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

Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #600669 > unrolled thread

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

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

Contents

  Why 1960 Pound-Rebka experiment is an HOAX. Part II. Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2023-02-02 15:36 -0800
    Re: Why 1Richard Hertz is an ignorant imbecile "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2023-02-02 17:29 -0800
      Re: Why 1Richard Hertz is an ignorant imbecile Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2023-02-03 04:38 -0800
        Re: Why Richard Hertz is an ignorant imbecile "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2023-02-03 07:50 -0800
      Re: Why 1Richard Hertz is an ignorant imbecile Foos Research <cusanusnicolas@gmail.com> - 2023-02-09 17:43 -0800
        Re: Why Richard Hertz is an ignorant imbecile "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2023-02-09 17:52 -0800
    Re: Why 1960 Pound-Rebka experiment is an HOAX. Part II. Prokaryotic Capase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2023-02-02 17:36 -0800
      Re: Why 1960 Pound-Rebka experiment is an HOAX. Part II. Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2023-02-02 18:31 -0800
        Re: Why 1960 Pound-Rebka experiment is an HOAX. Part II. Prokaryotic Capase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2023-02-03 04:47 -0800
          Re: Why 1960 Pound-Rebka experiment is an HOAX. Part II. Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2023-02-03 05:53 -0800
            Re: Why 1960 Pound-Rebka experiment is an HOAX. Part II. Prokaryotic Capase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2023-02-03 13:19 -0800
              Re: Why 1960 Pound-Rebka experiment is an HOAX. Part II. Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2023-02-03 14:33 -0800
                Re: Why 1960 Pound-Rebka experiment is an HOAX. Part II. Prokaryotic Capase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2023-02-03 15:07 -0800
                  Re: Why 1960 Pound-Rebka experiment is an HOAX. Part II. whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-02-03 17:28 -0600
                  Re: Why 1960 Pound-Rebka experiment is an HOAX. Part II. Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-02-03 22:52 -0800
                Re: Why $ichard Hertz is a crank "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2023-02-03 22:23 -0800
                  Re: Why $ichard Hertz is a crank Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2023-02-04 03:08 -0800
                    Re: Why $ichard Hertz is a crank "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2023-02-04 06:17 -0800
                      Re: Why $ichard Hertz is a crank Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2023-02-04 07:14 -0800
                    Re: Why Richard Hertz is a crank Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-02-04 11:23 -0500
                      Re: Why Richard Hertz is a crank Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2023-02-04 10:01 -0800
                        Re: Why Richard Hertz is a crank "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2023-02-07 15:24 -0800
                          Re: Why Richard Hertz is a crank Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-02-08 22:33 -0500
                            Re: Why Richard Hertz is a crank "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2023-02-08 19:51 -0800
                              Re: Why Richard Hertz is a crank Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> - 2023-02-08 20:29 -0800
                                Re: Why Richard Hertz is a crank Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-02-08 22:35 -0800
                                  Re: Why Richard Hertz is a crank Athel Cornish-Bowden <athel.cb@gmail.com> - 2023-02-09 07:44 +0100
                                    Re: Why Richard Hertz is a crank Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-02-08 23:30 -0800
                            Re: Why Richard Hertz is a crank Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-02-08 22:33 -0800
                      Re: Why Richard Hertz is a crank Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-02-04 12:16 -0800
                Re: Why Richard Hertz is a stubborn cretin "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2023-02-04 16:49 -0800
                  Re: Why Richard Hertz is a stubborn cretin Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2023-02-04 19:04 -0800
                    Re: Why Richard Hertz is a stubborn cretin "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2023-02-04 19:18 -0800
                Re: Why 1960 Pound-Rebka experiment is an HOAX. Part II. Foos Research <cusanusnicolas@gmail.com> - 2023-02-10 02:47 -0800
                  Cranks Al Foos and Richard Hertz get into a kookfight "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2023-02-10 07:04 -0800
    Re: Why 1960 Pound-Rebka experiment is an HOAX. Part II. Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2023-02-05 14:28 -0800
      Richard Hertz showcases his deep cretinism "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2023-02-05 17:30 -0800
        Re: Richard Hertz showcases his deep cretinism "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2023-02-07 15:12 -0800
          Re: Richard Hertz showcases his deep cretinism Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-02-08 22:39 -0500
            Re: Richard Hertz showcases his deep cretinism Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> - 2023-02-08 20:29 -0800
            Re: Richard Hertz showcases his deep cretinism Nicholes Di pasqua <ncau@caliuail.ie> - 2023-02-10 00:27 +0000
    Re: Why 1960 Pound-Rebka experiment is an HOAX. Part II. Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2023-02-07 18:59 -0800
      Crank Richard Hertz inserts feet in mouth. Both of them. "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2023-02-07 19:08 -0800
    Re: Why 1960 Pound-Rebka experiment is an HOAX. Part II. Foos Research <cusanusnicolas@gmail.com> - 2023-02-09 17:07 -0800
      Re: Why 1960 Pound-Rebka experiment is an HOAX. Part II. Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2023-02-09 18:11 -0800
        Crank Al Foos and crank Richard Hertz work together "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2023-02-09 18:16 -0800
    Re: Why 1960 Pound-Rebka experiment is an HOAX. Part II. Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.c.sirius@gmail.com> - 2023-02-23 16:23 -0800

Page 1 of 3  [1] 2 3  Next page →

#600669 — Why 1960 Pound-Rebka experiment is an HOAX. Part II.

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] | [next] | [standalone]

#600672 — Re: Why 1Richard Hertz is an ignorant imbecile

On Thursday, February 2, 2023 at 3:36:23 PM UTC-8, Richard Hertz wrote:
>  providing that the height "h" was small enough to use 
> "g = GM/R" as a CONSTANT. 


The above is your own imbecility, Dick. As before, you flunk classical physics.

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

#600689 — Re: Why 1Richard Hertz is an ignorant imbecile

On Thursday, February 2, 2023 at 10:29:06 PM UTC-3, Dono. wrote:
> On Thursday, February 2, 2023 at 3:36:23 PM UTC-8, Richard Hertz wrote: 
> > providing that the height "h" was small enough to use 
> > "g = GM/R" as a CONSTANT.
> The above is your own imbecility, Dick. As before, you flunk classical physics.

Gypsy, if you are so imbecile to not understand that R = Rₑ, blame your mother and father for inbreeding. Don't project onto me.

