NASA confuses gravitational redshift with refractional redshift

[Marvas]

All types of light, including X-rays, are also affected by gravity. An analogy is that of a person running up an escalator that is going down. As they do this, the person loses more energy than if the escalator was stationary or going up. The force of gravity has a similar effect on light, where a loss in energy gives a lower frequency. Because light in a vacuum always travels at the same speed, the loss of energy and lower frequency means that the light, including the signatures of iron and silicon, shift to longer wavelengths.

This is the first strong evidence for absorption signatures being shifted to longer wavelengths by gravity in a pair of stars that has either a neutron star or black hole. Strong evidence for gravitational redshifts in absorption has previously been observed from the surface of white dwarfs, with wavelength shifts typically only about 15% of that for 4U 1916-053.

Scientists say it is likely that a gaseous atmosphere blanketing the disk near the neutron star (shown in blue) absorbed the X-rays, producing these results.

Einstein’s Theory of Relativity, Critical For GPS, Seen In Distant Stars - NASA

An effect predicted by Albert Einstein has been identified in a double star system about 29,000 light years from Earth.

www.nasa.gov

First, the analogy with a person running up an escalator that is going down and the energy thereof is explained by newtonian physics and has nothing to do with general relativity. The analogy doesnt prove anything related to general relativity, therefore its illogical and stupid.

It is also stupid because a person is a physical object made of atoms that have mass, while light, being a wave, doesn't have mass. Its like comparing apples with light waves. If a light wave falls on your head, then you know Einstein was right and gravity is a force. Just like Newton said when the apple hit him with brute force.

Except gravity is not a force in general relativity, but in classical newtonian physics. NASA in this article which 'proves' Einstein right claims that it is a force, which contradicts Einstein's theory which claims it is a curvature of spacetime and NOT a force. Therefore, NASA is stupid.

Then it goes to show that this force of gravity has a similar effect on light, cause light looses energy just like a person does when it runs up an escalator going down.
Except light has no mass to move, because it is massless, so it looses no energy when it moves up while going down a gravitational escalator, which cannot move light at all cause light aint like a person which gravity can pull.
And because light always runs at speed c in a vacuum, effortlessly, while the person needs to accelerate from a standstill and push his own mass up in order to run on the escalator, which makes him loose energy. Light doesnt need to push its mass up, against gravity, because it has none, so it looses zero energy.

But the biggest stupidity is that these NASA scientists confuse the redshift from refraction with one from gravitation, despite the fact that they aknowledge that the redshifted Xrays were absorbed (and reemmited) by the neutron's star gaseous atmosphere ! They make the same mistake that Pound and Rebka did, using speed c of light in a vacuum and applying it to the equation f=c/lambda, which yields a decrease in frequency when the wavelength lambda is increased.

They assume that the xrays always travel at c the speed of light in the vacuum, when they obviously do not always travel in a vacuum as they first travel through the gaseous atmosphere of the stars ! So their innitial speed is not c but v=c/n, and it only increases to c when they go into space, which is a vacuum, which makes them refract into space, and change their wavelength from REFRACTION! Because when v increases to c then the wavelength increases to preserve the frequency f=v/lambda. So there is no loss in energy whatsoever from gravity, because the frequency does not change, only the speed of light changes when it refracts into space !

But these complete idiots completely ignore refraction just like Pound and Rebka and Shapiro did when they proved Einstein using helium or the sun's heliosphere, and use c as the speed of light everywhere in their calculations, which then result in a decrease of frequency and a loss of energy.
Whereas if they use v=c/n, as they would were they not complete idiots, there is no loss in frequency and energy whatsoever, and no gravitational redshift.

EDIT: If there is a loss of energy, it is because the Xrays loose energy in the gaseous atmosphere as they are partially absorped by it, and not because of gravity or relativity. (obviously if they were completely absorped we would not be able to detect them).

So it might be that the perceived redshift is a combination of the redshift from refraction, and that from absorption. Either way, it has absolutely NOTHING to do with gravity or relativity.

 

[Classical Motion]

How's come color does not change when looking thru a window pane? Or a square aquarium? How's come a still lake reflection has all it's color? And all the color is the proper color.....none of it is shifted.

In order for refraction or reflection to shift the input, the surface of the refraction/reflection has to be moving. Only then does it shift. Go borrow a traffic radar set and check it out. Get two and test wide angles too. A behind to forward reflection.

And this happens only with a moving reflection........NOT a moving emitter. Try that too.

Emission is an instant event without a duration. Refection is an instant event with a duration.

 

[Marvas]

I explained why wavelength changes during refraction, it follows from two simple equations: v=c/n, and f=v/lambda. Because f is constant, it results that when the speed of light changes, the wavelength changes too ! So if v increases then lambda increases, which is a redshift, and if v decreases then lambda decreases, which is a blueshift. How many times do I have to explain this simple math which is like gimnasium level ? These are basically the simplest equations possible, its not rocket science man.

When you look through a window there is air on both sides of the window. So the light goes through air, glass, and then air again. From air to glass it gets blueshifted, because the speed of light decreases, so lambda decreases, and from glass to air it gets redshifted, because the speed of light increases, so lambda increases. The redshift and the blueshift cancel out, so you will see no shift.

And no one claimed that reflection causes a shift in wavelength, so that is a strawman argument. The speed of light does not change during reflection, as the medium of propagation remains the same.


P.S. Astrophysicists and physicists in general don't get basic equations either, but they claim to understand uber-complicated relativistic equations which Einstein himself said he did not understand ever since mathematicians have invaded his theory of relativity.

 

[Classical Motion]

Measure the shift from an emitter, then measure the shift from a moving reflection. Explain that with space time.

