Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #600620

Re: Why 1960 Pound-Rebka experiment is an HOAX. Part I.

Newsgroups	sci.physics.relativity
Date	2023-02-01 17:43 -0800
References	<5c3d8b9d-11aa-47c5-a068-32c41f7ab05dn@googlegroups.com> <bf4e1f5d-a630-4b5b-9359-34e07803a534n@googlegroups.com> <2a520723-7898-45a0-880b-c474555bb4bfn@googlegroups.com> <6608e5b4-4c22-4513-9720-9d2ba8583c58n@googlegroups.com>
Message-ID	<2e769d52-a622-4d8d-97ff-2bd8f3da8307n@googlegroups.com> (permalink)
Subject	Re: Why 1960 Pound-Rebka experiment is an HOAX. Part I.
From	Prokaryotic Capase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com>

Show all headers | View raw

On Wednesday, February 1, 2023 at 6:52:28 PM UTC-6, Richard Hertz wrote:
> On Wednesday, February 1, 2023 at 9:02:23 PM UTC-3, prokaryotic.c...@gmail.com wrote: 
> > On Wednesday, February 1, 2023 at 5:01:43 PM UTC-6, Richard Hertz wrote: 
> > > Another disclaimer by Pound, this time 21 years after his HOAX and making a living as 
> > > a relativist of pure breed, because he "proved Einstein's right", and enjoyed fame along 
> > > his relativity buddies writing an entire chapter in the book "Mössbauer Spectroscopy II. 
> > > The Exotic Side of the Method". 
> > > 
> > > ************************** EXCERPT ******************************************* 
> > > 
> > > 3.3.1 Systematic Errors 
> > > In all of the results quoted so far the uncertainties given represent standard deviations 
> > > arising only from finite counting statistics. Allowance must also be made for the possible 
> > > presence of systematic errors. Among the items that contribute uncertainties of this kind 
> > > are the limited precisions in the measurements of the path length, of the calibration velocity, 
> > > and of the temperature coefficient of the 57Fe resonance. 
> > > There was undoubtedly some error associated with the nonlinearity of the vibration-based 
> > > differentiating process over the range of the calibrating velocity, but the largest and dominant 
> > > error was thought to arise from the inexact representation of the weighted mean temperature 
> > > by the temperature sensed and recorded continuously at one thermistor on the absorber. 
> > > 
> > > A test was made, after the main runs had been completed, to see how similar to one another 
> > > were the changes at the six thermistors when the reference temperature was changed by ±5°C 
> > > from the normal value. 
> > > It was assumed that such a test would reveal discrepancies similar to those accompanying 
> > > changes of ambient temperature with fixed reference temperature at 43°C. The result lead to 
> > > the conclusion that as much as ±0.005 fractional error could have been introduced by this 
> > > source alone. Altogether the combination of this and the other systematic errors with the 
> > > statistical ones, taking them all to be statistically independent, results in a final result well 
> > > within an overall uncertainty of ±0.01. 
> > > ******************************************************************** 
> > > 
> > > He forgot to add HOW did he COOK his 14 sets of data with "temperature corrections" that 
> > > averaged 80% of the NET 2-WAYS COMPOSED SHIFT 
> > > 
> > > - Mean shift = -17.6 ± 0.6 (PUBLISHED) 
> > > 
> > > - Mean shift - "Einstein's right: -2.49" = -15.11 ± 0.6 (NOT PUBLISHED). 
> > > 
> > > This is the spread of the 8 measurements per set of data (8x14 readings): 
> > > 