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

#600698 — Re: Why Richard Hertz is an ignorant imbecile

On Friday, February 3, 2023 at 4:38:47 AM UTC-8, Richard Hertz wrote:
> On Thursday, February 2, 2023 at 10:29:06 PM UTC-3, Dono. wrote: 
> > On Thursday, February 2, 2023 at 3:36:23 PM UTC-8, Richard Hertz wrote: 
> > > providing that the height "h" was small enough to use 
> > > "g = GM/R" as a CONSTANT. 
> > The above is your own imbecility, Dick. As before, you flunk classical physics.
>I am such an imbecile to not understand that R = Rₑ, I blame my mother and father for inbreeding. 
 Dick,


You flunked classical mechanics. Many times over. You will never recover from the above imbecility. 

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

#601185 — Re: Why 1Richard Hertz is an ignorant imbecile

On Friday, February 3, 2023 at 8:29:06 AM UTC+7, Dono. wrote:
> On Thursday, February 2, 2023 at 3:36:23 PM UTC-8, Richard Hertz wrote: 
> > providing that the height "h" was small enough to use 
> > "g = GM/R" as a CONSTANT.
> The above is your own imbecility, Dick. As before, you flunk classical physics.

And all of you flunk freshman calc. The difference between g at one height and g at any other height can be easily corrected for by using the average value of g over any distance h. That's why I was the only one getting perfect marks in an upper division physics class where I was the only non physics major. Note that Einstein's formula used to make that correction and verify his general relativity falls outside the range using g0 and g1 for anyone not too lazy to solve for it, and thus cannot be anything other than fake. So, be my guest, evaluate Einstein's phony expression, then evaluate the fractional change using g0 and again g1. An A+ for the prize pig who can see the fraud clearly and come up with the formula for g bar over distance h. Geez, how could blindness be so severe?

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

#601186 — Re: Why Richard Hertz is an ignorant imbecile

On Thursday, February 9, 2023 at 5:43:48 PM UTC-8, Foos Research wrote:
> On Friday, February 3, 2023 at 8:29:06 AM UTC+7, Dono. wrote:
> > On Thursday, February 2, 2023 at 3:36:23 PM UTC-8, Richard Hertz wrote: 
> > > providing that the height "h" was small enough to use 
> > > "g = GM/R" as a CONSTANT.
> > The above is your own imbecility, Dick. As before, you flunk classical physics. 
> 
> And all of you flunk freshman calc. The difference between g at one height and g at any other height can be easily corrected for by using the average value of g over any distance h.

You are as stupid as Richard Hertz. Congratulations!

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

#600675

On Thursday, February 2, 2023 at 5:36:23 PM UTC-6, Richard Hertz wrote:

[ Snipped far more than mere misconceptions ]

Leaving aside the matter of your misconceptions concerning
the emitter/absorber offsets and the temperature corrections,
your entire argument consists of your disbelief that
displacements of the spectral lines amounting to thousandths 
of the line widths could possibly have been accurately measured.

If you look at the Mossbauer spectroscopy literature, you
will see that such precision in measurement is actually fairly
routine.

As I noted before, the line widths of the hyperfine transition
in "ordinary" cesium beam clocks is about 100 Hz. By your
argument, therefore, cesium beam clocks cannot possibly
achieve accuracies of better than about 1 part in 10^7. 

Are atomic clock accuracies fraudulent?

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

#600677

On Thursday, February 2, 2023 at 10:36:24 PM UTC-3, prokaryotic.c...@gmail.com wrote:

<snip>

> Leaving aside the matter of your misconceptions concerning 
> the emitter/absorber offsets and the temperature corrections, 
> your entire argument consists of your disbelief that 
> displacements of the spectral lines amounting to thousandths 
> of the line widths could possibly have been accurately measured. 
> 
> If you look at the Mossbauer spectroscopy literature, you 
> will see that such precision in measurement is actually fairly 
> routine. 
> 
> As I noted before, the line widths of the hyperfine transition 
> in "ordinary" cesium beam clocks is about 100 Hz. By your 
> argument, therefore, cesium beam clocks cannot possibly 
> achieve accuracies of better than about 1 part in 10^7. 
> 
> Are atomic clock accuracies fraudulent?

Leaving aside the matter of your misconceptions concerning about my intelligence
or my ability to deal with different branches of knowledge, I have to criticize your 
last two paragraphs as based either on a pure attempt to troll me or just ignorance.

First: The P&R experiment was a FRAUDULENT attempt to prove "Einstein's right" by ABUSING the familiarity
of Pound with nuclear resonance and gamma radiation. He FAILED when fudging experiments and also using
statistics and gobbledygook to MIX discrete quantum events with the ANALOG WORLD of relativity. But he, and
his colleagues in the next decade, mostly failed in being HONEST, in writing CLEAN PAPERS and not crypto, in
providing ENOUGH INFORMATION about the CRITICAL PART (how did he register BEEPS and translated them
into energy units). He even failed in explaining how, and how many beeps counted during each run, as well as
in providing the calculations for the temperature correction FRAUD. I've been seeking how many of these kind
of experiments were conducted in the next decade, and the count is appallingly low. Also, is low the number
of citations of such paper (or the other from 1964). It tells VOLUMES about what the physics community thought
about his experiment, or the other of the two CRETINS (Hafele–Keating). Not curiously, both referenced each other
in the years to come (because these cretins were "partners in the crime" of killing HONEST physics).

Second: I prefer to think that you're trolling me with the atomic clock thing. This is because I think that you're a serious
and well-informed person, and in your case, trolling suits better than being ignorant.

You HAVE TO KNOW that high frequency oscillations in atomic clocks (cesium, rubidium, light frequencies) are used
TO PREVENT LONG TERM DRIFTS IN FREQUENCY, perfecting long term stability (from minutes to years) MORE THAN
1 MILLION TIMES the stability of precision TCXOs. As for the short term stability (in the seconds range), TCXO provides
excellent stability, accuracy and precision, due to an ultra-sharp Gaussian shaped spectrum, with more than -120 dBc
of attenuation just 1 Hz apart from the main 10.0000000 Mhz oscillation (typical frequency of a TCXO used in atomic
clocks). The CONVERSION of the SLOWLY MODULATED SIGNAL at 10 Ghz is done after the cesium atoms are EXCITED
by the modulating frequency around f₀, magnetically FILTERED and fed to a photodetector diode, which convert MW energy
in electric signals IN THE AUDIO RANGE.

