: LOOOL! So what bout in case of strong gravitational field???

In the Pound-Rebka experiment? "LOL" as you say when you can't cope with the science, they had a shift of about 10-15, hardly what I would call a "strong field".

George Dishman,

Look how you falsifying everything! You escape again from the real discussion same as all the relativists!! try to understand at least what you say!! I told you, your explanation of Pound and Rebka experiment you can use it in high school! You can't face by physics. 

If you do not understand what is the difference between approximation and exact...what can I reply to you!!!?

Look how you cheating people  when you are saying "hardly what I would call a "strong field".

But we can understand everything through quantum theory. Because of that all relativists do not have the courage to face during quantum.

Einstein himself said I hate quantum theory , specially Heisenberg uncertainty principle, because he understood how is quantum theory is the only theory can face the reciprocity and the Geometry in relativity, which they are only fake!!! Try to reply to my comment by physics instead of saying nonsense!!! Or you do not have the courage??? what about this paper also  J D Franson 2014 New J. Phys. 16 065008 doi:10.1088/1367-2630/16/6/065008

say anything!! ;)

Azzam, you said

• George Dishman,
• Look how you are saying only words!!! ok! 
• Can you tell me 
• Just Which Equivalence Principle Do You Believe In The Pound-Rebka Experiment!!!?
• Please tell me, I'm really want to understand!!!

Well I thought I might call your bluff so I answered exactly as you asked, I explained the Pound-Rebka experiment to you using the Equivalence Principle. As I expected, you just ran away.

Let me explain how grown-ups behave: if you ask a question, I answer what you asked. You then respond to my answer, not something else. If you didn't want to know about the equivalence principle, you shouldn't have asked about it. Now I know some people have limited attention span, it's a problem called "ADHD" and if you are suffering from that then you may well find it difficult to hold a conversation on one topic but that's your problem.

AKA: Try to reply to my comment by physics

I did, but let me repeat it since you seem to be struggling with simple communication:

• Here's the physics.
• The time of flight is:
• t = h / c
• where h is the internal length of the rocket (or height of the tower) and c is the speed of light.
• During that time the rocket increases its speed by:
• dv = g t = g h / c
• where g is the acceleration.
• The Doppler shift of the emitted frequency f is:
• df / f = dv / c
• hence
• df / f = g h / c2
• QED.

Now in your response, you also found the same result so you have already confirmed that my result is correct:

AKA: "in the gravitational field separated by a distance h, you get Delta f / f = g h / c^2"

So the question now is have you learned how to do it via the EP? Here again is what you asked in case I've exceeded your attention span:

AKA: Just Which Equivalence Principle Do You Believe In The Pound-Rebka Experiment!!!? Please tell me, I'm really want to understand!!!

George Dishman,

I told you many times try to understand what are you saying!!!

I explained to you,  how what you are saying is against the constancy of light and you do not understand.  Can you tell me is light speed is constant or not. How I bring it to you in order to let you understand it. 

I gave you this link http://www.circlon-theory.com/HTML/poundRebka.html

Have read it? Have you understood it?

In the drawing of tower #2, the photons are emitted at a wavelength of exactly one ( =1) that remains constant as they move through the gravitational “field.” However, as they move thorough this field, the photons “fall” toward the earth like any other material body, so that the descending photons move at speeds increasingly greater than C, and the ascending photons move at decreasing speeds of less than C. During their time of travel (t=22.5/C=7.5052x10-8s) the ascending photons slow their velocity by (v=gt=.000000736m/s) and the descending photons increase their velocity to C+.000000736m/s. The red and blue shifts are Doppler shifts in which both source and observer are in the same inertial reference frame and each photon is in a different inertial reference frame. The shifts occur because the ascending photons arrive at the observer at a relative velocity of less than C and the descending photons arrive at a velocity greater than C. This change in the photons’ velocity will produce shifts in their wavelengths of the measured value of 2.5x10-15.

The central problem with this explanation is that it violates the constancy of the speed of light because each of the 22 photons used in this drawing is moving at a different velocity and none are moving at C relative to either source or observer.

AKA: You are unwitnessed!

I assume English is your second language, that is meaningless.

AKA: Do not do this madness with meI!!

You are the one who cannot focus on the topic, I'm staying on track. I see you are still avoiding addressing my explanation, you are still running away.

AKA: I told you many times try to understand what are you saying!!!

If I didn't understand it, I wouldn't say it.

