more GRAVITY?
-
- Posts: 154
- Joined: Mon Mar 24, 2008 9:04 pm
more GRAVITY?
http://www.deceptiveuniverse.com/
Ah, come on.
Just a wee bit of humor. If we take all the craniums of all the scientists and fill them with liquid
lead, then velcro a north pole in one ear and a south pole in the other ear and then screw a light
bulb in each ear, what do you think we would get.
Oh ok, they would still be attached to their bodies.
Ah, come on.
Just a wee bit of humor. If we take all the craniums of all the scientists and fill them with liquid
lead, then velcro a north pole in one ear and a south pole in the other ear and then screw a light
bulb in each ear, what do you think we would get.
Oh ok, they would still be attached to their bodies.
- D_Archer
- Posts: 1255
- Joined: Sat Apr 18, 2009 4:01 am
- Location: The Netherlands
Re: more GRAVITY?
There is no such thing as 'neutron stars'.
Why not just use intrinsic redshift.
Regards,
Daniel
Why not just use intrinsic redshift.
Regards,
Daniel
- Shoot Forth Thunder -
-
- Posts: 605
- Joined: Fri Nov 28, 2014 8:29 am
Re: more GRAVITY?
Interesting piece there on the Shapiro effect:
http://www.deceptiveuniverse.com/The-Shapiro-Effect.htm
http://www.deceptiveuniverse.com/The-Shapiro-Effect.htm
- comingfrom
- Posts: 760
- Joined: Mon Jun 29, 2015 9:11 pm
- Location: NSW, Australia
- Contact:
Re: more GRAVITY?
It begs a question.
Acceleration and deceleration are the same thing, they are both a change in velocity.
Just opposite vectors of the force which is causing the change in velocity.
Isn't it?
~Paul
If gravity cannot accelerate a photon, then how does it decelerate a photon?There is simply no mechanism for accelerating a photon once its velocity has been reduced by a gravitational force! With every gravitational force it encounters, no matter how small, a photon will continue to decelerate and lose energy. I call this “gravity drag”, which was also named by famous astronomer Fritz Zwicky many years ago.
Acceleration and deceleration are the same thing, they are both a change in velocity.
Just opposite vectors of the force which is causing the change in velocity.
Isn't it?
~Paul
-
- Posts: 605
- Joined: Fri Nov 28, 2014 8:29 am
Re: more GRAVITY?
Gravity can accelerate a photon. Measuring blue-shift of light being projected down a tower was the basic outline of the Pound-Rebka experiment:comingfrom wrote:It begs a question.
If gravity cannot accelerate a photon, then how does it decelerate a photon?There is simply no mechanism for accelerating a photon once its velocity has been reduced by a gravitational force! With every gravitational force it encounters, no matter how small, a photon will continue to decelerate and lose energy. I call this “gravity drag”, which was also named by famous astronomer Fritz Zwicky many years ago.
Acceleration and deceleration are the same thing, they are both a change in velocity.
Just opposite vectors of the force which is causing the change in velocity.
Isn't it?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blueshift
I am not sure if the Shapiro effect is different to this though?
-
- Posts: 18
- Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2009 8:28 am
Re: more GRAVITY?
Can anybody tell me where in their calculations they accounted for the velocity differential between the top and bottom of the tower?
- D_Archer
- Posts: 1255
- Joined: Sat Apr 18, 2009 4:01 am
- Location: The Netherlands
Re: more GRAVITY?
Some good reading>LAShaffer wrote:Can anybody tell me where in their calculations they accounted for the velocity differential between the top and bottom of the tower?
An Explosion of the Pound-Rebka Experiment: http://milesmathis.com/pound.html by Miles Mathis
Regards,
Daniel
- Shoot Forth Thunder -
-
- Posts: 18
- Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2009 8:28 am
Re: more GRAVITY?
That paper says nothing about my question. The top of the tower has a demonstrably different velocity than the bottom of the tower.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 104 guests