This audio electric signal has two components: 1) NOISE, due to different values of emission of excited electrons that transition
from an hyperfine energy level to ground level, with a Gaussian shaped spectrum of ± 300/400 Hz and 2) The FM modulating signal
that is added to the carrier that feed the Ramsay cavity. This signal is useful for coherent baseband detection to form the VERY SLOW
electric signal (voltage), which SLOWLY fine-tune the TCXO.

All of these is done in the ANALOG WORLD, with continuous waves, and the cesium/rubidium signal is JUST AN ATOMIC REFERENCE,
which confer to the TCXO its incredible medium/long term AVERAGE STABILITY.

So, the frequency of these atoms is just part of a negative feedback control loop.

PLUS, if you want, you can use a 10 Ghz real time spectrum analyzer and SEE/MEASURE the spectrum. Also, and since (coincidentally)
1960, you can MEASURE the 10 Ghz frequency with increasing accuracy. Today, you have instruments with 12 digits to measure it.

Quite a difference with Pound and his γ rays, whose frequency WAS DERIVED FROM CALCULATIONS of its kinetic energy, which was
(AGAIN) CALCULATED from indirect lectures from a scintillator.

Two different worlds: One plausible (cesium/rubidium) and other very smelly when claiming PRECISION AND ACCURACY (γ rays).

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

#600690

On Thursday, February 2, 2023 at 8:31:06 PM UTC-6, Richard Hertz wrote:
> On Thursday, February 2, 2023 at 10:36:24 PM UTC-3, prokaryotic.c...@gmail.com wrote: 
> 
> <snip>
> > Leaving aside the matter of your misconceptions concerning 
> > the emitter/absorber offsets and the temperature corrections, 
> > your entire argument consists of your disbelief that 
> > displacements of the spectral lines amounting to thousandths 
> > of the line widths could possibly have been accurately measured. 
> > 
> > If you look at the Mossbauer spectroscopy literature, you 
> > will see that such precision in measurement is actually fairly 
> > routine. 
> > 
> > As I noted before, the line widths of the hyperfine transition 
> > in "ordinary" cesium beam clocks is about 100 Hz. By your 
> > argument, therefore, cesium beam clocks cannot possibly 
> > achieve accuracies of better than about 1 part in 10^7. 
> > 
> > Are atomic clock accuracies fraudulent?
> Leaving aside the matter of your misconceptions concerning about my intelligence 
> or my ability to deal with different branches of knowledge, I have to criticize your 
> last two paragraphs as based either on a pure attempt to troll me or just ignorance. 
> 
> First: The P&R experiment was a FRAUDULENT attempt to prove "Einstein's right" by ABUSING the familiarity 
> of Pound with nuclear resonance and gamma radiation. He FAILED when fudging experiments and also using 
> statistics and gobbledygook to MIX discrete quantum events with the ANALOG WORLD of relativity. But he, and 
> his colleagues in the next decade, mostly failed in being HONEST, in writing CLEAN PAPERS and not crypto, in 
> providing ENOUGH INFORMATION about the CRITICAL PART (how did he register BEEPS and translated them 
> into energy units). He even failed in explaining how, and how many beeps counted during each run, as well as 
> in providing the calculations for the temperature correction FRAUD. I've been seeking how many of these kind 
> of experiments were conducted in the next decade, and the count is appallingly low. Also, is low the number 
> of citations of such paper (or the other from 1964). It tells VOLUMES about what the physics community thought 
> about his experiment, or the other of the two CRETINS (Hafele–Keating). Not curiously, both referenced each other 
> in the years to come (because these cretins were "partners in the crime" of killing HONEST physics). 
> 
> Second: I prefer to think that you're trolling me with the atomic clock thing. This is because I think that you're a serious 
> and well-informed person, and in your case, trolling suits better than being ignorant. 
> 
> You HAVE TO KNOW that high frequency oscillations in atomic clocks (cesium, rubidium, light frequencies) are used 
> TO PREVENT LONG TERM DRIFTS IN FREQUENCY, perfecting long term stability (from minutes to years) MORE THAN 
> 1 MILLION TIMES the stability of precision TCXOs. As for the short term stability (in the seconds range), TCXO provides 
> excellent stability, accuracy and precision, due to an ultra-sharp Gaussian shaped spectrum, with more than -120 dBc 
> of attenuation just 1 Hz apart from the main 10.0000000 Mhz oscillation (typical frequency of a TCXO used in atomic 
> clocks). The CONVERSION of the SLOWLY MODULATED SIGNAL at 10 Ghz is done after the cesium atoms are EXCITED 
> by the modulating frequency around f₀, magnetically FILTERED and fed to a photodetector diode, which convert MW energy 
> in electric signals IN THE AUDIO RANGE. 
> 
> This audio electric signal has two components: 1) NOISE, due to different values of emission of excited electrons that transition 
> from an hyperfine energy level to ground level, with a Gaussian shaped spectrum of ± 300/400 Hz and 2) The FM modulating signal 
> that is added to the carrier that feed the Ramsay cavity. This signal is useful for coherent baseband detection to form the VERY SLOW 
> electric signal (voltage), which SLOWLY fine-tune the TCXO. 
> 
> All of these is done in the ANALOG WORLD, with continuous waves, and the cesium/rubidium signal is JUST AN ATOMIC REFERENCE, 
> which confer to the TCXO its incredible medium/long term AVERAGE STABILITY. 
> 
> So, the frequency of these atoms is just part of a negative feedback control loop. 
> 
> PLUS, if you want, you can use a 10 Ghz real time spectrum analyzer and SEE/MEASURE the spectrum. Also, and since (coincidentally) 
> 1960, you can MEASURE the 10 Ghz frequency with increasing accuracy. Today, you have instruments with 12 digits to measure it. 
> 
> Quite a difference with Pound and his γ rays, whose frequency WAS DERIVED FROM CALCULATIONS of its kinetic energy, which was 
> (AGAIN) CALCULATED from indirect lectures from a scintillator. 
> 
> Two different worlds: One plausible (cesium/rubidium) and other very smelly when claiming PRECISION AND ACCURACY (γ rays).

Again, you make the same *DELIBERATE* error that you've done in
the past. Pound and Rebka did not need to know the precise 
frequency of the gamma rays. They were measuring fractional 
*differences* in frequency. The precision with which they could
measure these fractional differences in frequency was a function
of how many photons they counted.

