info
Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Why 1960 Pound-Rebka experiment is an HOAX. Part II.
275 views
Skip to first unread message
Richard Hertz
Feb 2, 2023, 6:36:23 PM2/2/23
to
This OP explores, with more details, the claim about the HOAX that the 1960
paper was. A cooked paper, with data cherry-picking and fudging experiments.
This time, I'll use spectroscopy's jargon, abandoning the focus on gamma rays
frequency, bandwidths of emission and absorption and the shift of gh/c² in
terms of frequency. Instead, I'll use eV as proportional to Hz, as given by
Planck's formula E = h.f.
The first clue about how deceptive the 1960 paper was going to be, is visible
on its title:
"APPARENT WEIGHT OF PHOTONS".
Like with modern "click-baits", the fame thirsty Pound used that deceptive
but "eye catching" title. Not even ONCE, within the paper, such topic
appeared, even remotely. But this first deception had "Einstein" embedded.
The IDEA for the experiment came from the work and paper of the British physicists Cranshaw, Schiffer, and Whitehead, which Pound "borrowed" by+
repeating the experiment at Harvard, trying to EXPLODE the 43% error in
the final result that these physicists published. Pound claimed that his
paper, with a similar arrangement, was much more precise in proving
"Einstein's right" on its 1911 "HEURISTIC" idea about |Δf/f₀| = gh/c² for ANY
EM RADIATION, providing that the height "h" was small enough to use
"g = GM/R" as a CONSTANT.
In 1981, Pound enhanced the figure of Einstein claiming that his "heuristic"
conception was born in 1907, 4 years before his 1911 paper. Also, in the
same publication, Pound CHANGED the meaning of experiment, referring
to it as a "Gravitational Red-Shifting" proof, maybe forgetting that his 1960
paper was a MIX of 14 sets of 8 measurements EACH (using only 112
measurements out of hundreds). Of these 14 datasets, 8 were about the
alleged RED-SHIFTING and 6 were about the alleged BLUE-SHIFTING.
Fudging the experiment one time of many, Pound didn't hesitate to MIX
and AVERAGE two completely different experiments, asking for your
forgiveness and comprehension, given that he obtained a "virtual height"
of 2 x 22.2 m, "doubling" (he sold that) the accuracy. This is the SECOND
deceiving fact, presented as a clever maneuver (not A FUDGE).
For h = 22.2 m, gh/c² ≈ 2.42E-15, while average γ rays spread |Δf/f₀| varied
from 4.3-15 to 18.6E-15 (a 4.3 ratio, and 2 times to 9 times the einsteinian
gh/c² to be MEASURED).
Using the EXCUSE of difference of temperature corrections between source
and detector of γ rays, Pound did THEORETICAL corrections to narrow the
|Δf/f₀| spread as 9.3-15 to 24.5E-15 (a 2.6 ratio, and 4 times to 10 times the
einsteinian gh/c² to be MEASURED). This is the THIRD deceiving fact.
Pound used WEIGHTED averages of his own to present:
RED-SHIFTING weighted average (8 sets of data) = -15.5 ± 0.8 (x 10E-15)
BLUE-SHIFTING weighted average (6 sets of data) = -19.7 ± 0.8 (x 10E-15)
------------------------------------------
Difference of averages (mixing RED and BLUE) = -4.2 ± 1.1 (x 10E-15)
Net fractional shift = -5.13 ± 0.51 (x 10E-15)
Difference with einsteinian 2gh/c²: better than 10%.
This is the FOURTH deceiving fact. If I have to explain, you're in denial or
you are a gullible moron.
**************************************************
As Pound explained, in the opening of the paper, he used a Lorentzian shape:
L(x) = 1/π ( Γ/2)/[(x - x₀)² +( Γ/2)²]
According to him, this shape is enough to explain the dispersion of energy
in the emission or absorption of 14.4 KeV γ rays.
