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

[Richard Hertz]

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.

[Dono.]

On Friday, January 27, 2023 at 7:10:28 AM UTC-8, Richard Hertz wrote:

> 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).
>

This is a bald faced lie, Dick.

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

This is your second bald face lie, Dick.



> The above calculations are a proof that I am an imbecile and a liar

The first true thing that you posted. The correct calculations can be found here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pound%E2%80%93Rebka_experiment

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

Your third lie in your post, crank

> 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.
>

The 4th lie in your post, rabid imbecile

> 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.
>

Your fifth lie, Dick

[patdolan]

The anatomy of a confirmation bias crime.

[Dono.]

Pattycakes,

Gravity Probe A (Vessot) improved many orders of magnitude over Pound Rebka Snider (who improved 10X over Pound Rebka). Read and shut up: https://einstein.stanford.edu/RESOURCES/KACST_docs/KACSTlectures/KACST-IntroPhysicsInSpace..pdf

[Maciej Wozniak]

And 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.

[Volney]

On 1/27/2023 10:10 AM, Richard Hertz wrote:
> 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).

It doesn't matter if WE can. It happens that the Fe⁵⁷ NUCLEUS can.
It has a very narrow absorption band. Your "3.48E+18 Hz" works and is
absorbed. "3.48E+18+69,660 Hz" does not. "3.48E+18-69,660 Hz" also does
not. Look up the Mössbauer effect.

From that knowledge, and the fact that Fe⁵⁷ also generates "3.48E+18
Hz" gammas, a good engineer (not you) can design a setup to measure tiny
frequency shifts like that, and then design useful devices based on that.

("scare quotes" used since I did not, and am not going to, verify
whether that's the actual frequency of Fe⁵⁷ gammas)

>
> 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).

Yet Fe⁵⁷ (naturally!) has that "technology".

> [snip crap]

And once again you post a steaming example as to why you need to see a
mental health expert ASAP regarding your hateful obsession with
relativity and Einstein.

[Richard Hertz]

JUST ONLY THIS POINT, CRETIN. TAKE NOTE AND GO BACK TO ELEMENTARY SCHOOL:

This is relativistic βᵣ = (1 - p²)/(1 + p²) ≈ 15.5E-30 ; SEE THE INSIGNIFICANT VALUE, imbecile?. NOT USED!

This is CLASSIC β = (1 - p)/(1 + p) ≈ 15.5E-15 ; THE SAME THAT HUBBLE USED; ALLEGEDLY USED, BUT I DON'T BELIEVE ANYTHING!

THIS IS THE RESULT WITH CLASSIC DOPPLER::: v = β.c ≈ 15.5E-15 x 3E+10 cm/sec = 4.55E-04 cm/sec

THIS IS AN EXCERPT FROM:

GRAVITATIONAL RED-SHIFT IN NUCLEAR RESONANCE
R. V. Pound and G. A. Rebka, Jr.
Lyman Laboratory of Physics, Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts
(Received October 15, 1959)

***** EXCERPTS ********

"The most striking evidence for the existence of this effect is the observation that the attenuation
of the 129-kev gamma rays of Ir¹⁹¹in passing through an iridium absorber is reduced if the
source is moved. The speed required to reduce the part of the attenuation caused by resonant
scattering to one-half its maximum value was found to be approximately 1.5 cm/sec.
From this a half-life of the excited state is derived to be 0.1 mμsec"
..........
Even if the further development of the technique does not yield still narrower resonances,
those already observed have fractional widths in frequency well below those of all the reference
lines yet proposed for "atomic clocks".
If the scattering is reduced to one-half its maximum by relative motion of the source and scatterer
with velocity v, the Q, THE RATIO OF THE FREQUENCY TO THE FULL WIDTH AT HALF-HEIGHT of the
resonance line being observed, is just c/2v. In the case of Mossbauer's experiment Q is about 1x10¹⁰
and in the case of W¹⁸² is 7x10¹⁰.

In general Q = 1.10 Eγ (Mev) τ₁/₂ (mμsec) x 10¹² ".
...........
"It is exciting to speculate about the possibilities opened up if cases of even less breadth can be found.
For example, Fe⁵⁷, for which Eγ = 0.0144 Mev and τ₁/₂ = 100 mμsec, would require only 2.9 km separation
WERE IT TO YIELD ITS NATURAL BREADTH."

***** END OF EXCERPTS ********

Translation for Dono, the retarded EE. Also for A similar breed (Volney):

Fe⁵⁷ photons with Eγ = 0.0144 MeV HAVE A RATIO OF THE FREQUENCY TO THE FULL WIDTH AT HALF-HEIGHT of the
resonance line being observed) EQUAL TO Q = c/2v.

For Fe⁵⁷, Q(Fe⁵⁷) = 0.0144 x 100 x 10¹² MeV.nsec = 1.44 x 10¹² MeV/GHz

Being v = 4.55E-04 cm/sec, Q(Fe⁵⁷) = 3.297E+13

It means that, if f₀ = 3.48E+18 Hz THEN |Δf₀| = f₀/Q(Fe⁵⁷) = 2 x | ± 52,780| Hz.

As it can see, the Fe⁵⁷ radiates 14.4 KeV photons along a bandwidth of 105,560 Hz, SPECTRA CENTERED AT f₀ = 3.48E+18 Hz.

So, not exactly a single frequency, but a "Lorentzian shaped spectra" with a bandwidth of ± 52,780 Hz around f₀.

All these photons come down, with a density around its peak at f₀ and HALF VALUE in the edges of f₀ ± 52,780 Hz.

IS IT UNDERSTOOD NOW? Dono? Volney?

So, to prove "Einstein's right" requires STATISTICAL ANALYSIS of data recollected in measurements. And STATISTICS open
the door to CHERRY PICKING, TRIMMING, COOKING AND FUDGING. Ask Eddington if not!

Regarding the other "LIES", go back to middle school and start over again, Dono the ignorant cretin.

[Richard Hertz]

I forgot to remark, so Dono chokes in, that Pound&Rebka used THE CLASSIC DOPPLER FORMULA, not the relativistic Doppler
that the imbecile fudged in 1905, which is UNUSABLE in 22.2 mt at with v speeds so low.

SEE ABOVE AGAIN, CRETIN.

[Richard Hertz]

On Friday, January 27, 2023 at 12:36:40 PM UTC-3, Dono. wrote:

> On Friday, January 27, 2023 at 7:10:28 AM UTC-8, Richard Hertz wrote:

<snip>

> > 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).
> >
> This is a bald faced lie, Dick.

As I mathematically proved in my posts above, the use of relativistic Doppler had no sense in such distance of 22.2 m,
because the shift that gave was in the order of 10E-30, an UNUSABLE VALUE!

Relativistic βᵣ = (1 - p²)/(1 + p²) ≈ 15.5E-30 ; INSIGNIFICANT VALUE, NOT USED.

CLASSIC DOPPLERβ = (1 - p)/(1 + p) ≈ 15.5E-15 ; USED IN THE 1960 PAPER.

CLASSIC DOPPLER β ≈ 15.5E-15 ; USED

THIS IS THE RESULT WITH CLASSIC DOPPLER β ::: 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!
> >
> This is your second bald face lie, Dick.

Pound-Rebka 1960 paper excerpt: "The over-all experiment is described by the block diagram of Fig. 1.
The source was moved SINUSOIDALLY by either a ferroelectric or a moving coil magnetic transducer.
During the quarter of the modulation cycle centered ABOUT THE TIME OF MAXIMUM VELOCITY the pulses
from the scintillation spectrometer, adjusted to select the 14.4 kev y-ray line, were fed into one sealer while,
during the opposite quarter cycle, they were fed into another. The difference in counts recorded was a
measure of the asymmetry in, or frequency shift between, the emission and absorption lines.
As a precaution the relative phase of the gating pulses and the sinusoidal modulation were displayed continuously."

The sine wave frequency of the MECHANICAL MODULATOR varied between 10 Hz and 50 Hz, continuously, they wrote.
The mechanism can be seen in the diagram of Figure 1. It traduces linear oscillations of the HYDRAULIC MASTER into
swings of the coupled source (HYDRAULIC SLAVE TRANSDUCER).

It means that the time duration of each mechanical quarter-cycle is between 5 msec and 25 msec. Moving the sample
up and down, by using the hydraulic transducer, +/-10 cm REPRESENT a "linearized speed, radial to the receiver" with
values between v = 2,000 cm/sec and v = 400 cm/sec. Not even a simple wording about using a 2,000,000:1 reductor.

BECAUSE THIS IS A LIE. THEY FUDGED THE EXPERIMENT, COOKED AND TRIMMED THE DATA AT WILL. IT'S AN HOAX,
AND IMBECILES LIKE YOU CELEBRATE SUCH FALSE EXPERIMENT, IF IS SATISFY "EINSTEIN".

The cretins applied a CORRECTION BY TEMPERATURE (FROM WHAT, EQUATIONS?) ABOVE 100% OF THE MEASURED VALUES.

From over a THOUSAND measurements, they CHERRY-PICKED ONLY 14 (1.4%) and yet, AS IT DIDN'T WORK AT ALL, fudged
the physical measurements with A THEORETICAL FORMULA! SHAME!!

CAREFULLY WATCH THIS LIST, IN 10E-15 UNITS. Do you something FISHY?. You don't?. Then you're a cretin relativist.

ONLY THIS DATA WAS PUBLISHED. 14 SETS, CORRECTED THEORETICALLY FOR MORE THAN 100% IN MANY CASES.

Source at bottom
1 - Feb. 22, 5 p.m. - Shift observed: -11.5 ± 3.0; Temperature correction: -9.2; Correction: 80%; Net shift: -20.7 ± 3.0 **** THIS!
2 - Feb. 22, 5 p.m. - Shift observed: -16.4 ± 2.2; Temperature correction: -5.9; Correction: 36%; Net shift: -22.3 ± 2.2
3 - Feb. 22, 5 p.m. - Shift observed: -13.8 ± 1.3; Temperature correction: -5.3; Correction: 38%; Net shift: -19.1 ± 1.3
4 - Feb. 22, 5 p.m. - Shift observed: -11.9 ± 2.1; Temperature correction: -8.0; Correction: 67%; Net shift: -19.9 ± 2.1 **** THIS!
5 - Feb. 22, 5 p.m. - Shift observed: -8.7 ± 2.0; Temperature correction: -10.5; Correction:121%; Net shift: -19.2 ± 2.0 **** THIS!
6 - Feb. 23, 10 p m. - Shift observed: -10.5 ± 2.0; Temperature correction: -10.6; Correction: 99%; Net shift: -21.0 ± 2.0 **** THIS!

Weighted average = -19.7 ± 0.8 **** THIS!

Source at top
7 - Feb. 24, 0 a.m. - Shift observed: -12.0 ± 4.1; Temperature correction: -8.6; Correction: 71%; Net shift: -20.6 ± 4.1 **** THIS!
8 - Feb. 24, 0 a.m. - Shift observed: -5.7 ± 1.4; Temperature correction: -9.6; Correction: 168%; Net shift: -15.3 ± 1.4 **** THIS!
9 - Feb. 24, 0 a.m. - Shift observed: -7.4 ± 2.1; Temperature correction: -7.4; Correction: 100%; Net shift: -14.8 ± 2.1 **** THIS!
10 - Feb. 24, 0 a.m. - Shift observed: -6.5 ± 2.1; Temperature correction: -5.8; Correction: 89%; Net shift: -12.3 ± 2.1 **** THIS!
11 - Feb. 24, 0 a.m. - Shift observed: -13.9 ± 3.1; Temperature correction: -7.5; Correction: 54%; Net shift: -21.4 ± 3.1
12 - Feb. 24, 0 a.m. - Shift observed: -6.6 ± 3.0; Temperature correction: -5.7; Correction: 86%; Net shift: -12.3 ± 3.0 **** THIS!
13 - Feb. 25, 6 p.m. - Shift observed: -6.5 ± 2.0; Temperature correction: -8.9; Correction: 137%; Net shift: -15.4 ± 2.0 **** THIS!
14 - Feb. 25, 6 p.m. - Shift observed: -10.0 ± 2.6; Temperature correction: -7.9; Correction: 79%; Net shift: -17.9 ± 2.6 **** THIS!

Weighted average = -15.5 ± 0.8 **** THIS!
Mean shift = -17.6 ± 0.6 **** THIS!
Difference of averages = -4.2 ± 1.1 **** THIS!

IS THIS A SCIENTIFIC DOCUMENT, OR AN INCREDIBLE AMOUNT OF CRAP (Published in just 15 days after reception).

And, IF YOU HAD A BRAIN, you could analyze it even deeper by figuring out how they did measure the observed variantions of
the shift in frequency (wavelength, actually) and EXPLAIN why the correction wasn't applied to the net shift.

Even more, how do you reduce the uncertainty MORE THAN FOUR TIMES TO ± 0.6.

Or how do you get a "wighted average of -15.5 instead of an rms average of -16.6 (or linear average of -16.3).

WORSE YET: How do you increase your "weighted average shift" of -15.5 to a MEAN SHIFT OF -17.6?

FUDGING DATA PLUS STATISTICAL MANIPULATION TO FIT EINSTEIN.

CLASSIC RELATIVIST HOAX.

And, imbecile, if you want more about this fake experiment, I have MUCH MORE.
Now, go back to middle school again.

[Baldomero De filippis]

Volney wrote:
> On 1/27/2023 10:10 AM, Richard Hertz wrote:
>> 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).
>
> It doesn't matter if WE can. It happens that the Fe⁵⁷ NUCLEUS can. It
> has a very narrow absorption band. Your "3.48E+18 Hz" works and is
> absorbed. "3.48E+18+69,660 Hz" does not. "3.48E+18-69,660 Hz" also does

> not. L̶o̶o̶k̶ u̶p̶ t̶h̶e̶ M̶ös̶s̶b̶a̶u̶e̶r̶ e̶f̶f̶e̶c̶t̶.

nevermind this bullshit. Here we go with some proofs. Not only Russians,
but _the_khazar_gypsy_zelenske_regime_ is
*_killing_Hungarians_and_Romanians_* as much, in *_the_fucking_non-
existent_* "uKraine".