Cranshaw wrote:
| "If a height of 10m is available, then the shift is one part in 10^15.
| For the resonance in 57Fe, Q is 10^12 and the expected shift is
| 10^-3 line widths. From the order of magnitude arguments 
| presented in the introduction, a measurement with an accuracy
| of 1% could be made by counting about 10^11 photons."
https://tinyurl.com/4hnvmdmn

Pound and Rebka used a 0.4 Curie source at a height of 74 feet. 
Their target was 38 cm in diameter, and losses through the 
helium column amounted to 12%. Over a total cumulative data
collection time of 10 days, the target would have received about
5x10^12 photons, of which a certain fraction (I missed seeing 
an exact figure) would be via recoilless emission and about 30%
would be absorbed by the target. Overall, it appears to me that
they had sufficient data to reach their claimed precision of 
measurement.

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

#600691

On Friday, February 3, 2023 at 9:47:08 AM UTC-3, prokaryotic.c...@gmail.com wrote:

<snip my previous post>

> Again, you make the same *DELIBERATE* error that you've done in 
> the past. Pound and Rebka did not need to know the precise 
> frequency of the gamma rays. They were measuring fractional 
> *differences* in frequency. 

NOT AT ALL. P&R measured the AVERAGE fractional change in ENERGY of photons, assuming that
the capture of photons followed a LORENTZIAN SHAPE PDF. The proportional counters of that epoch
were based on the INTEGRAL OVER THE RUN-TIME of each set of measurements, and were rather
primitive and MUCH MORE prone to errors due to the require LOW NOISE amplifiers.

Here is a link to a paper (Italy, 2015, 94 pages):

Characterisation of the Spatial Resolution and the Gamma-ray Discrimination of Helium-3 Proportional Counters
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1702.06501.pdf

4 Instrumentation and Preliminary Characterization
4.1 Instrumentation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . .41
4.1.1 Detectors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . 41  *** THIS ***
4.1.2 Electronics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43     *** THIS ***
4.1.3 Facilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... 44
4.2 Preliminary characterization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
4.2.1 Counting Curves . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  . . 46  *** THIS ***
4.2.2 Gain . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .... . . 48
4.2.3 Energy Resolution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49  *** THIS ***
*******
6 Gamma Sensitivity
6.1 Definition of Gamma Sensitivity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64  *** THIS ***
6.2 Conversion of Gamma-Rays . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68  *** THIS ***
6.3 Gamma Sensitivity Measurements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . 72  *** THIS ***
6.4 Gamma Sensitivity calculated by using the Neutron Valley .  . 78
*******
7 Pulse Shape Discrimination
7.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81  *** THIS ***
7.2 Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . 82


> The precision with which they could measure these fractional differences in frequency was a function 
> of how many photons they counted. 

A FUNCTION OF THE DIFFERENCE OF PHOTONS COUNTED PER QUARTER CYCLE OF THE DOPPLER'S EXCITING SINE WAVE.


> 
> Cranshaw wrote: 
> | "If a height of 10m is available, then the shift is one part in 10^15. 
> | For the resonance in 57Fe, Q is 10^12 and the expected shift is 
> | 10^-3 line widths. From the order of magnitude arguments 
> | presented in the introduction, a measurement with an accuracy 
> | of 1% could be made by counting about 10^11 photons." 
> https://tinyurl.com/4hnvmdmn 

 
> Pound and Rebka used a 0.4 Curie source at a height of 74 feet. 
> Their target was 38 cm in diameter, and losses through the 
> helium column amounted to 12%. Over a total cumulative data 
> collection time of 10 days, the target would have received about 
> 5x10^12 photons, of which a certain fraction (I missed seeing 
> an exact figure) would be via recoilless emission and about 30% 
> would be absorbed by the target. Overall, it appears to me that 
> they had sufficient data to reach their claimed precision of 
> measurement.

THEY WROTE, IN THE FIRST PAGE:
*************************************
"The basic elements of the apparatus finally developed to measure the gravitational shift in
frequency were a carefully prepared source containing 0.4 curie of 270-day Co⁵⁷, and a carefully
prepared, rigidly supported, iron film absorber."
......
"...they electroplated the separated Co'7 onto one side of a 2-in. diameter, 0.005-in. thick disk of 
Armco iron according to our prescription.
After this disk was received, it was heated to 900 -1000 C for one hour in a hydrogen atmosphere
to diffuse the cobalt into the IRON FOIL about 3x10⁻⁵ cm."
*************************************

READ THESE LINKS, IN ORDER TO APPROXIMATE THE UNDERSTANDING OF THE COMPLEXITY AND
THE SOURCES OF RELEVANT UNCERTAINTIES, NOT CLEARLY EXPLAINED BY P&R.

There are several post year 2000 formulae in the links provided, which will shed LIGHT on the 1960 HOAX.


"Radioactive Co⁵⁷ decays to Fe⁵⁷ by β+ emission. The resulting Fe⁵⁷ is in its excited state and comes to the 
ground state by emitting γ−rays. The half-life of β+ decays is 270 days and that of the γ−emission is 100 nsec. 
A sample of Co⁵⁷ gives 5.0 × 210⁹ gamma rays per second."

https://www.toppr.com/ask/question/co57-decays-to-fe57-by-beta-emission-the-resulting-fe57-is-in-its-excited/

MOSSBAUER EFFECT FOR Fe⁵⁷ PRODUCED BY THE DECAY OF Co⁵⁷ DOPED SELECTIVELY IN B SITES OF MAGNETITE
https://hal.science/jpa-00215812/document 

I also took the job of calculating the fraction f from the 1959 paper, about γ photons emission by Fe⁵⁷ atoms, as a
function of Debye model of lattice vibrations (θᴰ is the Debye temperature, with average of 423K).

f = exp {-3/2  (Eᵧ²/2Mc²kθᴰ) [1 + 2/3 (πT/ θᴰ)²]} = exp(-0.35) = 0.705

Finally, and if you will, take the time to find out the accuracy of each of the main instruments used in the 1960 experiments.