Instead of frequency f, in spectroscopy is used energy E to quantify the
spread of γ radiation, due to relationship E = h.f = h/T. The values of energy
are in eV. A Lorentzian profile centered on E₀ with intensity I₀ and full-width
half-maximum (FWHM) Γ is given by:
L(E) = I₀ (Γ/2)²/[(E - E₀)² +(Γ/2)²] = I₀ (Γ/2)²/[ΔE² +(Γ/2)²] , where
I₀: Nominal peak energy of the shape (eV).
Γ: Bandwidth for L(E) = ± I₀/2 (eV).
The shape fall to half its maximum at E = (E₀ ± Γ/2).
Fractional FWHM = Γ/2
In spectroscopy, due to the Uncertainty Principle, there are limits in the
precision with which the energy of a state can be defined, depending on the
lifetime of the state and the change of energy along the line width Γ (eV).
The natural lifetime τ defines the certainty with which the energy E can be
defined. The imprecision of the energy ΔE = Γ depends on τ and, for Fe⁵⁷:
τ(Fe⁵⁷) = 100 nsec
h ≈ 4.136E−15 eV.sec
ΔE. τ = Γ. τ ≈ h
Γ ≈ h/τ = 4.136E−08 eV
Fractional FWHM = |± 1.43E-12| (Pound quoted |1.13E-12|)
RATIO of Gravitational Effect to 2xFractional FWHM ≈ 0.001 (0.1%)
So, the KEY OF THE EXPERIMENT is to MEASURE a 0.1% CHANGE IN
THE SPECTRAL WIDTH at the absorber side, considering that:
- The emitter has a Γ = 4.136E−08 eV.
- The absorber also has an uncorrelated Γ = 4.136E−08 eV.
- The gravitational effect IS REPRESENTED BY ≈ 4.136E−11 eV.
* The detection is based on a scintillator that multiply the ionization of
a γ photon by approximately 30,000 times and convert it to an electric
pulse that feed A COUNTER, which count is constantly stored. Either
γ photons with RECOIL or Mössbauer's γ photons without RECOIL cause
ionization, hence electric signals in the scintillator.
* A MINIMUM IN THE COUNT IS EXPECTED PERIODICALLY IF a
slowly induced Doppler effect (by mechanical means in the source) causes
that in Mössbauer's γ photons the "gravitational effect" is CANCELLED.
This technique, useful for a quarter of the sine wave that moves the source,
transform such recoilless γ photons in NON IONIZING ONES.
* ALLEGEDLY, the entire arrangement for the generation, carrying and
detection of γ photons is:
------ ISOLATED from losses of γ photons during the path, providing a
CONSTANT FLOW OF γ photons.
------ Changes in TEMPERATURE at the source and detector are perfectly
registered, so STATISTICAL CORRECTIONS FOR NUCLEAR RESONANCE
VARIATIONS (THEORETICAL VALUES) can be used at will.
------ RANDOM CHANGES in the material and locations of source and
absorber are made, in order to generate variations in measurement
that ARE CLAIMED TO BE STATISTICALLY CANCELLED.
------ No discrimination about the QUANTUM ORIGIN of γ photons
OR quantum absorption given by the different levels of energy, spins, etc.,
except for Γ. Unknown effects by then (and even now) are not accounted,
like hyperfine transitions or OTHERS, which Pound acknowledged as
potential sources of errors.
******** YET, EINSTEIN'S PROVEN RIGHT EVEN WHEN THE CONTRIBUTION
TO THE ENERGY OF PHOTONS IS ABOUT 0.1% *************
EITHER IT'S FISHY AND FRAUDULENT, OR POUND WAS A TIME TRAVELER
THAT CAME FROM YEAR 3,000 TO GAIN ONE STAR IN THE HALL FAME OF
RELATIVITY.
I'M WITH THE FISHY THING, STARTING BY THE LIE IN THE TITLE OF THE PAPER.
paper was. A cooked paper, with data cherry-picking and fudging experiments.
This time, I'll use spectroscopy's jargon, abandoning the focus on gamma rays
frequency, bandwidths of emission and absorption and the shift of gh/c² in
terms of frequency. Instead, I'll use eV as proportional to Hz, as given by
Planck's formula E = h.f.
The first clue about how deceptive the 1960 paper was going to be, is visible
on its title:
"APPARENT WEIGHT OF PHOTONS".