AKA: I explained to you,  how what you are saying is against the constancy of light and you do not understand.

You have said nothing of the kind.

AKA: Can you tell me is light speed is constant or not.

In special relativity, the speed of light is c everywhere for an inertial observer. For an accelerated observer, it is not, it varies with location and only has that value locally. In GR again the speed has the value c locally but not for remote observations even for inertial observers.

AKA: I gave you this link ... Have read it?

I couldn't before as it was blocked by a firewall, I've had a brief look now.

AKA: Have you understood it?

Enough to see that it is very badly confused.

#1 is almost valid for a series of separate observers at different heights each measuring locally except that a photon always has zero mass, it gains energy and momentum equally and mass is related to their difference. It is not valid for any single observer.

AKA: In the drawing of tower #2 ... the descending photons move at speeds increasingly greater than C ... The central problem with this explanation is that it violates the constancy of the speed of light ...

That's not a problem, it isn't constant in GR other than locally, but you need to specify the observer and you have the speeds the wrong way round anyway.

Basically, #1 to #3 are strawmen descriptions, I think we would agree that they are all wrong.

Your #4 is pretty good though it again is just descriptive. Compare it to mine and you'll find they are very similar. Imagine an accelerometer on my rocket, it would read 9.81m/s2 just as one lying on the ground would on Earth.

Your 'fifth' explanation is also close but the photons don't "acquire its curvature", they follow a curved path but the important point is that a curved line is steeper closer to the Earth. The angle between the curve and a horizontal is what determines the Doppler shift (and drives the accelerometer).

From your page:

• "... cannot be illustrated by such drawings and  ... to curve in a non-intuitive way that cannot be visualized."

It's not that hard, see the attached diagram.

http://www.visualrelativity.com/LIGHTCONE/pics/bh3.gif

George Dishman,

When I said that you do not know what are you saying, then you do not know what are you saying... Why?

You said "In special relativity, the speed of light is c everywhere for an inertial observer. For an accelerated observer, it is not, it varies with location and only has that value locally. In GR again the speed has the value c locally but not for remote observations even for inertial"

At first try to understand basis on what the speed of light is variable according to Schwarzschild Geometry in GR, or you want to explain that also for you!!!

Now according to your explanation of Pound and Rebka experiment During their time of travel (t=22.5/C=7.5052x10-8s) the ascending photons slow their velocity by (v=gt=.000000736m/s) and the descending photons increase their velocity to C+.000000736m/s. The red and blue shifts are Doppler shifts in which both source and observer are in the same inertial reference frame and each photon is in a different inertial reference frame. The shifts occur because the ascending photons arrive at the observer at a relative velocity of less than C and the descending photons arrive at a velocity greater than C. This change in the photons’ velocity will produce shifts in their wavelengths of the measured value of 2.5x10-15.

This violates the constancy of the speed of light because this is Galilean transformation not Lorentz transformation and not even GR. The decrease of the speed of light in GR is different and try to understand it in Schwarzschild Geometry. The variability of the speed of light according to c-v and c+v is Galilean transformation. That violates the constancy of the speed of light in SRT. Try to digest that in your mind, or that difficult to understand it!!!?

To understand about that more try to understand  explaining Sagnac Effect  in the framework of the ether theory in this paper http://arxiv.org/pdf/1404.4075v1.pdf

Relative to your other points,  no need to reply to them, because they are nonsense and you understand now why they are nonsense.

Charles Francis, 

Can you help your friend?  LOOOL!

I told you, you only good in down-voting while you are hidden!! you do not have the courage to face!!;)

Charles you understand well  I have the solution for all of that!!  Look! how when I was 21-23 I reached to this theory, and I succeeded in quantization of gravity. And my theory is the solution of all problems of physics. I challenged you before to bring one experiment from Higgs to Galaxies in violation with my theory...you can't..impossible!! God is with me... Charles!!!

The only thing Einstein was right when he said "imagination is more important than knowledge" and you see that in front of your eyes!!!

AKA: You said "In special relativity, the speed of light is c everywhere for an inertial observer. For an accelerated observer, it is not, it varies with location and only has that value locally. In GR again the speed has the value c locally but not for remote observations even for inertial"

I did indeed and that is perfectly correct, you find it in many textbooks, it is relativity 101.

AKA: Now according to your explanation of Pound and Rebka experiment During their time of travel (t=22.5/C=7.5052x10-8s) the ascending photons slow their velocity by (v=gt=.000000736m/s) and the descending photons increase their velocity to C+.000000736m/s.