> > > MIN - MAX READING PER SET (x 10E-15), NO CORRECTIONS YET: 
> > > 
> > > Set 1: from -8.5 to -14.5 
> > > Set 2: from -14.2 to -18.6 
> > > Set 3: from -12.5 to -15.1 
> > > Set 4: from -9.8 to -14 
> > > Set 5: from -6.7 to -10.7 
> > > Set 6: from -8.5 to -12.5 
> > > Set 7: from -7.9 to -16.1 
> > > Set 8: from -4.3 to -7.1 
> > > Set 9: from -5.3 to -9.5 
> > > Set 10: from -4.4 to -8.6 
> > > Set 11: from -10.8 to -17 
> > > Set 12: from -3.6 to -9.6 
> > > Set 13: from -4.5 to -8.5 
> > > Set 14: from -7.4 to -12.6 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > MIN - MAX READING PER SET (x 10E-15), INCLUDING UNDISCLOSED CORRECTIONS DUE TO TEMPERATURE: 
> > > 
> > > Adjusted Set 1: from -17.7 to -23.7 
> > > Adjusted Set 2: from -20.1 to -24.5 
> > > Adjusted Set 3: from -17.8 to -20.4 
> > > Adjusted Set 4: from -17.8 to -22 
> > > Adjusted Set 5: from -17.2 to -21.2 
> > > Adjusted Set 6: from -19.1 to -23.1 
> > > Adjusted Set 7: from -16.5 to -24.7 
> > > Adjusted Set 8: from -13.9 to -16.7 
> > > Adjusted Set 9: from -12.7 to -16.9 
> > > Adjusted Set 10: from -10.2 to -14.4 
> > > Adjusted Set 11: from -18.3 to -24.5 
> > > Adjusted Set 12: from -9.3 to -15.3 
> > > Adjusted Set 13: from -13.4 to -17.4 
> > > Adjusted Set 14: from -15.3 to -20.5 
> > > 
> > > ******************************************************************** 
> > > 
> > > THAT'S WHAT I CALL A COOKED ADJUSTMENT OVER CHERRY PICKED DATA WITHIN FUDGED EXPERIMENT. 
> > No, that is your *deliberate* obfuscation of the data 
> > presented in the very straightforward Table I of their 
> > paper. The temperature corrections, which you claim 
> > are "undisclosed", are presented in the "Temperature 
> > correction" column. There does appear to be a small 
> > typo in the Net Shift row 6, although the discrepancy 
> > more likely results from them having privately carried 
> > out the computation to more places than they reported. 
> > This could explain why the Weighted Averages of data 
> > sets 1 through 6, and of 7 through 14, which should 
> > be weighted according to 1/sigma^2, differ slightly 
> > from my own computation. 
> > 
> > As I stated before, 
> > | If O is the frequency shift inherent in a emitter/absorber 
> > | combination and x is the offset resulting from gravitational time 
> > | dilation, then 
> > | AVERAGE_OF_TWO_ORIENTATIONS(O + x, O - x) = O 
> > | DIFFERENCE_OF_TWO_ORIENTATIONS (O + x) - (O - x) = 2x 
> > Table I, of course, represents only the first four days 
> > of data collection, and the preliminary averages presented 
> > in this table differ somewhat from the "final" numbers 
> > reported in the text.
> I acknowledge your dissent. We are in quite different stances: You believe everything around relativity, 
> and I believe nothing about relativity. This is black vs. white, but it's OK with me. 
> 
> BTW, and speaking about NOT reading posts, did you read my post where I explain WHY your (O + x) - (O - x) = 2x 
> is plain wrong? I even wrote it using spectroscopy's jargon and placed a link of a very deep 2007 MIT paper about 
> the COMPLEXITIES to derive an O(p,q,r, T) statistical function to model energy uncertainty around f0? 
> 
> It says CLEARLY that such function is MULTI-PARAMETRIC for Fe57, and it's VISIBLE that taking lightly the average 
> fractional spread was FISHY! 
> 
> Explain WHY Pound barely wrote about HOW he rescued "Einstein's right, 2.49E-15" from a HIGHLY NOISY BACKGROUND. 

The background is not noisy.