Trolling Pentagon _gay_wankers_ grunts in Poland. F()ckin' Ace!
https://%62%69%74%63%68%75%74%65.com/%76%69%64%65%6f/A85Bc9ifvbbW

Emails Show Hunter Xiden Shared Classified Documents With Ukrainian
Business Partner.
https://%62%69%74%63%68%75%74%65.com/%76%69%64%65%6f/gdkhZXCLcd4O

rabota. Closer look at ＂Terminator＂ making wood-fired bacon
https://%62%69%74%63%68%75%74%65.com/%76%69%64%65%6f/UR0vaLaG1lyb

Devil Invaded Ukraine
https://%62%69%74%63%68%75%74%65.com/%76%69%64%65%6f/fRCd1hJblMIe

Archives： M1 Abrams tank burning in Iraq
https://%62%69%74%63%68%75%74%65.com/%76%69%64%65%6f/l3yLpqyhNBSH

AFU command: "There are no more infantry companies"
https://%62%69%74%63%68%75%74%65.com/%76%69%64%65%6f/FKNFzGxdFW7D

Reconnaissance drone footage of a Russian strike on S300 system in
terrorist-occupied Ukraine
https://%62%69%74%63%68%75%74%65.com/%76%69%64%65%6f/HrzgQf7gtgZ5

[Prokaryotic Capase Homolog]

On Saturday, January 28, 2023 at 10:01:13 AM UTC-6, Richard Hertz wrote:

> The cretins applied a CORRECTION BY TEMPERATURE (FROM WHAT, EQUATIONS?) ABOVE 100% OF THE MEASURED VALUES.

That's a correction for transverse Doppler shift from
lattice vibrations of the atoms, empirically measurable.
They needed to continuously monitor the recorded
temperatures for source and absorber over each counting
period, taking the averages and compensating for the
temperature differences that they observed. Errors of
hundredths of a degree would have made a significant
difference in their measurements.

[Richard Hertz]

You CAN'T/SHOULDN'T apply theoretical corrections of 100%++ to your physical "measurements", and CLAIM that
you MEASURED that. No, you didn't. You just cooked the data AT WILL, to narrow the gap with YOUR DESIRED final
value. This is not scientific. This is just gobbledygook and blame to Deybe temperature.

Reading carefully the 1960 paper, it is for me QUITE VISIBLE how cautious were they to make strong assertions, and
how they did cover their analysis with many excuses (difficult, inaccuracy of instruments, etc.).

The 1960 paper doesn't reflect the enthusiasm of their 1959 paper, when they expected great things with the Mossbauer effect.

What is more, they didn't claim proudly that they verified 1911 Einstein heuristic formula, BECAUSE THEY DIDN'T.

And the paper is heavily filtered from ANY EXPLANATION about how they measured the error bars, and how many measurements
were involved in EACH of the 14 selected SETS OF DATA. This attitude is, IMO, a clear proof that they ABUSED of statistics, to say
the least.

You were supposed to prove that |Δf/f₀| ≈ gh/c² ≈ 9.81 x 22.2/(299792458)² ≈ 2.42E-15 (Einstein 1911).
You end discarding your 1959 paper, and come with |Δf/f₀| ≈ |17.6 ± 0.6| x 10E-15 (Pound&Rebka 1960), on
a paper with the title: "APPARENT WEIGHT OF PHOTONS".

It doesn't make sense, no matter how thoroughly you analyze and try to extract coherence from both papers.
A paper that start with:

"As we proposed a few months ago,¹ we have now measured the effect, originally hypothesized by Einstein, ²
of gravitational potential on the apparent frequency of electromagnetic radiation by using the sharply defined
energy of recoil-free y rays emitted and absorbed in solids, as discovered by Mossbauer.³"
.....
1: R. V. Pound and G. A. Bebka, Jr. , Phys. Rev. Letters 3, 439 (1959).
2: A. Einstein, Ann. Physik 35, 898 (1911).
3: R. L. Mossbauer, Z. Physik 151, 124 (1958); Naturwissenschaften 45, 538 (1958); Z. Naturforsch. 14a, 211 (1959)

Watch this raw data for the average shift Δf₀ measured on each of the 14 selected sets of data (in 10E-15 units):

Δf₀
1: -11,5
2: -16,4
3: -13,8
4: -11,9
5: -8,7
6: -10,5
Average, source at bottom: -12.1
Weighted average, source at bottom: -19.7 (after +70% due to temperature correction)
7: -12,0
8: -5,7
9: -7,4
10: -6,5
11: -13,9
12: -6,6
13: -6,5
14: -10,0
-----------------
Average, source at top: -8.6
Weighted average, source at top: -15.5 (after +80% due to temperature correction)

Pound-Rebka FINAL MEAN SHIFT: (-17.6 ± 0.6) x 10E-15

Where was left Einstein's calculation, which gives |Δf/f₀| ≈ gh/c² ≈ 2.4E-15 (Einstein 1911).

WHAT DID THEY PROVE?

Did they forget their 1959 corrected formula: Δυ_h/υ₀ = gh/c²(1 + h/R) ≈ h x (1.09x10⁻¹⁸), [h in cm, Pound-Rebka first paper, 1959]?

FISHY PAPER! FISHY AS HELL!

[Richard Hertz]

I forgot this:

1 - Einstein 1911 formula: |Δf/f₀| ≈ 2.42E-15

2- Pound-Rebka 1959 formula: |Δf/f₀| ≈ 2.398E-15

3. Pound-Rebka 1960 "experiment": |Δf/f₀| ≈ (17.6 ± 0.6) x 10E−15

AS I WROTE BEFORE, WHAT DID THEY PROVE?

And cited colleagues with errors of 43% doing a similar experiment, but without the fishy temperature correction?

Crazy paper.

[patdolan]

So Eddington's bent starlight is dead, Frisch-Smith is dead, Pound-Rebka is dead. What's left standing of the most precisely confirmed physical theory of all time?

[Dono.]

On Friday, January 27, 2023 at 2:05:46 PM UTC-8, Richard Hertz wrote:

> I forgot to remark, that Pound&Rebka used THE CLASSIC DOPPLER FORMULA, not the relativistic Doppler


No, they don't. I already filled your mouth with shit on this lie of yours. Keep it up, dumbestfuck.

[Richard Hertz]

On Saturday, January 28, 2023 at 9:07:07 PM UTC-3, Dono. wrote:
> On Friday, January 27, 2023 at 2:05:46 PM UTC-8, Richard Hertz wrote:

<snip>

> > I forgot to remark, that Pound&Rebka used THE CLASSIC DOPPLER FORMULA, not the relativistic Doppler
>
> No, they don't. I already filled your mouth with shit on this lie of yours. Keep it up, dumbestfuck.

Always the same kind of answer. Could you try variations, asshole?

And, regarding Doppler, you obviously are some kind of retarded, aren't you?

LOOK AT the numbers above, imbecile.

[Prokaryotic Capase Homolog]

On Saturday, January 28, 2023 at 4:41:36 PM UTC-6, Richard Hertz wrote:
> On Saturday, January 28, 2023 at 6:36:53 PM UTC-3, prokaryotic.c...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Saturday, January 28, 2023 at 10:01:13 AM UTC-6, Richard Hertz wrote:
> >
> > > The cretins applied a CORRECTION BY TEMPERATURE (FROM WHAT, EQUATIONS?) ABOVE 100% OF THE MEASURED VALUES.
> > That's a correction for transverse Doppler shift from
> > lattice vibrations of the atoms, empirically measurable.
> > They needed to continuously monitor the recorded
> > temperatures for source and absorber over each counting
> > period, taking the averages and compensating for the
> > temperature differences that they observed. Errors of
> > hundredths of a degree would have made a significant
> > difference in their measurements.
> You CAN'T/SHOULDN'T apply theoretical corrections of 100%++ to your physical "measurements", and CLAIM that
> you MEASURED that. No, you didn't. You just cooked the data AT WILL, to narrow the gap with YOUR DESIRED final
> value. This is not scientific. This is just gobbledygook and blame to Deybe temperature.

The effect was not merely theoretical at all, but empirically
verified by multiple experimenters:

In the previous issue to the one in which their "Apparent weight
of photons" article appeared, Pound and Rebka published the
following:
Pound, R. V., & Rebka Jr, G. A. (1960). Variation with
temperature of the energy of recoil-free gamma rays from solids.
Physical Review Letters, 4(6), 274.
"As a preliminary step in the operation of an experimental
system designed to measure the gravitational effect, we have
been making tests to find out whether other influences than the
one intended might lead to systematic errors by introducing
important frequency shifts not taken into account.
So far the largest such effect found is that of temperature.
That temperature should influence the frequency exactly as we
observe is very simply explained. Thermally excited vibrations
cause little broadening through first order Doppler effect
under the conditions obtaining in the solid because the value
of any component of the nuclear velocity averages very nearly
to zero over the nuclear lifetime. The precision of the y ray
of Fe57 requires the second order Doppler effect also to be
considered. A shift to lower frequency with increased temperature
results from this because the also well-defined average of the
square of the velocity of the particle increases in direct
proportion to the average kinetic energy"

In the same issue as the "Apparent weight of photons" article
was this one:
Josephson, B. D. (1960). Temperature-dependent shift of
γ rays emitted by a solid. Physical Review Letters, 4(7), 341.
"Recent experiments by Mossbauer have shown that when
low-energy y rays are emitted from nuclei in a solid a certain
proportion of them are unaffected by the Doppler effect. It is
the purpose of this Letter to show that they are nevertheless
subject to a temperature-dependent shift to lower energy
which can be attributed to the relativistic time dilatation
caused by the motion of the nuclei."

[Dono.]

On Saturday, January 28, 2023 at 4:43:19 PM UTC-8, Richard Hertz wrote:
> On Saturday, January 28, 2023 at 9:07:07 PM UTC-3, Dono. wrote:
> > On Friday, January 27, 2023 at 2:05:46 PM UTC-8, Richard Hertz wrote:
> <snip>
> > > I forgot to remark, that Pound&Rebka used THE CLASSIC DOPPLER FORMULA, not the relativistic Doppler
> >
> > No, they don't. I already filled your mouth with shit on this lie of yours. Keep it up, dumbestfuck.
> Always the same kind of answer.

Yep, you get to eat shit due to your invariable lying. Keep it up, dumbestfuck!

[Maciej Wozniak]

On Sunday, 29 January 2023 at 01:57:49 UTC+1, prokaryotic.c...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Saturday, January 28, 2023 at 4:41:36 PM UTC-6, Richard Hertz wrote:
> > On Saturday, January 28, 2023 at 6:36:53 PM UTC-3, prokaryotic.c...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > On Saturday, January 28, 2023 at 10:01:13 AM UTC-6, Richard Hertz wrote:
> > >
> > > > The cretins applied a CORRECTION BY TEMPERATURE (FROM WHAT, EQUATIONS?) ABOVE 100% OF THE MEASURED VALUES.
> > > That's a correction for transverse Doppler shift from
> > > lattice vibrations of the atoms, empirically measurable.
> > > They needed to continuously monitor the recorded
> > > temperatures for source and absorber over each counting
> > > period, taking the averages and compensating for the
> > > temperature differences that they observed. Errors of
> > > hundredths of a degree would have made a significant
> > > difference in their measurements.
> > You CAN'T/SHOULDN'T apply theoretical corrections of 100%++ to your physical "measurements", and CLAIM that
> > you MEASURED that. No, you didn't. You just cooked the data AT WILL, to narrow the gap with YOUR DESIRED final
> > value. This is not scientific. This is just gobbledygook and blame to Deybe temperature.
> The effect was not merely theoretical at all, but empirically
> verified by multiple experimenters:

Unfortunately, in the meantime in the real

world, forbidden by your bunch of idiots

GPS and TAI keep measuring t'=t, just
like all serious clocks always did.

[Richard Hertz]

I repeat this, because some people seem to be distracted:

IF Einstein 1911 formula: |Δf/f₀| ≈ 2.42E-15, AND Pound-Rebka 1959 formula: |Δf/f₀| ≈ 2.398E-15

WHAT DID POUND-REBKA PROVED WITH HIS 1960 AVERAGE SHIFT: |Δf/f₀| ≈ (17.6 ± 0.6) x 10E−15 ?



THIS VALUE IS SIX TIMES HIGHER THAN THE THEORETICAL VALUE, OR 600% HIGHER.

HOW COME DID THIS PROVE GRAVITATIONAL BLUE/RED-SHIFTING, EXISTING SUCH HUGE DIFFERENCE?

THEY WROTE, AS AN INTRODUCTION TO HIS 1960 PAPER:

"As we proposed a few months ago, ' we have now
measured the effect, originally hypothesized by
Einstein, ' of gravitational potential on the apparent
frequency of electromagnetic radiation by
using the sharply defined energy of recoil-free
y rays emitted and absorbed in solids, as discovered
by Mossbauer. "

THEY DIDN'T.

"Table I. Data from the first four days of counting. The data are expressed as fractional frequency differences
between source and absorber multiplied by 10^-15, as derived from the appropriate sensitivity calibration. The
negative signs mean that the y ray has a frequency lower than the frequency of maximum absorption at the absorber."
......
"Mean shift = -17.6 + 0.6"
........

EXPECTED: ≈ -2.42

WHAT? THE AVERAGE MEASUREMENT CORRESPOND TO h ≈ 230 mt, not 22.2 mt.

Can anybody explain this?

[Richard Hertz]

They wrote: "The negative signs mean that the y ray has a frequency lower than the frequency of maximum absorption at the absorber."

The frequency of maximum absorption at the absorber has to be 3.48E+18 Hz (3,480 PetaHz), which correspond to 14.4 KeV Gamma
photons produced by radioactive Fe⁵⁷ atoms. And such peak frequency has to be similar to that of the absorbing atoms, which re-emit
such photons.

BUT, as it's alleged, gravity changes the frequency (peak) of photons, on the way down 22.2 m or (blue shifting) or on the way up
(red shifting) by a theoretical average fractional amount of ± 2.42E-15.

They probed with the emitter at the top (+22.2 m), which should produce (allegedly) a "blue" shift of +2.42E-15 at the receiving side.
They probed with the emitter at the bottom (-22.2 m), which should produce (allegedly) a "red" shift of -2.42E-15 at the receiving side.

But they always measured with negative signs, no matter where the emitter was placed. And they got six times that value.

They got a mean shift of (-17.6 + 0.6)E-15 for all the 14 sets of measured data.

Any idea about how this probed "Einstein's right"?

[Dono.]

On Sunday, January 29, 2023 at 7:32:24 AM UTC-8, Richard Hertz wrote:

> Can anybody explain this?