No Azzam, that was your explanation from your web page. You are still exhibiting the symptoms of ADHD, you can't even keep track of who wrote what. All the explanations on your web page are wrong and none of them are even close to what GR says.

Your page is clueless nonsense. I also said in my previous post "you have the speeds the wrong way round anyway." because, if you want to use coordinate speeds, the ascending photons speed up while the descending photons slow down. It's a silly way to try to explain the experiment but if that's what you want to do, you should at least get it the right way round.

My explanation used the equivalence principle to compare uniform gravity in the tower experiment to the acceleration of a rocket firing its engine, do you remember that? If you want to discuss anything, try commenting on that explanation, or are you still running away from any serious discussion? That's what I usually find the crackpots do.

AKA: try to understand it in Schwarzschild Geometry. ... That violates the constancy of the speed of light in SRT.

Of course it does, SR does not allow for gravity at all while the Schwarzschild metric describes the gravitational effect outside a spherically symmetric mass distribution so they're bound to be different. However, as I said above, SR still applies locally. Azzam, this is absolutely basic knowledge about relativity, you need to buy your self a very introductory textbook and start from the very beginning.

AKA: The variability of the speed of light according to c-v and c+v is Galilean transformation.

I'm talking about the difference in clock rates at the top and bottom of the tower used in the Pound-Rebka experiment which are related to gravitational lensing and other well-known effects. Your Galilean transforms went out with the experiments of Michelson and Morley back in the 19th century.

George Dishman,

You said ". For an accelerated observer, it is not, it varies with location and only has that value locally."

The varying of the speed of light in Schwarzschild Geometry  in GR is depending on the the space time continuum and the curved spacetime. Have you heard about the space-time continuum? The curved space-time is resulted by proposing the acceleration. The Schwarzschild Geometry determines light bending by gravity and Mercury precession during the motion, and this determination is only an approximation in case of weak gravitational field. Because of that we say SWRH Geometry is working in case of weak gravitational field. During the motion according  the space-time continuum and in curved space-time, There is no single event. You can't determine the location in separate with time. It is named space-time continuum. There is no time separate with space, and there is no space separate with time. According to SWRH Geometry, the decrease in the speed of light according to the curved space-time is c'=(1-2GM/c^2r) , and from this Geometry you can determine the light bending by gravity. When you determine the two points in space, same as in Pound-Rebka experiment, and you tell me the light speed is decreased, in this case that is not GR, because here you separated between space and time, and SRT and GR are talking about space-time continuum and curved spacetime, and you can't separate between them. What is resulted when you separate between space and time is Galilean transformation, neither GR nor SRT interpretation of Lorentz transformation. The result in this case will appear same as in the Ether theory. That is what happened exactly also in Sagnac effect, H&K experiment, and Pound and Rebka experiment.

If you apply Maxwell’s wave equation in Galilean transformation what you get? You get  the dispersion relation

(c2 − v2)k2 = 2v k ω′ + ω′2

http://arxiv.org/pdf/1303.5309v1.pdf

So the decrease in the speed of light which is resulted by the curved space-time and explaining light bending by gravity is different from the decrease in light speed which caused by Pound-Rebka experiment when you determining two points in space in the gravitational field. 

Also what about this paper, I need a comment about it. J D Franson 2014 New J. Phys. 16 065008 doi:10.1088/1367-2630/16/6/065008

Look! I give you one thought experiment, and I need to explain it according to relativity

 https://www.researchgate.net/publication/277487328_Incorrect_relativistic_comparisons_hide_Special_Relativity%27s_clocks_paradox_-_Diagram

Also review this RG.

https://www.researchgate.net/post/How_old_are_the_Hafele-Keating_planes

http://arxiv.org/pdf/1303.5309v1.pdf

Data Incorrect relativistic comparisons hide Special Relativity's...

George Dishman,

When you study my previous comment, I need to prove also how you explanation of the equivalence principle is wrong by this paper J D Franson 2014 New J. Phys. 16 065008

doi:10.1088/1367-2630/16/6/065008

This paper is published in a peer reviewed very good journal.

According to the SWR Geometry the decrease in the speed of light is c'=(1-2GM/c^2r)c

Now let's discuss your explanation of the equivalence principle.