Like with modern "click-baits", the fame thirsty Pound used that deceptive
but "eye catching" title. Not even ONCE, within the paper, such topic
appeared, even remotely. But this first deception had "Einstein" embedded.
The IDEA for the experiment came from the work and paper of the British physicists Cranshaw, Schiffer, and Whitehead, which Pound "borrowed" by+
repeating the experiment at Harvard, trying to EXPLODE the 43% error in
the final result that these physicists published. Pound claimed that his
paper, with a similar arrangement, was much more precise in proving
"Einstein's right" on its 1911 "HEURISTIC" idea about |Δf/f₀| = gh/c² for ANY
EM RADIATION, providing that the height "h" was small enough to use
"g = GM/R" as a CONSTANT.
In 1981, Pound enhanced the figure of Einstein claiming that his "heuristic"
conception was born in 1907, 4 years before his 1911 paper. Also, in the
same publication, Pound CHANGED the meaning of experiment, referring
to it as a "Gravitational Red-Shifting" proof, maybe forgetting that his 1960
paper was a MIX of 14 sets of 8 measurements EACH (using only 112
measurements out of hundreds). Of these 14 datasets, 8 were about the
alleged RED-SHIFTING and 6 were about the alleged BLUE-SHIFTING.
Fudging the experiment one time of many, Pound didn't hesitate to MIX
and AVERAGE two completely different experiments, asking for your
forgiveness and comprehension, given that he obtained a "virtual height"
of 2 x 22.2 m, "doubling" (he sold that) the accuracy. This is the SECOND
deceiving fact, presented as a clever maneuver (not A FUDGE).
For h = 22.2 m, gh/c² ≈ 2.42E-15, while average γ rays spread |Δf/f₀| varied
from 4.3-15 to 18.6E-15 (a 4.3 ratio, and 2 times to 9 times the einsteinian
gh/c² to be MEASURED).
Using the EXCUSE of difference of temperature corrections between source
and detector of γ rays, Pound did THEORETICAL corrections to narrow the
|Δf/f₀| spread as 9.3-15 to 24.5E-15 (a 2.6 ratio, and 4 times to 10 times the
einsteinian gh/c² to be MEASURED). This is the THIRD deceiving fact.
Pound used WEIGHTED averages of his own to present:
RED-SHIFTING weighted average (8 sets of data) = -15.5 ± 0.8 (x 10E-15)
BLUE-SHIFTING weighted average (6 sets of data) = -19.7 ± 0.8 (x 10E-15)
------------------------------------------
Difference of averages (mixing RED and BLUE) = -4.2 ± 1.1 (x 10E-15)
Net fractional shift = -5.13 ± 0.51 (x 10E-15)
Difference with einsteinian 2gh/c²: better than 10%.
This is the FOURTH deceiving fact. If I have to explain, you're in denial or
you are a gullible moron.
**************************************************
As Pound explained, in the opening of the paper, he used a Lorentzian shape:
L(x) = 1/π ( Γ/2)/[(x - x₀)² +( Γ/2)²]
According to him, this shape is enough to explain the dispersion of energy
in the emission or absorption of 14.4 KeV γ rays.
Instead of frequency f, in spectroscopy is used energy E to quantify the
spread of γ radiation, due to relationship E = h.f = h/T. The values of energy
are in eV. A Lorentzian profile centered on E₀ with intensity I₀ and full-width
half-maximum (FWHM) Γ is given by:
L(E) = I₀ (Γ/2)²/[(E - E₀)² +(Γ/2)²] = I₀ (Γ/2)²/[ΔE² +(Γ/2)²] , where
I₀: Nominal peak energy of the shape (eV).
Γ: Bandwidth for L(E) = ± I₀/2 (eV).
The shape fall to half its maximum at E = (E₀ ± Γ/2).
Fractional FWHM = Γ/2
In spectroscopy, due to the Uncertainty Principle, there are limits in the
precision with which the energy of a state can be defined, depending on the
lifetime of the state and the change of energy along the line width Γ (eV).