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

#600718

On Friday, February 3, 2023 at 7:53:06 AM UTC-6, Richard Hertz wrote:
> On Friday, February 3, 2023 at 9:47:08 AM UTC-3, prokaryotic.c...@gmail.com wrote: 
> 
> <snip my previous post>
> > Again, you make the same *DELIBERATE* error that you've done in 
> > the past. Pound and Rebka did not need to know the precise 
> > frequency of the gamma rays. They were measuring fractional 
> > *differences* in frequency.
> NOT AT ALL. P&R measured the AVERAGE fractional change in ENERGY of photons, assuming that 
> the capture of photons followed a LORENTZIAN SHAPE PDF. The proportional counters of that epoch 
> were based on the INTEGRAL OVER THE RUN-TIME of each set of measurements, and were rather 
> primitive and MUCH MORE prone to errors due to the require LOW NOISE amplifiers. 
> 
> Here is a link to a paper (Italy, 2015, 94 pages): 
> 
> Characterisation of the Spatial Resolution and the Gamma-ray Discrimination of Helium-3 Proportional Counters 
> https://arxiv.org/pdf/1702.06501.pdf 
> 
> 4 Instrumentation and Preliminary Characterization 
> 4.1 Instrumentation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . .41 
> 4.1.1 Detectors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . 41 *** THIS *** 
> 4.1.2 Electronics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43 *** THIS *** 
> 4.1.3 Facilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... 44 
> 4.2 Preliminary characterization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46 
> 4.2.1 Counting Curves . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46 *** THIS *** 
> 4.2.2 Gain . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .... . . 48 
> 4.2.3 Energy Resolution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49 *** THIS *** 
> ******* 
> 6 Gamma Sensitivity 
> 6.1 Definition of Gamma Sensitivity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64 *** THIS *** 
> 6.2 Conversion of Gamma-Rays . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68 *** THIS *** 
> 6.3 Gamma Sensitivity Measurements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . 72 *** THIS *** 
> 6.4 Gamma Sensitivity calculated by using the Neutron Valley . . 78 
> ******* 
> 7 Pulse Shape Discrimination 
> 7.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81 *** THIS *** 
> 7.2 Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . 82
> > The precision with which they could measure these fractional differences in frequency was a function 
> > of how many photons they counted.
> A FUNCTION OF THE DIFFERENCE OF PHOTONS COUNTED PER QUARTER CYCLE OF THE DOPPLER'S EXCITING SINE WAVE.
> > 
> > Cranshaw wrote: 
> > | "If a height of 10m is available, then the shift is one part in 10^15. 
> > | For the resonance in 57Fe, Q is 10^12 and the expected shift is 
> > | 10^-3 line widths. From the order of magnitude arguments 
> > | presented in the introduction, a measurement with an accuracy 
> > | of 1% could be made by counting about 10^11 photons." 
> > https://tinyurl.com/4hnvmdmn 
> 
> 
> > Pound and Rebka used a 0.4 Curie source at a height of 74 feet. 
> > Their target was 38 cm in diameter, and losses through the 
> > helium column amounted to 12%. Over a total cumulative data 
> > collection time of 10 days, the target would have received about 
> > 5x10^12 photons, of which a certain fraction (I missed seeing 
> > an exact figure) would be via recoilless emission and about 30% 
> > would be absorbed by the target. Overall, it appears to me that 
> > they had sufficient data to reach their claimed precision of 
> > measurement.
> THEY WROTE, IN THE FIRST PAGE: 
> ************************************* 
> "The basic elements of the apparatus finally developed to measure the gravitational shift in 
> frequency were a carefully prepared source containing 0.4 curie of 270-day Co⁵⁷, and a carefully 
> prepared, rigidly supported, iron film absorber." 
> ...... 
> "...they electroplated the separated Co'7 onto one side of a 2-in. diameter, 0.005-in. thick disk of 
> Armco iron according to our prescription. 
> After this disk was received, it was heated to 900 -1000 C for one hour in a hydrogen atmosphere 
> to diffuse the cobalt into the IRON FOIL about 3x10⁻⁵ cm." 
> ************************************* 
> 
> READ THESE LINKS, IN ORDER TO APPROXIMATE THE UNDERSTANDING OF THE COMPLEXITY AND 
> THE SOURCES OF RELEVANT UNCERTAINTIES, NOT CLEARLY EXPLAINED BY P&R. 
> 
> There are several post year 2000 formulae in the links provided, which will shed LIGHT on the 1960 HOAX. 
> 
> 
> "Radioactive Co⁵⁷ decays to Fe⁵⁷ by β+ emission. The resulting Fe⁵⁷ is in its excited state and comes to the 
> ground state by emitting γ−rays. The half-life of β+ decays is 270 days and that of the γ−emission is 100 nsec. 
> A sample of Co⁵⁷ gives 5.0 × 210⁹ gamma rays per second." 
> 
> https://www.toppr.com/ask/question/co57-decays-to-fe57-by-beta-emission-the-resulting-fe57-is-in-its-excited/ 
> 
> MOSSBAUER EFFECT FOR Fe⁵⁷ PRODUCED BY THE DECAY OF Co⁵⁷ DOPED SELECTIVELY IN B SITES OF MAGNETITE 
> https://hal.science/jpa-00215812/document 
> 
> I also took the job of calculating the fraction f from the 1959 paper, about γ photons emission by Fe⁵⁷ atoms, as a 
> function of Debye model of lattice vibrations (θᴰ is the Debye temperature, with average of 423K). 
> 
> f = exp {-3/2 (Eᵧ²/2Mc²kθᴰ) [1 + 2/3 (πT/ θᴰ)²]} = exp(-0.35) = 0.705 
> 
> Finally, and if you will, take the time to find out the accuracy of each of the main instruments used in the 1960 experiments.

Absolutely *none* of what you have just posted supports your
assertion that Pound and Rebka could not have measured 
gravitational time dilation.

Handwaving claims that late 50's-early 60's technology was not up
to the task really doesn't hack it.

Let me just get something clear. As I have written elsewhere, "...the
theoretical arguments predicting gravitational time dilation do not
depend on the details of general relativity at all. Any theory of gravity
will predict gravitational time dilation if it respects the principle of 
equivalence. This includes Newtonian gravitation." Are we agreed 
on that? You do not dispute that gravitational time dilation is a real
phenomenon. You just claim that Pound and Rebka never actually
measured it, correct?

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

#600724

On Friday, February 3, 2023 at 6:19:17 PM UTC-3, prokaryotic.c...@gmail.com wrote:

<snip>

> Let me just get something clear. As I have written elsewhere, "...the 
> theoretical arguments predicting gravitational time dilation do not 
> depend on the details of general relativity at all. Any theory of gravity 
> will predict gravitational time dilation if it respects the principle of 
> equivalence. This includes Newtonian gravitation." Are we agreed 
> on that? You do not dispute that gravitational time dilation is a real 
> phenomenon. You just claim that Pound and Rebka never actually 
> measured it, correct?

I don't believe that gravitational time dilation is REAL. I did post, weeks ago and in a trolling way, how could Einstein
have had such heuristic insight between 1907 and 1911. I can't find the thread now, as I'm kind of lazy, but let me to
state the WRONG basis of such heuristic/hallucinogenic proposal.