In this paper  calculated that, treating light as a quantum object, the change in a photon's velocity depends not on the strength of the gravitational field, but on the gravitational potential itself. However, this leads to a violation of Einstein's equivalence principle – that gravity and acceleration are indistinguishable – because, in a gravitational field, the gravitational potential is created along with mass, whereas in a frame of reference accelerating in free fall, it is not. Therefore, one could distinguish gravity from acceleration by whether a photon slows down or not when it undergoes particle–antiparticle creation. 

Oh dear, you're still having the same old problem, or maybe just some difficulty with the language. You quoted me correctly in the earlier post, I've made bold the key parts:

AKA: You said "In special relativity, the speed of light is c everywhere for an inertial observer. For an accelerated observer, it is not, it varies with location and only has that value locally."

The sentence you quoted relates to SR, not the Schwarzschild metric.

AKA: Have you heard about the space-time continuum?

I've been teaching people about it for around 20 years. It should be spelt without the hyphen by the way, because it is a uniform 4-dimensional manifold, not a combination of 3-d space with time as the hyphen implies.

AKA: The curved space-time is resulted by proposing the acceleration.

That is not correct. Curved spacetime is required to describe tidal effects in gravity, not simple acceleration. You can handle both accelerated objects and accelerated observers using just the Minkowski spacetime of special relativity.

The rest of your reply is so confused that there's no point replying to it. You need to "learn to walk before you run" and buying a basic textbook would be the place to start. For beginners like you, I recommend "Spacetime Physics" by Taylor and Wheeler, there's a link attached.

However, I note you are still running away from discussing my reply to your question:

AKA: "Can you tell me Just Which Equivalence Principle Do You Believe In The Pound-Rebka Experiment!!!? Please tell me, I'm really want to understand!!!"

You asked, I answered, and now it appears you want to talk about anything but that topic.

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Spacetime-Physics-Introduction-Special-Relativity/dp/0716723271

George Dishman,

Do not be more rude!!!

Just reply to me by physics!!! I gave you a paper 

Franson 2014 New J. Phys. 16 065008

doi:10.1088/1367-2630/16/6/065008

And before many papers. 

This paper is published in a peer reviewed very good journal.

Why you escape to reply!!! That proves how you are only talking nonsense!!!

LOOOOL Or you escape from the real discussion. 

Look how many references I gave and you do nott want to discuss any of them, because you not even understand relativity!!!

Again, 

In this paper  calculated that, treating light as a quantum object, the change in a photon's velocity depends not on the strength of the gravitational field, but on the gravitational potential itself. However, this leads to a violation of Einstein's equivalence principle – that gravity and acceleration are indistinguishable – because, in a gravitational field, the gravitational potential is created along with mass, whereas in a frame of reference accelerating in free fall, it is not. Therefore, one could distinguish gravity from acceleration by whether a photon slows down or not when it undergoes particle–antiparticle creation. 

You said: That is not correct. Curved spacetime is required to describe tidal effects in gravity, not simple acceleration. You can handle both accelerated objects and accelerated observers using just the Minkowski spacetime of special relativity.

Try to understand at first how you explained the pound and Rebka experiment at first and the variability of the speed of light. Review your first comment about your explanation. I'm trying to explain what you proposed using the classical acceleration to explain the Pound and Rebka experiment!!!  I'm not who ignored tidal effects in gravity!!!! Look how you are contradicting yourself!

You said You can handle both accelerated objects and accelerated observers using just the Minkowski spacetime of special relativity.

Just can you reply to this thought experiment Prove to us here you understand relativity and you understand what are you saying!!!!! ;)

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/277487328_Incorrect_relativistic_comparisons_hide_Special_Relativity%27s_clocks_paradox_-_Diagram

So you proved I'm right!! the decrease in the speed of light according to your explanation of POUND and Rebka experiment is related to Galilean transformation which violates the constancy of light in SRT. It's not related the SCHW Geometry. LOOOOL!

George Dishman,: You said "I've been teaching people about it for around 20 years. It should be spelt without the hyphen by the way, because it is a uniform 4-dimensional manifold, not a combination of 3-d space with time as the hyphen implies."

It's impossible, one man teaches relativity and do not understand what he teaches!!! 

Data Incorrect relativistic comparisons hide Special Relativity's...

Azzam, you are the one being rude. You asked me a question, how to analyse the Pound-rebka experiment using the principle of equivalence, and I answered that question.

AKA: Just reply to me by physics!!!

I did, it was just three schoolboy equations but you couldn't handle that.