The natural lifetime τ defines the certainty with which the energy E can be
defined. The imprecision of the energy ΔE = Γ depends on τ and, for Fe⁵⁷:
τ(Fe⁵⁷) = 100 nsec
h ≈ 4.136E−15 eV.sec
ΔE. τ = Γ. τ ≈ h
Γ ≈ h/τ = 4.136E−08 eV
Fractional FWHM = |± 1.43E-12| (Pound quoted |1.13E-12|)
RATIO of Gravitational Effect to 2xFractional FWHM ≈ 0.001 (0.1%)
So, the KEY OF THE EXPERIMENT is to MEASURE a 0.1% CHANGE IN
THE SPECTRAL WIDTH at the absorber side, considering that:
- The emitter has a Γ = 4.136E−08 eV.
- The absorber also has an uncorrelated Γ = 4.136E−08 eV.
- The gravitational effect IS REPRESENTED BY ≈ 4.136E−11 eV.
* The detection is based on a scintillator that multiply the ionization of
a γ photon by approximately 30,000 times and convert it to an electric
pulse that feed A COUNTER, which count is constantly stored. Either
γ photons with RECOIL or Mössbauer's γ photons without RECOIL cause
ionization, hence electric signals in the scintillator.
* A MINIMUM IN THE COUNT IS EXPECTED PERIODICALLY IF a
slowly induced Doppler effect (by mechanical means in the source) causes
that in Mössbauer's γ photons the "gravitational effect" is CANCELLED.
This technique, useful for a quarter of the sine wave that moves the source,
transform such recoilless γ photons in NON IONIZING ONES.
* ALLEGEDLY, the entire arrangement for the generation, carrying and
detection of γ photons is:
------ ISOLATED from losses of γ photons during the path, providing a
CONSTANT FLOW OF γ photons.
------ Changes in TEMPERATURE at the source and detector are perfectly
registered, so STATISTICAL CORRECTIONS FOR NUCLEAR RESONANCE
VARIATIONS (THEORETICAL VALUES) can be used at will.
------ RANDOM CHANGES in the material and locations of source and
absorber are made, in order to generate variations in measurement
that ARE CLAIMED TO BE STATISTICALLY CANCELLED.
------ No discrimination about the QUANTUM ORIGIN of γ photons
OR quantum absorption given by the different levels of energy, spins, etc.,
except for Γ. Unknown effects by then (and even now) are not accounted,
like hyperfine transitions or OTHERS, which Pound acknowledged as
potential sources of errors.
******** YET, EINSTEIN'S PROVEN RIGHT EVEN WHEN THE CONTRIBUTION
TO THE ENERGY OF PHOTONS IS ABOUT 0.1% *************
EITHER IT'S FISHY AND FRAUDULENT, OR POUND WAS A TIME TRAVELER
THAT CAME FROM YEAR 3,000 TO GAIN ONE STAR IN THE HALL FAME OF
RELATIVITY.
I'M WITH THE FISHY THING, STARTING BY THE LIE IN THE TITLE OF THE PAPER.
Dono.
Feb 2, 2023, 8:29:06 PM2/2/23
to
On Thursday, February 2, 2023 at 3:36:23 PM UTC-8, Richard Hertz wrote:
> providing that the height "h" was small enough to use
> "g = GM/R" as a CONSTANT.
The above is your own imbecility, Dick. As before, you flunk classical physics.
> providing that the height "h" was small enough to use
> "g = GM/R" as a CONSTANT.
Prokaryotic Capase Homolog
Feb 2, 2023, 8:36:24 PM2/2/23
to
On Thursday, February 2, 2023 at 5:36:23 PM UTC-6, Richard Hertz wrote:
[ Snipped far more than mere misconceptions ]
Leaving aside the matter of your misconceptions concerning
the emitter/absorber offsets and the temperature corrections,
your entire argument consists of your disbelief that
displacements of the spectral lines amounting to thousandths
of the line widths could possibly have been accurately measured.
If you look at the Mossbauer spectroscopy literature, you
will see that such precision in measurement is actually fairly
routine.
As I noted before, the line widths of the hyperfine transition
in "ordinary" cesium beam clocks is about 100 Hz. By your
argument, therefore, cesium beam clocks cannot possibly
achieve accuracies of better than about 1 part in 10^7.
