Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #600730

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

From	whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com>
Newsgroups	sci.physics.relativity
Subject	Re: Why 1960 Pound-Rebka experiment is an HOAX. Part II.
Date	2023-02-03 17:28 -0600
Message-ID	<k45jlvFochdU2@mid.individual.net> (permalink)
References	(3 earlier) <ec05f726-c613-455f-b75d-89a6b3550bacn@googlegroups.com> <eb5feff2-9a83-463e-a1ee-4d35da3ef4d7n@googlegroups.com> <726aea8c-87ae-4629-9915-f280721bfa6en@googlegroups.com> <bc9c505e-9868-4151-be33-a1c2e3989d04n@googlegroups.com> <b74e32ed-b00b-4930-9d25-dba81ffc972bn@googlegroups.com>

Show all headers | View raw

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!

Thread

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

csiph-web