AKA: Why you escape to reply!!!

I did reply, and I've repeated it at the bottom of this message. You are the one avoiding discussing my reply.

AKA: I gave you a paper Franson 2014 New J. Phys. 16 065008

You did, but it is not relevant to my answer so I will ignore it until you stop running away. If you look at my answer, the only time I used the speed of light was in the rocket version which is in Minkowski space and measured by an inertial observer watching the rocket accelerate. In that situation the speed is constant and equal to c.

My answer was so simple that I think you could not find any flaw in it, you realised I was right and had called your bluff, so instead you have run away and tried everything you could to change the subject. When you stop running and respond to my answer, we can talk. You have to learn how to hold a conversation like a mature person or forums like this just don't work.

=== Repeat of the solution ===

OK, if you want to analyse Pound-Rebka using the equivalence principle, here's how I would go about it, there are four steps. The physics is included below.

First consider dropping a brick down a tower on the Earth onto a flat plate. The height is short enough that we can treat the acceleration as constant (value g) during the drop. It is released at rest but hits the plate with some velocity and that means it has gained (kinetic) energy. The result is a dent in the plate.

Now apply the equivalence principle. You can perform the same experiment in deep space far from any mass using a rocket the same length as the height of the tower. Fire the engines to accelerate the rocket at g and release the same brick at rest against the bulkhead at the front of the ship. The brick now floats inertially in space ("free-fall") while the rocket accelerates past it. After a short time, the same as the drop time in the tower, the plate at the bottom of the rocket hits the brick. The result is a dent in the plate identical to the one produced in the tower.

Now apply this to an experiment similar to Pound-Rebka. The setup is the same but we fire a brief flash from a laser instead of a brick. Think of the rocket version first. If the rocket wasn't firing its engines, the colour of the light that hits the base plate would be the same as emitted by the laser. If the engines are running however, the plate is moving towards the light source when the laser flash reaches it, so an observer on the plate will see it Doppler shifted, the frequency will be measured to be higher.

Here's the physics.

The time of flight is:

t = h / c

where h is the internal length of the rocket (or height of the tower) and c is the speed of light.

During that time the rocket increases its speed by:

dv = g t = g h / c

where g is the acceleration.

The Doppler shift of the emitted frequency f is:

df / f = dv / c

hence

df / f = g h / c2

QED.

Now repeat that experiment in the tower. The equivalence principle means that the result must be the same, the frequency measured at the bottom must be increased by the same value as in the rocket version. That frequency shift is what Pound, Rebka and Snider measured.

George Dishman,

Your explanation is in violation with the constancy of light in SRT. I proved that! And I gave you many references for that. You have not replied to any of them! You play by words only. That's clear how your understanding to physics is very limited! Choose any of previous references I gave you and try to reply instead of repeating the same words. Show us how you understand relativity and physics.

I'm waiting your answer!!!!

AKA: Your explanation is in violation with the constancy of light in SRT.

No it isn't, the first equation in my proof is "t = h / c" because the light travels a distance h at constant speed c so you are obviously wrong and didn't read (or maybe understand) the description.

AKA: I proved that!

No, you only talked about your own web page. Your attention problem is showing again.

AKA: And I gave you many references for that. You have not replied to any of them!

You only gave me references to papers on the Schwarzschild metric but I don't use that anywhere in my explanation so they have no relevance.

You seem to be trying to prove that the coordinate speed of light in that metric is not always c, but everyone knows that anyway so there is even less point in my discussing them.

AKA: I'm waiting your answer!!!!

No, you've had my answer. You are incapable of saying anything about it and are stuck talking only about your own flawed web page. If you want to talk about the answer I gave you, I'll be happy to do that. It is unfortunate that my last copy is on a previous page so I'll repeat it again here. If you want me to reply, make your response relevant to what is written below:

=== Repeat of the solution ===

OK, if you want to analyse Pound-Rebka using the equivalence principle, here's how I would go about it, there are four steps. The physics is included below.

First consider dropping a brick down a tower on the Earth onto a flat plate. The height is short enough that we can treat the acceleration as constant (value g) during the drop. It is released at rest but hits the plate with some velocity and that means it has gained (kinetic) energy. The result is a dent in the plate.

Now apply the equivalence principle. You can perform the same experiment in deep space far from any mass using a rocket the same length as the height of the tower. Fire the engines to accelerate the rocket at g and release the same brick at rest against the bulkhead at the front of the ship. The brick now floats inertially in space ("free-fall") while the rocket accelerates past it. After a short time, the same as the drop time in the tower, the plate at the bottom of the rocket hits the brick. The result is a dent in the plate identical to the one produced in the tower.