Yes, you are a cretin who cannot and would not read scientific papers. Live with it, dumbestshit

[Prokaryotic Capase Homolog]

On Sunday, January 29, 2023 at 10:25:12 AM UTC-6, Richard Hertz wrote:

> They wrote: "The negative signs mean that the y ray has a frequency lower than the frequency of maximum absorption at the absorber."
>
> The frequency of maximum absorption at the absorber has to be 3.48E+18 Hz (3,480 PetaHz), which correspond to 14.4 KeV Gamma
> photons produced by radioactive Fe⁵⁷ atoms. And such peak frequency has to be similar to that of the absorbing atoms, which re-emit
> such photons.
>
> BUT, as it's alleged, gravity changes the frequency (peak) of photons, on the way down 22.2 m or (blue shifting) or on the way up
> (red shifting) by a theoretical average fractional amount of ± 2.42E-15.
>
> They probed with the emitter at the top (+22.2 m), which should produce (allegedly) a "blue" shift of +2.42E-15 at the receiving side.
> They probed with the emitter at the bottom (-22.2 m), which should produce (allegedly) a "red" shift of -2.42E-15 at the receiving side.
>
> But they always measured with negative signs, no matter where the emitter was placed. And they got six times that value.
>
> They got a mean shift of (-17.6 + 0.6)E-15 for all the 14 sets of measured data.
>
> Any idea about how this probed "Einstein's right"?

The emission lines of the Fe⁵⁷ atoms in the emitter, and the absorption
lines in the various absorbers that they used were exceedingly sharp,
but the center points of maximum emission and absorption were
highly sensitive to the micro-environments surrounding the Fe⁵⁷ atoms.

Think of two quartz clocks running on two oven-controlled but otherwise
uncalibrated crystals. One may run fast by 29±4 seconds each day, the
other one slow by 20±3 seconds each day.

The extreme sensitivity of the frequency of emission of Fe⁵⁷ has made
Mossbauer spectroscopy a highly useful probe in various fields
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M%C3%B6ssbauer_spectroscopy.

Note the extreme care with which they specified how the
emitters and absorbers needed to be prepared. This was necessary
because otherwise the emission and absorption lines would not
be as sharp as they needed them to be.

"The average for the two directions of travel should measure an
effective shift of other origin, and this is about four times the
difference between the shifts. We confirmed that this shift was an
inherent property of the particular combination of source and
absorber by measuring the shift for each absorber unit in turn,
with temperature correction, when it was six inches from the
source."

In Table II, they document the offsets they measured for different
combinations of absorber and emitter.

Their experimental protocol, comparing emitter at top versus
emitter at bottom, allowed them to distinguish the gravitational
Doppler effect from the constant frequency offset between emitter
and absorber.

[Richard Hertz]

In EE, one of the most elementary things that you learn when studying resonant circuits
is the Q FACTOR. Such factor defines the QUALITY of the resonating circuit, no matter
what is oscillating and the related frequency.

Q is basically defined as Q= |f₀/Δf|, being |Δf| the half bandwidth of the PHASE NOISE
AROUND f₀.

An ordinary LC circuit can have a Q = 1,000.
An XO can have a Q = 10,000,000
The resonance of excited Cesium atom's hyperfine transition has a Q = 25,000,000

The authors cited that the resonance of radioactive Fe⁵⁷ atoms has a Q(Fe⁵⁷) = 3.310E+13.

It means that a sample of radioactive Fe⁵⁷ emit Gamma radiation of 14.4 KeV with f₀ = 3.48E+18 Hz (3,480 PetaHz),
over a bandwidth (half value) of |Δf| = 2 x | ± 52,780| Hz.

So, the sample emit Gamma photons of 14.4 KeV constantly, over a bandwidth of 105,560 Hz centered at f₀ = 3,480 PetaHz,

SOME OF THESE PHOTONS are recoil free, a minority given by the "f factor" explained in the 1959 document. Only SOME photons.

All the work in the 1960 paper was about filtering these photons from the rest.

Yet, still remains the question that I did before: WHAT DID THEY MEASURE, ACTUALLY?

Because the published final value is 600% higher than the theoretical value that they were trying to prove (1911, 1959).

[Dono.]

On Sunday, January 29, 2023 at 1:26:44 PM UTC-8, Richard Hertz wrote:

> Because the published final value is 600% higher than the theoretical value that they were trying to prove (1911, 1959).

Actually, they show that nu_measured/nu_theoretical=1 +/- 0.1
Keep on lying, dumbestshit

[Prokaryotic Capase Homolog]

On Sunday, January 29, 2023 at 3:26:44 PM UTC-6, Richard Hertz wrote:

> Because the published final value is 600% higher than the theoretical value that they were trying to prove (1911, 1959).

Please re-read my explanation in my previous post
https://groups.google.com/g/sci.physics.relativity/c/0aLXD2GNp4U/m/jtBDU3BxAwAJ

The emission/absorptions lines were extremely sharp,
but were offset between emitter and absorber because
the Fe⁵⁷ atoms were in different environments. Their
experimental protocol allowed them to distinguish
the gravitational time dilation effect from the considerably
larger systematic offset between the emitter and
absorber frequencies.

[Richard Hertz]

Gravitational shift with Einstein 1911 formula: |Δf/f₀| ≈ 2.42E-15; Pound-Rebka 1959 formula: |Δf/f₀| ≈ 2.398E-15.

Adopting |Δf/f₀| ≈ 2.4E-15, with f₀ = 3.48E+18 Hz, it gives a shift
Δf = ± 8,352 Hz [for source at the top (+), or at the bottom (-)].

Such very small difference in frequency WAS/IS impossible to be measured DIRECTLY in the ExaHertz range (10E-18),
because the Gamma radiation is not a continuous wave (permanent flow of photons), but a discrete and RANDOM radioactive emission.

To add more to the impossible task to measure Δf = ± 8,352 Hz, the source emit Gamma photons with 14.4 KeV in a bandwidth of
Δf = ± 52,780 Hz with center in f₀ = 3.48E+18 Hz. This BW is due to the Q(Fe⁵⁷) = 3.310E+13 for the resonance of a radioactive atom.

The spread Δf = ± 52,780 Hz is the "MEASURED" full to half-value of the spectrum of the radiation, at the SOURCE SIDE. Of course that
measurements were not so accurate to see a shift of 80 Hz (not even 780 Hz), but the numbers come from the calculation. Just that.

Assuming a gaussian distribution of the density of radiation around f₀ = 3.48E+18 Hz, the PROOF of a shift of ± 8,352 Hz (gh/c²)
is COMPLETELY WITHIN the radiation bandwidth of ± 52,780 Hz [f₀/Q(Fe⁵⁷)].

NOTE: THEY "MEASURED", INDIRECTLY, A TINY 0.1% OF THE LINE WIDTH IN THE SPECTROGRAPH.*** SEE HIS BIO AT THE END.

Add to such absurdity the fact that a radioactive emission of Gamma rays is RANDOM, so it adds more uncertainty to the "chance"
to measure DIRECTLY such a small shift, as it would be randomly located within ± 52,780 Hz around f₀.

That's why I ask again: WHAT DID POUND-REBKA PROVED WITH HIS 1960 AVERAGE SHIFT: |Δf/f₀| ≈ (17.6 ± 0.6) x 10E−15 ?

Certainly NOT Einstein 1911 heuristic formulae, as the title of the paper "APPARENT WEIGHT OF PHOTONS" induces to believe.

They wrote: "The shift observed agrees with -4.92 x 10⁻¹⁵, the predicted gravitational shift for this "two-way" height difference."

REVERSING SIGNS FOR UP-DOWN+DOWN-UP, and averaging the 14 values, is CLAIMED by the duo as BEING EQUAL TO MEASURING
over TWICE the height of 22.2 m, which is another ABUSE on gullible readers. But they wrote A DISCLAIMER, which seems to have being
ignored BY EVERY RELATIVIST in the last 60 years:

"IF the frequency-shift inherent in our source-absorber combination IS NOT AFFECTED BY INVERSION OF THE RELATIVE POSITIONS,
the difference between shifts OBSERVED with rising and falling y rays MEASURES THE EFFECT OF GRAVITY."

And then, the final stroke: scrambling with the units of measurement (they always were 10⁻¹⁵). They wrote:

"Expressed in this unit, the result is

(Δυ)_exp /(Δυ)_theor = +1.05 ± 0.10,

where the plus sign indicates that the frequency increases in falling, as expected."


NOTHING PROVED. NOTHING CONCLUSIVE. TOO MANY EXCUSES. HEAVY MANIPULATION OF DATA SETS.
CONFUSING NARRATIVE IN THE PAPER. ATTEMPT TO DEVIATE FOCUS ON TO LIMITATIONS OF TECHNOLOGY.

FISHY PAPER. DIRTY, FISHY AS HELL.

AND THEY CLAIMED TRIUMPH OF RELATIVITY AND THAT "EINSTEIN'S RIGHT".

Pound made a living with this crap for the next years, even when it WAS NOT his main scientific bias.

*************************************
THIS BIO WORTH READING. OLD DAYS IN PHYSICS:
http://www.nasonline.org/publications/biographical-memoirs/memoir-pdfs/pound-robert.pdf

EXCERPT:

Pound’s MOST SPECTACULAR EXPERIMENT WAS THE VERIFICATION IN A LABORATORY SETTING, OF THE EQUIVALENCE
PRINCIPLE IN EINSTEIN'S THEORY OF GENERAL RELATIVITY. It was carried out in 19 9 and 1960. Bob had the insight and
experimental skill to use the Mössbauer effect to measure the shift in frequency of a gamma ray, as it moved up or down
in the gravitational potential of the Earth. The fractional shift in frequency over a height differential of 23 meters is only
2.3 x 10⁻¹⁵. The Mössbauer effect of the Fe⁵⁷ isotope involves a 14.4 KeV gamma ray with a life time of about 10⁻⁷ seconds.
THE EXPECTED GRAVITATIONAL SHIFT IS ABOUT 0.1% OF THE LINE WIDTH. It is detected by reference to the Doppler shift
of a slow moving Fe⁵⁷ emitter or absorber."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Pound

"Robert Vivian Pound (May 16, 1919 – April 12, 2010)[1] was a Canadian-American[2] physicist who helped discover nuclear magnetic
resonance (NMR) and who devised the famous Pound–Rebka experiment supporting general relativity.[3]
At the age of 28 he became a member of the physics faculty at Harvard university without having obtained any graduate degree.."
......
Known for
- Nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR)
- Pound–Drever–Hall technique
- Pound-Rebka experiment

Doctoral students
Glen Rebka
Neil S. Sullivan
Michio Kaku
*************************************

SAY NO MORE.

[Prokaryotic Capase Homolog]

The two greatest faults in your criticism (there are others) are the
following:
1) You do not understand, or rather, you do not *WANT* to understand
the simple mathematics that Pound and Rebka used to tease out
the gravitational dilation signal from the considerably larger
systematic offset that existed between the emission line and the
absorber line, which I discussed in my post
https://groups.google.com/g/sci.physics.relativity/c/0aLXD2GNp4U/m/jtBDU3BxAwAJ
2) You express utter disbelief that a 8 KHz signal can be discerned
against the Fe⁵⁷ line width of 52 KHz.
Following your logic, a cesium fountain clock, with a line width
of about 1 Hz,* can not possibly achieve accuracies much better
than 10^-9, and ordinary cesium beam clocks, with line widths
around 100 Hz, can not possibly achieve accuracies much better
than 10^-7. Yet cesium fountain clocks have accuracies in the
10^-16 range. Do cesium clocks use fraudulent technology?

*Cesium line widths are mentioned in this document:
https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/document?repid=rep1&type=pdf&doi=1353f7cda190812508d81b0e95b5b58e730a4cf0

[Richard Hertz]

On Sunday, January 29, 2023 at 10:54:40 PM UTC-3, prokaryotic.c...@gmail.com wrote:

<snip>

> 2) You express utter disbelief that a 8 KHz signal can be discerned
> against the Fe⁵⁷ line width of 52 KHz.
> Following your logic, a cesium fountain clock, with a line width
> of about 1 Hz,* can not possibly achieve accuracies much better
> than 10^-9, and ordinary cesium beam clocks, with line widths
> around 100 Hz, can not possibly achieve accuracies much better
> than 10^-7. Yet cesium fountain clocks have accuracies in the
> 10^-16 range. Do cesium clocks use fraudulent technology?
>
> *Cesium line widths are mentioned in this document:
> https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/document?repid=rep1&type=pdf&doi=1353f7cda190812508d81b0e95b5b58e730a4cf0

It's not an 8 KHz baseband signal (audio range).

It's an 8,000 Hz random displacement for radiation having f₀ = 3,480,000,000,000,000,000 Hz, and photons spread
over ± 52,780 Hz (assume that the energy of photon is constant within this emission BW).

There was no technology available to directly measure even f₀ in 1960, there is not such technology nowadays and there
will not be any technology for DIRECT measurement in the next 500 years. You have to resort to statistics, theoretical
calculations and no more than 3 or 4 digits to express frequency and energy.

You can't, mathematically, obtain resolution on the last 4 digits of a 19 digits number, if you barely express it as 3.48E+18.
A 19 digits number obtained from f = E/h, having E expressed with 3 digits precision (14.4 KeV), and h with 10 digits precision.

IF, in the future, you can express E = 14,401.6545848612025 eV and h = 4.135667696015762843E-15 eV⋅sec, (both with 19 digits),
then you will CORRECTLY calculate f₀ = 3,482,304,586,206,372,743 Hz (19 digits. I have to invent the last three due to limits of my CPU).

In any other case, except the described above, you CAN'T affirm that you measured a change of 8000 in a 19 digits number.

You have chosen TO BELIEVE in relativity, but elementary rules of accuracy in basic operations are not on your side. Now, have
a deeper thought about this, and accept that INDIRECT MEASUREMENTS of such minuscule differences for the four LSD of a
19 digits number is IMPOSSIBLE as of today (energy, frequency, fundamental constants, etc.).

Impossible task. Check the NIST data of any "constant parameter" and verify with how many digits NIST works in extreme cases.


Regarding your first comment about such simple arithmetic involved, I'll address this tomorrow. Have to go.

[Dono.]

On Sunday, January 29, 2023 at 5:02:03 PM UTC-8, Richard Hertz wrote:

> Adopting |Δf/f₀| ≈ 2.4E-15, with f₀ = 3.48E+18 Hz, it gives a shift
> Δf = ± 8,352 Hz [for source at the top (+), or at the bottom (-)].
>
> Such very small difference in frequency WAS/IS impossible to be measured DIRECTLY in the ExaHertz range (10E-18),

Dumbestfuck,

You showed , once again, your imbecility in your inability to comprehend the PR papers. Pound was much more intelligent that you, in your unlimited arrogance combine with your monumental imbecility, give him credit. There was no need to measure the frequency with such high precision. Pound relied on cancelling the gravitational redshift with a relativistic Doppler effect (not a classical one, as you claim in your utter ignorance). Where the cancellation occurred, there resulted a resonance maximum as per the diagrams in the paper.