Are atomic clock accuracies fraudulent?
[ Snipped far more than mere misconceptions ]
Leaving aside the matter of your misconceptions concerning
the emitter/absorber offsets and the temperature corrections,
your entire argument consists of your disbelief that
displacements of the spectral lines amounting to thousandths
of the line widths could possibly have been accurately measured.
If you look at the Mossbauer spectroscopy literature, you
will see that such precision in measurement is actually fairly
routine.
As I noted before, the line widths of the hyperfine transition
in "ordinary" cesium beam clocks is about 100 Hz. By your
argument, therefore, cesium beam clocks cannot possibly
achieve accuracies of better than about 1 part in 10^7.
Are atomic clock accuracies fraudulent?
Richard Hertz
Feb 2, 2023, 9:31:06 PM2/2/23
to
On Thursday, February 2, 2023 at 10:36:24 PM UTC-3, prokaryotic.c...@gmail.com wrote:
<snip>
> Leaving aside the matter of your misconceptions concerning
> the emitter/absorber offsets and the temperature corrections,
> your entire argument consists of your disbelief that
> displacements of the spectral lines amounting to thousandths
> of the line widths could possibly have been accurately measured.
>
> If you look at the Mossbauer spectroscopy literature, you
> will see that such precision in measurement is actually fairly
> routine.
>
> As I noted before, the line widths of the hyperfine transition
> in "ordinary" cesium beam clocks is about 100 Hz. By your
> argument, therefore, cesium beam clocks cannot possibly
> achieve accuracies of better than about 1 part in 10^7.
>
> Are atomic clock accuracies fraudulent?
Leaving aside the matter of your misconceptions concerning about my intelligence
or my ability to deal with different branches of knowledge, I have to criticize your
last two paragraphs as based either on a pure attempt to troll me or just ignorance.
First: The P&R experiment was a FRAUDULENT attempt to prove "Einstein's right" by ABUSING the familiarity
of Pound with nuclear resonance and gamma radiation. He FAILED when fudging experiments and also using
statistics and gobbledygook to MIX discrete quantum events with the ANALOG WORLD of relativity. But he, and
his colleagues in the next decade, mostly failed in being HONEST, in writing CLEAN PAPERS and not crypto, in
providing ENOUGH INFORMATION about the CRITICAL PART (how did he register BEEPS and translated them
into energy units). He even failed in explaining how, and how many beeps counted during each run, as well as
in providing the calculations for the temperature correction FRAUD. I've been seeking how many of these kind
of experiments were conducted in the next decade, and the count is appallingly low. Also, is low the number
of citations of such paper (or the other from 1964). It tells VOLUMES about what the physics community thought
about his experiment, or the other of the two CRETINS (Hafele–Keating). Not curiously, both referenced each other
in the years to come (because these cretins were "partners in the crime" of killing HONEST physics).
Second: I prefer to think that you're trolling me with the atomic clock thing. This is because I think that you're a serious
and well-informed person, and in your case, trolling suits better than being ignorant.
You HAVE TO KNOW that high frequency oscillations in atomic clocks (cesium, rubidium, light frequencies) are used
TO PREVENT LONG TERM DRIFTS IN FREQUENCY, perfecting long term stability (from minutes to years) MORE THAN
1 MILLION TIMES the stability of precision TCXOs. As for the short term stability (in the seconds range), TCXO provides
excellent stability, accuracy and precision, due to an ultra-sharp Gaussian shaped spectrum, with more than -120 dBc
of attenuation just 1 Hz apart from the main 10.0000000 Mhz oscillation (typical frequency of a TCXO used in atomic
clocks). The CONVERSION of the SLOWLY MODULATED SIGNAL at 10 Ghz is done after the cesium atoms are EXCITED
by the modulating frequency around f₀, magnetically FILTERED and fed to a photodetector diode, which convert MW energy
in electric signals IN THE AUDIO RANGE.