Now apply this to an experiment similar to Pound-Rebka. The setup is the same but we fire a brief flash from a laser instead of a brick. Think of the rocket version first. If the rocket wasn't firing its engines, the colour of the light that hits the base plate would be the same as emitted by the laser. If the engines are running however, the plate is moving towards the light source when the laser flash reaches it, so an observer on the plate will see it Doppler shifted, the frequency will be measured to be higher.

Here's the physics.

The time of flight is:

t = h / c

where h is the internal length of the rocket (or height of the tower) and c is the speed of light.

During that time the rocket increases its speed by:

dv = g t = g h / c

where g is the acceleration.

The Doppler shift of the emitted frequency f is:

df / f = dv / c

hence

df / f = g h / c2

QED.

Now repeat that experiment in the tower. The equivalence principle means that the result must be the same, the frequency measured at the bottom must be increased by the same value as in the rocket version. That frequency shift is what Pound, Rebka and Snider measured.

George Dishman,

Look how you contradict yourself, You  said;

You only gave me references to papers on the Schwarzschild metric but I don't use that anywhere in my explanation so they have no relevance.

Yes!! you can't use SCHW geometry, because SCHW is only describing the motion in the gravitation field, and it is only an approximation in case of weak gravitational field. According to the SCHW there is no way to determine the location of the moving object at a certain point in space in the gravitation field. In this case you broke the space time continuum. So you can't explain the Pound and Rebka experiment according to SCHW geometry. 

And before you said; 

"In special relativity, the speed of light is c everywhere for an inertial observer. For an accelerated observer, it is not, it varies with location and only has that value locally. In GR again the speed has the value c locally but not for remote observations even for inertial"

And you now according to your  explanation you consider the variability of the speed of light, but this variability of the speed is not according to GR as you said previously...why? because as you said; you do not use the Schwarzschild Metric. 

So the variability of the speed of light is not resulted from GR and SCHW Geometry, because you do not use the SCHW metric, and since SRT is asserts on the constancy of the speed of light, then your explanation is in violation with the constancy of the speed of light as I told you before. Now you proved I'm right and you are wrong. And the website I gave you is completely right.

As you said; For an accelerated observer, it is not, it varies with location and only has that value locally. In GR again the speed has the value c locally but not for remote observations even for inertial"

That can't be explained according to SRT, where SRT says nothing about acceleration and at the same time it asserts on the constancy of the speed of light. Also according to SRT during the motion, you can't determine the location of the moving frame at a certain point in space according to space time continuum. In this case you broke the speed time continuum. Review this thought experiment. 

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/277487328_Incorrect_relativistic_comparisons_hide_Special_Relativity%27s_clocks_paradox_-_Diagram

Here there is a connection between the Galilean transformation  and the Ether theory and variability of the speed of light according to your explanation. That explained completely in my paper in my transformation.

So stop using the Straw man to defend the relativity. Straw man is using by relativists to defend relativity. 

Data Incorrect relativistic comparisons hide Special Relativity's...

George Dishman,

Thank you very much!! You now proved my theory is completely right. Since during the motion there is no way to determine the location of the moving object at a certain point in space during motion, and that according to space time continuum in SRT and GR. In this case we can explain that according to the motion in a wave-particle duality and the unertainty principle as in the Copenhagen. The only transformation can explain that is my transformation

x=R^2(x'-vt') t=R^2(t'-vx'/c^2) y=Ry' z=Rz' where R is Lorentz factor.

Now the motion according to this transformation is expressing about the wave-particle duality and the uncertainty principle/ And as you see the speed of light is locally constant.  But according to the observation globally the speed of light is variable and vacuum energy dependent, where the Lorentz factor in this case is vacuum energy dependent. 

That explains what you said previously;

In special relativity, the speed of light is c everywhere for an inertial observer. For an accelerated observer, it is not, it varies with location and only has that value locally.

Now if we want to determine the location of the moving object at a certain point in space. In this case the motion according to my transformation is defined by 4-D, and when we determine the moving object at a certain point in space, in this case the wave-function is collapse, and in this case my transformation is translated from 4-D to 2D. That explains completely the pound and Rebka experiment, and the motion in the gravitational field. According to my transformation and my equivalence principle, the Lorentz factor R=(1-GM/c^2r) which is gravitational potential dependent.

