Pound and Rebka experiment debunked by Compton effect


The Pound-Rebka experiment, produced in 1959 at Harvard University, is considered to be the last of the three classic tests of General relativity. The experiment allegedly proved the existence of gravitational redshift predicted by Einstein in his theory.

In this gravitational redshift experiment a gamma ray is send through a helium bag to an iron target and a gammaray detector, which are placed below it in air. Because the iron only absorbs the gammaray at a certain wavalength, if the wavelength changes, it will not absorb it, and it will go through it and in the detector. So if the gammaray passes through the iron target and gets detected it means that it was shifted by gravity, just as Einstein predicted. (actually it doesn't mean that)

Image


The reason why they used a helium bag was 'to minimise scattering'.
By scattering they reffer to Compton scattering which affects both Xrays and gammarays, which get redshifted in the process (but of course they forgot to mention this small detail !) This scattering is more likely to happen in air than in helium, which has a lower electron density and smaller chance of scattering.

Then, why did they leave the detector and metal target in open air ? The reason is to maximise scattering, right before the gammaray reached the metal target. So that it could be scattered all over it and maximise the chance that it passed through it and reached the detector, so that they could claim it was shifted by gravity. But of course it was not shifted by gravity, but by Compton scattering. Basically, it was a classic scam, just like the other two.

It is known that Gammarays and Xrays are known to be prone to scattering from the Compton effect, which redshifts it. This experiment used a bag of helium to minimise scattering, but left the detector in open air. The gammaray was therefore scattered by air and redshifted from Compton effect. Even if only helium was used, it would still have been scattered and redshifted. Because minimising scattering does not elliminate scattering.


Note: in this experiment the so called 'gammaray' had energy coresponding to an Xray, so in fact it was a Xray, not a gammaray (another confusion made by the two). And Xrays can also refract, not just scatter.


Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

An introduction to Refractional Redshift, and how it was confused with gravitational redshift (updated)

Image
  AN INTRODUCTION TO REFRACTIONAL REDSHIFT, AND HOW IT WAS CONFUSED WITH GRAVITATIONAL REDSHIFT. GENERAL RELATIVITY DEBUNKED. Marius L. Vasile @Vasile Effect   In this paper I will prove that refraction causes a redshift, which I cleverly named Refractional redshift, and that this redshift was not so cleverly confused with gravitational redshift by the world's finest scientists- we're talking Harvard, Nobel prize level here- which were either ignorant of refraction, or doctors in doctoring experiments with it. Refractional redshift is by far the most common and yet unknown type of redshift- certainly for astronomers, who have no ideea that it exists. It is caused due to the fact that during refraction the speed of light changes, but the frequency remains constant. Since f=v/lambda, where lambda is the wavelength, it immediately follows that the wavelength changes too in order to preserve the frequency. This results in an increase of wavelength or a redshift when the s
Read more

Refractional redshift completely disproves General Relativity & Big Bang theory

Image
  An introduction to Refractional redshift, and how it was confused with gravitational redshift Marius L. Vasile - absolute skeptic    ' Astronomers know of three sources of redshift/blueshift: Doppler shifts; gravitational redshifts (due to light exiting a gravitational field); and cosmological expansion (where space itself stretches)' -Wikipedia ' Astronomers don't know anything '- Vasilepedia In this paper I will prove that refraction  causes a redshift, which I cleverly named Refractional redshift, and that this redshift was not so cleverly confused with gravitational redshift by the world's finest scientists- we're talking Harvard, Nobel prize level here- which were either ignorant of refraction, or doctors in doctoring experiments with it. Refractional redshift is by far the most common and yet unknown type of redshift- certainly for astronomers, who have no ideea that it exists. It is caused due to the fact that during refraction the speed of lig
Read more

Refraction causes redshift, gravity does not. General relativity is wrong.

Image
The theory of general relativity (which is the basis of the big-bang theory) is wrong, and I say this because, besides the fact that Einstein abberates that gravity is not a force, but a curvature of space and time, which is an absolute non-sense, not relative, and attributes geodesics to space and time, which is absolutely illogical because space does not have a surface (a geodesic is by definition related to a surface), and time does not have a surface either (the 'surface of time' is an aberration, as well as the 'surface of space', respectively the 'surface of space-time'), the experiments that have allegedly confirmed it are extremely illogical, if not downright stupid. There are three main tests of general relativity, and all of them disprove general relativity if they are interpreted correctly. I will first reffer to the one in which the Nobel laureates, scientists Pound and Rebka, used a Helium bag and air to demonstrate that gravity produces the change
Read more