1) KEY BELIEF: Rest energy E₀ = m₀c² is REAL (I don't agree with this STUPID ASSERTION, which has no physical meaning).

2) If m₀ is put on inertial motion at v speed, then m₀ gains kinetic energy KE = 1/2 m₀v² (FORGET relativity for a while), and 
the TOTAL ENERGY of m₀ is now  E = E₀ (1 + 1/2 v²/c²).

3) THEREFORE, if I slowly rise m₀ to a tiny height d (so the gravitational acceleration g is almost CONSTANT), the WORK 
performed with such action IS NOT LOST, but stored in m₀ as POTENTIAL ENERGY U = m₀gd. Hence, m₀ has now a 
TOTAL ENERGY E = E₀ (1 + gd/c²).

4) NOW THE TRICKY INSIGHT (remember the IRONIC title of the P&R paper: "APPARENT WEIGHT OF PHOTONS"):

IF I have a photon with mass m₀ = hf₀/c² (Planck), and I do with it what's described in 3), THEN THE TOTAL ENERGY OF THE PHOTON IS:

E = E₀ + ∆E =  hf₀ (1 + gd/c²)  = hf₁

THEN, IT HAPPENED THAT THE PHOTON HAS A NEW FREQUENCY f₁, AND

f₁ = f₀ (1 + gd/c²)

HOW DID THAT HAPPEN? NO RELATIVITY AND THE SAME EINSTEIN'S 1911 FORMULA? IT CAN'T BE RIGHT, CAN BE?

BECAUSE IT'S A FAILED HEURISTIC PROPOSITION. A FAIRY TALE. SOMETHING THAT EINSTEIN THOUGHT THAT WAS A BREAKTHROUGH.

But it's WRONG, through and through. BECAUSE PHOTONS DON'T HAVE MASS!!

Then, saving the relativity GOBBLEDYGOOK, and trying to derive it from TWO KNOWN AND VALID THEORIES (Newton and Planck) PLUS
using a 1:1 relationship mass-energy (Hassenhorl was close to it by 1905, as Poincaré by 1900, and MANY OTHERS), you can derive
such STUPID FALLACY about GRAVITY affecting TIME.

BUT such assertion IS FALSE, because ELECTROMAGNETIC ENERGY HAS NO MASS INVOLVED. Einstein thought that it had, but it was
a FAULTY, WRONG proposition.

Yet, here we are 112 years after that 1911 paper, arguing IF EINSTEIN WAS THE MESSIAH OR JUST AN IMBECILE.

A messiah for you.

An imbecile for me.

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

#600726

On Friday, February 3, 2023 at 4:33:52 PM UTC-6, Richard Hertz wrote:
> On Friday, February 3, 2023 at 6:19:17 PM UTC-3, prokaryotic.c...@gmail.com wrote: 
> 
> <snip>
> > Let me just get something clear. As I have written elsewhere, "...the 
> > theoretical arguments predicting gravitational time dilation do not 
> > depend on the details of general relativity at all. Any theory of gravity 
> > will predict gravitational time dilation if it respects the principle of 
> > equivalence. This includes Newtonian gravitation." Are we agreed 
> > on that? You do not dispute that gravitational time dilation is a real 
> > phenomenon. You just claim that Pound and Rebka never actually 
> > measured it, correct?
> I don't believe that gravitational time dilation is REAL. I did post, weeks ago and in a trolling way, how could Einstein 
> have had such heuristic insight between 1907 and 1911. I can't find the thread now, as I'm kind of lazy, but let me to 
> state the WRONG basis of such heuristic/hallucinogenic proposal. 
> 
> 1) KEY BELIEF: Rest energy E₀ = m₀c² is REAL (I don't agree with this STUPID ASSERTION, which has no physical meaning). 
> 
> 2) If m₀ is put on inertial motion at v speed, then m₀ gains kinetic energy KE = 1/2 m₀v² (FORGET relativity for a while), and 
> the TOTAL ENERGY of m₀ is now E = E₀ (1 + 1/2 v²/c²). 
> 
> 3) THEREFORE, if I slowly rise m₀ to a tiny height d (so the gravitational acceleration g is almost CONSTANT), the WORK 
> performed with such action IS NOT LOST, but stored in m₀ as POTENTIAL ENERGY U = m₀gd. Hence, m₀ has now a 
> TOTAL ENERGY E = E₀ (1 + gd/c²). 
> 
> 4) NOW THE TRICKY INSIGHT (remember the IRONIC title of the P&R paper: "APPARENT WEIGHT OF PHOTONS"): 
> 
> IF I have a photon with mass m₀ = hf₀/c² (Planck), and I do with it what's described in 3), THEN THE TOTAL ENERGY OF THE PHOTON IS: 
> 
> E = E₀ + ∆E = hf₀ (1 + gd/c²) = hf₁ 
> 
> THEN, IT HAPPENED THAT THE PHOTON HAS A NEW FREQUENCY f₁, AND 
> 
> f₁ = f₀ (1 + gd/c²) 
> 
> HOW DID THAT HAPPEN? NO RELATIVITY AND THE SAME EINSTEIN'S 1911 FORMULA? IT CAN'T BE RIGHT, CAN BE? 
> 
> BECAUSE IT'S A FAILED HEURISTIC PROPOSITION. A FAIRY TALE. SOMETHING THAT EINSTEIN THOUGHT THAT WAS A BREAKTHROUGH. 
> 
> But it's WRONG, through and through. BECAUSE PHOTONS DON'T HAVE MASS!! 
> 
> Then, saving the relativity GOBBLEDYGOOK, and trying to derive it from TWO KNOWN AND VALID THEORIES (Newton and Planck) PLUS 
> using a 1:1 relationship mass-energy (Hassenhorl was close to it by 1905, as Poincaré by 1900, and MANY OTHERS), you can derive 
> such STUPID FALLACY about GRAVITY affecting TIME. 
> 
> BUT such assertion IS FALSE, because ELECTROMAGNETIC ENERGY HAS NO MASS INVOLVED. Einstein thought that it had, but it was 
> a FAULTY, WRONG proposition. 
> 
> Yet, here we are 112 years after that 1911 paper, arguing IF EINSTEIN WAS THE MESSIAH OR JUST AN IMBECILE. 
> 
> A messiah for you. 
> 
> An imbecile for me.

Nowadays, even amateur hobbyists routinely demonstrate 
gravitational time dilation. 