During the motion in the gravitation field, the decrease in the speed of light  globally is c'=(1-GM/c^2r)2 c which is approximated to c'=(1-2GM/c^2r) in case of weak gravitational field, and this velocity represents the group velocity, because the motion in nonlinear dispersion (by changing the potential by changing the radius in the gravitational field). Thus, the motion in nonlinear dispersion is defined by the group, and in nonlinear linear the group is not equal to the phase according to the uncertainty principle. That explains the light bending by gravity and by the wave-particle duality, explains also, the Mercury precession, and Shapiro delay and the Pioneer anomaly during the motion. 

Now when you determine the location of the moving object at a certain point in space, in this case the wave function is collapse, and in this case it is translating from 4D to 2D, and in this case the decrease in the speed of light globally at a certain point in space is defined according to the phase which is potential energy dependent and thus in this case we get c'=(1-GM/c^2r). At a certain point in space the phase and the group are equal. You can understand also the relation between the phase and the group according to the uncertainty principle, and how the uncertainty is working in this case during motion. That explains completely the Pound and Rebka experiment. Now review the double slit experiment in this video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dMqq5A8oL9Y and how when you make the measurement without determining the location of the moving object at a certain point in space; the motion in a wave-particle duality as in my transformation, and when you make a measurement at a certain point in space, in this case the wave function collapse, which explained in my transformation as it is translating from 4D to 2D.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dMqq5A8oL9Y

George Dishman,

I told you;

Here there is a connection between the Galilean transformation  and the Ether theory and variability of the speed of light according to your explanation. That explained completely in my paper in my transformation.

From where comes this connection!!!? LOOK!!!

In my transformation as you know space is invariant and it is only time. Now the Sagnac effect in my transformation gives you by using the time term in my transformation  t=R^2(t'-vx'/c^2) where we get t+= R^2(t'+vx'/c^2) and  t-=R^2(t'-vx'/c^2) then we get delta t=R^2(2Lv/c^2), where space is invariant and x=x'=L.

This is exactly the same explaining Sagnac effect in the framework of the ether theory. Review this paper http://arxiv.org/pdf/1404.4075v1.pdf

Also the H&K experiment explained completely according to my transformation by considering space is invariant Review this paper http://arxiv.org/abs/1405.5174 where in this paper it is written "These transformations demonstrate in turn the invariance of length intervals on the surface of the rotating Earth and so resolve the Ehrenfest paradox for this case."

As you see by removing the reciprocity all paradoxes are disappeared in my transformation.

Now why my transformation by adopting the Copenhagen school concepts by considering space is invariant and it is only  time, it gives the same calculation of the Ether theory. The answer is here; 

Because; 

In classical mechanics, a special status is assigned to time in the sense that it is treated as a classical background parameter, external to the system itself. This special role is seen in the standard formulation of quantum mechanics. It is regarded as part of an a priori given classical background with a well defined value. In fact, the classical treatment of time is deeply intertwined with the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics, and, thus, with the conceptual foundations of quantum theory: all measurements of observables are made at certain instants of time and probabilities are only assigned to such measurements.

Now what about the electromagnetic and how it is related to my transformation

You can review this paper http://arxiv.org/abs/1303.5309 it is very simple now to understand everything!!!!!!!!!!!! 

AKA: Look how you contradict yourself,

I haven't contradicted myself anywhere.

AKA: You  said; "You only gave me references to papers on the Schwarzschild metric but I don't use that anywhere in my explanation so they have no relevance."

I did say that indeed and that is correct.

AKA: Yes!! you can't use SCHW geometry, because SCHW is only describing the motion in the gravitation field,

Wrong, I didn't use it because you asked to use the Equivalence Principle. Let me remind you yet again of your own question:

AKA: Just Which Equivalence Principle Do You Believe In The Pound-Rebka Experiment!!!? Please tell me, I'm really want to understand!!!

That's what I did, I applied the Equivalence Principle and that converts the problem from an application of Schwarzschild metric to a problem in special relativity.

I think the problem is that you asked me to use the Equivalence Principle but you haven't a clue what it is or does.

AKA: And before you said; "In special relativity, the speed of light is c everywhere for an inertial observer."

I did indeed, and it is correct, and that is what I used to solve the problem.

AKA: And you now according to your  explanation you consider the variability of the speed of light,..