This audio electric signal has two components: 1) NOISE, due to different values of emission of excited electrons that transition
from an hyperfine energy level to ground level, with a Gaussian shaped spectrum of ± 300/400 Hz and 2) The FM modulating signal
that is added to the carrier that feed the Ramsay cavity. This signal is useful for coherent baseband detection to form the VERY SLOW
electric signal (voltage), which SLOWLY fine-tune the TCXO.
All of these is done in the ANALOG WORLD, with continuous waves, and the cesium/rubidium signal is JUST AN ATOMIC REFERENCE,
which confer to the TCXO its incredible medium/long term AVERAGE STABILITY.
So, the frequency of these atoms is just part of a negative feedback control loop.
PLUS, if you want, you can use a 10 Ghz real time spectrum analyzer and SEE/MEASURE the spectrum. Also, and since (coincidentally)
1960, you can MEASURE the 10 Ghz frequency with increasing accuracy. Today, you have instruments with 12 digits to measure it.
Quite a difference with Pound and his γ rays, whose frequency WAS DERIVED FROM CALCULATIONS of its kinetic energy, which was
(AGAIN) CALCULATED from indirect lectures from a scintillator.
Two different worlds: One plausible (cesium/rubidium) and other very smelly when claiming PRECISION AND ACCURACY (γ rays).
<snip>
> Leaving aside the matter of your misconceptions concerning
> the emitter/absorber offsets and the temperature corrections,
> your entire argument consists of your disbelief that
> displacements of the spectral lines amounting to thousandths
> of the line widths could possibly have been accurately measured.
>
> If you look at the Mossbauer spectroscopy literature, you
> will see that such precision in measurement is actually fairly
> routine.
>
> As I noted before, the line widths of the hyperfine transition
> in "ordinary" cesium beam clocks is about 100 Hz. By your
> argument, therefore, cesium beam clocks cannot possibly
> achieve accuracies of better than about 1 part in 10^7.
>
> Are atomic clock accuracies fraudulent?
or my ability to deal with different branches of knowledge, I have to criticize your
last two paragraphs as based either on a pure attempt to troll me or just ignorance.
First: The P&R experiment was a FRAUDULENT attempt to prove "Einstein's right" by ABUSING the familiarity
of Pound with nuclear resonance and gamma radiation. He FAILED when fudging experiments and also using
statistics and gobbledygook to MIX discrete quantum events with the ANALOG WORLD of relativity. But he, and
his colleagues in the next decade, mostly failed in being HONEST, in writing CLEAN PAPERS and not crypto, in
providing ENOUGH INFORMATION about the CRITICAL PART (how did he register BEEPS and translated them
into energy units). He even failed in explaining how, and how many beeps counted during each run, as well as
in providing the calculations for the temperature correction FRAUD. I've been seeking how many of these kind
of experiments were conducted in the next decade, and the count is appallingly low. Also, is low the number
of citations of such paper (or the other from 1964). It tells VOLUMES about what the physics community thought
about his experiment, or the other of the two CRETINS (Hafele–Keating). Not curiously, both referenced each other
in the years to come (because these cretins were "partners in the crime" of killing HONEST physics).
Second: I prefer to think that you're trolling me with the atomic clock thing. This is because I think that you're a serious
and well-informed person, and in your case, trolling suits better than being ignorant.
You HAVE TO KNOW that high frequency oscillations in atomic clocks (cesium, rubidium, light frequencies) are used
TO PREVENT LONG TERM DRIFTS IN FREQUENCY, perfecting long term stability (from minutes to years) MORE THAN
1 MILLION TIMES the stability of precision TCXOs. As for the short term stability (in the seconds range), TCXO provides
excellent stability, accuracy and precision, due to an ultra-sharp Gaussian shaped spectrum, with more than -120 dBc
of attenuation just 1 Hz apart from the main 10.0000000 Mhz oscillation (typical frequency of a TCXO used in atomic
clocks). The CONVERSION of the SLOWLY MODULATED SIGNAL at 10 Ghz is done after the cesium atoms are EXCITED
by the modulating frequency around f₀, magnetically FILTERED and fed to a photodetector diode, which convert MW energy
in electric signals IN THE AUDIO RANGE.