> SAY NO MORE.

But you will continue to post imbecilities, for our amusement. Keep it up , dumbestfuck.

[patdolan]

This thread of Richard's has created that same righteous indignation at fraud unmasked that I experienced upon reading Jonathan Wells' "Icons of Evolution" for the first time.

"Icons of Relativity"

It's time to publish it, Richard.

[J. J. Lodder]

patdolan <patd...@comcast.net> wrote:

> On Sunday, January 29, 2023 at 7:33:52 PM UTC-8, Dono. wrote:
> > On Sunday, January 29, 2023 at 5:02:03 PM UTC-8, Richard Hertz wrote:
> >

> > > Adopting |?f/f?| ≈ 2.4E-15, with f? = 3.48E+18 Hz, it gives a shift
> > > ?f = ± 8,352 Hz [for source at the top (+), or at the bottom (-)].

> > >
> > > Such very small difference in frequency WAS/IS impossible to be
> > > measured DIRECTLY in the ExaHertz range (10E-18),
> > Dumbestfuck,
> >
> > You showed , once again, your imbecility in your inability to comprehend
> > the PR papers. Pound was much more intelligent that you, in your
> > unlimited arrogance combine with your monumental imbecility, give him
> > credit. There was no need to measure the frequency with such high
> > precision. Pound relied on cancelling the gravitational redshift with a
> > relativistic Doppler effect (not a classical one, as you claim in your
> > utter ignorance). Where the cancellation occurred, there resulted a
> > resonance maximum as per the diagrams in the paper.
> >
> > > SAY NO MORE.
> >
> > But you will continue to post imbecilities, for our amusement. Keep it
> > up , dumbestfuck.
> This thread of Richard's has created that same righteous indignation at
> fraud unmasked that I experienced upon reading Jonathan Wells' "Icons of
> Evolution" for the first time.

Ah, so you are a creationist too.
(masking as intelligent design perhaps)

Why am I not surprised?

Jan

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Icons_of_Evolution>

[Richard Hertz]

On Monday, January 30, 2023 at 12:33:52 AM UTC-3, Dono. wrote:
> On Sunday, January 29, 2023 at 5:02:03 PM UTC-8, Richard Hertz wrote:

<snip>

Fanatic relativist worshiper and Einstein worshiper:

1) You measure frequency directly and digitally with 8 digits only since 1960: HP 5245 family, 8 digits, 0.1 usec resolution. It improved
to 10 digits, 10 ps resolution by 1967. Then, solid state technology really took off in the next 13 years, but in 1960 you COUNTED pulses
duration with a gating signal, and then presented the inverse value as the frequency. No way going above 10,000,000 Mhz.

2) The usual method, for 120 years, had been measuring WAVELENGTHS with spectrographs, which required a VISUAL measurement
of width of spectral lines. As R. Pound biographer and friend relate (I put a link), BOB had to measure the equivalence of a width of 0.1%
on the spectrum of Fe⁵⁷ 14.4 KeV gamma radiation with "Lorentzian" shape, centered at f₀ = 3.48E+18 Hz.

THAT was the PROOF of a shift of ± 8,352 Hz (gh/c²) WITHIN the radiation bandwidth of ± 52,780 Hz [f₀/Q(Fe⁵⁷)].

3) But HE DIDN'T THAT, which was also impossible. He just used a TRICKY arrangement to DOUBLE the 22.2 meters by placing the
source of radiation AT THE TOP, with the complex swinging mechanism (SEE FIG.1), and then switched source and detector BUT NOT
THE MECHANISM that he had arranged AT THE TOP.

Prudently, he wrote a DISCLAIMER: "IF it's accepted that switching source and detector IN THIS WAY don't modify results, then we
have double the height to 44.4 meters, BUT taking the way up measurements ARE ACTUALLY top-down measurements, for which
I have used the SAME SIGN for the shift".

CONCLUSION: He was asking, by writing it on the paper, that you BUY THAT SHIT, which completely breaks down the ENTIRE EXPERIMENT.

Then, he used his 15 years experience in nuclear resonance TO MESS WITH YOUR HEAD with funny, unrealistic and heavily inaccurate
methods of counting beeps on the detector UNTIL (by the magic of CLASSIC DOPPLER FORMULA) he reached a minimal count which,
he asserted, correspond to the full cancellation between Doppler and gravitational effects. So, he claimed victory.

But HE DIDN'T SPECIFY which amount of recoil free photons (a minority) he was taking into account. Have a look at the formula for
the "f Factor" in his 1959 paper, and tell me WHEN he goes back (in 1960) to this formula, which is ESSENTIAL to understand WHAT
HE WAS MEASURING!

A clever charlatan, with 15 years of experience on the matter of nuclear resonance, GOT YOU with his gobbledygook about how difficult
was to prepare the arrangement and use the samples. But he also got you DISTRACTED from the MAJOR ISSUE:

EXPLAINING CLEARLY THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN HIS MEASUREMENTS AND (gh/c²) ≈ + 8,352 Hz (WHERE IS IT?). It's nowhere,
because he counted that people like you are gullible IMBECILES, craving to prove "Einstein's right" no matter the cost, morale, honesty.

Do you understand this, imbecile? He cooked, trimmed, cherry-picking data and FUDGED experiments to obtain HIS DESIRED RESULT.

Now, go to the pagan church of relativity and say some prayers.

[Paul B. Andersen]

https://paulba.no/pdf/PoundRebka.pdf

The "published final value" was ∆ν/ν = 5.13e-15

An approximated theoretical value is ∆ν/ν = 4.92e-15 eq.(12)
A more precise theoretical value is ∆ν/ν = 4.988e-15 eq.(11)
(The former is the approximation used by P&R)

nu_measured/nu_theoretical = 1 +0.04
which is 4% higher than the theoretical value in eq.(12)

nu_measured/nu_theoretical = 1 +0.026
which is 2.6% higher than the theoretical value in eq.(11)

--
Paul

https://paulba.no/

[Prokaryotic Capase Homolog]

On Monday, January 30, 2023 at 5:26:41 AM UTC-6, Richard Hertz wrote:

> 1) You measure frequency directly and digitally with 8 digits only since 1960: HP 5245 family, 8 digits, 0.1 usec resolution. It improved
> to 10 digits, 10 ps resolution by 1967. Then, solid state technology really took off in the next 13 years, but in 1960 you COUNTED pulses
> duration with a gating signal, and then presented the inverse value as the frequency. No way going above 10,000,000 Mhz.

It is not necessary to know the precise magnitude of a
stable carrier frequency precisely in order to be able to
detect modulations in that frequency.

By analogy, consider a typical FM carrier frequency of
about 100 MHz. You don't need to know the frequency
to better than 4 significant figures to be able to tune in
to an FM station. Yet you can nevertheless demodulate
the imprecisely known signal to recover the smooth and
dulcet sounds of Deep Purple, Kiss, Metallica etc.

[Richard Hertz]

Yes, Paul. They published that value, TWICE the top-down theoretical value by assuming that switching
places of source and emitter CAN SIMULATE 44.4 meters height. But,

1) Did they move THE ENTIRE SWINGING MECHANISM from the top of the tower to the basement, or just
the emitters and detectors?. Because the last one is what Pound did, and asked for forgiveness by doing so.

2) How did they relate the ACTUAL PUBLISHED MEASUREMENTS with 4.92E-15, the "predicted gravitational
shift for this "TWO-WAYS" height difference", as they exactly wrote at the end of the paper?

Or you just BUY the preface: "THE SHIFT OBSERVED AGREES WITH 4.92E-15" without questioning it?

They WROTE THAT THE SHIFT OBSERVED WAS:

Weighted average = -15.5 ± 0.8
Mean shift = -17.6 ± 0.6

Can you explain THIS? SIX TIMES HIGHER WHAT?

[Richard Hertz]

Prokaryotic, this is not FM modulation.

In a rain of Gamma photons emitted within ± 52,780 Hz around f₀ ≈ 3.48E+18 Hz (3,480 PetaHz), it was expected
to measure a shift of + 8,352 Hz (gh/c²) FOR THE FRACTION f (see 1959 paper) of recoil free photons, being that "f"
is highly sensitive to temperature and that you performed CORRECTIONS averaging +80%, without explaining WHAT
YOU MEASURE to get averages:

Weighted average = -15.5 ± 0.8
Mean shift = -17.6 ± 0.6

WHAT ARE THESE SHIFTS? NOT RELATED TO gh/c² IN ANY EXPLAINED WAY. CAN YOU EXPLAIN IT?

[Maciej Wozniak]

On Monday, 30 January 2023 at 14:39:56 UTC+1, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
> Den 29.01.2023 22:51, skrev Dono.:
> > On Sunday, January 29, 2023 at 1:26:44 PM UTC-8, Richard Hertz wrote:
> >
> >> Because the published final value is 600% higher than the theoretical value that they were trying to prove (1911, 1959).
> >
> > Actually, they show that nu_measured/nu_theoretical=1 +/- 0.1
> > Keep on lying, dumbestshit
> https://paulba.no/pdf/PoundRebka.pdf
>
> The "published final value" was ∆ν/ν = 5.13e-15
>
> An approximated theoretical value is ∆ν/ν = 4.92e-15 eq.(12)
> A more precise theoretical value is ∆ν/ν = 4.988e-15 eq.(11)
> (The former is the approximation used by P&R)

And 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.

[Dono.]

On Monday, January 30, 2023 at 3:26:41 AM UTC-8, Richard Hertz wrote:
> On Monday, January 30, 2023 at 12:33:52 AM UTC-3, Dono. wrote:
> > On Sunday, January 29, 2023 at 5:02:03 PM UTC-8, Richard Hertz wrote:
> <snip>
> > > Adopting |Δf/f₀| ≈ 2.4E-15, with f₀ = 3.48E+18 Hz, it gives a shift
> > > Δf = ± 8,352 Hz [for source at the top (+), or at the bottom (-)].
> > >
> > > Such very small difference in frequency WAS/IS impossible to be measured DIRECTLY in the ExaHertz range (10E-18),
>
> > Dumbestfuck,
> >
> > You showed , once again, your imbecility in your inability to comprehend the PR papers. Pound was much more intelligent that you, in your unlimited arrogance combine with your monumental imbecility, give him credit. There was no need to measure the frequency with such high precision. Pound relied on cancelling the gravitational redshift with a relativistic Doppler effect (not a classical one, as you claim in your utter ignorance). Where the cancellation occurred, there resulted a resonance maximum as per the diagrams in the paper.
> >
> > > SAY NO MORE.
> >
> > But you will continue to post imbecilities, for our amusement. Keep it up , dumbestfuck.

> 3) But HE DIDN'T THAT, which was also impossible. He just used a TRICKY arrangement to DOUBLE the 22.2 meters by placing the
> source of radiation AT THE TOP, with the complex swinging mechanism (SEE FIG.1), and then switched source and detector BUT NOT
> THE MECHANISM that he had arranged AT THE TOP.

As I predicted, you continued to post your utter imbecilities. You still don't get it: all Pound had to do is to cancel the gravitational shift with the relativistic Doppler shift so he gets the Mossbauer resonance peaks. You will never get it, Dick. This is what makes you such an entertaining imbecile.

[Prokaryotic Capase Homolog]

On Monday, January 30, 2023 at 8:34:15 AM UTC-6, Richard Hertz wrote:

> Weighted average = -15.5 ± 0.8
> Mean shift = -17.6 ± 0.6
> WHAT ARE THESE SHIFTS? NOT RELATED TO gh/c² IN ANY EXPLAINED WAY. CAN YOU EXPLAIN IT?

You totally miss the simple explanations when you skim through the
paper looking *ONLY* for stuff that you think that you can attack.

> Weighted average = -15.5 ± 0.8

Source at top

> Mean shift = -17.6 ± 0.6

Mean of source at bottom and source at top.
AVG(-19.7 ± 0. 8, -15.5 ± 0.8) = -17.6 ± 0.6

"The average for the two directions
of travel should measure an effective shift of
other origin, and this is about four times the
difference between the shifts."

Your careless misreading of the paper results in you making a LOT
of silly mistakes and overlooking simple explanations.

If O is the frequency shift inherent in a source absorber
combination and x is the offset due to gravitational time dilation,
then
AVG(O + x, O - x) = O Avg of source at bottom and source at top.
((O + x) - (O - x))/2 = 2x Difference of averages

[patdolan]

I don't want to interrupt the continuity of Richard's post, which is coming so fast that it is hard to keep up with the posts. At some point I would like Richard to compose a short digest of all the points his opponents have advanced, and his responses. I see nothing so far that can be considered a defeator of his basic charge of hoaxery on a grand scale.

I must also take this opportunity respond to Jan's post above. Jan, in 2023 who isn't a creationist??? Even Darwin would be a creationist in our era, knowing what we now know about the unbelievably complex and rapid nano-machines that fill each of our cells and operate almost flawlessly at frequencies normally reserved only for radio waves. Every principle of scientific investigation and forensic investigation (of which scientific investigation is a sub-category) compels the rational and scientifically minded person not only to reject the concept of descent with modification by means of natural selection operating on mutations, but to also perforce embrace the obviously designed components that constitute life on earth. I'm sure that Prokary and Athel, both men of accomplishment in the life sciences, have evolved and adopted this very modern and most scientific theory.

[Dono.]

On Monday, January 30, 2023 at 10:08:57 AM UTC-8, Richard Hertz wrote:

> And REMEMBER: He used CLASSIC DOPPLER FORMULA, not the stupid thing written in
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pound%E2%80%93Rebka_experiment
>
> THIS ONE:
>
> (f₁/f₀) = 1 = [(1 - v/c)/(1 + v/c)] √ [[1 - 2GMₑ/c² 1/(Rₑ + h)]/(1 - 2GMₑ/c² 1/Rₑ)]


No, he didn't, lying piece of shit.

>
> NOT THIS ONE:
>
> (f₁/f₀) = 1 = √ [[(1 - v/c)/(1 + v/c)] [[1 - 2GMₑ/c² 1/(Rₑ + h)]/(1 - 2GMₑ/c² 1/Rₑ)]]
>
You need to stop lying, utter piece of shit.

[Richard Hertz]

"The average for the two directions of travel should measure an effective shift of OTHER ORIGIN, and this is about four times the

difference between the shifts."
Your careless misreading of the paper results in you making a LOT of silly mistakes and overlooking simple explanations.