The F in your math is not a wave F. It's an intermittent F, a duty cycle F. Not a sound wave type shift(Doppler).

The shifts you measure of light or any PROPAGATED EM shift is a duty cycle shift, not a continuous wave shift. And only the off time of that duty cycles shifts, the on time always remains constant. The on time is always 1/2 period in duration. The off time, the duration between on times, is also 1/2 period if no motion. But changes with motion.

Space Width Modulation.....with emitter motion. A distance displacement shift. It's unlike any shift observed and/or used for power transfer control or any communication modulation method.

It's unheard of. The baled hay-bales in the field have the same length, but the distance between the bales, depends on the velocity of the baler tractor. A duty cycle. One wave length of a duty cycle is 1 on time plus 1 off time. But with this duty cycle shift, only the off time changes. This is a asymmetrical shift, not a symmetrical shift, like Doppler.

That's unheard of too.

 

[Marvas]

What does a moving reflection have to with refraction and what is being discussed here ? I dont have to explain anything with spacetime, because I dont give a $hit about spacetime. Its a complete non-sense and a contradiction of terms just like the particlewave. Any theory which is based on such flagrant contradictions is illogical and can only be false.

The f is not in my math, it's in Newton's math or whoever came up with the equation f=v/lambda. I am not bringing up my own math here, nor do I invent new physics to support my theory. Its all classical physics baby (no pun intended).

 

[Marvas]

Compton effect. That is what is causing the Xrays to be so redshifted and dispersed at the same time. I completely forgot about it, my bad. But NASA has no excuse. They say that the redshift was too high to be explained by recesional velocity, so they concluded it was from gravity. As if, that was the only other possibility. If the neutron star was not very close to another one from our galaxy, they would have concluded the high redshift is from space expansion, and that is moving at the speed of light away from us. Or even faster, cause general relativity allows space to expand so fast that it can move galaxies at warp speeds, faster than Starship Enterprise (and it only uses vacuum energy to propel them!). And that this is a confirmation that Einstein was right, when he admited that Fridmann was right and that he was wrong.

In the new work on 4U 1916-053, the team analyzed X-ray spectra — that is, the amounts of X-rays at different wavelengths — from Chandra. They found the characteristic signature of the absorption of X-ray light by iron and silicon in the spectra. In three separate observations with Chandra, the data show a sharp drop in the detected amount of X-rays close to the wavelengths where the iron or silicon atoms are expected to absorb the X-rays. One of the spectra showing absorption by iron is included in the main graphic, and an additional graphic shows a spectrum with absorption by silicon.

However, the wavelengths of these characteristic signatures of iron and silicon were shifted to longer, or redder wavelengths compared to the laboratory values found here on Earth (shown with the dashed line). The researchers found that the shift of the absorption features was the same in each of the three Chandra observations, and that it was too large to be explained by motion away from us. Instead they concluded it was caused by gravitational redshift.

 

[George²]

Except light has no mass to move

So let's not even try to build a space ships with solar sails, will it work?

 

[Marvas]

So let's not even try to build a space ships with solar sails, will it work?

That is irrelevant to this discussion.

I said that light doesnt have to move its own mass, unlike the person who has mass. How does your comment change this obvious fact ?

 

[George²]

That is irrelevant to this discussion.

I said that light doesnt have to move its own mass, unlike the person who has mass. How does your comment change this obvious fact ?

What I had quoted clearly has nothing to do with what you wrote now. If photons actually had no mass, they would not interact gravitationally. The definition that they have no mass at rest doesn't matter because we haven't been able to fix a photon in place so far.

 

[Marvas]

You clearly did not understand what I said then.
'Except light has no mass to move, because it is massless'
So I was clearly reffering to its own mass, but you took it out of context and thought I was reffering to light moving some external mass.

If photons actually had no mass, they would not interact gravitationally.

They dont interact gravitationally. There is no light bending outside the sun's corona, as Dr Dowdye from NASA has shown. I have also shown that the gravitational redshift was confused with refractional redshift, which like bending of light is also caused by refraction from gases such as Helium which was used in the g-shift experiment and is also present in the sun's corona. These two facts completelly and absolutelly disprove Einstein's general relativity.

And I have also proved that photons dont exist. Because a radio photon would be several miles long, which is non-sense since quantum mechanics only applies at atomic and subatomic scales. The notion of a quantum particle being the size of a highway is laughable and only shows how idiotic Einsteins particle wave duality is. Because a particle being a wave is a contradictory non-sense which only leads to an even bigger non sense.

The definition that they have no mass at rest doesn't matter because we haven't been able to fix a photon in place so far.

And you never will, because photons dont exist. Light is a wave, and waves dont have mass. Particles do, but light is not a particle. Thats why it doesnt have mass, and why it doesnt interact gravitationally.

 

[Classical Motion]

The reason some think EM radiation is a particle, is because a wave has momentum like a particle has momentum. But mass is not needed for momentum, only field density is needed for momentum. Field density alone can push mass.

When the linear momentum of light interacts with matter, that momentum is converted into angular momentum. It jiggles the mass. Twists and torques the fields of mass. The mass vibrates.

The proportion of this conversion depends on the EM impedance of the mass.....and the frequency(rate) of the radiation.

Some rates have little effect, some great effect and heat or cause current....or even re-emission, and some very special rates become absorbed by the mass, and added to the mass's inertia......a mass gain.

And some rates can completely disassociate atomic mass. And particle mass. Dissolve mass and matter altogether. Mass destroyed.

 

[George²]

Given that light pushes objects in a direction that is the same as the direction of the rays, not in an arbitrary one, in the same way that material objects interact, I cannot agree with a definition of immateriality of photons. If it were simply transmitting energy, the object receiving it would move along the path of least resistance.

 

[George²]

More precisely about mass of photons.