The fixed part of the offset (i.e. the frequency shift inherent in 
a given emitter/absorber combination) is fixed, the variable 
part of the offset due to temperature differences is highly 
predictable, and the magnitude of the gravitational time dilation
is comparable to the line widths.  
 
> In engineering, it's equivalent to RESCUE A RANDOM SIGNAL ("Einstein's right, 2.49E-15") that is almost 8dB BELOW another 
> RANDOM SIGNAL (Gamma emission/absorption spread, 15.1E-15), NOT EXISTING ANY POSSIBLE "SIGNATURE" FOR 
> THE WEAKER SIGNAL. 

15.1E-15 is *not* a random signal beneath which it is
difficult to discern the gravitational signal of 2.49E-15, but 
a fixed offset (after correcting for temperature) whose 
magnitude is easy to estimate from simple mathematics. 

> But you have to know that Dicke, famous for his "random gaussian noise reduction by a switching amplifier", which incremented 
> the SNR to detect the Cosmic Background Radiation, WAS BEHIND THESE KIND OF EXPERIMENTS to prove "Einstein's right". 
>
> This MASTER of randomness MANIPULATION was the brain behind the main instrument in the COBE satellite. 
> 
> So, if Dicke approved, IT'S EVEN MORE FISHY!

Back to sci.physics.relativity | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar

Thread

Why 1960 Pound-Rebka experiment is an HOAX. Part I. Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2023-01-27 07:10 -0800
  Re: Why Richard Hertz is an imbecile "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2023-01-27 07:36 -0800
    Re: Why Richard Hertz is an imbecile patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2023-01-27 09:37 -0800
      Re: Why Richard Hertz is an imbecile "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2023-01-27 10:33 -0800
        Re: Why Richard Hertz is an imbecile Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-01-27 10:50 -0800
    Re: Why Richard Hertz is an imbecile Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2023-01-27 13:36 -0800
      Re: Why Richard Hertz is an imbecile Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2023-01-27 14:05 -0800
        Re: Why Richard Hertz is an imbecile "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2023-01-28 16:07 -0800
          Re: Why Richard Hertz is an imbecile Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2023-01-28 16:43 -0800
            Re: Why Richard Hertz is an imbecile "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2023-01-28 17:12 -0800
    Re: Why Richard Hertz is an imbecile Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2023-01-28 08:01 -0800
      Re: Why Richard Hertz is an imbecile Prokaryotic Capase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2023-01-28 13:36 -0800
        Re: Why Richard Hertz is an imbecile Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2023-01-28 14:41 -0800
          Re: Why Richard Hertz is an imbecile Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2023-01-28 15:13 -0800
          Re: Why Richard Hertz is an imbecile patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2023-01-28 15:15 -0800
          Re: Why Richard Hertz is an imbecile Prokaryotic Capase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2023-01-28 16:57 -0800
            Re: Why Richard Hertz is an imbecile Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-01-28 21:40 -0800
  Re: Why 1960 Pound-Rebka experiment is an HOAX. Part I. Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-01-27 14:23 -0500
    Re: Why 1960 Pound-Rebka experiment is an HOAX. Part I. Baldomero De filippis <ppbo@ibsldimp.sn> - 2023-01-28 16:40 +0000
  Re: Why 1960 Pound-Rebka experiment is an HOAX. Part I. Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2023-01-29 07:32 -0800
    Re: Why 1960 Pound-Rebka experiment is an HOAX. Part I. Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2023-01-29 08:25 -0800
      Re: Why 1960 Pound-Rebka experiment is an HOAX. Part I. Prokaryotic Capase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2023-01-29 09:34 -0800
        Re: Why 1960 Pound-Rebka experiment is an HOAX. Part I. Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2023-01-29 13:26 -0800
          Lying piece of shit Richard Hertz exposed "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2023-01-29 13:51 -0800
            Re: Lying piece of shit Richard Hertz exposed "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2023-01-30 14:39 +0100
              Re: Lying piece of shit Richard Hertz exposed Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2023-01-30 06:19 -0800
              Re: Lying piece of shit Richard Hertz exposed Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-01-30 07:30 -0800
          Re: Why 1960 Pound-Rebka experiment is an HOAX. Part I. Prokaryotic Capase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2023-01-29 14:54 -0800
    Why Richard Hertz is a hardened crank "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2023-01-29 09:27 -0800
    Re: Why 1960 Pound-Rebka experiment is an HOAX. Part I. Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2023-01-29 17:02 -0800
      Re: Why 1960 Pound-Rebka experiment is an HOAX. Part I. Prokaryotic Capase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2023-01-29 17:54 -0800
        Re: Why 1960 Pound-Rebka experiment is an HOAX. Part I. Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2023-01-29 18:53 -0800
      Crank Richard Hertz exposed "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2023-01-29 19:33 -0800
        Re: Crank Richard Hertz exposed patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2023-01-29 23:58 -0800
          Re: Crank Richard Hertz exposed nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2023-01-30 11:09 +0100
            Re: Crank Richard Hertz exposed patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2023-01-30 10:28 -0800
              Re: Crank Richard Hertz exposed Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2023-01-30 11:21 -0800
              Re: Crank Richard Hertz exposed Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2023-01-30 14:46 -0800
              Re: Crank Richard Hertz exposed nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2023-01-30 23:47 +0100
                Re: Crank Richard Hertz exposed Athel Cornish-Bowden <athel.cb@gmail.com> - 2023-01-31 08:42 +0100
            Re: Crank Richard Hertz exposed Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-01-31 13:02 -0500
        Re: Crank Richard Hertz exposed Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2023-01-30 03:26 -0800
          Re: Crank Richard Hertz exposed Prokaryotic Capase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2023-01-30 06:18 -0800
            Re: Crank Richard Hertz exposed Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2023-01-30 06:34 -0800
              Re: Crank Richard Hertz exposed Prokaryotic Capase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2023-01-30 08:31 -0800
                Re: Crank Richard Hertz exposed Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2023-01-30 10:08 -0800
                Re: Crank Richard Hertz exposed "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2023-01-30 10:30 -0800
                Re: Crank Richard Hertz exposed Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-01-30 21:48 -0500
                Re: Crank Richard Hertz exposed Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-01-30 22:41 -0800
                Re: Crank Richard Hertz exposed Prokaryotic Capase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2023-01-30 12:47 -0800
          Re: Crank Richard Hertz exposed "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2023-01-30 07:34 -0800
            Re: Crank Richard Hertz exposed nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2023-01-30 23:47 +0100
              Re: Crank Richard Hertz exposed Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2023-01-30 15:11 -0800
                Re: Crank Richard Hertz exposed Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> - 2023-01-30 21:45 -0800
              Re: Crank Richard Hertz exposed "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2023-01-30 15:30 -0800
              Re: Crank Richard Hertz exposed Prokaryotic Capase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2023-01-30 17:09 -0800
                Re: Crank Richard Hertz exposed Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-01-30 22:43 -0800
                Re: Crank Richard Hertz exposed nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2023-01-31 14:04 +0100
                Re: Crank Richard Hertz exposed Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-01-31 08:55 -0800
                Re: Crank Richard Hertz exposed Athel Cornish-Bowden <athel.cb@gmail.com> - 2023-01-31 20:06 +0100
                Re: Crank Richard Hertz exposed Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-01-31 21:11 -0500
                Re: Crank Richard Hertz exposed Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2023-01-31 19:12 -0800
                Re: Crank Richard Hertz exposed Prokaryotic Capase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2023-01-31 20:06 -0800
                Re: Crank Richard Hertz exposed Prokaryotic Capase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2023-01-31 20:10 -0800
                Re: Crank Richard Hertz exposed Prokaryotic Capase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2023-01-31 20:20 -0800
                Re: Crank Richard Hertz exposed Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2023-02-01 05:57 -0800
                Re: Crank Richard Hertz exposed "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2023-02-01 08:55 -0800
                Re: Crank Richard Hertz exposed Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-02-01 11:02 -0800
                Re: Crank Richard Hertz exposed Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-01-31 22:43 -0800
                Re: Crank Richard Hertz exposed Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-02-01 09:40 -0500
                Re: Crank Richard Hertz exposed Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2023-02-01 07:17 -0800
                Re: Crank Richard Hertz exposed Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-02-01 17:08 -0500
                Re: Crank Richard Hertz exposed Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2023-02-01 14:25 -0800
                Re: Crank Richard Hertz exposed Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-02-02 16:06 -0500
                Re: Crank Richard Hertz exposed Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2023-02-02 13:45 -0800
                Re: Crank Richard Hertz exposed Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-02-02 20:07 -0500
                Re: Crank Richard Hertz exposed Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2023-02-02 18:36 -0800
                Re: Crank Richard Hertz exposed Prokaryotic Capase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2023-02-02 20:56 -0800
                Re: Crank Richard Hertz exposed Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-02-03 14:01 -0500
                Re: Crank Richard Hertz exposed Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2023-02-03 13:06 -0800
                Re: Crank Richard Hertz exposed "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2023-02-07 15:05 -0800
                Re: Crank Richard Hertz exposed Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2023-02-07 18:44 -0800
                Re: Crank Richard Hertz exposed "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2023-02-07 18:47 -0800
                Re: Crank Richard Hertz exposed Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-02-01 23:11 -0800
                Re: Crank Richard Hertz exposed Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-01-31 22:41 -0800
  Re: Why 1960 Pound-Rebka experiment is an HOAX. Part I. Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2023-01-30 11:19 -0800
    Re: Why Richard Hertz is a hardened crank "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2023-01-30 11:25 -0800
  Re: Why 1960 Pound-Rebka experiment is an HOAX. Part I. Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2023-01-30 11:43 -0800
  Re: Why 1960 Pound-Rebka experiment is an HOAX. Part I. Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2023-01-30 11:46 -0800
    Re: Why 1960 Pound-Rebka experiment is an HOAX. Part I. Darrel Vaccaro <acoc@vecdalvl.vc> - 2023-01-30 19:52 +0000
  Re: Why Richard Hertz is a crank "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2023-01-30 12:34 -0800
  Re: Why 1960 Pound-Rebka experiment is an HOAX. Part I. Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2023-01-30 18:46 -0800
    Crank Richard Hertz perseveres "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2023-01-30 19:07 -0800
  Re: Why 1960 Pound-Rebka experiment is an HOAX. Part I. Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2023-01-31 03:28 -0800
    Re: Why 1960 Pound-Rebka experiment is an HOAX. Part I. Prokaryotic Capase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2023-01-31 06:08 -0800
    Re: Why Richard Hertz is a crank "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2023-01-31 06:26 -0800
  Re: Why Richard Hertz is a crank "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2023-02-01 09:23 -0800
  Re: Why 1960 Pound-Rebka experiment is an HOAX. Part I. Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2023-02-01 15:01 -0800
    Re: Why 1960 Pound-Rebka experiment is an HOAX. Part I. Prokaryotic Capase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2023-02-01 16:02 -0800
      Re: Why 1960 Pound-Rebka experiment is an HOAX. Part I. Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2023-02-01 16:52 -0800
        Re: Why 1960 Pound-Rebka experiment is an HOAX. Part I. Prokaryotic Capase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2023-02-01 17:43 -0800
          Re: Why 1960 Pound-Rebka experiment is an HOAX. Part I. Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2023-02-02 04:28 -0800
      Re: Why 1960 Pound-Rebka experiment is an HOAX. Part I. Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2023-02-01 17:05 -0800

csiph-web