You're too quick to misjudge me and claim that I am "making a LOT of silly mistakes and overlooking simple explanations".
You should analyze better the MANY HOLES in the dubious paper, which I've been addressing from the MOST RELEVANT
(the 14 sets of measurements) to the LESS RELEVANT, like THIS "DISCLAIMER":

**************************************************************
"The difference of the shift seen with y rays RISING and that with y rays FALLING SHOULD BE THE RESULT OF GRAVITY.
The average for the two directions of travel should measure an effective shift OF OTHER ORIGIN, and this is about FOUR
TIMES the difference between the shifts.

WE CONFIRMED THAT THIS SHIFT WAS AN INHERENT PROPERTY of the particular combination of source and absorber

by measuring the shift for each absorber unit in turn, with temperature correction, when it was six inches from the source.

ALTHOUGH THIS TEST WAS NOT EXACT BECAUSE ONLY ABOUT HALF THE AREA OF EACH ABSORBER WAS INVOLVED,
the WEIGHTED MEAN SHIFT from this test for the combination of all absorber units agreed well with that observed in the
main experiment.
.....
The CONSIDERABLE VARIATION AMONG THEM IS AS STRIKING AS THE SIZE OF THE WEIGHTED MEAN SHIFT.
Such shifts COULD RESULT FROM differences in a range of about 11% in effective Debye temperature through producing
differences in net second order Doppler effect.
OTHER EXPLANATIONS based on hyperfine structure including electric quadrupole interactions ARE ALSO PLAUSIBLE.
ALTHOUGH heat treatment might be expected to change these shifts for the iron-plated beryllium absorbers, experience
showed that THE LINE WIDTH was materially increased by such treatment, PROBABLY owing to interdiffusion."
**************************************************************

That was a DISCLAIMER that covered all possible bases: "Should be"; "of other origin"; "was not exact"; "half the area used";
"considerable variation"; "striking"; "could result from"; "other explanations..are also plausible"; although...probably", and
many more in the entire paper.

So, in order to satisfy the relativity community, I HAVE TO BELIEVE IN THE WORD OF POUND because he, even when did
MANY, MANY statistical corrections of first and second order, manipulated the data sets with THEORETICAL CORRECTIONS
averaging 80% in the 14 measurements, made a funny arrangement to cancel GR effect with CLASSIC DOPPLER SHIFTS,
counted beeps at will, measured width of spectral lines with the ABSURD PRECISION of 0.1% and FUDGED experiments in
order to EXTEND THE HEIGHT ARTIFICIALLY (measuring in TWO DIFFERENT WAYS up and down), managing not understood
effects on the shifts BY DISMISSING THEM, and ending with: "I PROVED EINSTEIN'S GR AS RIGHT"?

Is that so?. Because a tricky undergraduate physicist, VERY HANDY with MR experiments in the lab (as told by his biographer)
says: "With my 14 years of experience manipulating radioactive resonant atoms PLUS the Mossbauer Effect, I declare that I proved
Einstein's right?. Watch THE CLEAR, LINEAR AND DIRECT WAY by which I proved that. You can read my paper BUT have in mind ALL
the disclaimers and BELIEVE ME?

Like Einstein's refusal to show, not once after 1915, "HIS CALCULATIONS" for the 1.7" starlight deflection by the Sun?

So, the IDEA OF THE PAPER IS:

1) Einstein's right.
2) Source at the TOP. Weighted average = -15.5 ± 0.8; Einstein has a cut of +2.46E-15 here.
3) Source at the BOTTOM. Weighted average = -19.7 ± 0.8; Einstein has a cut of +2.46E-15 here, AGAIN.
3) Mean shift = -17.6 ± 0.6; Einstein has a cut of +4.8E-15 here. SORRY FOR USING THE SAME SIGN FOR UP AND DOWN.
4) The shift OBSERVED agrees with -4.92E-15, the predicted gravitational shift for this "two-way" height difference. The rest
is due to funny things not completely understood, but BELIEVE ME. I'm an expert on nuclear resonance of atoms.


Read the entire thread, if you want to know why.

And REMEMBER: He used CLASSIC DOPPLER FORMULA, not the stupid thing written in

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pound%E2%80%93Rebka_experiment

THIS ONE:

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

NOT THIS ONE:

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

Do the math.

[Richard Hertz]

[Dono.]

On Monday, January 30, 2023 at 11:19:30 AM UTC-8, Richard Hertz wrote:

> And REMEMBER: He used CLASSIC DOPPLER FORMULA, not the stupid thing written in
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pound%E2%80%93Rebka_experiment
>
> THIS ONE:
>
> (f₁/f₀) = 1 = [(1 - v/c)/(1 + v/c)] √ [[1 - 2GMₑ/c² 1/(Rₑ + h)]/(1 - 2GMₑ/c² 1/Rₑ)]

Dumbestfuck,

Contrary to your ignorance:

(f₁/f₀) = (1 - v/c)/(1 + v/c)

is not the formula of the classical Doppler effect so no one used the above, least Pound. As a matter of fact, it is not a valid formula for anything. You are failing classical physics once again. Keep at it, dumbestshit!

[Richard Hertz]

Somebody deleted my last post, which I reposted.

Censorship?

Not a single insult, no foul language. Just MY facts.

[Darrel Vaccaro]

Richard Hertz wrote:

> Somebody deleted my last post, which I reposted. Censorship?
> Not a single insult, no foul language. Just MY facts.

so true indeed. The */_roy_masters_/* made a celebrity named Einstine,
which _was_gay_in_his_own_family_. Disgusting. They couldn't find a normal
person in khazaria. He was *_gaying_own_cousin_*, for fuck sake.

[Dono.]

On Friday, January 27, 2023 at 7:10:28 AM UTC-8, Richard Hertz wrote:

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

The above is not classical Doppler. As a matter of fact it is nothing but yet another idiocy from ignorant crank Richard Hertz who fails, once again, classical physics.

[Prokaryotic Capase Homolog]

On Monday, January 30, 2023 at 10:31:52 AM UTC-6, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog wrote:

> If O is the frequency shift inherent in a source absorber
> combination and x is the offset due to gravitational time dilation,
> then
> AVG(O + x, O - x) = O Avg of source at bottom and source at top.
> ((O + x) - (O - x))/2 = 2x Difference of averages

TYPO
(O + x) - (O - x) = 2x Difference of averages

It's hard for me to imagine what could be simpler.

[Richard Hertz]

On Monday, January 30, 2023 at 3:28:35 PM UTC-3, patdolan wrote:

<snip>

> I don't want to interrupt the continuity of Richard's post, which is coming so fast that it is hard to keep up with the posts. At some point I would like Richard to compose a short digest of all the points his opponents have advanced, and his responses. I see nothing so far that can be considered a defeator of his basic charge of hoaxery on a grand scale.

<snip>

Pat, I won't do a list of "all the points his opponents have advanced, and my responses", because I didn't post following a plan.

I started with the OP as a basic claim that the "cancellation of gravitational shifts by Doppler shifts" was fishy because of the
abuse of statistical indirect measurements counting beeps, the abuse of a theoretical formula for temperature compensation
of 80% on the 14 "measured" values (average), the use of CLASSIC Doppler effect to CANCEL "alleged gravitational effects", and
a paper with LOT of disclaimers (as if Pound knew that his FUDGING was too obvious, for mixing up and down experiments).

60 years later, the experiments of Pound (1960, 1964) are SOLD as a proof of GRAVITATIONAL RED SHIFT (the third pre-GR theory
prediction by Einstein, along with Mercury's perihelion advance and starlight deflection by the Sun). Curiously, current narrative has
left behind the ORIGINAL heuristic assumption by Einstein of gravitational BLUE SHIFTING, in 1911 (5 years before GR).

I want to remark THE VEILED CRITICISM of Pound over similar works of his colleagues, in 1960 and again in 1964, highlighting that
their work had an average 43% of difference with Einstein's 1911 (gh/c²). Using EXTENSIVE ABUSE of temperature corrections on
14 raw data measurements, and having in mind to probe right gh/c² ≈ +2.4E-15 for 22.2 meters, Pound CORRECTED the most
disperse set of data CONVENIENTLY to find such Δf BURIED into the following string of corrected values.

FROM THIS:

SHIFT OBSERVED
1: (-11.5 ± 3.0)E-15
2: (-16.4 ± 2.2)E-15
3: (-13.8 ± 1.3)E-15
4: (-11.9 ± 2.1)E-15
5: (-8.7 ± 2.0)E-15
6: (-10.5 ± 2.0)E-15
7: (-12.0 ± 4.1)E-15
8: (-5.7 ± 1.4)E-15
9: (-7.4 ± 2.1)E-15
10: (-6.5 ± 2.1)E-15
11: (-13.9 ± 3.1)E-15
12: (-6.6 ± 3.0)E-15
13: (-6.5 ± 2.0)E-15
14: (-10.0 ± 2.6)E-15

TO THIS:

NET SHIFT

1: (-20.7 ± 3.0)E-15; Correction: 80%
2: (-22.3 ± 2.2)E-15; Correction: 36%
3: (-19.1 ± 1.3)E-15; Correction: 38%
4: (-19.9 ± 2.1)E-15; Correction: 67%
5: (-19.2 ± 2.0)E-15; Correction: 121%
6: (-21.0 ± 2.0)E-15; Correction: 99%
7: (-20.6 ± 4.1)E-15; Correction: 71%
8: (-15.3 ± 1.4)E-15; Correction: 168%
9: (-14.8 ± 2.1)E-15; Correction: 100%
10: (-12.3 ± 2.1)E-15; Correction: 89%
11: (-21.4 ± 3.1)E-15; Correction: 54%
12: (-12.3 ± 3.0)E-15; Correction: 86%
13: (-15.4 ± 2.0)E-15; Correction: 137%
14: (-17.9 ± 2.6)E-15; Correction: 79%


With these ABUSIVE and UNDOCUMENTED values of corrections, Pound SHOULDN'T have bothered in making the experiment.
He could have saved a lot of money, time, man-hours and bothering companies and institutions.

He should have published ONLY HIS THEORETICAL CALCULATIONS, claim "Einstein's right" and made the publication. No difference.

He did again in 1964, with another partner. Only 1 and 1/2 pages announcing that he reduced his uncertainty to 1%. That was it.

Data about measurements?: "Full details will be published elsewhere.", he announced as his last words in the 1964 paper.

??

[J. J. Lodder]

Everyone who isn't a reli-nutter. (usually an American one)

[intelligent design propagande/nonsense]

> I'm sure that Prokary and Athel, both men of accomplishment in the life
> sciences, have evolved and adopted this very modern and most scientific
> theory.

I'm quite sure that Athel will destroy all of your illusions,
if he would happen to see your posting,

Jan

BTW, talk.orgins is the group you want.
They are badly in need of fresh ID believers.

[J. J. Lodder]

Dono. <eggy20...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Monday, January 30, 2023 at 3:26:41 AM UTC-8, Richard Hertz wrote:
> > On Monday, January 30, 2023 at 12:33:52 AM UTC-3, Dono. wrote:
> > > On Sunday, January 29, 2023 at 5:02:03 PM UTC-8, Richard Hertz wrote:
> > <snip>

> > > > Adopting |?f/f?| ≈ 2.4E-15, with f? = 3.48E+18 Hz, it gives a shift
> > > > ?f = ± 8,352 Hz [for source at the top (+), or at the bottom (-)].

> > > >
> > > > Such very small difference in frequency WAS/IS impossible to be
> > > > measured DIRECTLY in the ExaHertz range (10E-18),
> >
> > > Dumbestfuck,
> > >
> > > You showed , once again, your imbecility in your inability to
> > > comprehend the PR papers. Pound was much more intelligent that you, in
> > > your unlimited arrogance combine with your monumental imbecility, give
> > > him credit. There was no need to measure the frequency with such high
> > > precision. Pound relied on cancelling the gravitational redshift with
> > > a relativistic Doppler effect (not a classical one, as you claim in
> > > your utter ignorance). Where the cancellation occurred, there resulted
> > > a resonance maximum as per the diagrams in the paper.
> > >
> > > > SAY NO MORE.
> > >
> > > But you will continue to post imbecilities, for our amusement. Keep it
> > > up , dumbestfuck.
>
> > 3) But HE DIDN'T THAT, which was also impossible. He just used a TRICKY
> > arrangement to DOUBLE the 22.2 meters by placing the source of radiation
> > AT THE TOP, with the complex swinging mechanism (SEE FIG.1), and then
> > switched source and detector BUT NOT THE MECHANISM that he had arranged
> > AT THE TOP.
>
> As I predicted, you continued to post your utter imbecilities. You still
> don't get it: all Pound had to do is to cancel the gravitational shift
> with the relativistic Doppler shift so he gets the Mossbauer resonance
> peaks. You will never get it, Dick. This is what makes you such an
> entertaining imbecile.

Well, for not too small values of 'all'.
It is a subtle experiment to design and do right.
Competent experimentalists find ways to tease out the relevant effect,
with competence and cleverness.

Then an idiot comes along to shout that it is not really possible
that he could have done it.
His peers know better, and that is what matters.
So the idiot will shout that it is all a conspiracy,

Jan

[Richard Hertz]

On Monday, January 30, 2023 at 7:47:47 PM UTC-3, J. J. Lodder wrote:

<snip>

> Well, for not too small values of 'all'.
> It is a subtle experiment to design and do right.
> Competent experimentalists find ways to tease out the relevant effect,
> with competence and cleverness.
>
> Then an idiot comes along to shout that it is not really possible
> that he could have done it.
> His peers know better, and that is what matters.
> So the idiot will shout that it is all a conspiracy,
>
> Jan

And the NYSE and Nasdaq values ARE NOT RIGGED, right? IMBECILE IGNORANT.

No conspiracy to maintain the value of the fiat USD, right? IMBECILE IGNORANT.

And the WHO knows what is doing, right?

And Qatar won legitimately the lottery with FIFA, to host World Coup 2022 at no cost, right?

And Einstein is always right, right?

[Dono.]

Well, the idiot (Richard Hertz) will continue to shout impervious to the fact that his ignorance has been exposed. The Richard Hertz idiot doesn't even know classical physics.

[Prokaryotic Capase Homolog]

On Monday, January 30, 2023 at 4:47:47 PM UTC-6, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> Dono. <eggy20...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > all Pound had to do is to cancel the gravitational shift
> > with the relativistic Doppler shift so he gets the Mossbauer resonance
> > peaks.

> Well, for not too small values of 'all'.
> It is a subtle experiment to design and do right.