This audio electric signal has two components: 1) NOISE, due to different values of emission of excited electrons that transition
from an hyperfine energy level to ground level, with a Gaussian shaped spectrum of ± 300/400 Hz and 2) The FM modulating signal
that is added to the carrier that feed the Ramsay cavity. This signal is useful for coherent baseband detection to form the VERY SLOW
electric signal (voltage), which SLOWLY fine-tune the TCXO.
All of these is done in the ANALOG WORLD, with continuous waves, and the cesium/rubidium signal is JUST AN ATOMIC REFERENCE,
which confer to the TCXO its incredible medium/long term AVERAGE STABILITY.
So, the frequency of these atoms is just part of a negative feedback control loop.
PLUS, if you want, you can use a 10 Ghz real time spectrum analyzer and SEE/MEASURE the spectrum. Also, and since (coincidentally)
1960, you can MEASURE the 10 Ghz frequency with increasing accuracy. Today, you have instruments with 12 digits to measure it.
Quite a difference with Pound and his γ rays, whose frequency WAS DERIVED FROM CALCULATIONS of its kinetic energy, which was
(AGAIN) CALCULATED from indirect lectures from a scintillator.
Two different worlds: One plausible (cesium/rubidium) and other very smelly when claiming PRECISION AND ACCURACY (γ rays).
Message has been deleted
Prokaryotic Capase Homolog
Feb 3, 2023, 7:47:08 AM2/3/23
to
the past. Pound and Rebka did not need to know the precise
frequency of the gamma rays. They were measuring fractional
*differences* in frequency. The precision with which they could
measure these fractional differences in frequency was a function
of how many photons they counted.
Cranshaw wrote:
| "If a height of 10m is available, then the shift is one part in 10^15.
| For the resonance in 57Fe, Q is 10^12 and the expected shift is
| 10^-3 line widths. From the order of magnitude arguments
| presented in the introduction, a measurement with an accuracy
| of 1% could be made by counting about 10^11 photons."
https://tinyurl.com/4hnvmdmn
Pound and Rebka used a 0.4 Curie source at a height of 74 feet.
Their target was 38 cm in diameter, and losses through the
helium column amounted to 12%. Over a total cumulative data
collection time of 10 days, the target would have received about
5x10^12 photons, of which a certain fraction (I missed seeing
an exact figure) would be via recoilless emission and about 30%
would be absorbed by the target. Overall, it appears to me that
they had sufficient data to reach their claimed precision of
measurement.
Richard Hertz
Feb 3, 2023, 8:53:06 AM2/3/23
to
On Friday, February 3, 2023 at 9:47:08 AM UTC-3, prokaryotic.c...@gmail.com wrote:
<snip my previous post>
> Again, you make the same *DELIBERATE* error that you've done in
> the past. Pound and Rebka did not need to know the precise
> frequency of the gamma rays. They were measuring fractional
> *differences* in frequency.
NOT AT ALL. P&R measured the AVERAGE fractional change in ENERGY of photons, assuming that
the capture of photons followed a LORENTZIAN SHAPE PDF. The proportional counters of that epoch
were based on the INTEGRAL OVER THE RUN-TIME of each set of measurements, and were rather
primitive and MUCH MORE prone to errors due to the require LOW NOISE amplifiers.
Here is a link to a paper (Italy, 2015, 94 pages):
Characterisation of the Spatial Resolution and the Gamma-ray Discrimination of Helium-3 Proportional Counters
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1702.06501.pdf
4 Instrumentation and Preliminary Characterization
4.1 Instrumentation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . .41
4.1.1 Detectors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . 41 *** THIS ***
4.1.2 Electronics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43 *** THIS ***
4.1.3 Facilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... 44
4.2 Preliminary characterization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
4.2.1 Counting Curves . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46 *** THIS ***
4.2.2 Gain . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .... . . 48
4.2.3 Energy Resolution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49 *** THIS ***
*******
6 Gamma Sensitivity
6.1 Definition of Gamma Sensitivity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64 *** THIS ***
6.2 Conversion of Gamma-Rays . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68 *** THIS ***
6.3 Gamma Sensitivity Measurements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . 72 *** THIS ***
6.4 Gamma Sensitivity calculated by using the Neutron Valley . . 78
*******
7 Pulse Shape Discrimination
7.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81 *** THIS ***
7.2 Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . 82
> The precision with which they could measure these fractional differences in frequency was a function
> of how many photons they counted.