How do you deny results such as the following?
http://www.leapsecond.com/great2016a/index.htm
http://www.leapsecond.com/great2005/

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

#600730

On 2/3/2023 5:07 PM, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog wrote:
> On Friday, February 3, 2023 at 4:33:52 PM UTC-6, Richard Hertz wrote:
>> On Friday, February 3, 2023 at 6:19:17 PM UTC-3, prokaryotic.c...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>> <snip>
>>> Let me just get something clear. As I have written elsewhere, "...the
>>> theoretical arguments predicting gravitational time dilation do not
>>> depend on the details of general relativity at all. Any theory of gravity
>>> will predict gravitational time dilation if it respects the principle of
>>> equivalence. This includes Newtonian gravitation." Are we agreed
>>> on that? You do not dispute that gravitational time dilation is a real
>>> phenomenon. You just claim that Pound and Rebka never actually
>>> measured it, correct?
>> I don't believe that gravitational time dilation is REAL. I did post, weeks ago and in a trolling way, how could Einstein
>> have had such heuristic insight between 1907 and 1911. I can't find the thread now, as I'm kind of lazy, but let me to
>> state the WRONG basis of such heuristic/hallucinogenic proposal.
>>
>> 1) KEY BELIEF: Rest energy E₀ = m₀c² is REAL (I don't agree with this STUPID ASSERTION, which has no physical meaning).
>>
>> 2) If m₀ is put on inertial motion at v speed, then m₀ gains kinetic energy KE = 1/2 m₀v² (FORGET relativity for a while), and
>> the TOTAL ENERGY of m₀ is now E = E₀ (1 + 1/2 v²/c²).
>>
>> 3) THEREFORE, if I slowly rise m₀ to a tiny height d (so the gravitational acceleration g is almost CONSTANT), the WORK
>> performed with such action IS NOT LOST, but stored in m₀ as POTENTIAL ENERGY U = m₀gd. Hence, m₀ has now a
>> TOTAL ENERGY E = E₀ (1 + gd/c²).
>>
>> 4) NOW THE TRICKY INSIGHT (remember the IRONIC title of the P&R paper: "APPARENT WEIGHT OF PHOTONS"):
>>
>> IF I have a photon with mass m₀ = hf₀/c² (Planck), and I do with it what's described in 3), THEN THE TOTAL ENERGY OF THE PHOTON IS:
>>
>> E = E₀ + ∆E = hf₀ (1 + gd/c²) = hf₁
>>
>> THEN, IT HAPPENED THAT THE PHOTON HAS A NEW FREQUENCY f₁, AND
>>
>> f₁ = f₀ (1 + gd/c²)
>>
>> HOW DID THAT HAPPEN? NO RELATIVITY AND THE SAME EINSTEIN'S 1911 FORMULA? IT CAN'T BE RIGHT, CAN BE?
>>
>> BECAUSE IT'S A FAILED HEURISTIC PROPOSITION. A FAIRY TALE. SOMETHING THAT EINSTEIN THOUGHT THAT WAS A BREAKTHROUGH.
>>
>> But it's WRONG, through and through. BECAUSE PHOTONS DON'T HAVE MASS!!
>>
>> Then, saving the relativity GOBBLEDYGOOK, and trying to derive it from TWO KNOWN AND VALID THEORIES (Newton and Planck) PLUS
>> using a 1:1 relationship mass-energy (Hassenhorl was close to it by 1905, as Poincaré by 1900, and MANY OTHERS), you can derive
>> such STUPID FALLACY about GRAVITY affecting TIME.
>>
>> BUT such assertion IS FALSE, because ELECTROMAGNETIC ENERGY HAS NO MASS INVOLVED. Einstein thought that it had, but it was
>> a FAULTY, WRONG proposition.
>>
>> Yet, here we are 112 years after that 1911 paper, arguing IF EINSTEIN WAS THE MESSIAH OR JUST AN IMBECILE.
>>
>> A messiah for you.
>>
>> An imbecile for me.
> 
> Nowadays, even amateur hobbyists routinely demonstrate
> gravitational time dilation.
> 
> How do you deny results such as the following?
> http://www.leapsecond.com/great2016a/index.htm
> http://www.leapsecond.com/great2005/

According to your little papers if someone takes a long flight they
arrive quicker if they don't land.

Nice!

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

#600753

On Saturday, 4 February 2023 at 00:07:35 UTC+1, prokaryotic.c...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Friday, February 3, 2023 at 4:33:52 PM UTC-6, Richard Hertz wrote: 
> > On Friday, February 3, 2023 at 6:19:17 PM UTC-3, prokaryotic.c...@gmail.com wrote: 
> > 
> > <snip> 
> > > Let me just get something clear. As I have written elsewhere, "...the 
> > > theoretical arguments predicting gravitational time dilation do not 
> > > depend on the details of general relativity at all. Any theory of gravity 
> > > will predict gravitational time dilation if it respects the principle of 
> > > equivalence. This includes Newtonian gravitation." Are we agreed 
> > > on that? You do not dispute that gravitational time dilation is a real 
> > > phenomenon. You just claim that Pound and Rebka never actually 
> > > measured it, correct? 
> > I don't believe that gravitational time dilation is REAL. I did post, weeks ago and in a trolling way, how could Einstein 
> > have had such heuristic insight between 1907 and 1911. I can't find the thread now, as I'm kind of lazy, but let me to 
> > state the WRONG basis of such heuristic/hallucinogenic proposal. 
> > 
> > 1) KEY BELIEF: Rest energy E₀ = m₀c² is REAL (I don't agree with this STUPID ASSERTION, which has no physical meaning). 
> > 
> > 2) If m₀ is put on inertial motion at v speed, then m₀ gains kinetic energy KE = 1/2 m₀v² (FORGET relativity for a while), and 
> > the TOTAL ENERGY of m₀ is now E = E₀ (1 + 1/2 v²/c²). 
> > 
> > 3) THEREFORE, if I slowly rise m₀ to a tiny height d (so the gravitational acceleration g is almost CONSTANT), the WORK 
> > performed with such action IS NOT LOST, but stored in m₀ as POTENTIAL ENERGY U = m₀gd. Hence, m₀ has now a 
> > TOTAL ENERGY E = E₀ (1 + gd/c²). 
> > 
> > 4) NOW THE TRICKY INSIGHT (remember the IRONIC title of the P&R paper: "APPARENT WEIGHT OF PHOTONS"): 
> > 
> > IF I have a photon with mass m₀ = hf₀/c² (Planck), and I do with it what's described in 3), THEN THE TOTAL ENERGY OF THE PHOTON IS: 
> > 
> > E = E₀ + ∆E = hf₀ (1 + gd/c²) = hf₁ 
> > 
> > THEN, IT HAPPENED THAT THE PHOTON HAS A NEW FREQUENCY f₁, AND 
> > 
> > f₁ = f₀ (1 + gd/c²) 
> > 
> > HOW DID THAT HAPPEN? NO RELATIVITY AND THE SAME EINSTEIN'S 1911 FORMULA? IT CAN'T BE RIGHT, CAN BE? 
> > 
> > BECAUSE IT'S A FAILED HEURISTIC PROPOSITION. A FAIRY TALE. SOMETHING THAT EINSTEIN THOUGHT THAT WAS A BREAKTHROUGH. 
> > 
> > But it's WRONG, through and through. BECAUSE PHOTONS DON'T HAVE MASS!! 
> > 
> > Then, saving the relativity GOBBLEDYGOOK, and trying to derive it from TWO KNOWN AND VALID THEORIES (Newton and Planck) PLUS 
> > using a 1:1 relationship mass-energy (Hassenhorl was close to it by 1905, as Poincaré by 1900, and MANY OTHERS), you can derive 
> > such STUPID FALLACY about GRAVITY affecting TIME. 
> > 
> > BUT such assertion IS FALSE, because ELECTROMAGNETIC ENERGY HAS NO MASS INVOLVED. Einstein thought that it had, but it was 
> > a FAULTY, WRONG proposition. 
> > 
> > Yet, here we are 112 years after that 1911 paper, arguing IF EINSTEIN WAS THE MESSIAH OR JUST AN IMBECILE. 
> > 
> > A messiah for you. 
> > 
> > An imbecile for me.
> Nowadays, even amateur hobbyists routinely demonstrate 
> gravitational time dilation. 