True, and I stand corrected. I've been stressing how "simple" the
math is, but it's only "simple" in retrospect. T. E. Cranshaw, whom
I observe from his history was a productive and highly experienced
experimental physicist, attempted the same experiment but failed
to obtain meaningful results because he failed to take into account
(1) the temperature difference between the source and absorber,
and (2) the frequency difference inherent in a given combination of
source and absorber.

The Mossbauer technique was only two years old at the time that
Pound and Rebka performed their study, and all of the pitfalls of
using the technique had not been worked out yet.

> Competent experimentalists find ways to tease out the relevant effect,
> with competence and cleverness.
>
> Then an idiot comes along to shout that it is not really possible

> that he could [not] have done it.

[Richard Hertz]

**************************************************************
Proceedings of the Physical Society
1964 Proc. Phys. Soc. 84 245

Measurement of the gravitational red shift with the Mössbauer effect
T E Cranshaw and J P Schiffer

Abstract

The shift in frequency of electromagnetic radiation as it passes through a difference in gravitational potential has been
measured by use of the Mössbauer effect in 57Fe. The result is 0.859 ± 0.085 times the value predicted by Einstein's
theory of relativity, the error being a standard deviation. The discrepancy IS MOST LIKELY DUE TO CHANCE since the
probability of obtaining a deviation of at least this magnitude is 10%.

**************************************************************
PHYSICAL REVIEW LETTERS
VOLUME 13 2 NOVEMBER 1964 NUMBER 18

EFFECT OF GRAVITY ON NUCLEAR RESONANCE*
R. V. Pound and J. L. Snider
Lyman Laboratory of Physics, Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts
(Received 24 September 1964)

The effect of a gravitational potential difference on the apparent energy of the 14.4-keV y ray of Fe57 was found by Pound
and Rebka' to agree, within their uncertainties, with Einstein s prediction based on his principle of equivalence.
Cranshaw and Schiffer have interpreted their recently reported less precise result~ as being consistent with the prediction.
We wish herein to eport the results of A NEW SIMILAR EXPERIMENT confirming the prediction to greater precision.
Our overall result is 0.9970 times the value predicted with a standard deviation of statistical origin of 0.0076.
.........
In summary, we believe the present experiment establishes the validity of the predicted "gravitational red shift" at the 1% level.

Full details will be published elsewhere.

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

Pound still doesn't hesitate to keep throwing his colleagues under the train.

In 1960, he wrote: "Recently Cranshaw, Schiffer, and Whitehead claimed to have measured the gravitational shift
using the y ray of Fe57. They state that they believe their 43% statistical uncertainty represents the major error."

Are English physicists less gifted? No relevant progress in 4 years?

Just saying.

[Volney]

On 1/30/2023 1:08 PM, Richard Hertz wrote:

<snip attack against Pound-Rebka>

Typical crank behavior. Assumes the breakthrough experiment is the only
time, ever, that the experiment was performed, so shooting down the one
experiment somehow throws the entire argument out. Sorry, that's not
what happens. Many others have repeated Pound-Rebka and similar
experiments, obtaining better results, including Pound and Rebka themselves.

You tried this with the 1919 Eclipse experiment. Sorry, but that was
repeated during nearly every solar eclipse since then, starting in 1922,
until satellites made eclipses unnecessary. Nowadays, GR light
deflection is factored in in exoplanet searches, even at angles 90
degrees to the sun. And astronomers calculate parameters related to
neutron stars or other massive stars by observing the redshift of
radiation from the stars due to their gravity. Even Mitch seems to
understand that. How does it feel to be unable to understand something
which Mitch can?

> FISHY AS HELL. NOT BUYING IT.

Of course! Your obsession, delusions and mental illness related to
relativity and Einstein pwns you to the extent that if Einstein stated
the sky was blue, you'd be here arguing the sky was orange and green
plaid with pink polkadots or something. That's how it possesses you.

[Dono.]

On Monday, January 30, 2023 at 6:46:59 PM UTC-8, Richard Hertz wrote:

> Just saying.

Coming from a crank like you, who failed basic classical physics, this is rich, Richard.

[Paul Alsing]

On Monday, January 30, 2023 at 3:11:36 PM UTC-8, Richard Hertz wrote:

> And the NYSE and Nasdaq values ARE NOT RIGGED, right?

And you evidence for this claim is what, exactly?

[Maciej Wozniak]

On Tuesday, 31 January 2023 at 03:48:34 UTC+1, Volney wrote:
> On 1/30/2023 1:08 PM, Richard Hertz wrote:
>
> <snip attack against Pound-Rebka>
>
> Typical crank behavior. Assumes the breakthrough experiment is the only
> time, ever, that the experiment was performed, so shooting down the one
> experiment somehow throws the entire argument out. Sorry, that's not
> what happens. Many others have repeated Pound-Rebka and similar
> experiments, obtaining better results, including Pound and Rebka themselves.
>
> You tried this with the 1919 Eclipse experiment. Sorry, but that was
> repeated during nearly every solar eclipse since then, starting in 1922,
> until satellites made eclipses unnecessary. Nowadays, GR light
> deflection is

Sorry, stupid Mike, according to your GR shit
light is always travelling straight/geodesic
paths. "GR light deflection" is just the same
kind of lie as "9 192 631 770 Newton mode".

Nothing else expected from a Shit's fanatic
like stupid Mike, of course.

[Maciej Wozniak]

On Tuesday, 31 January 2023 at 02:09:47 UTC+1, prokaryotic.c...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Monday, January 30, 2023 at 4:47:47 PM UTC-6, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> > Dono. <eggy20...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > all Pound had to do is to cancel the gravitational shift
> > > with the relativistic Doppler shift so he gets the Mossbauer resonance
> > > peaks.
> > Well, for not too small values of 'all'.
> > It is a subtle experiment to design and do right.
> True, and I stand corrected. I've been stressing how "simple" the
> math is

And speaking of math - it's always good to remind
that your bunch of idiots had to announce its
oldest, very important part false - as it didn't want
to fit your madness.

[Athel Cornish-Bowden]

On 2023-01-30 22:47:44 +0000, J. J. Lodder said:

> patdolan <patd...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>> On Monday, January 30, 2023 at 2:09:03 AM UTC-8, J. J. Lodder wrote:
>>> patdolan <patd...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>>

>>>> [ … ]

>>>>
>>>> This thread of Richard's has created that same righteous indignation at
>>>> fraud unmasked that I experienced upon reading Jonathan Wells' "Icons of
>>>> Evolution" for the first time.
>>> Ah, so you are a creationist too.
>>> (masking as intelligent design perhaps)
>>>
>>> Why am I not surprised?
>>>
>>> Jan
>>>
>>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Icons_of_Evolution>
>> I don't want to interrupt the continuity of Richard's post, which is
>> coming so fast that it is hard to keep up with the posts. At some point I
>> would like Richard to compose a short digest of all the points his
>> opponents have advanced, and his responses. I see nothing so far that can
>> be considered a defeator of his basic charge of hoaxery on a grand scale.
>>
>> I must also take this opportunity respond to Jan's post above. Jan, in
>> 2023 who isn't a creationist???
>
> Everyone who isn't a reli-nutter. (usually an American one)
>
> [intelligent design propagande/nonsense]
>
>> I'm sure that Prokary and Athel, both men of accomplishment in the life
>> sciences, have evolved and adopted this very modern and most scientific
>> theory.
>
> I'm quite sure that Athel will destroy all of your illusions,
> if he would happen to see your posting,

I did see it, but it didn't seem worthwhile responding. There is not
much point arguing with reli-nutters (though I fall into the temptation
sometimes).

>
> BTW, talk.orgins is the group you want.
> They are badly in need of fresh ID believers.

Yes, definitely.


--
athel cb : Biochemical Evolution, Garland Science, 2016

[Richard Hertz]

For those wanting mode detailed explanations by Pound about his 1960 HOAX,
here Pound himself find pleasure, 21 years after, using maximum gobbledygook
AND YET not detailing how he separated Einstein's shifts from much broader
shifts due to not completely understood nuclear resonance theories, PLUS a lot
of disclaimers that kept for two decades.

I told before that he made a living with Einstein after 1959. Read and BELIEVE.

Mossbauer Spectroscopy II
The Exotic Side of the Method
Edited by U.Gonser

by Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1981
Originally published by Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg New York in 1981.
Softcover reprint of the hardcover 1 sl edition 1981

3. The Gravitational Red-Shift
By R. V. Pound (With 3 Figures) ..................•...................•. 31

3.1 Mössbauer's Discovery............................................ 31
3.1.1 The Principle of Equivalence and the Red Shift .........•.. 31
3.1.2 Astronomical Studies...................................... 32
3.1.3 Application of the Mössbauer effect ........•.............. 33
3.2 Modulation Technique to Detect Small Shifts ...................... 35
3.2.1 The Enclosed Tower of the Jefferson Physical Laboratory... 37
3.2.2 The Effect of Temperature ................................. 39
3.2.3 The Monitor Channel and Source Unit .......•.............•. 39
3.2.4 The Main Absorber .............•......................... ;. 41
3.3 Data Taking and Results.......................................... 43
3.3.1 Systematic Errors......................................... 44
3.4 Other Recent Red-Shift Experiments ............................... 44
3.4.1 Future Possibilities ...................................... 45
References 46

[J. J. Lodder]

Prokaryotic Capase Homolog <prokaryotic.c...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> On Monday, January 30, 2023 at 4:47:47 PM UTC-6, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> > Dono. <eggy20...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > all Pound had to do is to cancel the gravitational shift
> > > with the relativistic Doppler shift so he gets the Mossbauer resonance
> > > peaks.
> > Well, for not too small values of 'all'.
> > It is a subtle experiment to design and do right.
>
> True, and I stand corrected. I've been stressing how "simple" the
> math is, but it's only "simple" in retrospect. T. E. Cranshaw, whom
> I observe from his history was a productive and highly experienced
> experimental physicist, attempted the same experiment but failed
> to obtain meaningful results because he failed to take into account
> (1) the temperature difference between the source and absorber,
> and (2) the frequency difference inherent in a given combination of
> source and absorber.
>
> The Mossbauer technique was only two years old at the time that
> Pound and Rebka performed their study, and all of the pitfalls of
> using the technique had not been worked out yet.

Experimental physics at the edge of what is possible
is a difficult art. The path from direct observation
to meaningful conclusion is rarely straightforward.
It involves interpretation, and finding meaning in direct observations.

To me, people who find things wrong, or even fudging,
long afterwards, and with the wisdom of hindsight
are a bit annoying.
(Mendel, Eddington, Milikan, and so on)

It often seems to me that they do not give sufficient weight
to considering that their attempts at fault finding
may be caused mostly by their lack of understanding
of the subtleties involved.
Oh well, they need to publish something too...

Jan

[Prokaryotic Capase Homolog]

On Tuesday, January 31, 2023 at 5:28:45 AM UTC-6, Richard Hertz wrote:

> Mossbauer Spectroscopy II
> The Exotic Side of the Method
> Edited by U.Gonser
>
> by Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1981
> Originally published by Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg New York in 1981.
> Softcover reprint of the hardcover 1 sl edition 1981
>
> 3. The Gravitational Red-Shift
> By R. V. Pound (With 3 Figures) ..................•...................•. 31
>
> 3.1 Mössbauer's Discovery............................................ 31
> 3.1.1 The Principle of Equivalence and the Red Shift .........•.. 31
> 3.1.2 Astronomical Studies...................................... 32
> 3.1.3 Application of the Mössbauer effect ........•.............. 33
> 3.2 Modulation Technique to Detect Small Shifts ...................... 35
> 3.2.1 The Enclosed Tower of the Jefferson Physical Laboratory... 37
> 3.2.2 The Effect of Temperature ................................. 39
> 3.2.3 The Monitor Channel and Source Unit .......•.............•. 39
> 3.2.4 The Main Absorber .............•......................... ;. 41
> 3.3 Data Taking and Results.......................................... 43
> 3.3.1 Systematic Errors......................................... 44
> 3.4 Other Recent Red-Shift Experiments ............................... 44
> 3.4.1 Future Possibilities ...................................... 45
> References 46

Thanks! It's available online at my library. I'll take a look at it.

[Dono.]

As usual, reduced you to innuendo and frothing at the mouth about things that you are incapable of understanding, Dick.

[Maciej Wozniak]

And 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.

[Volney]

On 1/30/2023 5:09 AM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> patdolan <patd...@comcast.net> wrote:
>

>> On Sunday, January 29, 2023 at 7:33:52 PM UTC-8, Dono. wrote:

>>> On Sunday, January 29, 2023 at 5:02:03 PM UTC-8, Richard Hertz wrote:
>>>
>>>> Adopting |?f/f?| ≈ 2.4E-15, with f? = 3.48E+18 Hz, it gives a shift
>>>> ?f = ± 8,352 Hz [for source at the top (+), or at the bottom (-)].
>>>>
>>>> Such very small difference in frequency WAS/IS impossible to be
>>>> measured DIRECTLY in the ExaHertz range (10E-18),
>>> Dumbestfuck,
>>>
>>> You showed , once again, your imbecility in your inability to comprehend
>>> the PR papers. Pound was much more intelligent that you, in your
>>> unlimited arrogance combine with your monumental imbecility, give him
>>> credit. There was no need to measure the frequency with such high
>>> precision. Pound relied on cancelling the gravitational redshift with a
>>> relativistic Doppler effect (not a classical one, as you claim in your
>>> utter ignorance). Where the cancellation occurred, there resulted a
>>> resonance maximum as per the diagrams in the paper.
>>>
>>>> SAY NO MORE.
>>>
>>> But you will continue to post imbecilities, for our amusement. Keep it
>>> up , dumbestfuck.

>> This thread of Richard's has created that same righteous indignation at
>> fraud unmasked that I experienced upon reading Jonathan Wells' "Icons of
>> Evolution" for the first time.
>
> Ah, so you are a creationist too.
> (masking as intelligent design perhaps)
>
> Why am I not surprised?

I can disprove 'intelligent design' in one single sentence.

No "intelligent" designer would EVER design imbeciles as stupid as
Richard Hertz or Pat Dolan.


Nor would the God of the Bible create such imbeciles. Perhaps Satan may
do so, in order to torment the sane.

[Athel Cornish-Bowden]

600 !! Congratulations. After your idleness inthe middle of January I
wasn't sure you would make it to 600.


--
Athel -- French and British, living in Marseilles for 36 years; mainly
in England until 1987.

[Volney]

That boy is, I say, that boy is about as sharp as a bowling ball.

[Richard Hertz]

On Tuesday, January 31, 2023 at 11:10:44 PM UTC-3, Volney wrote:

<snip>

> That boy is, I say, that boy is about as sharp as a bowling ball.

You believe that you're a big shot, parroting what you heard here for 20 years and citing books that you have at hand, ALL THE TIME,
over the same stupid relativistic issues: GPS, Lorentz transforms, that Einstein invented the laser in 1917, that starlight is deflected
by the Sun at funny angles, Gravity A and B results are certain, GW are a real thing, BH are a real thing, BBT is the real deal and shit.

Why don't prove yourself, and to the forum, about your "sharpness".

Address this question over the HOAX of Pound-Rebka along with Mössbauer effect and quantum physics:

Exactly WHY PR measured a weighted average shift of -15.5 ± 0.8 (x 10E-15), which contains the einstenian shift of 2.4E-15,
when the emitter is on the top, at 22.2 meters.

Be precise, asshole, and talk ONLY about resonant behaviors of Fe⁵² atoms.

Don't run away like the rat you usually are, and explain CLEARLY how "Einstein's right" IS MEASURED on such range (6 times higher
that the sought einstenian shift).

I STRONGLY ADVISE YOU that use modern material, post year 2000.

Let us know how do you figure out how the MECHANICAL physicist Pound LET IT BE KNOWN.

Because in the papers of 1960 up to 1981, Mr. Pound used 97% of the words in ANY PAPER, to talk about his expertise (mechanics,
radioactive samples, statistical average, slow motion and Doppler, etc.) BUT LESS THAN 3% to explain the differences between
emission and absorption of gamma rays.

Also, tell us HOW DID HE COUNT BEEPS and translated them into UNCERTAIN frequency shifts.

You have a chance to prove you're smart.

I'm familiarizing with the language of gamma spectroscopy, to explain how the FRAUD was made and sustained all these years.
Maybe tomorrow.

Meanwhile, you have the chance to enlighten us with the function that convert BEEPS into femto-parts of 1 Hz.

Good luck, asshole.

[Prokaryotic Capase Homolog]

On Tuesday, January 31, 2023 at 9:12:31 PM UTC-6, Richard Hertz wrote:
> Exactly WHY PR measured a weighted average shift of -15.5 ± 0.8 (x 10E-15), which contains the einstenian shift of 2.4E-15,
> when the emitter is on the top, at 22.2 meters.

Don't you bother actually *reading* my posts?
I had already *explained* this to you in this post:
https://groups.google.com/g/sci.physics.relativity/c/0aLXD2GNp4U/m/Z6a8cBA7AwAJ

The precise frequency at which Mossbauer resonance takes
place is sensitive to the chemical/physical environment around
the resonant atoms. That is why Mossbauer spectroscopy has
proven to be an extremely sensitive and useful probe of crystal
structure, especially in the field of minerology. The amount of
isomer shift (in the older literature, "chemical shift") is also
dependent on temperature.

1) TEMPERATURE: In the previous issue to the one in
which their "Apparent weight of photons" article appeared,
Pound and Rebka published the following:
Pound, R. V., & Rebka Jr, G. A. (1960). Variation with
temperature of the energy of recoil-free gamma rays from solids.
Physical Review Letters, 4(6), 274.
| "As a preliminary step in the operation of an experimental
| system designed to measure the gravitational effect, we have
| been making tests to find out whether other influences than the
| one intended might lead to systematic errors by introducing
| important frequency shifts not taken into account.
| So far the largest such effect found is that of temperature."
Pound and Rebka *knew ahead of time* how much correction
to apply to compensate for differences in the temperature
between emitter and absorber.
2) PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL ENVIRONMENT: Pound and Rebka
knew ahead of time that the precise frequency at which Fe⁵⁷
emitted/absorbed gamma rays depended on the precise
details of sample preparation. Ahead of their actually
performing the experiment, they carefully measured the
the fixed frequency offset between emitter and absorber. This
fixed frequency offset was larger than the gravitational
Doppler shift that was to be measured, but since it was a fixed
offset, it could easily be compensated for.

[Prokaryotic Capase Homolog]

On Tuesday, January 31, 2023 at 10:06:17 PM UTC-6, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog wrote:
> Pound and Rebka published the following:
> Pound, R. V., & Rebka Jr, G. A. (1960). Variation with
> temperature of the energy of recoil-free gamma rays from solids.
> Physical Review Letters, 4(6), 274.

Here is the complete paper for you to read:
https://virgilio.mib.infn.it/~oleari/public/relativita/materiale_didattico/Pound_Rebka-PhysRevLett.4.274.pdf

[Prokaryotic Capase Homolog]

On Tuesday, January 31, 2023 at 10:06:17 PM UTC-6, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog wrote:

> Ahead of their actually
> performing the experiment, they carefully measured the
> the fixed frequency offset between emitter and absorber. This
> fixed frequency offset was larger than the gravitational
> Doppler shift that was to be measured, but since it was a fixed
> offset, it could easily be compensated for.

Instead of relying on their measured values for the frequency
offset, they instead used a simple mathematical procedure to
obtain and compensate for this offset:

If O is the frequency shift inherent in a emitter/absorber
combination and x is the offset resulting from gravitational time
dilation, then
AVERAGE_OF_TWO_ORIENTATIONS(O + x, O - x) = O
DIFFERENCE_OF_TWO_ORIENTATIONS (O + x) - (O - x) = 2x

[Maciej Wozniak]

Can't even catch that your ISO idiocy
is an obvious Newton mode (because
it doesn't work).

[Maciej Wozniak]

On Wednesday, 1 February 2023 at 05:06:17 UTC+1, prokaryotic.c...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Tuesday, January 31, 2023 at 9:12:31 PM UTC-6, Richard Hertz wrote:
> > Exactly WHY PR measured a weighted average shift of -15.5 ± 0.8 (x 10E-15), which contains the einstenian shift of 2.4E-15,
> > when the emitter is on the top, at 22.2 meters.
> Don't you bother actually *reading* my posts?
> I had already *explained* this to you in this post:
> https://groups.google.com/g/sci.physics.relativity/c/0aLXD2GNp4U/m/Z6a8cBA7AwAJ
>
> The precise frequency at which Mossbauer resonance takes
> place is sensitive to the chemical/physical environment around
> the resonant atoms.

And in the meantime in the real world -

[Richard Hertz]

On Wednesday, February 1, 2023 at 1:20:34 AM UTC-3, prokaryotic.c...@gmail.com wrote:

<snip>

I've read carefully all of your posts. I answered in terms of frequency, which (as I learned) is not the favorite variable that's
used in spectroscopy, in particular in gamma spectroscopy.

What is used is energy, and its Plack's relationship with frequency: E = h.f, just separated by the h constant.

When you, Dono and others said that the experiment was based on ELEMENTARY ARITHMETIC, you all are (either on purpose
or by not knowing) ignoring THE RANDOM NATURE of emission and absorption "bandwiths" or "wide of spectral lines".

So, your DECEIVINGLY SIMPLE equations ARE NOT TRUE AT ALL. And here is the heart of Pound&Rebka HOAX.

You wrote:

> Instead of relying on their measured values for the frequency offset, they instead used a simple mathematical procedure to
> obtain and compensate for this offset:
>
> If O is the frequency shift inherent in a emitter/absorber combination and x is the offset resulting from gravitational time
> dilation, then

> AVERAGE_OF_TWO_ORIENTATIONS(O + x, O - x) = O
> DIFFERENCE_OF_TWO_ORIENTATIONS (O + x) - (O - x) = 2x

WRONG, THROUGH AND THROUGH.

O is NOT a "frequency shift inherent in an emitter/absorber combination". It's not a NUMBER, but the MANIPULATED AVERAGE
of an EXTREMELY COMPLEX statistical function that comprehend several different effects, many of them NOT COMPLETELY
UNDERSTOOD in 1960. Pound CLEARLY wrote several disclaimers within the 1960 paper about this FACT and the problems of
the difference of temperature between emitter and absorber. Given this, the correct expressions are

[O₁(p, q, m, T) + gh/c²] - [O₂(p, q, m, T) - gh/c²] ≠ 2gh/c², AND

AND O₁(p, q, m, T) ≠ O₂(p, q, m, T) , except for the gullible audience of Pound. THEY ARE STATISTICAL FUNCTIONS, and you
are NOT allowed to EXTRACT A CONSTANT, THEORETICAL gh/c² from a statistical function, which is what Pound did and you bought.
Why did you buy it? I don't know, but better that you get your math background revisited.

These are some facts, with the terminology used in spectroscopy:

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

The Lorentzian function, used by Pound&Rebka, is used in spectroscopy to describes the spectral line shape using three parameters:
line position, maximum height and Γ (full width at half maximum or FWHM). Used as a Probability Density Function (PDF), its integral
equals one. It´s simpler to use than gaussian shapes.

L(f) = 1/π ( Γ/2)/[(f - f₀)² +( Γ/2)²]

The maximum L(f₀) equals to 2/π Γ. Its shape fall to half its maximum at f = (f₀ ± 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 is, approximately,

ΔE. τ = Γ. τ ≈ h , with h ≈ 4.136E−15 eV.sec

Γ ≈ h/τ

The natural linewidth of an absorption line reflects a fundamental quantum property of incoming radiation - the uncertainty in the
energy is tied to the uncertainty in the lifetime of the excited state through Heisenberg’s relation: ∆E∆τ = h/2. The spectral line has
a Lorentzian profile centered on E₀ with intensity I₀ and full-width half-maximum (FWHM) Γ:

L(E) = I₀ (Γ/2)²/[(E - E₀)² +(Γ/2)²]

So, the shortest is Natural Lifetime τ, the WIDER IS Γ(FWHM) (in eV). For Fe⁵⁷, τ = 100 nsec, so Γ ≈ 4.136E−08 eV. This is the FWHM parameter that describes the range of emission or absorption of 14.4 KeV Gamma rays by a Fe⁵⁷ atom. In relative terms, Γ range is just
a 2.87E-12 fraction of the energy E₀.

In frequency terms, Γ(FWHM) ≈ h. Δf(FWHM). Because of this, Γ(eV) is used as a measure of the bandwidth in spectroscopy.

In Gamma ray spectroscopy, the emission/absorption lines are defined by:

- Natural Lifetime τ
- Natural Linewidth Γ ≈ h/τ
- Fractional FWHM Γ/E₀ ≈ h/E₀τ

The above relationships are the one used in spectroscopy, and used by Pound&Rebka.

BUT Γ(FWHM) comprehend several phenomena of energy radiation and absorption, as explained here (year 2007):

http://web.mit.edu/dvp/www/Work/8.14/dvp-mossbauer-paper.pdf

Mossbauer Spectroscopy of ⁵⁷Fe
Dennis V. Perepelitsa
MIT Department of Physics
(Dated: April 6, 2007

You will appreciate that ONLY after HEAVY statistical filtering by using hundred of measurements of radiation and absorption,
you can get AN AVERAGE OF THE Fractional FWHM Γ/E₀, which would be your O₁(p, q, m, T) OR [O₂(p, q, m, T).

So, your NOT AS SIMPLE AS CLAIMED equation (O + x) - (O - x) = 2x IS JUST FALSE.

And this is only part of what Pound&Rebka cooked, cherry picked and FUDGED in his "famous 1960 paper".

[Volney]

On 1/31/2023 10:12 PM, Richard Hertz wrote:
> On Tuesday, January 31, 2023 at 11:10:44 PM UTC-3, Volney wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>> That boy is, I say, that boy is about as sharp as a bowling ball.
>
> You believe that you're a big shot, parroting what you heard here for 20 years and citing books that you have at hand, ALL THE TIME,
> over the same stupid relativistic issues: GPS, Lorentz transforms, that Einstein invented the laser in 1917, that starlight is deflected
> by the Sun at funny angles, Gravity A and B results are certain, GW are a real thing, BH are a real thing, BBT is the real deal and shit.
>
> Why don't prove yourself, and to the forum, about your "sharpness".
>
> Address this question over the HOAX of Pound-Rebka along with Mössbauer effect and quantum physics:

...

> I STRONGLY ADVISE YOU that use modern material, post year 2000.

...> Meanwhile, you have the chance to enlighten us with the function

that convert BEEPS into femto-parts of 1 Hz.

So you want me to reproduce Pound-Rebka for you? I'll let you know that
my consulting fee is $500/hr (you get the Usenet discount!), plus
materials, including all nuclear materials and associated safety
equipment, transportation and nuclear waste disposal, as applicable laws
of the United States require, all necessary employees and subcontractors
etc. etc. Payable in advance.

(nice boy, I say, nice boy but about as sharp as a sack of wet mice)

[Richard Hertz]

On Wednesday, February 1, 2023 at 11:40:15 AM UTC-3, Volney wrote:
> On 1/31/2023 10:12 PM, Richard Hertz wrote:

<snip>

> ...> Meanwhile, you have the chance to enlighten us with the function that convert BEEPS into femto-parts of 1 Hz.

> So you want me to reproduce Pound-Rebka for you? I'll let you know that
> my consulting fee is $500/hr (you get the Usenet discount!), plus
> materials, including all nuclear materials and associated safety
> equipment, transportation and nuclear waste disposal, as applicable laws
> of the United States require, all necessary employees and subcontractors
> etc. etc. Payable in advance.
>
> (nice boy, I say, nice boy but about as sharp as a sack of wet mice)

"The federally mandated minimum wage in the United States is 7.25 U.S. dollars per hour, although the minimum wage
varies from state to state."

You mean $500+$7.25 per hour? But you have to clean my bathroom too.

Maybe, while cleaning the latrine, you'll find the Pound&Rebka "missing explanation" along with the rest to be cleaned,
right in the bottom, where it belongs.

You keep laying cables on raised floors at datacenters, Mr. "EE" that became "advocate of relativity".

Read carefully my post above yours, so you can learn something.

[Dono.]

On Wednesday, February 1, 2023 at 5:57:18 AM UTC-8, Richard Hertz wrote:
> And here is the heart of my imbecility.

Yep. You are unable and unwilling to accept that you don't understand basic physics . See your goof on the classical Doppler effect in this thread. Keep it up, dumbestfuck.".

[Dono.]

On Friday, January 27, 2023 at 7:10:28 AM UTC-8, Richard Hertz wrote:

> In this part, I analyze the simple Doppler formula in its two versions.
>
> First things first:

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

Yep, first Richard's imbecilities first.

[Maciej Wozniak]

On Wednesday, 1 February 2023 at 17:55:59 UTC+1, Dono. wrote:
> On Wednesday, February 1, 2023 at 5:57:18 AM UTC-8, Richard Hertz wrote:
> > And here is the heart of my imbecility.
>
> Yep. You are unable and unwilling to accept that you don't understand basic physics .

And you're unable and unwilling to accept,
that in the meantime in the real world

forbidden by your bunch of idiots GPS

and TAI keep measuring t'=t, just
like all serious clocks always did.

[Volney]

On 2/1/2023 10:17 AM, Richard Hertz wrote:
> On Wednesday, February 1, 2023 at 11:40:15 AM UTC-3, Volney wrote:
>> On 1/31/2023 10:12 PM, Richard Hertz wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>> ...> Meanwhile, you have the chance to enlighten us with the function that convert BEEPS into femto-parts of 1 Hz.
>
>> So you want me to reproduce Pound-Rebka for you? I'll let you know that
>> my consulting fee is $500/hr (you get the Usenet discount!), plus
>> materials, including all nuclear materials and associated safety
>> equipment, transportation and nuclear waste disposal, as applicable laws
>> of the United States require, all necessary employees and subcontractors
>> etc. etc. Payable in advance.
>>
>> (nice boy, I say, nice boy but about as sharp as a sack of wet mice)
>
> "The federally mandated minimum wage in the United States is 7.25 U.S. dollars per hour, although the minimum wage
> varies from state to state."
>
> You mean $500+$7.25 per hour? But you have to clean my bathroom too.

You'll find that my fee of $500/hr is well above the minimum wage in all
states. Clean your own bathroom, but since you throw all your shit into
this group, I suspect it remains clean by itself.

> You keep laying cables on raised floors at datacenters, Mr. "EE" that became "advocate of relativity".

You need to wire your own data centers. I write kernel mode software,
deep within the operating system, doing many things you don't have a
clue about.

>
> Read carefully my post above yours, so you can learn something.

I already know that you're a cretin without rereading your babble again.
I also know you are certainly mentally ill, again no need to reread your
cretinisms again.

[Richard Hertz]

Kernel of the Pentium II, Windows XP computer of your grocery store?

I'd give you 35 bucks max.

[Richard Hertz]

Another disclaimer by Pound, this time 21 years after his HOAX and making a living as
a relativist of pure breed, because he "proved Einstein's right", and enjoyed fame along
his relativity buddies writing an entire chapter in the book "Mössbauer Spectroscopy II.
The Exotic Side of the Method".

************************** EXCERPT *******************************************

3.3.1 Systematic Errors
In all of the results quoted so far the uncertainties given represent standard deviations
arising only from finite counting statistics. Allowance must also be made for the possible
presence of systematic errors. Among the items that contribute uncertainties of this kind
are the limited precisions in the measurements of the path length, of the calibration velocity,
and of the temperature coefficient of the 57Fe resonance.
There was undoubtedly some error associated with the nonlinearity of the vibration-based
differentiating process over the range of the calibrating velocity, but the largest and dominant
error was thought to arise from the inexact representation of the weighted mean temperature
by the temperature sensed and recorded continuously at one thermistor on the absorber.

A test was made, after the main runs had been completed, to see how similar to one another
were the changes at the six thermistors when the reference temperature was changed by ±5°C
from the normal value.
It was assumed that such a test would reveal discrepancies similar to those accompanying
changes of ambient temperature with fixed reference temperature at 43°C. The result lead to
the conclusion that as much as ±0.005 fractional error could have been introduced by this
source alone. Altogether the combination of this and the other systematic errors with the
statistical ones, taking them all to be statistically independent, results in a final result well
within an overall uncertainty of ±0.01.
********************************************************************

He forgot to add HOW did he COOK his 14 sets of data with "temperature corrections" that
averaged 80% of the NET 2-WAYS COMPOSED SHIFT

- Mean shift = -17.6 ± 0.6 (PUBLISHED)

- Mean shift - "Einstein's right: -2.49" = -15.11 ± 0.6 (NOT PUBLISHED).

This is the spread of the 8 measurements per set of data (8x14 readings):

MIN - MAX READING PER SET (x 10E-15), NO CORRECTIONS YET:

Set 1: from -8.5 to -14.5
Set 2: from -14.2 to -18.6
Set 3: from -12.5 to -15.1
Set 4: from -9.8 to -14
Set 5: from -6.7 to -10.7
Set 6: from -8.5 to -12.5
Set 7: from -7.9 to -16.1
Set 8: from -4.3 to -7.1
Set 9: from -5.3 to -9.5
Set 10: from -4.4 to -8.6
Set 11: from -10.8 to -17
Set 12: from -3.6 to -9.6
Set 13: from -4.5 to -8.5
Set 14: from -7.4 to -12.6


MIN - MAX READING PER SET (x 10E-15), INCLUDING UNDISCLOSED CORRECTIONS DUE TO TEMPERATURE:

Adjusted Set 1: from -17.7 to -23.7
Adjusted Set 2: from -20.1 to -24.5
Adjusted Set 3: from -17.8 to -20.4
Adjusted Set 4: from -17.8 to -22
Adjusted Set 5: from -17.2 to -21.2
Adjusted Set 6: from -19.1 to -23.1
Adjusted Set 7: from -16.5 to -24.7
Adjusted Set 8: from -13.9 to -16.7
Adjusted Set 9: from -12.7 to -16.9
Adjusted Set 10: from -10.2 to -14.4
Adjusted Set 11: from -18.3 to -24.5
Adjusted Set 12: from -9.3 to -15.3
Adjusted Set 13: from -13.4 to -17.4
Adjusted Set 14: from -15.3 to -20.5

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

THAT'S WHAT I CALL A COOKED ADJUSTMENT OVER CHERRY PICKED DATA WITHIN FUDGED EXPERIMENT.

I wonder why Pound wasn't awarded with a Nobel in Mechanics/Mathematics/Literature.

His 1960-1981 gobbledygook was a masterpiece of a fictional thriller.

[Prokaryotic Capase Homolog]

No, that is your *deliberate* obfuscation of the data
presented in the very straightforward Table I of their
paper. The temperature corrections, which you claim
are "undisclosed", are presented in the "Temperature
correction" column. There does appear to be a small
typo in the Net Shift row 6, although the discrepancy
more likely results from them having privately carried
out the computation to more places than they reported.
This could explain why the Weighted Averages of data
sets 1 through 6, and of 7 through 14, which should
be weighted according to 1/sigma^2, differ slightly
from my own computation.

As I stated before,

| If O is the frequency shift inherent in a emitter/absorber
| combination and x is the offset resulting from gravitational time
| dilation, then
| AVERAGE_OF_TWO_ORIENTATIONS(O + x, O - x) = O
| DIFFERENCE_OF_TWO_ORIENTATIONS (O + x) - (O - x) = 2x

Table I, of course, represents only the first four days
of data collection, and the preliminary averages presented
in this table differ somewhat from the "final" numbers
reported in the text.

[Richard Hertz]

I acknowledge your dissent. We are in quite different stances: You believe everything around relativity,
and I believe nothing about relativity. This is black vs. white, but it's OK with me.

BTW, and speaking about NOT reading posts, did you read my post where I explain WHY your (O + x) - (O - x) = 2x
is plain wrong? I even wrote it using spectroscopy's jargon and placed a link of a very deep 2007 MIT paper about
the COMPLEXITIES to derive an O(p,q,r, T) statistical function to model energy uncertainty around f0?

It says CLEARLY that such function is MULTI-PARAMETRIC for Fe57, and it's VISIBLE that taking lightly the average
fractional spread was FISHY!

Explain WHY Pound barely wrote about HOW he rescued "Einstein's right, 2.49E-15" from a HIGHLY NOISY BACKGROUND.

In engineering, it's equivalent to RESCUE A RANDOM SIGNAL ("Einstein's right, 2.49E-15") that is almost 8dB BELOW another
RANDOM SIGNAL (Gamma emission/absorption spread, 15.1E-15), NOT EXISTING ANY POSSIBLE "SIGNATURE" FOR
THE WEAKER SIGNAL.

But you have to know that Dicke, famous for his "random gaussian noise reduction by a switching amplifier", which incremented
the SNR to detect the Cosmic Background Radiation, WAS BEHIND THESE KIND OF EXPERIMENTS to prove "Einstein's right".

This MASTER of randomness MANIPULATION was the brain behind the main instrument in the COBE satellite.

So, if Dicke approved, IT'S EVEN MORE FISHY!

[Richard Hertz]

On Wednesday, February 1, 2023 at 9:02:23 PM UTC-3, prokaryotic.c...@gmail.com wrote:

By the way, did you know that a representation of the 14 min,max pairs of the raw data set
follows a very simple linear regression?, Just plot the data of my post.


max-shiftᵢ = 0.9964 min-shiftᵢ - 4.7419. for i= 1, 2, 3, ......, 14

Not that it's planned or something. Just a statistical coincidence.

[Prokaryotic Capase Homolog]

The background is not noisy.

The fixed part of the offset (i.e. the frequency shift inherent in
a given emitter/absorber combination) is fixed, the variable
part of the offset due to temperature differences is highly
predictable, and the magnitude of the gravitational time dilation
is comparable to the line widths.

> In engineering, it's equivalent to RESCUE A RANDOM SIGNAL ("Einstein's right, 2.49E-15") that is almost 8dB BELOW another
> RANDOM SIGNAL (Gamma emission/absorption spread, 15.1E-15), NOT EXISTING ANY POSSIBLE "SIGNATURE" FOR
> THE WEAKER SIGNAL.

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

[Maciej Wozniak]

And you 're still believing that adjusting clocks to your ISO
idiocy means some "Newton mode".

[Richard Hertz]

You have to read everything again, and stop being dogmatic. I showed that (and Pound's biographer and physicist friend agree) that
the "gravitational shift" that was PRETENDED to be measured was 0.1% of the total breadth.

And IT IS A RANDOM PROCESS, on a PER PHOTON BASIS. The emission of Gamma photons is RANDOMLY SPREAD over the line width,
for which statistical shape Pound adopted a Lorentzian model. Could have been a Gaussian model or other, but in spectroscopy it showed
that manipulating only three parameters made calculations SIMPLER than in a Gaussian model. Anyway, it has been asserted that, IN THIS
FIELD, they don't know which is the BEST PDF FUNCTION to be used. They just DON'T KNOW, even 60 years after.

IF the quantum process IS RANDOM (emission, absorption), SO IS the behavior of a "alleged gravitational shift". Photon after photon, such
shift COPY the randomness of the measurement of the frequency of EVERY PHOTON.

And that, to the least, is a noisy background to work with.

IF, in a gross way, you are counting beeps BELIEVING that there is a DIRECT RELATIONSHIP between BEEPS and shifts, you are in denial of
the complexity involved.

As I wrote before, you are entitled to think in your way, aligned with the relativist mainstream.

I'm entitled to think that the experiment was fishy, was fudged and cooked and that such experiment was endorsed by relativists, because
it strengthened the MYTH "Einstein's right".

Much worse, HORRIBLE things have been done in the last century to cover up crimes in different scenarios: politics, finance, military, science
in general. WHAT? Are relativists claiming that they are beholders of ABSOLUTE TRUTH?.

And relativism? Where is it kept then?

[Volney]

Sorry, Dick. I don't do Windoze. You'll need 10th gen x86-64 or later
anyway. (you have grocery stores which sell XP computers? Weird item for
them)

[Richard Hertz]

On Thursday, February 2, 2023 at 6:06:04 PM UTC-3, Volney wrote:
> On 2/1/2023 5:25 PM, Richard Hertz wrote:

<snip>

> >>> Read carefully my post above yours, so you can learn something.
>
> >> I already know that you're a cretin without rereading your babble again.
> >> I also know you are certainly mentally ill, again no need to reread your cretinisms again.
> >
> > Kernel of the Pentium II, Windows XP computer of your grocery store?

> Sorry, Dick. I don't do Windoze. You'll need 10th gen x86-64 or later
> anyway. (you have grocery stores which sell XP computers? Weird item for them)

I don't buy even for an instant the shit that you claim doing. YOU DON'T WORK, and sleep until noon, every day. Fact.

You are an imbecile to work even with 1 bit microcontroller and 10 instructions (close to your peak IQ).

Wait for the Part II of the Pound-Rebka HOAX, asshole.

[Volney]

On 2/2/2023 4:45 PM, Richard Hertz wrote:
> On Thursday, February 2, 2023 at 6:06:04 PM UTC-3, Volney wrote:
>> On 2/1/2023 5:25 PM, Richard Hertz wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>>>>> Read carefully my post above yours, so you can learn something.
>>
>>>> I already know that you're a cretin without rereading your babble again.
>>>> I also know you are certainly mentally ill, again no need to reread your cretinisms again.
>>>
>>> Kernel of the Pentium II, Windows XP computer of your grocery store?
>
>> Sorry, Dick. I don't do Windoze. You'll need 10th gen x86-64 or later
>> anyway. (you have grocery stores which sell XP computers? Weird item for them)
>
> I don't buy even for an instant the shit that you claim doing. YOU DON'T WORK, and sleep until noon, every day. Fact.

And once again, your delusional thinking comes up with crapola that you
fantasize is "Fact". You do that repeatedly, inventing "facts" about
Einstein, what others thought of Einstein as well as all the non-cranks
who correct you, etc. Sorry but your fantasy is wrong. Again, see a
mental health expert about your delusions.

> Wait for the Part II of the Pound-Rebka HOAX, asshole.

A nice long post of falsehoods, I take it? Poor, poor Dick Hurts..

[Richard Hertz]

I feel your butthurt, and I understand why you lie to the teeth. But, it's your life, not mine.

[Prokaryotic Capase Homolog]

On Thursday, February 2, 2023 at 8:36:56 PM UTC-6, Richard Hertz wrote:
> On Thursday, February 2, 2023 at 10:07:37 PM UTC-3, Volney wrote:
> > On 2/2/2023 4:45 PM, Richard Hertz wrote:
> > > On Thursday, February 2, 2023 at 6:06:04 PM UTC-3, Volney wrote:
> > >> On 2/1/2023 5:25 PM, Richard Hertz wrote:

[Exchange of insults]

Most of Pound's review article may be found here:
https://tinyurl.com/6xzzmt8k
Now that the freeze is over, I should be able to access
the complete article from the university library.

[Volney]

Don't project your own butthurt on to me. You know that your Part II
will go down in flames before you even post it. Poor poor Dick Hurts. Again.

[Richard Hertz]

There is a Part III going on, but it's beyond your ability to understand anything beyond "Time is what my clock shows", imbecile.