Wrong again Azzam. It seems that the equation t=h/c where c is the constant speed is too complicated for you to follow. That equation is primary school stuff and if you can't follow that, there's not much point in looking at any more, the rest of your comments are complete nonsense.

Oh well, this is what I said last time I replied: "If you want to talk about the answer I gave you, I'll be happy to do that. ... If you want me to reply, make your response relevant to what is written below:"

Sadly, you failed to do that. It seems to me, though I am not a professional in the field of mental health, that you are incapable of staying on the topic or of understanding what other people are saying to you. That may explain why you fail to understand even SR.

We have demonstrated that your papers are badly flawed and your conclusions are incorrect, but I see no purpose continuing to explain science to you that is far beyond your ability to understand.

Good luck with your studies.

Majorities are deciding in politics. But the truth resp. the reality is no question of majorities. Theories are only approximations to the reality. You shold be careful to say, this theory is the right one. I'm afraid I couldn't go along with the opinions of George or Azzam.

Even if all are in complete agreement they can all be wrong. (B.Russel)

I would remind you of Alfred Wegener and his thoughts about the continental shift and other examples.

Sorry but you have misunderstood the exchange Hans. Azzam asked me to explain the application of the Equivalence Principle to the Pound-Rebka experiment which I did. Since then, he has consistently ignored everything I said and instead constantly repeated a number of lies about my explanation.

The conversation is not so much about the physics, which is fairly trivial, but about his childish behaviour which I think may stem from a condition known as ADHD.

Anyway, I do apologise for having somewhat taken over the your thread. Obviously the Pound-Rebka experiment is relevant to your original question but Azzam's rude response has driven the replies in a different direction.

George Dishman,

Why are you angry? I gave you an explanation for all the problems in physics from Higgs to Galaxies. You have never given any explanation to anything. Your explanation to Pound and Rebka experiment is fake and nonsense!! I proved that, but you repeat the same words and calculations. Look how many experiments I explained it according to my calculations. How many references I gave you and you have never replied to any one.... Ok! Now I challenge again after I solved Pound and Rebka experiment according to my transformation.

NOW

Aether field rejected by Michelson Morley experiment in 20th century, but now in 21st century Higgs field is accepted. Why is that?

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Aether_field_rejected_by_Michelson_Morley_experiment_in_20th_century_but_now_in_21st_century_Higgs_field_is_accepted_Why_is_that

Now I solved that according to my transformation. Can you solve that???

LOOOOOOOOOL

Also

Is Loretnz symmetry conserved for all velocity ranges?

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Is_Loretnz_symmetry_conserved_for_all_velocity_ranges

I solved that according to my transformation. Can you solve that?

LOOOOOOL!

I do not want to embarrass you more. You understand well you have not given me a serious solution for the Pound and Rebka experiment.  I talk with you with  references. Each word I talk with you, I give you a reference or an experiment. But you do not reply to me by a reference or an experiment. 

George Dishman,

Again if you are serious 

In this paper it is talking about your equivalence principle... Do not tell me I do not use SCHW Geometry as you said  previously!! That means you do not understand the equivalence principle. 

That is related to what you propose in the POUND and REBKA experiment

J D Franson 2014 New J. Phys. 16 065008

doi:10.1088/1367-2630/16/6/065008

In this paper it is calculated that, treating light as a quantum object, the change in a photon's velocity depends not on the strength of the gravitational field, but on the gravitational potential itself. However, this leads to a violation of Einstein's equivalence principle – that gravity and acceleration are indistinguishable – because, in a gravitational field, the gravitational potential is created along with mass, whereas in a frame of reference accelerating in free fall, it is not. Therefore, one could distinguish gravity from acceleration by whether a photon slows down or not when it undergoes particle–antiparticle creation.

Can you reply to me!!! ;)

Also, in this paper 

On the origin of the anomalous precession of Mercury's perihelion, Jaume Giné

http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0510086v4

The author recovers an ancient work of Gerber in 1898 as a precursor of the retarded theories. In this paper Gerber gave an explanation of the anomalous precession of the Mercury's perihelion in terms of a velocity--dependent potential. In this paper an explanation of the anomalous precession of Mercury's perihelion is given in terms of a simple retarded potential, which, at first order, coincides with Gerber's potential, and which agrees with the author's previous works.

That agree with what I predicted!!! and in contradiction with your explanation of Pound and Rebka experiment according to the equivalence principle. ;)

I'm waiting your reply!!!