Abd in the meantime in the real world - forbidden
by your bunch of idiots GPS and TAI keep 
measuring t'=t in forbidden by your bunch
of idiots old seconds.

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

#600750 — Re: Why $ichard Hertz is a crank

On Friday, February 3, 2023 at 2:33:52 PM UTC-8, Richard Hertz wrote:

> IF I have a photon with mass m₀ = hf₀/c²

Photons do not have rest mass, dumbestshit. All your reasoning is an utter imbecility predicated on an utter idiocy based on your crass ignorance.

> An imbecile like me.

You got this one right, Dick. 

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

#600755 — Re: Why $ichard Hertz is a crank

On Saturday, February 4, 2023 at 3:23:35 AM UTC-3, Dono. wrote:
> On Friday, February 3, 2023 at 2:33:52 PM UTC-8, Richard Hertz wrote: 
> 
> > IF I have a photon with mass m₀ = hf₀/c²
> Photons do not have rest mass, dumbestshit. All your reasoning is an utter imbecility predicated on an utter idiocy based on your crass ignorance. 

It's not me. It's your fucking pagan god, Albert Fraud Einstein, Dono the moron.

And his stupid formula came directly after his 1911 gobbledygook to mess with imbecile's minds like yours, gypsy.

∆f/f₀ = gh/c²

Kick, scream, cry foul, hit your head into a wall or whatever help you to vent your rage, But you can't deny history, cretin inbreed.

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

#600764 — Re: Why $ichard Hertz is a crank

On Saturday, February 4, 2023 at 3:08:58 AM UTC-8, Richard Hertz wrote:
> On Saturday, February 4, 2023 at 3:23:35 AM UTC-3, Dono. wrote: 
> > On Friday, February 3, 2023 at 2:33:52 PM UTC-8, Richard Hertz wrote: 
> > 
> > > IF I have a photon with mass m₀ = hf₀/c² 
> > Photons do not have rest mass, dumbestshit. All your reasoning is an utter imbecility predicated on an utter idiocy based on your crass ignorance.
> It's not me. 

It IS you, keep it up, dumbestfuck.

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

#600765 — Re: Why $ichard Hertz is a crank

On Saturday, February 4, 2023 at 11:17:14 AM UTC-3, Dono. wrote:
> On Saturday, February 4, 2023 at 3:08:58 AM UTC-8, Richard Hertz wrote: 
> > On Saturday, February 4, 2023 at 3:23:35 AM UTC-3, Dono. wrote: 
> > > On Friday, February 3, 2023 at 2:33:52 PM UTC-8, Richard Hertz wrote: 
> > > 
> > > > IF I have a photon with mass m₀ = hf₀/c² 
> > > Photons do not have rest mass, dumbestshit. All your reasoning is an utter imbecility predicated on an utter idiocy based on your crass ignorance. 
> > It's not me.
> It IS you, keep it up, dumbestfuck.

Imbecile, I defy you to detail every error in my version of what the LT.GRAL OF IMBECILES thought.

You can't even do right with your stupid papers about relativistic Doppler, cretin. You're the laughing stock of everyone
at ResearchGate, Lithuania and Romany, gypsy.

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

#600766 — Re: Why Richard Hertz is a crank

On 2/4/2023 6:08 AM, Richard Hertz wrote:
> On Saturday, February 4, 2023 at 3:23:35 AM UTC-3, Dono. wrote:
>> On Friday, February 3, 2023 at 2:33:52 PM UTC-8, Richard Hertz wrote:
>>
>>> IF I have a photon with mass m₀ = hf₀/c²
>> Photons do not have rest mass, dumbestshit. All your reasoning is an utter imbecility predicated on an utter idiocy based on your crass ignorance.
> 
> It's not me. It's your fucking pagan god, Albert Fraud Einstein, Dono the moron.

It is you. Photons have momentum and energy, not rest mass. Your formula 
is simply wrong. Photons have a rest mass m₀=0.

E=mc² isn't relevant here, that is a special case for stationary mass.

The correct formula is E²=(m₀c²)²+(pc)² with m₀=REST mass. Photons have 
no rest mass (more accurately a rest mass m₀=0) so that becomes E²=(pc)² 
or E=pc for photons. Photon momentum is hf/c.
> 
> And his stupid formula came directly after his 1911 gobbledygook to mess with imbecile's minds like yours, gypsy.

Why are you bringing up the 1911 paper? The 1915 paper is what is correct.

> Kick, scream, cry foul, hit your head into a wall or whatever help you to vent your rage, But you can't deny history, cretin inbreed.

And history is that Einstein's GR is one of the most tested and 
validated theories, EVER.

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

Page 1 of 3  [1] 2 3  Next page →

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

csiph-web