Results 1 to 5 of 5

Thread: Einstein's General Relativity and Gravitational Redshift .

  1. #1 Einstein's General Relativity and Gravitational Redshift . 
    New Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Is the Gravitational Redshift really a proof for Einsteins General Relativity ?
    ************************************************** ****************************************

    One of the last proofs of Einsteins General Theory of Relativity was the

    Pound-Rebka experiment cf.

    If take another look we can derive the Gravitational redshift without Einstein. Thus

    it cannot in any case be considered a proof for Einstein.

    The only facts we need to know is ;

    1.The conservation of energy-matter.

    2.The potential energy on earth PE=m*g*h (or that of a star G*M/r )

    3.The energy of a photon E=h*f.

    4.E=m*c^2. (or m=h*f/c^2)

    There are no other theories or facts that we need to prove the

    gravitational redshift.

    To show this we make a thought experiment with Alice and Bob.

    Alice and Bill have decided to do something dishonest.

    They want to break the first law of physics that prohibits

    perpetual motion machines.Alice goes to the bottom of a

    mountain and Bill to the top.

    Alice will then convert 1kg of water to a laser light and flash

    it up to Bob .Bob will then convert this laser light back to

    water and let it flow down the mountain.They will then sell the

    energy of the flowing water on the black market .

    This is obviously wrong.

    The reason is that the potential energy of the water must be

    subtracted from the energy Bill can get from the light rays.

    The energy before must be equals the energy afterwards.

    Thus ;

    The energy recieved by Bob must be equal to the energy sent by Alice minus

    the potential energy contained in the water .We will calculate this for just one



    This reduces to


    This is exactly the result that Einstein obtained . The only difference is that

    we have not used any assumptions other than those commonly quoted in

    any introductory text book on physics.

    For more details see

    ************************************************** ***********************************

    Reply With Quote  


  3. #2  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Nebraska, the Heartland!

    I have two questions regarding your conclusion:

    1. Do theoretical physicists regard this experiment as verifying General Relativity?

    2. If so, why do you they disagree with you?

    Just curious,

    Reply With Quote  

  4. #3  
    Forum Bachelors Degree
    Join Date
    May 2005
    London, England
    My question is, if the experiment is about Alice and Bob, who the hell's Bill?

    I'm not myself certain of the provenance of a thought experiment which involves "converting" water into laser light and back. You're essentially using a Star Trek-type transporter.

    But let's go with it. You convert the 1Kg of water into light energy with 100% efficiency and beam it up the mountain, where it gets converted back with 100% efficiency, minus the energy it lost through redshift. And we get the result:
    This is exactly the result that Einstein obtained . The only difference is that

    we have not used any assumptions other than those commonly quoted in

    any introductory text book on physics.
    Perhaps that is because the assumptions commonly quoted in any introductory text book on physics involve knowledge of Einstein? Now, you converted water into energy and back again. Would that be via this equation? e = mc<sup>2</sup> by any chance? Now, who came up with that equation....... it's on the tip of my tongue.......
    "It is comparatively easy to make clever guesses; indeed there are theorems, like 'Goldbach's Theorem' which have never been proved and which any fool could have guessed." G.H. Hardy, Fourier Series, 1943
    Reply With Quote  

  5. #4  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    May 2006
    I'm only a Grade 10 science student. But what you said made alot of sense. Except for the part when you changed names but I did get your point.
    "Then HaShem G-d formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul." - G-d
    Reply With Quote  

  6. #5  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope mitchellmckain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Salt Lake City, UTAH, USA
    The first thing you have to understand is that it was never considered proof but only evidence. When a theory predicts something and you check it and it turns out to be true then that is considered evidence which supports the theory.

    The second thing you must understand is that according to Newton's theory of gravity, something only has potential energy if it has mass, so since photons do not have mass, Newton's theory does not predict gravitational redshift but Einstein's General theory of Relativity does predict it.

    Proof plays a role in physics only in theory. But the real truth in physics relies not on proof but upon experimental evidence. There is no such thing as experimental proof. For example, John Stewart Bell proved that if there were hidden variables then a certain mathematical inequality must be obeyed in the correlations between the measurements in a certain type of experiment. These experiments were performed and the inquality was not obeyed. This provided experimental evidence that the idea of hidden variables was wrong and that the accepted understanding of Quantum physics was correct.
    See my physics of spaceflight simulator at

    I now have a blog too:
    Reply With Quote  

Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts