Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #659831 > unrolled thread

Pound-Rebka: ChatGPT is TRAINED to obey, sucking asses of relativists at any cost.

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity

Contents

  Pound-Rebka: ChatGPT is TRAINED to obey, sucking asses of relativists at any cost. hertz778@gmail.com (rhertz) - 2024-12-26 00:22 +0000
    Re: Pound-Rebka: ChatGPT is TRAINED to obey, sucking asses of relativists at any cost. clzb93ynxj@att.net (LaurenceClarkCrossen) - 2024-12-26 00:41 +0000
    Re: Pound-Rebka: ChatGPT is TRAINED to obey, sucking asses of relativists at any cost. clzb93ynxj@att.net (LaurenceClarkCrossen) - 2024-12-26 03:35 +0000
    Re: Pound-Rebka: ChatGPT is TRAINED to obey, sucking asses of relativists at any cost. hertz778@gmail.com (rhertz) - 2024-12-26 17:14 +0000
      Re: Pound-Rebka: ChatGPT is TRAINED to obey, sucking asses of relativists at any cost. clzb93ynxj@att.net (LaurenceClarkCrossen) - 2024-12-27 05:03 +0000
    Re: Pound-Rebka: ChatGPT is TRAINED to obey, sucking asses of relativists at any cost. hertz778@gmail.com (rhertz) - 2024-12-26 18:20 +0000
      Re: Pound-Rebka: ChatGPT is TRAINED to obey, sucking asses of relativists at any cost. hertz778@gmail.com (rhertz) - 2024-12-26 18:31 +0000
        Re: Pound-Rebka: ChatGPT is TRAINED to obey, sucking asses of relativists  at any cost. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2024-12-26 14:02 -0800
          Re: Pound-Rebka: ChatGPT is TRAINED to obey, sucking asses of relativists   at any cost. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2024-12-26 16:44 -0800
            Re: Pound-Rebka: ChatGPT is TRAINED to obey, sucking asses of relativists at any cost. hertz778@gmail.com (rhertz) - 2024-12-27 01:48 +0000
            Re: Pound-Rebka: ChatGPT is TRAINED to obey, sucking asses of relativists at any cost. clzb93ynxj@att.net (LaurenceClarkCrossen) - 2024-12-27 04:53 +0000

#659831 — Pound-Rebka: ChatGPT is TRAINED to obey, sucking asses of relativists at any cost.

I've been using ChatGPT to analyze the FISHY 1959 infamous experiment
that "proved" Einstein's 1911 predicted gravitational blue-shifting,
with the formula g.h/c^2.

The 1959 Pound-Rebka experiment was conducted in less than a week,
because Pound had to lecture about his results in a conference of
physicists, to whom he had anticipated his idea.

Using a 22.5 meters height at the Jefferson Laboratory, a sample of
radioactive Fe57 that emitted 14.4 KeV gamma rays (a fraction of them
without recoil in the emitting atom), he and his collaborators devised
an extremely complex array of instruments and mechanisms to MEASURE a
"predicted" gravitational shift of only
2.5x10^-15. The problem was that the source of Fe57 emitted gamma
radiation within a band of frequencies that had a half energy width of
about 10^-12 around the central frequency. PLUS, only a fraction of
gamma rays were free of recoil effects.

In 1959, and even today, to measure a contribution of GR of almost 1,000
times smaller than the bandwidth of gamma rays was/is IMPOSSIBLE. The
radiation frequency of gamma rays followed a Lorentzian distribution,
similar to a Gauss distribution, around the central frequency.

Among the major perturbations that made such a measurement impossible by
direct means were: Doppler effects (first and second order), all kind of
noise in the environment and instruments, random distribution of
frequencies of gamma rays around its central frequency, vibrations of
any kind, IMPOSSIBILITY to separate the gravitational effect from the
general effects of frequency shifting (it was only 1/1,000 part of the
total frequency shift) and many other factors.

Pound and Rebka resorted to a HEAVY STATISTICAL MANIPULATION of the
results, and due to that, his presentation one week later to the
physicists' convention DIDN'T mention that he had proved Einstein's
right. That came LATER, by the hand of relativists, that started to
praise the experiment as extraordinary and the first one conducted on
Earth, instead of using astronomical measurements.

Pound's experiment was claimed as having an error of about 10%, when in
reality the paper published early in 1960 show an error of about 100%.

This is what ChatGPT answered when I presented the case:

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

Question: if the measured gravitational shift (−4.2×10^−15) was almost
twice
 the predicted value (+2.5×10^−15), it's claimed that the error is only
10% with respect to the theory?

Answer:


The claim that the error was only 10% despite the measured gravitational
shift
(−4.2×10^−15) being significantly different from the predicted value
(+2.5×10^−15)  is based on the way experimental uncertainty and
systematic corrections were handled in the Pound-Rebka experiment. Let's
break this down:

the following factors contribute to explaining the discrepancy:

a. Calibration of Doppler Velocities
The experiment relied on precise Doppler velocity adjustments to cancel
out the gravitational redshift.
Any small miscalibrations or systematic errors in determining the
Doppler shifts could result in an apparent shift that does not perfectly
match the theoretical prediction.
These systematic effects were treated as sources of uncertainty rather
than fundamental errors in the experiment.

b. Noise and Statistical Averaging
The results were derived from the averaging of many measurements, with
noise and random variations influencing individual data points.
Statistical analysis was applied to estimate the "true" shift by
reducing random noise. The final reported error margin reflected this
statistical uncertainty.

c. Systematic Corrections
The researchers applied corrections for known sources of systematic
error, such as:
Thermal expansion or contraction of components.
Alignment imperfections in the source or detector.
After applying these corrections, the discrepancy between the measured
and predicted values was reduced to within the claimed margin of error.

2. How the 10% Error Was Justified
The "10% error" claim stems from the combined experimental uncertainty
rather than the raw difference between the measured and theoretical
values. Here's how this works:

a. Combining Uncertainties
The total uncertainty was a combination of:
Statistical Error: The noise in the measurements, reduced through
averaging.
Systematic Error: Residual effects from calibration, alignment, and
environmental factors.

b. Accounting for the Discrepancy
When the measured shift was adjusted to account for systematic
corrections, the discrepancy with the theoretical value fell within this
10% error range.
This was considered acceptable for an experiment of this complexity and
sensitivity, particularly given the pioneering nature of the work.

3. Why the Result Was Accepted

Despite the apparent discrepancy, the experiment's results were
considered a validation of Einstein's prediction because:

a. Correct Order of Magnitude
The observed shift was of the same order of magnitude as the predicted
value, which was a significant achievement given the technological
limitations of the time.

b. Agreement Within Experimental Uncertainty

After accounting for uncertainties, the measured value was consistent
with the theoretical prediction to within 10%, which was deemed
sufficient given the challenges of measuring such a small effect.

c. Pioneering Nature of the Experiment

The Pound-Rebka experiment was the first direct measurement of
gravitational redshift on Earth. The scientific community recognized its
limitations but also its groundbreaking contribution to testing General
Relativity.


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


So, ChatGPT agreed that the error had an uncertainty of about 100%, but
accept this for "BEING SO CLOSE TO WAS WANTED TO BE PROVEN".

Then resort to all kind of idiocies to justify the HEROIC and
groundbreaking experiment, after what it switches to alternate
explanations like: The advances in the development of cesium clocks,
highly imperfect in the '60s, allowed to prove Einstein beyond any
doubt.

So, folks, ChatGPT is the COLLECTIVE MIND of relativists and will not
accept any opposite fact, even when the evidence crushes any defense of
GR.


The "dialog" is much more long than the resume I posted above.


Pound-Rebka experiment IS FALSE, a hoax and a desperate attempt to
impose Einstein's SR/GR AT ANY COST, resorting to lies, deformation of
truth, twisting facts and, mostly, TAKING YOU AS A FUCKING IDIOT.

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#659832

On Thu, 26 Dec 2024 0:22:56 +0000, rhertz wrote:

> I've been using ChatGPT to analyze the FISHY 1959 infamous experiment
> that "proved" Einstein's 1911 predicted gravitational blue-shifting,
> with the formula g.h/c^2.
>
> The 1959 Pound-Rebka experiment was conducted in less than a week,
> because Pound had to lecture about his results in a conference of
> physicists, to whom he had anticipated his idea.
>
> Using a 22.5 meters height at the Jefferson Laboratory, a sample of
> radioactive Fe57 that emitted 14.4 KeV gamma rays (a fraction of them
> without recoil in the emitting atom), he and his collaborators devised
> an extremely complex array of instruments and mechanisms to MEASURE a
> "predicted" gravitational shift of only
> 2.5x10^-15. The problem was that the source of Fe57 emitted gamma
> radiation within a band of frequencies that had a half energy width of
> about 10^-12 around the central frequency. PLUS, only a fraction of
> gamma rays were free of recoil effects.
>
> In 1959, and even today, to measure a contribution of GR of almost 1,000
> times smaller than the bandwidth of gamma rays was/is IMPOSSIBLE. The
> radiation frequency of gamma rays followed a Lorentzian distribution,
> similar to a Gauss distribution, around the central frequency.
>
> Among the major perturbations that made such a measurement impossible by
> direct means were: Doppler effects (first and second order), all kind of
> noise in the environment and instruments, random distribution of
> frequencies of gamma rays around its central frequency, vibrations of
> any kind, IMPOSSIBILITY to separate the gravitational effect from the
> general effects of frequency shifting (it was only 1/1,000 part of the
> total frequency shift) and many other factors.
>
> Pound and Rebka resorted to a HEAVY STATISTICAL MANIPULATION of the
> results, and due to that, his presentation one week later to the
> physicists' convention DIDN'T mention that he had proved Einstein's
> right. That came LATER, by the hand of relativists, that started to
> praise the experiment as extraordinary and the first one conducted on
> Earth, instead of using astronomical measurements.
>
> Pound's experiment was claimed as having an error of about 10%, when in
> reality the paper published early in 1960 show an error of about 100%.
>
> This is what ChatGPT answered when I presented the case:
>
> ****************************************************************
>
> Question: if the measured gravitational shift (−4.2×10^−15) was almost
> twice
>  the predicted value (+2.5×10^−15), it's claimed that the error is only
> 10% with respect to the theory?
>
> Answer:
>
>
> The claim that the error was only 10% despite the measured gravitational
> shift
> (−4.2×10^−15) being significantly different from the predicted value
> (+2.5×10^−15)  is based on the way experimental uncertainty and
> systematic corrections were handled in the Pound-Rebka experiment. Let's
> break this down:
>
> the following factors contribute to explaining the discrepancy:
>
> a. Calibration of Doppler Velocities
> The experiment relied on precise Doppler velocity adjustments to cancel
> out the gravitational redshift.
> Any small miscalibrations or systematic errors in determining the
> Doppler shifts could result in an apparent shift that does not perfectly
> match the theoretical prediction.
> These systematic effects were treated as sources of uncertainty rather
> than fundamental errors in the experiment.
>
> b. Noise and Statistical Averaging
> The results were derived from the averaging of many measurements, with
> noise and random variations influencing individual data points.
> Statistical analysis was applied to estimate the "true" shift by
> reducing random noise. The final reported error margin reflected this
> statistical uncertainty.
>
> c. Systematic Corrections
> The researchers applied corrections for known sources of systematic
> error, such as:
> Thermal expansion or contraction of components.
> Alignment imperfections in the source or detector.
> After applying these corrections, the discrepancy between the measured
> and predicted values was reduced to within the claimed margin of error.
>
> 2. How the 10% Error Was Justified
> The "10% error" claim stems from the combined experimental uncertainty
> rather than the raw difference between the measured and theoretical
> values. Here's how this works:
>
> a. Combining Uncertainties
> The total uncertainty was a combination of:
> Statistical Error: The noise in the measurements, reduced through
> averaging.
> Systematic Error: Residual effects from calibration, alignment, and
> environmental factors.
>
> b. Accounting for the Discrepancy
> When the measured shift was adjusted to account for systematic
> corrections, the discrepancy with the theoretical value fell within this
> 10% error range.
> This was considered acceptable for an experiment of this complexity and
> sensitivity, particularly given the pioneering nature of the work.
>
> 3. Why the Result Was Accepted
>
> Despite the apparent discrepancy, the experiment's results were
> considered a validation of Einstein's prediction because:
>
> a. Correct Order of Magnitude
> The observed shift was of the same order of magnitude as the predicted
> value, which was a significant achievement given the technological
> limitations of the time.
>
> b. Agreement Within Experimental Uncertainty
>
> After accounting for uncertainties, the measured value was consistent
> with the theoretical prediction to within 10%, which was deemed
> sufficient given the challenges of measuring such a small effect.
>
> c. Pioneering Nature of the Experiment
>
> The Pound-Rebka experiment was the first direct measurement of
> gravitational redshift on Earth. The scientific community recognized its
> limitations but also its groundbreaking contribution to testing General
> Relativity.
>
>
> *********************************************************
>
>
> So, ChatGPT agreed that the error had an uncertainty of about 100%, but
> accept this for "BEING SO CLOSE TO WAS WANTED TO BE PROVEN".
>
> Then resort to all kind of idiocies to justify the HEROIC and
> groundbreaking experiment, after what it switches to alternate
> explanations like: The advances in the development of cesium clocks,
> highly imperfect in the '60s, allowed to prove Einstein beyond any
> doubt.
>
> So, folks, ChatGPT is the COLLECTIVE MIND of relativists and will not
> accept any opposite fact, even when the evidence crushes any defense of
> GR.
>
>
> The "dialog" is much more long than the resume I posted above.
>
>
> Pound-Rebka experiment IS FALSE, a hoax and a desperate attempt to
> impose Einstein's SR/GR AT ANY COST, resorting to lies, deformation of
> truth, twisting facts and, mostly, TAKING YOU AS A FUCKING IDIOT.
So that's where you have been.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#659833

On Thu, 26 Dec 2024 0:22:56 +0000, rhertz wrote:

> I've been using ChatGPT to analyze the FISHY 1959 infamous experiment
> that "proved" Einstein's 1911 predicted gravitational blue-shifting,
> with the formula g.h/c^2.
>
> The 1959 Pound-Rebka experiment was conducted in less than a week,
> because Pound had to lecture about his results in a conference of
> physicists, to whom he had anticipated his idea.
>
> Using a 22.5 meters height at the Jefferson Laboratory, a sample of
> radioactive Fe57 that emitted 14.4 KeV gamma rays (a fraction of them
> without recoil in the emitting atom), he and his collaborators devised
> an extremely complex array of instruments and mechanisms to MEASURE a
> "predicted" gravitational shift of only
> 2.5x10^-15. The problem was that the source of Fe57 emitted gamma
> radiation within a band of frequencies that had a half energy width of
> about 10^-12 around the central frequency. PLUS, only a fraction of
> gamma rays were free of recoil effects.
>
> In 1959, and even today, to measure a contribution of GR of almost 1,000
> times smaller than the bandwidth of gamma rays was/is IMPOSSIBLE. The
> radiation frequency of gamma rays followed a Lorentzian distribution,
> similar to a Gauss distribution, around the central frequency.
>
> Among the major perturbations that made such a measurement impossible by
> direct means were: Doppler effects (first and second order), all kind of
> noise in the environment and instruments, random distribution of
> frequencies of gamma rays around its central frequency, vibrations of
> any kind, IMPOSSIBILITY to separate the gravitational effect from the
> general effects of frequency shifting (it was only 1/1,000 part of the
> total frequency shift) and many other factors.
>
> Pound and Rebka resorted to a HEAVY STATISTICAL MANIPULATION of the
> results, and due to that, his presentation one week later to the
> physicists' convention DIDN'T mention that he had proved Einstein's
> right. That came LATER, by the hand of relativists, that started to
> praise the experiment as extraordinary and the first one conducted on
> Earth, instead of using astronomical measurements.
>
> Pound's experiment was claimed as having an error of about 10%, when in
> reality the paper published early in 1960 show an error of about 100%.
>
> This is what ChatGPT answered when I presented the case:
>
> ****************************************************************
>
> Question: if the measured gravitational shift (−4.2×10^−15) was almost
> twice
>  the predicted value (+2.5×10^−15), it's claimed that the error is only
> 10% with respect to the theory?
>
> Answer:
>
>
> The claim that the error was only 10% despite the measured gravitational
> shift
> (−4.2×10^−15) being significantly different from the predicted value
> (+2.5×10^−15)  is based on the way experimental uncertainty and
> systematic corrections were handled in the Pound-Rebka experiment. Let's
> break this down:
>
> the following factors contribute to explaining the discrepancy:
>
> a. Calibration of Doppler Velocities
> The experiment relied on precise Doppler velocity adjustments to cancel
> out the gravitational redshift.
> Any small miscalibrations or systematic errors in determining the
> Doppler shifts could result in an apparent shift that does not perfectly
> match the theoretical prediction.
> These systematic effects were treated as sources of uncertainty rather
> than fundamental errors in the experiment.
>
> b. Noise and Statistical Averaging
> The results were derived from the averaging of many measurements, with
> noise and random variations influencing individual data points.
> Statistical analysis was applied to estimate the "true" shift by
> reducing random noise. The final reported error margin reflected this
> statistical uncertainty.
>
> c. Systematic Corrections
> The researchers applied corrections for known sources of systematic
> error, such as:
> Thermal expansion or contraction of components.
> Alignment imperfections in the source or detector.
> After applying these corrections, the discrepancy between the measured
> and predicted values was reduced to within the claimed margin of error.
>
> 2. How the 10% Error Was Justified
> The "10% error" claim stems from the combined experimental uncertainty
> rather than the raw difference between the measured and theoretical
> values. Here's how this works:
>
> a. Combining Uncertainties
> The total uncertainty was a combination of:
> Statistical Error: The noise in the measurements, reduced through
> averaging.
> Systematic Error: Residual effects from calibration, alignment, and
> environmental factors.
>
> b. Accounting for the Discrepancy
> When the measured shift was adjusted to account for systematic
> corrections, the discrepancy with the theoretical value fell within this
> 10% error range.
> This was considered acceptable for an experiment of this complexity and
> sensitivity, particularly given the pioneering nature of the work.
>
> 3. Why the Result Was Accepted
>
> Despite the apparent discrepancy, the experiment's results were
> considered a validation of Einstein's prediction because:
>
> a. Correct Order of Magnitude
> The observed shift was of the same order of magnitude as the predicted
> value, which was a significant achievement given the technological
> limitations of the time.
>
> b. Agreement Within Experimental Uncertainty
>
> After accounting for uncertainties, the measured value was consistent
> with the theoretical prediction to within 10%, which was deemed
> sufficient given the challenges of measuring such a small effect.
>
> c. Pioneering Nature of the Experiment
>
> The Pound-Rebka experiment was the first direct measurement of
> gravitational redshift on Earth. The scientific community recognized its
> limitations but also its groundbreaking contribution to testing General
> Relativity.
>
>
> *********************************************************
>
>
> So, ChatGPT agreed that the error had an uncertainty of about 100%, but
> accept this for "BEING SO CLOSE TO WAS WANTED TO BE PROVEN".
>
> Then resort to all kind of idiocies to justify the HEROIC and
> groundbreaking experiment, after what it switches to alternate
> explanations like: The advances in the development of cesium clocks,
> highly imperfect in the '60s, allowed to prove Einstein beyond any
> doubt.
>
> So, folks, ChatGPT is the COLLECTIVE MIND of relativists and will not
> accept any opposite fact, even when the evidence crushes any defense of
> GR.
>
>
> The "dialog" is much more long than the resume I posted above.
>
>
> Pound-Rebka experiment IS FALSE, a hoax and a desperate attempt to
> impose Einstein's SR/GR AT ANY COST, resorting to lies, deformation of
> truth, twisting facts and, mostly, TAKING YOU AS A FUCKING IDIOT.
"'in the late 1920s, physics departments were being purged of Relativity
critics... reason given... to obtain maximal funds...'" - "Einstein
Unmasked" by Jeremy Fiennes c. 2024.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#659836

What were the findings of the Pound-Rebka Experiment?

https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/362002/what-were-the-findings-of-the-pound-rebka-experiment

***** THE EXPERIMENT IS CONSIDERED AS A NON-RELATIVISTIC PROOF OF
NEWTONIAN THEORY OF LIGHT, AND ITS RESULTS ARE NOT RELATED TO GENERAL
RELATIVITY. THE NARRATIVE ABOUT SUCH EXPERIMENT BEING THE PROOF OF THE
THIRD EINSTEIN'S PREDICTION (MERCURY AND LIGHT DEFLECTION) ABOUT
GRAVITATIONAL RED-SHIFTING IS JUST PROPAGANDA. *****



QUOTE:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
The Pound-Rebka experiment demonstrated that the velocity difference
(acceleration) of photons is "identical to that which a material object
would acquire in free fall", as predicted by Newton's emission theory of
light and in violation of Einstein's relativity:

R. V. Pound and J. L. Snider, Effect of Gravity on Gamma Radiation
(pdf): "It is not our purpose here to enter into the many-sided
discussion of the relationship between the effect under study and
general relativity or energy conservation. It is to be noted that no
strictly relativistic concepts are involved and the description of the
effect as an "apparent weight" of photons is suggestive. The velocity
difference predicted is identical to that which a material object would
acquire in free fall for a time equal to the time of flight."

That the speed of falling light varies like the speed of ordinary
falling bodies is so obvious that many scientists confirm the fact and
so inadvertently disprove Einstein's relativity:

University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign: "Consider a falling object.
ITS SPEED INCREASES AS IT IS FALLING. Hence, if we were to associate a
frequency with that object the frequency should increase accordingly as
it falls to earth. Because of the equivalence between gravitational and
inertial mass, WE SHOULD OBSERVE THE SAME EFFECT FOR LIGHT. So lets
shine a light beam from the top of a very tall building. If we can
measure the frequency shift as the light beam descends the building, we
should be able to discern how gravity affects a falling light beam. This
was done by Pound and Rebka in 1960. They shone a light from the top of
the Jefferson tower at Harvard and measured the frequency shift. The
frequency shift was tiny but in agreement with the theoretical
prediction. Consider a light beam that is travelling away from a
gravitational field. Its frequency should shift to lower values. This is
known as the gravitational red shift of light."

Albert Einstein Institute: "One of the three classical tests for general
relativity is the gravitational redshift of light or other forms of
electromagnetic radiation. However, in contrast to the other two tests -
the gravitational deflection of light and the relativistic perihelion
shift -, you do not need general relativity to derive the correct
prediction for the gravitational redshift. A combination of Newtonian
gravity, a particle theory of light, and the weak equivalence principle
(gravitating mass equals inertial mass) suffices. [...] The
gravitational redshift was first measured on earth in 1960-65 by Pound,
Rebka, and Snider at Harvard University..."
----------------------------------------------------------------

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#659848

On Thu, 26 Dec 2024 17:14:17 +0000, rhertz wrote:

> What were the findings of the Pound-Rebka Experiment?
>
> https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/362002/what-were-the-findings-of-the-pound-rebka-experiment
>
> ***** THE EXPERIMENT IS CONSIDERED AS A NON-RELATIVISTIC PROOF OF
> NEWTONIAN THEORY OF LIGHT, AND ITS RESULTS ARE NOT RELATED TO GENERAL
> RELATIVITY. THE NARRATIVE ABOUT SUCH EXPERIMENT BEING THE PROOF OF THE
> THIRD EINSTEIN'S PREDICTION (MERCURY AND LIGHT DEFLECTION) ABOUT
> GRAVITATIONAL RED-SHIFTING IS JUST PROPAGANDA. *****
>
>
>
> QUOTE:
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
> The Pound-Rebka experiment demonstrated that the velocity difference
> (acceleration) of photons is "identical to that which a material object
> would acquire in free fall", as predicted by Newton's emission theory of
> light and in violation of Einstein's relativity:
>
> R. V. Pound and J. L. Snider, Effect of Gravity on Gamma Radiation
> (pdf): "It is not our purpose here to enter into the many-sided
> discussion of the relationship between the effect under study and
> general relativity or energy conservation. It is to be noted that no
> strictly relativistic concepts are involved and the description of the
> effect as an "apparent weight" of photons is suggestive. The velocity
> difference predicted is identical to that which a material object would
> acquire in free fall for a time equal to the time of flight."
>
> That the speed of falling light varies like the speed of ordinary
> falling bodies is so obvious that many scientists confirm the fact and
> so inadvertently disprove Einstein's relativity:
>
> University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign: "Consider a falling object.
> ITS SPEED INCREASES AS IT IS FALLING. Hence, if we were to associate a
> frequency with that object the frequency should increase accordingly as
> it falls to earth. Because of the equivalence between gravitational and
> inertial mass, WE SHOULD OBSERVE THE SAME EFFECT FOR LIGHT. So lets
> shine a light beam from the top of a very tall building. If we can
> measure the frequency shift as the light beam descends the building, we
> should be able to discern how gravity affects a falling light beam. This
> was done by Pound and Rebka in 1960. They shone a light from the top of
> the Jefferson tower at Harvard and measured the frequency shift. The
> frequency shift was tiny but in agreement with the theoretical
> prediction. Consider a light beam that is travelling away from a
> gravitational field. Its frequency should shift to lower values. This is
> known as the gravitational red shift of light."
>
> Albert Einstein Institute: "One of the three classical tests for general
> relativity is the gravitational redshift of light or other forms of
> electromagnetic radiation. However, in contrast to the other two tests -
> the gravitational deflection of light and the relativistic perihelion
> shift -, you do not need general relativity to derive the correct
> prediction for the gravitational redshift. A combination of Newtonian
> gravity, a particle theory of light, and the weak equivalence principle
> (gravitating mass equals inertial mass) suffices. [...] The
> gravitational redshift was first measured on earth in 1960-65 by Pound,
> Rebka, and Snider at Harvard University..."
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
What excuses have the relativists for this? They never gave a good
explanation of the doubling nonsense.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#659837

I repost here the second part of my 2023 OP about the P-R HOAX.

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


Why 1960 Pound-Rebka experiment is an HOAX. Part II.

https://groups.google.com/g/sci.physics.relativity/c/ak4FDh0meLQ/m/8BCY9o5PCAAJ




This OP explores, with more details, the claim about the HOAX that the
1960
paper was. A cooked paper, with data cherry-picking and fudging
experiments.

This time, I'll use spectroscopy's jargon, abandoning the focus on gamma
rays
frequency, bandwidths of emission and absorption and the shift of gh/c²
in
terms of frequency. Instead, I'll use eV as proportional to Hz, as given
by
Planck's formula E = h.f.

The first clue about how deceptive the 1960 paper was going to be, is
visible
on its title:

"APPARENT WEIGHT OF PHOTONS".

Like with modern "click-baits", the fame thirsty Pound used that
deceptive
but "eye catching" title. Not even ONCE, within the paper, such topic
appeared, even remotely. But this first deception had "Einstein"
embedded.

The IDEA for the experiment came from the work and paper of the British
physicists Cranshaw, Schiffer, and Whitehead, which Pound "borrowed" by+
repeating the experiment at Harvard, trying to EXPLODE the 43% error in
the final result that these physicists published. Pound claimed that his
paper, with a similar arrangement, was much more precise in proving
"Einstein's right" on its 1911 "HEURISTIC" idea about |Δf/f₀| = gh/c²
for ANY
EM RADIATION, providing that the height "h" was small enough to use
"g = GM/R" as a CONSTANT.

In 1981, Pound enhanced the figure of Einstein claiming that his
"heuristic"
conception was born in 1907, 4 years before his 1911 paper. Also, in the
same publication, Pound CHANGED the meaning of experiment, referring
to it as a "Gravitational Red-Shifting" proof, maybe forgetting that his
1960
paper was a MIX of 14 sets of 8 measurements EACH (using only 112
measurements out of hundreds). Of these 14 datasets, 8 were about the
alleged RED-SHIFTING and 6 were about the alleged BLUE-SHIFTING.

Fudging the experiment one time of many, Pound didn't hesitate to MIX
and AVERAGE two completely different experiments, asking for your
forgiveness and comprehension, given that he obtained a "virtual height"
of 2 x 22.2 m, "doubling" (he sold that) the accuracy. This is the
SECOND
deceiving fact, presented as a clever maneuver (not A FUDGE).

For h = 22.2 m, gh/c² ≈ 2.42E-15, while average γ rays spread |Δf/f₀|
varied
from 4.3-15 to 18.6E-15 (a 4.3 ratio, and 2 times to 9 times the
einsteinian
gh/c² to be MEASURED).

Using the EXCUSE of difference of temperature corrections between source
and detector of γ rays, Pound did THEORETICAL corrections to narrow the
|Δf/f₀| spread as 9.3-15 to 24.5E-15 (a 2.6 ratio, and 4 times to 10
times the
einsteinian gh/c² to be MEASURED). This is the THIRD deceiving fact.

Pound used WEIGHTED averages of his own to present:

RED-SHIFTING weighted average (8 sets of data) = -15.5 ± 0.8 (x 10E-15)
BLUE-SHIFTING weighted average (6 sets of data) = -19.7 ± 0.8 (x 10E-15)
------------------------------------------
Difference of averages (mixing RED and BLUE) = -4.2 ± 1.1 (x 10E-15)
Net fractional shift = -5.13 ± 0.51 (x 10E-15)

Difference with einsteinian 2gh/c²: better than 10%.

This is the FOURTH deceiving fact. If I have to explain, you're in
denial or
you are a gullible moron.

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

As Pound explained, in the opening of the paper, he used a Lorentzian
shape:

L(x) = 1/π ( Γ/2)/[(x - x₀)² +( Γ/2)²]

According to him, this shape is enough to explain the dispersion of
energy
in the emission or absorption of 14.4 KeV γ rays.

Instead of frequency f, in spectroscopy is used energy E to quantify the
spread of γ radiation, due to relationship E = h.f = h/T. The values of
energy
are in eV. A Lorentzian profile centered on E₀ with intensity I₀ and
full-width
half-maximum (FWHM) Γ is given by:

L(E) = I₀ (Γ/2)²/[(E - E₀)² +(Γ/2)²] = I₀ (Γ/2)²/[ΔE² +(Γ/2)²] , where

I₀: Nominal peak energy of the shape (eV).
Γ: Bandwidth for L(E) = ± I₀/2 (eV).

The shape fall to half its maximum at E = (E₀ ± Γ/2).

Fractional FWHM = Γ/2

In spectroscopy, due to the Uncertainty Principle, there are limits in
the
precision with which the energy of a state can be defined, depending on
the
lifetime of the state and the change of energy along the line width Γ
(eV).

The natural lifetime τ defines the certainty with which the energy E can
be
defined. The imprecision of the energy ΔE = Γ depends on τ and, for
Fe⁵⁷:

τ(Fe⁵⁷) = 100 nsec
h ≈ 4.136E−15 eV.sec

ΔE. τ = Γ. τ ≈ h

Γ ≈ h/τ = 4.136E−08 eV

Fractional FWHM = |± 1.43E-12| (Pound quoted |1.13E-12|)

RATIO of Gravitational Effect to 2xFractional FWHM ≈ 0.001 (0.1%)

So, the KEY OF THE EXPERIMENT is to MEASURE a 0.1% CHANGE IN
THE SPECTRAL WIDTH at the absorber side, considering that:

- The emitter has a Γ = 4.136E−08 eV.
- The absorber also has an uncorrelated Γ = 4.136E−08 eV.
- The gravitational effect IS REPRESENTED BY ≈ 4.136E−11 eV.

* The detection is based on a scintillator that multiply the ionization
of
a γ photon by approximately 30,000 times and convert it to an electric
pulse that feed A COUNTER, which count is constantly stored. Either
γ photons with RECOIL or Mössbauer's γ photons without RECOIL cause
ionization, hence electric signals in the scintillator.

* A MINIMUM IN THE COUNT IS EXPECTED PERIODICALLY IF a
slowly induced Doppler effect (by mechanical means in the source) causes
that in Mössbauer's γ photons the "gravitational effect" is CANCELLED.
This technique, useful for a quarter of the sine wave that moves the
source,
transform such recoilless γ photons in NON IONIZING ONES.

* ALLEGEDLY, the entire arrangement for the generation, carrying and
detection of γ photons is:

------ ISOLATED from losses of γ photons during the path, providing a
CONSTANT FLOW OF γ photons.

------ Changes in TEMPERATURE at the source and detector are perfectly
registered, so STATISTICAL CORRECTIONS FOR NUCLEAR RESONANCE
VARIATIONS (THEORETICAL VALUES) can be used at will.

------ RANDOM CHANGES in the material and locations of source and
absorber are made, in order to generate variations in measurement
that ARE CLAIMED TO BE STATISTICALLY CANCELLED.

------ No discrimination about the QUANTUM ORIGIN of γ photons
OR quantum absorption given by the different levels of energy, spins,
etc.,
except for Γ. Unknown effects by then (and even now) are not accounted,
like hyperfine transitions or OTHERS, which Pound acknowledged as
potential sources of errors.

******** YET, EINSTEIN'S PROVEN RIGHT EVEN WHEN THE CONTRIBUTION
TO THE ENERGY OF PHOTONS IS ABOUT 0.1% *************

EITHER IT'S FISHY AND FRAUDULENT, OR POUND WAS A TIME TRAVELER
THAT CAME FROM YEAR 3,000 TO GAIN ONE STAR IN THE HALL FAME OF
RELATIVITY.

I'M WITH THE FISHY THING, STARTING BY THE LIE IN THE TITLE OF THE PAPER.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#659838

I repost here the first part of my 2023 OP about the P-R HOAX.

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

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

https://groups.google.com/g/sci.physics.relativity/c/0aLXD2GNp4U/m/bkuHL3f1BgAJ


-------------------------------------------------------------

For 63 years now, it has been proclamed that the 1960 Pound-Rebka
experiment was THE FIRST VALID PROOF OF GR gravitational shift,
with +/- 10% statistical error.

For decades, it was alleged that the Experiment proved right the 1911
Einstein's heuristic assertion that |Δf/f₀| ≈ 20E-15 for an elevation of
the "light generator" of 22.2 meters above ground.

It's explained EVERYWHERE the cleverness of this duo, that used samples
of radioactive Fe⁵⁷ atoms emitting 14.4 KeV Gamma rays, with a frequency
of 3.48E+18 Hz (3,480 PetaHz).

And it's claimed EVERYWHERE that the duo measured differences of about
69,660 Hz in that HUGE value of frequency, something that was/is
IMPOSSIBLE with the technology available in the last 60 years (and in
the
next 100 years too).

It's applauded the high degree of ingenuity for using a slowly moving
sample
so Doppler effects (red-shifting part) would cancel gravitational
effects
blue-shifting part, with sample on the tower).

WHAT HAS NOT BEEN SAID ANYWHERE is that those "clever guys" and his
team of collaborators DIDN'T USE RELATIVISTIC DOPPLER FORMULA, but
used the 160 years old Doppler formula (the one Hubble used in 1929).

So, how is this? Using Newton effects to cancel Einstein effects?
Bullshit.

In this part, I analyze the simple Doppler formula in its two versions.
In the
second part (II), I'll prove that they TRIMMED, COOKED AND FUDGED the
data of the experiment to obtain 14 values (out of thousands) TO FIT
"EINSTEIN'S PREDICTION".

First things first:

Relativistic Doppler
(f₁/f₀)² = (1 - v/c)/(1 + v/c) = (1 - βᵣ)/(1 + βᵣ) = p²
1 - βᵣ = p² + p² βᵣ
1 - p² = βᵣ (1 + p²)
βᵣ = (1 - p²)/(1 + p²)

Classic Doppler
(f₁/f₀) = (1 - v/c)/(1 + v/c) = (1 - β)/(1 + β) = p
1 - β = p + p β
1 - p = β (1 + p)
β = (1 - p)/(1 + p)
---------------------------------------
ELEMENTARY CALCULATIONS

(f₁/f₀) = p = (f₀ + Δf)/f₀ = 1 + Δf/f₀

p = 1 + Δf/f₀ = 1+ 15.5E-15 (Pound-Rebka, top-down, 1960)

βᵣ = (1 - p²)/(1 + p²) ≈ 15.5E-30 (relativistic, NOT USED).

β = (1 - p)/(1 + p) ≈ 15.5E-15 (classic, ALLEGEDLY USED)

v = β.c ≈ 15.5E-15 x 3E+10 cm/sec = 4.55E-04 cm/sec

BUT THEY CLAIMED THAT THE LINEAR VELOCITY OF THE SWINGING
SAMPLE WAS ABOUT 1 cm/sec, not 1,000 times lower than that!

And THIS was used to cancel gravitational blue-shifting in 22.2 mt,
given
by the einstenian formula:

(f₁/f₀) = √ [[1 - 2GMₑ/c² 1/(Rₑ + h)]/(1 - 2GMₑ/c² 1/Rₑ)]

(f₁/f₀)² = pᵣ² = [1 - 2GMₑ/c² 1/(Rₑ + h)]/(1 - 2GMₑ/c² 1/Rₑ)

2GMₑ/c² = 4.43503E-03 m
Rₑ = 6.378136550E+06 m
h = 22.2 m

(f₁/f₀)² = pᵣ² = (1 - 6.953461356E-10)/(1 - 6.953485559E-10)
(f₁/f₀)² = pᵣ² ≈ 1.000000000000000 (error < 10E-15)

So, the relativistic gravitational shift is BARELY NOTICED:

(f₁/f₀)² = pᵣ² = (1 - 6.953461356E-10)/(1 - 6.953485559E-10)
(f₁/f₀)² = pᵣ² = 0.999999999304654/0.999999999304651
(f₁/f₀)² = pᵣ² ≈ 1.000000000000000 (error < 10E-15)

The above calculations are a proof that the NARRATIVE about the "shift
cancellation" by using classic Dopler effect to CANCEL the einstenian
relativistic blue shifting is JUST A FAIRY TALE.

Any measurement of such calculations was IMPOSSIBLE TO BE MADE in
1960 and for the next 40 years.

What Pound & Rebka CLAIMED THAT MEASURED was below the values to
be cancelled (about +/- 15E-15).

The ALLEGED speed v of the sample, in the direction of the detector had
to
be around 4.55E-04 cm/sec, not the claimed 1.5 cm/sec.

Wikipedia estimates that v ≈ 7.5E-05 cm/sec.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pound%E2%80%93Rebka_experiment

The ABSOLUTE AVERAGE frequency shift had to be around 69,600 Hz,
difference IMPOSSIBLE TO BE MEASURED BY ANY MEANS on 3.48E+18 Hz
(3,480 PetaHz) frequency of Gamma ray photons.

So, WE ARE SUPPOSED TO BELIEVE that the 14 carefully selected
measurements that they published are ABSOLUTELY TRUE, even when
they have a FUDGE COMPENSATION FACTOR FOR TEMPERATURE that
is ALMOST THE MEASURED VALUE. As an example, this measurement,
as published:

Feb. 22, 5 p.m. ; Source at the bottom.
Shift observed: (-11.5 ± 3.0) x 10E-15
Temperature correction: -9.2 x 10E-15 (almost 90% cooking/fudging)
Net shift: (-20.7 ± 3.0) x 10E-15 [as predicted by Einstein]

NOTE: Photons without recoil are a tiny fraction f of the total amount
of
Gamma photons emitted. And this fraction has frequency shifts that are
SPREAD, in a gaussian way, around f₀ ± 34,800 Hz CALCULATED, not
measured.

Now, anyone wanting to redo such experiment today will have to justify
PLENTY how did they measured such uber tiny difference in 3,480 PetaHz.

No way then, and even today, unless you resort to fudging and
statistical
HEALING.

Next part will be about the 14 published measurements, as the one above.
--------------------------------------------------------

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#659841 — Re: Pound-Rebka: ChatGPT is TRAINED to obey, sucking asses of relativists at any cost.

rhertz wrote:
> 
> I repost here the first part of my 2023 OP about the P-R HOAX.
> 
> ****************************************************************************
> 
> Why 1960 Pound-Rebka experiment is an HOAX. Part I.
> 
> https://groups.google.com/g/sci.physics.relativity/c/0aLXD2GNp4U/m/bkuHL3f1BgAJ
> 
> -------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> For 63 years now, it has been proclamed that the 1960 Pound-Rebka
> experiment was THE FIRST VALID PROOF OF GR gravitational shift,
> with +/- 10% statistical error.
> 
> For decades, it was alleged that the Experiment proved right the 1911
> Einstein's heuristic assertion that |Δf/f₀| ≈ 20E-15 for an elevation of
> the "light generator" of 22.2 meters above ground.
> 
> It's explained EVERYWHERE the cleverness of this duo, that used samples
> of radioactive Fe⁵⁷ atoms emitting 14.4 KeV Gamma rays, with a frequency
> of 3.48E+18 Hz (3,480 PetaHz).
> 
> And it's claimed EVERYWHERE that the duo measured differences of about
> 69,660 Hz in that HUGE value of frequency, something that was/is
> IMPOSSIBLE with the technology available in the last 60 years (and in
> the
> next 100 years too).
> 
> It's applauded the high degree of ingenuity for using a slowly moving
> sample
> so Doppler effects (red-shifting part) would cancel gravitational
> effects
> blue-shifting part, with sample on the tower).
> 
> WHAT HAS NOT BEEN SAID ANYWHERE is that those "clever guys" and his
> team of collaborators DIDN'T USE RELATIVISTIC DOPPLER FORMULA, but
> used the 160 years old Doppler formula (the one Hubble used in 1929).
> 
> So, how is this? Using Newton effects to cancel Einstein effects?
> Bullshit.
> 
> In this part, I analyze the simple Doppler formula in its two versions.
> In the
> second part (II), I'll prove that they TRIMMED, COOKED AND FUDGED the
> data of the experiment to obtain 14 values (out of thousands) TO FIT
> "EINSTEIN'S PREDICTION".
> 
> First things first:
> 
> Relativistic Doppler
> (f₁/f₀)² = (1 - v/c)/(1 + v/c) = (1 - βᵣ)/(1 + βᵣ) = p²
> 1 - βᵣ = p² + p² βᵣ
> 1 - p² = βᵣ (1 + p²)
> βᵣ = (1 - p²)/(1 + p²)
> 
> Classic Doppler
> (f₁/f₀) = (1 - v/c)/(1 + v/c) = (1 - β)/(1 + β) = p
> 1 - β = p + p β
> 1 - p = β (1 + p)
> β = (1 - p)/(1 + p)
> ---------------------------------------
> ELEMENTARY CALCULATIONS
> 
> (f₁/f₀) = p = (f₀ + Δf)/f₀ = 1 + Δf/f₀
> 
> p = 1 + Δf/f₀ = 1+ 15.5E-15 (Pound-Rebka, top-down, 1960)
> 
> βᵣ = (1 - p²)/(1 + p²) ≈ 15.5E-30 (relativistic, NOT USED).
> 
> β = (1 - p)/(1 + p) ≈ 15.5E-15 (classic, ALLEGEDLY USED)
> 
> v = β.c ≈ 15.5E-15 x 3E+10 cm/sec = 4.55E-04 cm/sec
> 
> BUT THEY CLAIMED THAT THE LINEAR VELOCITY OF THE SWINGING
> SAMPLE WAS ABOUT 1 cm/sec, not 1,000 times lower than that!
> 
> And THIS was used to cancel gravitational blue-shifting in 22.2 mt,
> given
> by the einstenian formula:
> 
> (f₁/f₀) = √ [[1 - 2GMₑ/c² 1/(Rₑ + h)]/(1 - 2GMₑ/c² 1/Rₑ)]
> 
> (f₁/f₀)² = pᵣ² = [1 - 2GMₑ/c² 1/(Rₑ + h)]/(1 - 2GMₑ/c² 1/Rₑ)
> 
> 2GMₑ/c² = 4.43503E-03 m
> Râ‚‘ = 6.378136550E+06 m
> h = 22.2 m
> 
> (f₁/f₀)² = pᵣ² = (1 - 6.953461356E-10)/(1 - 6.953485559E-10)
> (f₁/f₀)² = pᵣ² ≈ 1.000000000000000 (error < 10E-15)
> 
> So, the relativistic gravitational shift is BARELY NOTICED:
> 
> (f₁/f₀)² = pᵣ² = (1 - 6.953461356E-10)/(1 - 6.953485559E-10)
> (f₁/f₀)² = pᵣ² = 0.999999999304654/0.999999999304651
> (f₁/f₀)² = pᵣ² ≈ 1.000000000000000 (error < 10E-15)
> 
> The above calculations are a proof that the NARRATIVE about the "shift
> cancellation" by using classic Dopler effect to CANCEL the einstenian
> relativistic blue shifting is JUST A FAIRY TALE.
> 
> Any measurement of such calculations was IMPOSSIBLE TO BE MADE in
> 1960 and for the next 40 years.
> 
> What Pound & Rebka CLAIMED THAT MEASURED was below the values to
> be cancelled (about +/- 15E-15).
> 
> The ALLEGED speed v of the sample, in the direction of the detector had
> to
> be around 4.55E-04 cm/sec, not the claimed 1.5 cm/sec.
> 
> Wikipedia estimates that v ≈ 7.5E-05 cm/sec.
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pound%E2%80%93Rebka_experiment
> 
> The ABSOLUTE AVERAGE frequency shift had to be around 69,600 Hz,
> difference IMPOSSIBLE TO BE MEASURED BY ANY MEANS on 3.48E+18 Hz
> (3,480 PetaHz) frequency of Gamma ray photons.
> 
> So, WE ARE SUPPOSED TO BELIEVE that the 14 carefully selected
> measurements that they published are ABSOLUTELY TRUE, even when
> they have a FUDGE COMPENSATION FACTOR FOR TEMPERATURE that
> is ALMOST THE MEASURED VALUE. As an example, this measurement,
> as published:
> 
> Feb. 22, 5 p.m. ; Source at the bottom.
> Shift observed: (-11.5 ± 3.0) x 10E-15
> Temperature correction: -9.2 x 10E-15 (almost 90% cooking/fudging)
> Net shift: (-20.7 ± 3.0) x 10E-15 [as predicted by Einstein]
> 
> NOTE: Photons without recoil are a tiny fraction f of the total amount
> of
> Gamma photons emitted. And this fraction has frequency shifts that are
> SPREAD, in a gaussian way, around f₀ ± 34,800 Hz CALCULATED, not
> measured.
> 
> Now, anyone wanting to redo such experiment today will have to justify
> PLENTY how did they measured such uber tiny difference in 3,480 PetaHz.
> 
> No way then, and even today, unless you resort to fudging and
> statistical
> HEALING.
> 
> Next part will be about the 14 published measurements, as the one above.
> --------------------------------------------------------

"TRIMMED, COOKED AND FUDGED" is the only way any scientists can get a
million dollar grant today!


 








-- 
The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable, 
and challenge the unchallengeable.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#659845 — Re: Pound-Rebka: ChatGPT is TRAINED to obey, sucking asses of relativists at any cost.

The Starmaker wrote:
> 
> rhertz wrote:
> >
> > I repost here the first part of my 2023 OP about the P-R HOAX.
> >
> > ****************************************************************************
> >
> > Why 1960 Pound-Rebka experiment is an HOAX. Part I.
> >
> > https://groups.google.com/g/sci.physics.relativity/c/0aLXD2GNp4U/m/bkuHL3f1BgAJ
> >
> > -------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > For 63 years now, it has been proclamed that the 1960 Pound-Rebka
> > experiment was THE FIRST VALID PROOF OF GR gravitational shift,
> > with +/- 10% statistical error.
> >
> > For decades, it was alleged that the Experiment proved right the 1911
> > Einstein's heuristic assertion that |Δf/f₀| ≈ 20E-15 for an elevation of
> > the "light generator" of 22.2 meters above ground.
> >
> > It's explained EVERYWHERE the cleverness of this duo, that used samples
> > of radioactive Fe⁵⁷ atoms emitting 14.4 KeV Gamma rays, with a frequency
> > of 3.48E+18 Hz (3,480 PetaHz).
> >
> > And it's claimed EVERYWHERE that the duo measured differences of about
> > 69,660 Hz in that HUGE value of frequency, something that was/is
> > IMPOSSIBLE with the technology available in the last 60 years (and in
> > the
> > next 100 years too).
> >
> > It's applauded the high degree of ingenuity for using a slowly moving
> > sample
> > so Doppler effects (red-shifting part) would cancel gravitational
> > effects
> > blue-shifting part, with sample on the tower).
> >
> > WHAT HAS NOT BEEN SAID ANYWHERE is that those "clever guys" and his
> > team of collaborators DIDN'T USE RELATIVISTIC DOPPLER FORMULA, but
> > used the 160 years old Doppler formula (the one Hubble used in 1929).
> >
> > So, how is this? Using Newton effects to cancel Einstein effects?
> > Bullshit.
> >
> > In this part, I analyze the simple Doppler formula in its two versions.
> > In the
> > second part (II), I'll prove that they TRIMMED, COOKED AND FUDGED the
> > data of the experiment to obtain 14 values (out of thousands) TO FIT
> > "EINSTEIN'S PREDICTION".
> >
> > First things first:
> >
> > Relativistic Doppler
> > (f₁/f₀)² = (1 - v/c)/(1 + v/c) = (1 - βᵣ)/(1 + βᵣ) = p²
> > 1 - βᵣ = p² + p² βᵣ
> > 1 - p² = βᵣ (1 + p²)
> > βᵣ = (1 - p²)/(1 + p²)
> >
> > Classic Doppler
> > (f₁/f₀) = (1 - v/c)/(1 + v/c) = (1 - β)/(1 + β) = p
> > 1 - β = p + p β
> > 1 - p = β (1 + p)
> > β = (1 - p)/(1 + p)
> > ---------------------------------------
> > ELEMENTARY CALCULATIONS
> >
> > (f₁/f₀) = p = (f₀ + Δf)/f₀ = 1 + Δf/f₀
> >
> > p = 1 + Δf/f₀ = 1+ 15.5E-15 (Pound-Rebka, top-down, 1960)
> >
> > βᵣ = (1 - p²)/(1 + p²) ≈ 15.5E-30 (relativistic, NOT USED).
> >
> > β = (1 - p)/(1 + p) ≈ 15.5E-15 (classic, ALLEGEDLY USED)
> >
> > v = β.c ≈ 15.5E-15 x 3E+10 cm/sec = 4.55E-04 cm/sec
> >
> > BUT THEY CLAIMED THAT THE LINEAR VELOCITY OF THE SWINGING
> > SAMPLE WAS ABOUT 1 cm/sec, not 1,000 times lower than that!
> >
> > And THIS was used to cancel gravitational blue-shifting in 22.2 mt,
> > given
> > by the einstenian formula:
> >
> > (f₁/f₀) = √ [[1 - 2GMₑ/c² 1/(Rₑ + h)]/(1 - 2GMₑ/c² 1/Rₑ)]
> >
> > (f₁/f₀)² = pᵣ² = [1 - 2GMₑ/c² 1/(Rₑ + h)]/(1 - 2GMₑ/c² 1/Rₑ)
> >
> > 2GMₑ/c² = 4.43503E-03 m
> > Râ‚‘ = 6.378136550E+06 m
> > h = 22.2 m
> >
> > (f₁/f₀)² = pᵣ² = (1 - 6.953461356E-10)/(1 - 6.953485559E-10)
> > (f₁/f₀)² = pᵣ² ≈ 1.000000000000000 (error < 10E-15)
> >
> > So, the relativistic gravitational shift is BARELY NOTICED:
> >
> > (f₁/f₀)² = pᵣ² = (1 - 6.953461356E-10)/(1 - 6.953485559E-10)
> > (f₁/f₀)² = pᵣ² = 0.999999999304654/0.999999999304651
> > (f₁/f₀)² = pᵣ² ≈ 1.000000000000000 (error < 10E-15)
> >
> > The above calculations are a proof that the NARRATIVE about the "shift
> > cancellation" by using classic Dopler effect to CANCEL the einstenian
> > relativistic blue shifting is JUST A FAIRY TALE.
> >
> > Any measurement of such calculations was IMPOSSIBLE TO BE MADE in
> > 1960 and for the next 40 years.
> >
> > What Pound & Rebka CLAIMED THAT MEASURED was below the values to
> > be cancelled (about +/- 15E-15).
> >
> > The ALLEGED speed v of the sample, in the direction of the detector had
> > to
> > be around 4.55E-04 cm/sec, not the claimed 1.5 cm/sec.
> >
> > Wikipedia estimates that v ≈ 7.5E-05 cm/sec.
> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pound%E2%80%93Rebka_experiment
> >
> > The ABSOLUTE AVERAGE frequency shift had to be around 69,600 Hz,
> > difference IMPOSSIBLE TO BE MEASURED BY ANY MEANS on 3.48E+18 Hz
> > (3,480 PetaHz) frequency of Gamma ray photons.
> >
> > So, WE ARE SUPPOSED TO BELIEVE that the 14 carefully selected
> > measurements that they published are ABSOLUTELY TRUE, even when
> > they have a FUDGE COMPENSATION FACTOR FOR TEMPERATURE that
> > is ALMOST THE MEASURED VALUE. As an example, this measurement,
> > as published:
> >
> > Feb. 22, 5 p.m. ; Source at the bottom.
> > Shift observed: (-11.5 ± 3.0) x 10E-15
> > Temperature correction: -9.2 x 10E-15 (almost 90% cooking/fudging)
> > Net shift: (-20.7 ± 3.0) x 10E-15 [as predicted by Einstein]
> >
> > NOTE: Photons without recoil are a tiny fraction f of the total amount
> > of
> > Gamma photons emitted. And this fraction has frequency shifts that are
> > SPREAD, in a gaussian way, around f₀ ± 34,800 Hz CALCULATED, not
> > measured.
> >
> > Now, anyone wanting to redo such experiment today will have to justify
> > PLENTY how did they measured such uber tiny difference in 3,480 PetaHz.
> >
> > No way then, and even today, unless you resort to fudging and
> > statistical
> > HEALING.
> >
> > Next part will be about the 14 published measurements, as the one above.
> > --------------------------------------------------------
> 
> "TRIMMED, COOKED AND FUDGED" is the only way any scientists can get a
> million dollar grant today!
> 

Is there a rule that Albert Einstein DIDN'T break?
https://www.enago.com/academy/10-types-of-scientific-misconduct/




-- 
The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable, 
and challenge the unchallengeable.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#659846

On Fri, 27 Dec 2024 0:44:48 +0000, The Starmaker wrote:

> The Starmaker wrote:
>>
>> rhertz wrote:
>>>
>>> I repost here the first part of my 2023 OP about the P-R HOAX.
>>>
>>> ****************************************************************************
>>>
>>> Why 1960 Pound-Rebka experiment is an HOAX. Part I.
>>>
>>> https://groups.google.com/g/sci.physics.relativity/c/0aLXD2GNp4U/m/bkuHL3f1BgAJ
>>>
>>> -------------------------------------------------------------
>>>
>>> For 63 years now, it has been proclamed that the 1960 Pound-Rebka
>>> experiment was THE FIRST VALID PROOF OF GR gravitational shift,
>>> with +/- 10% statistical error.
>>>
>>> For decades, it was alleged that the Experiment proved right the 1911
>>> Einstein's heuristic assertion that |Δf/f₀| ≈ 20E-15 for an
>>> elevation of
>>> the "light generator" of 22.2 meters above ground.
>>>
>>> It's explained EVERYWHERE the cleverness of this duo, that used samples
>>> of radioactive Fe⁵⁷ atoms emitting 14.4 KeV Gamma rays, with a
>>> frequency
>>> of 3.48E+18 Hz (3,480 PetaHz).
>>>
>>> And it's claimed EVERYWHERE that the duo measured differences of about
>>> 69,660 Hz in that HUGE value of frequency, something that was/is
>>> IMPOSSIBLE with the technology available in the last 60 years (and in
>>> the
>>> next 100 years too).
>>>
>>> It's applauded the high degree of ingenuity for using a slowly moving
>>> sample
>>> so Doppler effects (red-shifting part) would cancel gravitational
>>> effects
>>> blue-shifting part, with sample on the tower).
>>>
>>> WHAT HAS NOT BEEN SAID ANYWHERE is that those "clever guys" and his
>>> team of collaborators DIDN'T USE RELATIVISTIC DOPPLER FORMULA, but
>>> used the 160 years old Doppler formula (the one Hubble used in 1929).
>>>
>>> So, how is this? Using Newton effects to cancel Einstein effects?
>>> Bullshit.
>>>
>>> In this part, I analyze the simple Doppler formula in its two versions.
>>> In the
>>> second part (II), I'll prove that they TRIMMED, COOKED AND FUDGED the
>>> data of the experiment to obtain 14 values (out of thousands) TO FIT
>>> "EINSTEIN'S PREDICTION".
>>>
>>> First things first:
>>>
>>> Relativistic Doppler
>>> (f₁/f₀)² = (1 - v/c)/(1 + v/c) = (1 - βᵣ)/(1 + βᵣ) = p²
>>> 1 - βᵣ = p² + p² βᵣ
>>> 1 - p² = βᵣ (1 + p²)
>>> βᵣ = (1 - p²)/(1 + p²)
>>>
>>> Classic Doppler
>>> (f₁/f₀) = (1 - v/c)/(1 + v/c) = (1 - β)/(1 + β) = p
>>> 1 - β = p + p β
>>> 1 - p = β (1 + p)
>>> β = (1 - p)/(1 + p)
>>> ---------------------------------------
>>> ELEMENTARY CALCULATIONS
>>>
>>> (f₁/f₀) = p = (f₀ + Δf)/f₀ = 1 + Δf/f₀
>>>
>>> p = 1 + Δf/f₀ = 1+ 15.5E-15 (Pound-Rebka, top-down, 1960)
>>>
>>> βᵣ = (1 - p²)/(1 + p²) ≈ 15.5E-30 (relativistic, NOT USED).
>>>
>>> β = (1 - p)/(1 + p) ≈ 15.5E-15 (classic, ALLEGEDLY USED)
>>>
>>> v = β.c ≈ 15.5E-15 x 3E+10 cm/sec = 4.55E-04 cm/sec
>>>
>>> BUT THEY CLAIMED THAT THE LINEAR VELOCITY OF THE SWINGING
>>> SAMPLE WAS ABOUT 1 cm/sec, not 1,000 times lower than that!
>>>
>>> And THIS was used to cancel gravitational blue-shifting in 22.2 mt,
>>> given
>>> by the einstenian formula:
>>>
>>> (f₁/f₀) = √ [[1 - 2GMₑ/c² 1/(Rₑ + h)]/(1 - 2GMₑ/c²
>>> 1/Rₑ)]
>>>
>>> (f₁/f₀)² = pᵣ² = [1 - 2GMₑ/c² 1/(Rₑ + h)]/(1 - 2GMₑ/c²
>>> 1/Rₑ)
>>>
>>> 2GMₑ/c² = 4.43503E-03 m
>>> Rₑ = 6.378136550E+06 m
>>> h = 22.2 m
>>>
>>> (f₁/f₀)² = pᵣ² = (1 - 6.953461356E-10)/(1 - 6.953485559E-10)
>>> (f₁/f₀)² = pᵣ² ≈ 1.000000000000000 (error < 10E-15)
>>>
>>> So, the relativistic gravitational shift is BARELY NOTICED:
>>>
>>> (f₁/f₀)² = pᵣ² = (1 - 6.953461356E-10)/(1 - 6.953485559E-10)
>>> (f₁/f₀)² = pᵣ² = 0.999999999304654/0.999999999304651
>>> (f₁/f₀)² = pᵣ² ≈ 1.000000000000000 (error < 10E-15)
>>>
>>> The above calculations are a proof that the NARRATIVE about the "shift
>>> cancellation" by using classic Dopler effect to CANCEL the einstenian
>>> relativistic blue shifting is JUST A FAIRY TALE.
>>>
>>> Any measurement of such calculations was IMPOSSIBLE TO BE MADE in
>>> 1960 and for the next 40 years.
>>>
>>> What Pound & Rebka CLAIMED THAT MEASURED was below the values to
>>> be cancelled (about +/- 15E-15).
>>>
>>> The ALLEGED speed v of the sample, in the direction of the detector had
>>> to
>>> be around 4.55E-04 cm/sec, not the claimed 1.5 cm/sec.
>>>
>>> Wikipedia estimates that v ≈ 7.5E-05 cm/sec.
>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pound%E2%80%93Rebka_experiment
>>>
>>> The ABSOLUTE AVERAGE frequency shift had to be around 69,600 Hz,
>>> difference IMPOSSIBLE TO BE MEASURED BY ANY MEANS on 3.48E+18 Hz
>>> (3,480 PetaHz) frequency of Gamma ray photons.
>>>
>>> So, WE ARE SUPPOSED TO BELIEVE that the 14 carefully selected
>>> measurements that they published are ABSOLUTELY TRUE, even when
>>> they have a FUDGE COMPENSATION FACTOR FOR TEMPERATURE that
>>> is ALMOST THE MEASURED VALUE. As an example, this measurement,
>>> as published:
>>>
>>> Feb. 22, 5 p.m. ; Source at the bottom.
>>> Shift observed: (-11.5 ± 3.0) x 10E-15
>>> Temperature correction: -9.2 x 10E-15 (almost 90% cooking/fudging)
>>> Net shift: (-20.7 ± 3.0) x 10E-15 [as predicted by Einstein]
>>>
>>> NOTE: Photons without recoil are a tiny fraction f of the total amount
>>> of
>>> Gamma photons emitted. And this fraction has frequency shifts that are
>>> SPREAD, in a gaussian way, around f₀ ± 34,800 Hz CALCULATED, not
>>> measured.
>>>
>>> Now, anyone wanting to redo such experiment today will have to justify
>>> PLENTY how did they measured such uber tiny difference in 3,480 PetaHz.
>>>
>>> No way then, and even today, unless you resort to fudging and
>>> statistical
>>> HEALING.
>>>
>>> Next part will be about the 14 published measurements, as the one above.
>>> --------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> "TRIMMED, COOKED AND FUDGED" is the only way any scientists can get a
>> million dollar grant today!
>>
>
> Is there a rule that Albert Einstein DIDN'T break?
> https://www.enago.com/academy/10-types-of-scientific-misconduct/
>
>
>
Common Types of Scientific Misconduct
Listed below are the top 10 transgressions that peer reviewers and
journal editors look for, incorporating content from both the World
Association of Medical Editors (WAME), and the US Office of Research
Integrity:

1. Misappropriation of Ideas– taking the intellectual property of
others, perhaps as a result of reviewing someone else’s article or
manuscript, or grant application and proceeding with the idea as your
own.

Von Soldner, Voigt, Gerberg, Lorentz, Grossman, Pick, Hilbert, Bose, de
Broglie (to cite a few).


2. Plagiarism– utilizing someone else’s words, published work, research
processes, or results without giving appropriate credit via full
citation. Read about the 10 types of plagiarisms to avoid here.

Voigt, Lorentz, Poincaré, Eotvos, Laub, Grossman, Nordstöm, Besso,
Fokker, Pick, Hilbert, Bose, de Broglie, Mayer, Rosen (to cite a few).


3. Self-plagiarism– recycling or re-using your own work without
appropriate disclosure and/or citation. Any form of plagiarism can be
avoided by using plagiarism checker tools available online.


To cite a few:

1906 - On a Method for the Determination of the Ratio of the Transverse
and the Longitudinal Mass of the Electron
1906 - On the Theory of Brownian Motion
1906 - On the Theory of Light Production and Light Absorption
1906 - The Principle of Conservation of Motion of the Center of Gravity
and the Inertia of Energy
1907 - On the Inertia of Energy Required by the Relativity Principle
1907 - On the Possibility of a New Test of the Relativity Principle
1907 - On the Relativity Principle and the Conclusions Drawn from It
1908 - On the Fundamental Electromagnetic Equations for Moving Bodies
1909 - On the Present Status of the Radiation Problem
1910 - The Theory of the Opalescence of Homogeneous Fluids and Liquid
Mixtures near the Critical State
1911 - A Relationship between Elastic Behavior and Specific Heat in
Solids with a Monatomic Molecule
1911 - Correction to My Paper: A New Determination of Molecular
Dimensions
1911 - Elementary Observations on Thermal Molecular Motion in Solids
1911 - On the Ehrenfest Paradox
1911 - The Theory of Relativity
1912 - Is There a Gravitational Effect Which Is Analogous to
Electrodynamic Induction?
1912 - On the Theory of the Static Gravitational Field
1912 - The Speed of Light and the Statics of the Gravitational Field
1913 - On the Present State of the Problem of Gravitation
1913 - Physical Foundations of a Theory of Gravitation
1914 - Covariance Properties of the Field Equations of the Theory of
Gravitation Based on the Generalized Theory of Relativity
1914 - Formal Foundations of the General Theory of Relativity§
1914 - Gravitational Theory§
1914 - Nordstöm's Theory of Gravitation from the Point of View of the
Absolute Differential Calculus
1914 - On the Foundations of the Generalized Theory of Relativity and
the Theory of Gravitation
1914 - On the Present Status of the Problem of Specific Heats§
1914 - On the Principle of Relativity
1914 - On the Relativity Problem
1914 - On the Theory of Gravitation
1914 - Physical Foundations and Suggestive Thoughts for a Gravitational
Theory§
1915 - Explanation of the Perihelion Motion of Mercury from the General
Theory of Relativity
1915 - Fundamental Ideas of the General Theory of Relativity and the
Application of this Theory in Astronomy§
1915 - On the General Theory of Relativity
1915 - The Field Equations of Gravitation
1916 - Approximative Integration of the Field Equations of Gravitation
1916 - Hamilton's Principle and the General Theory of Relativity
1916 - Some Intuitive Considerations from the Field of Relativity
Theory§
1916 - The Foundation of the General Theory of Relativity
1917 - Cosmological Considerations in the General Theory of Relativity
1918 - Dialogue about Objections to the Theory of Relativity
1918 - On Gravitational Waves
1918 - On the Foundations of the General Theory of Relativity
1918 - The Law of Energy Conservation in the General Theory of
Relativity
1919 - A Test of the General Theory of Relativity
1919 - Do Gravitational Fields Play an Essential Role in the Structure
of the Elementary Particles of Matter?
1919 - Field Equations of the General Theory of Relativity in Respect to
the Cosmological Problem and the Problem of the Constitution of Matter§
1920 - To What Extent Can Modern Gravitational Theory Be Established
without Relativity?
1921 - Geometry and Experience
1921 - On a Natural Addition to the Foundation of the General Theory of
Relativity
1923 - On the General Theory of Relativity§
1927 - Formal Relationship of the Riemannian Curvature Tensor to the
Field Equations of Gravity§
1927 - General Theory of Relativity and the Law of Motion§
1931 - On the Cosmological Problem of the General Theory of Relativity§
1932 - On the relation between the expansion and the mean density of the
universe
1936 - Physics and Reality§
1937 - On gravitational waves





4. Impropriety of Authorship– claiming undeserved authorship on your own
behalf, excluding material contributors from co-authorship, including
non-contributors as authors, or submitting multi-author papers to
journals without the consensus of all named authors.

MOST OF THE ABOVE PUBLICATIONS


5. Failure to Comply with Legislative and Regulatory Requirements –
willful violations of rules concerning the safe use of chemicals, care
of human and animal test subjects, inappropriate use of investigative
drugs or equipment, and inappropriate use of research funds.

- The 20,000 marks/year paid for 12 years, since 1914, to work on
quantum
  physics at request of Planck, in Berlin University.
- The $10,000/year paid in Princeton since 1933 to do research and
teach.
- The huge amount of money collected on his travels, for zionist
funding,
  while being paid at Berlin University during 1921-1926.
- The compromise to share his Nobel Prize money with Mileva Maric.
- God knows how many other PAID lectures that he hide from Planck et
all.


6. Violation of Generally Accepted Research Practices– this can include
the proposal of the research study, manipulation of experiments to
generate preferred results, deceptive statistical or analytical
practices to generate preferred results, or improper reporting of
results to present a misleading outcome causing ethical issues in
research.

- The paper over Mercury and his embedded paragraphs about starlight
deflection.
- The paper about the GR Field Equation.
- The 1911 paper, entirely.
- On the electrodynamic of moving bodies - 1905
- So many others.....

7. Falsification of Data – rather than manipulate the experiments or the
data to generate preferred results, this transgression simply fabricates
the data entirely.

- The paper over Mercury and his embedded paragraphs about starlight
deflection.


8. Failure to Support Validation of Your Research– by refusing to supply
complete datasets or research material needed to facilitate validation
of your results through a replication study.

- The paper over Mercury and his embedded paragraphs about starlight
deflection.


9. Failure to Respond to Known Cases of Unsuccessful Validation
Attempts– published research that is found to be flawed should be
retracted from the journal that published it.

- The paper over Mercury and his embedded paragraphs about starlight
deflection.


10. Inappropriate Behavior in Relation to Suspected Misconduct– failure
to cooperate with any claims of misconduct made against you, failure to
report known or suspected misconduct, destruction of any evidence
related to any claim of misconduct, retaliation against any persons
involved in a claim of misconduct, knowingly making false claims of
misconduct.


- The paper over Mercury and his embedded paragraphs about starlight
deflection.
- The paper about the GR Field Equation.
- The 1911 paper, entirely.
- On the electrodynamic of moving bodies - 1905
- So many others.....


The rise of AI tools for research, such as AI for research papers and AI
for scientific writing, has brought significant advancements to the
academic community, but it has also raised concerns about research
misconduct. These research AI tools and technologies can enhance the
efficiency and quality of academic writing, but their misuse can lead to
issues such as plagiarism, data manipulation, and the generation of
false or misleading content.



AND I MADE THIS POST IN A JIFFY.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#659847

On Fri, 27 Dec 2024 0:44:48 +0000, The Starmaker wrote:

> The Starmaker wrote:
>>
>> rhertz wrote:
>>>
>>> I repost here the first part of my 2023 OP about the P-R HOAX.
>>>
>>> ****************************************************************************
>>>
>>> Why 1960 Pound-Rebka experiment is an HOAX. Part I.
>>>
>>> https://groups.google.com/g/sci.physics.relativity/c/0aLXD2GNp4U/m/bkuHL3f1BgAJ
>>>
>>> -------------------------------------------------------------
>>>
>>> For 63 years now, it has been proclamed that the 1960 Pound-Rebka
>>> experiment was THE FIRST VALID PROOF OF GR gravitational shift,
>>> with +/- 10% statistical error.
>>>
>>> For decades, it was alleged that the Experiment proved right the 1911
>>> Einstein's heuristic assertion that |Δf/f₀| ≈ 20E-15 for an
>>> elevation of
>>> the "light generator" of 22.2 meters above ground.
>>>
>>> It's explained EVERYWHERE the cleverness of this duo, that used samples
>>> of radioactive Fe⁵⁷ atoms emitting 14.4 KeV Gamma rays, with a
>>> frequency
>>> of 3.48E+18 Hz (3,480 PetaHz).
>>>
>>> And it's claimed EVERYWHERE that the duo measured differences of about
>>> 69,660 Hz in that HUGE value of frequency, something that was/is
>>> IMPOSSIBLE with the technology available in the last 60 years (and in
>>> the
>>> next 100 years too).
>>>
>>> It's applauded the high degree of ingenuity for using a slowly moving
>>> sample
>>> so Doppler effects (red-shifting part) would cancel gravitational
>>> effects
>>> blue-shifting part, with sample on the tower).
>>>
>>> WHAT HAS NOT BEEN SAID ANYWHERE is that those "clever guys" and his
>>> team of collaborators DIDN'T USE RELATIVISTIC DOPPLER FORMULA, but
>>> used the 160 years old Doppler formula (the one Hubble used in 1929).
>>>
>>> So, how is this? Using Newton effects to cancel Einstein effects?
>>> Bullshit.
>>>
>>> In this part, I analyze the simple Doppler formula in its two versions.
>>> In the
>>> second part (II), I'll prove that they TRIMMED, COOKED AND FUDGED the
>>> data of the experiment to obtain 14 values (out of thousands) TO FIT
>>> "EINSTEIN'S PREDICTION".
>>>
>>> First things first:
>>>
>>> Relativistic Doppler
>>> (f₁/f₀)² = (1 - v/c)/(1 + v/c) = (1 - βᵣ)/(1 + βᵣ) = p²
>>> 1 - βᵣ = p² + p² βᵣ
>>> 1 - p² = βᵣ (1 + p²)
>>> βᵣ = (1 - p²)/(1 + p²)
>>>
>>> Classic Doppler
>>> (f₁/f₀) = (1 - v/c)/(1 + v/c) = (1 - β)/(1 + β) = p
>>> 1 - β = p + p β
>>> 1 - p = β (1 + p)
>>> β = (1 - p)/(1 + p)
>>> ---------------------------------------
>>> ELEMENTARY CALCULATIONS
>>>
>>> (f₁/f₀) = p = (f₀ + Δf)/f₀ = 1 + Δf/f₀
>>>
>>> p = 1 + Δf/f₀ = 1+ 15.5E-15 (Pound-Rebka, top-down, 1960)
>>>
>>> βᵣ = (1 - p²)/(1 + p²) ≈ 15.5E-30 (relativistic, NOT USED).
>>>
>>> β = (1 - p)/(1 + p) ≈ 15.5E-15 (classic, ALLEGEDLY USED)
>>>
>>> v = β.c ≈ 15.5E-15 x 3E+10 cm/sec = 4.55E-04 cm/sec
>>>
>>> BUT THEY CLAIMED THAT THE LINEAR VELOCITY OF THE SWINGING
>>> SAMPLE WAS ABOUT 1 cm/sec, not 1,000 times lower than that!
>>>
>>> And THIS was used to cancel gravitational blue-shifting in 22.2 mt,
>>> given
>>> by the einstenian formula:
>>>
>>> (f₁/f₀) = √ [[1 - 2GMₑ/c² 1/(Rₑ + h)]/(1 - 2GMₑ/c²
>>> 1/Rₑ)]
>>>
>>> (f₁/f₀)² = pᵣ² = [1 - 2GMₑ/c² 1/(Rₑ + h)]/(1 - 2GMₑ/c²
>>> 1/Rₑ)
>>>
>>> 2GMₑ/c² = 4.43503E-03 m
>>> Rₑ = 6.378136550E+06 m
>>> h = 22.2 m
>>>
>>> (f₁/f₀)² = pᵣ² = (1 - 6.953461356E-10)/(1 - 6.953485559E-10)
>>> (f₁/f₀)² = pᵣ² ≈ 1.000000000000000 (error < 10E-15)
>>>
>>> So, the relativistic gravitational shift is BARELY NOTICED:
>>>
>>> (f₁/f₀)² = pᵣ² = (1 - 6.953461356E-10)/(1 - 6.953485559E-10)
>>> (f₁/f₀)² = pᵣ² = 0.999999999304654/0.999999999304651
>>> (f₁/f₀)² = pᵣ² ≈ 1.000000000000000 (error < 10E-15)
>>>
>>> The above calculations are a proof that the NARRATIVE about the "shift
>>> cancellation" by using classic Dopler effect to CANCEL the einstenian
>>> relativistic blue shifting is JUST A FAIRY TALE.
>>>
>>> Any measurement of such calculations was IMPOSSIBLE TO BE MADE in
>>> 1960 and for the next 40 years.
>>>
>>> What Pound & Rebka CLAIMED THAT MEASURED was below the values to
>>> be cancelled (about +/- 15E-15).
>>>
>>> The ALLEGED speed v of the sample, in the direction of the detector had
>>> to
>>> be around 4.55E-04 cm/sec, not the claimed 1.5 cm/sec.
>>>
>>> Wikipedia estimates that v ≈ 7.5E-05 cm/sec.
>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pound%E2%80%93Rebka_experiment
>>>
>>> The ABSOLUTE AVERAGE frequency shift had to be around 69,600 Hz,
>>> difference IMPOSSIBLE TO BE MEASURED BY ANY MEANS on 3.48E+18 Hz
>>> (3,480 PetaHz) frequency of Gamma ray photons.
>>>
>>> So, WE ARE SUPPOSED TO BELIEVE that the 14 carefully selected
>>> measurements that they published are ABSOLUTELY TRUE, even when
>>> they have a FUDGE COMPENSATION FACTOR FOR TEMPERATURE that
>>> is ALMOST THE MEASURED VALUE. As an example, this measurement,
>>> as published:
>>>
>>> Feb. 22, 5 p.m. ; Source at the bottom.
>>> Shift observed: (-11.5 ± 3.0) x 10E-15
>>> Temperature correction: -9.2 x 10E-15 (almost 90% cooking/fudging)
>>> Net shift: (-20.7 ± 3.0) x 10E-15 [as predicted by Einstein]
>>>
>>> NOTE: Photons without recoil are a tiny fraction f of the total amount
>>> of
>>> Gamma photons emitted. And this fraction has frequency shifts that are
>>> SPREAD, in a gaussian way, around f₀ ± 34,800 Hz CALCULATED, not
>>> measured.
>>>
>>> Now, anyone wanting to redo such experiment today will have to justify
>>> PLENTY how did they measured such uber tiny difference in 3,480 PetaHz.
>>>
>>> No way then, and even today, unless you resort to fudging and
>>> statistical
>>> HEALING.
>>>
>>> Next part will be about the 14 published measurements, as the one above.
>>> --------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> "TRIMMED, COOKED AND FUDGED" is the only way any scientists can get a
>> million dollar grant today!
>>
>
> Is there a rule that Albert Einstein DIDN'T break?
> https://www.enago.com/academy/10-types-of-scientific-misconduct/
>
>
>
I don't see any, do you?

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity

csiph-web