A FUNCTION OF THE DIFFERENCE OF PHOTONS COUNTED PER QUARTER CYCLE OF THE DOPPLER'S EXCITING SINE WAVE.
>
> Cranshaw wrote:
> | "If a height of 10m is available, then the shift is one part in 10^15.
> | For the resonance in 57Fe, Q is 10^12 and the expected shift is
> | 10^-3 line widths. From the order of magnitude arguments
> | presented in the introduction, a measurement with an accuracy
> | of 1% could be made by counting about 10^11 photons."
> https://tinyurl.com/4hnvmdmn
> Pound and Rebka used a 0.4 Curie source at a height of 74 feet.
> Their target was 38 cm in diameter, and losses through the
> helium column amounted to 12%. Over a total cumulative data
> collection time of 10 days, the target would have received about
> 5x10^12 photons, of which a certain fraction (I missed seeing
> an exact figure) would be via recoilless emission and about 30%
> would be absorbed by the target. Overall, it appears to me that
> they had sufficient data to reach their claimed precision of
> measurement.
THEY WROTE, IN THE FIRST PAGE:
*************************************
"The basic elements of the apparatus finally developed to measure the gravitational shift in
frequency were a carefully prepared source containing 0.4 curie of 270-day Co⁵⁷, and a carefully
prepared, rigidly supported, iron film absorber."
......
"...they electroplated the separated Co'7 onto one side of a 2-in. diameter, 0.005-in. thick disk of
Armco iron according to our prescription.
After this disk was received, it was heated to 900 -1000 C for one hour in a hydrogen atmosphere
to diffuse the cobalt into the IRON FOIL about 3x10⁻⁵ cm."
*************************************
READ THESE LINKS, IN ORDER TO APPROXIMATE THE UNDERSTANDING OF THE COMPLEXITY AND
THE SOURCES OF RELEVANT UNCERTAINTIES, NOT CLEARLY EXPLAINED BY P&R.
There are several post year 2000 formulae in the links provided, which will shed LIGHT on the 1960 HOAX.
"Radioactive Co⁵⁷ decays to Fe⁵⁷ by β+ emission. The resulting Fe⁵⁷ is in its excited state and comes to the
ground state by emitting γ−rays. The half-life of β+ decays is 270 days and that of the γ−emission is 100 nsec.
A sample of Co⁵⁷ gives 5.0 × 210⁹ gamma rays per second."
https://www.toppr.com/ask/question/co57-decays-to-fe57-by-beta-emission-the-resulting-fe57-is-in-its-excited/
MOSSBAUER EFFECT FOR Fe⁵⁷ PRODUCED BY THE DECAY OF Co⁵⁷ DOPED SELECTIVELY IN B SITES OF MAGNETITE
https://hal.science/jpa-00215812/document
I also took the job of calculating the fraction f from the 1959 paper, about γ photons emission by Fe⁵⁷ atoms, as a
function of Debye model of lattice vibrations (θᴰ is the Debye temperature, with average of 423K).
f = exp {-3/2 (Eᵧ²/2Mc²kθᴰ) [1 + 2/3 (πT/ θᴰ)²]} = exp(-0.35) = 0.705
Finally, and if you will, take the time to find out the accuracy of each of the main instruments used in the 1960 experiments.
<snip my previous post>
> Again, you make the same *DELIBERATE* error that you've done in
> the past. Pound and Rebka did not need to know the precise
> frequency of the gamma rays. They were measuring fractional
> *differences* in frequency.
the capture of photons followed a LORENTZIAN SHAPE PDF. The proportional counters of that epoch
were based on the INTEGRAL OVER THE RUN-TIME of each set of measurements, and were rather
primitive and MUCH MORE prone to errors due to the require LOW NOISE amplifiers.
Here is a link to a paper (Italy, 2015, 94 pages):
Characterisation of the Spatial Resolution and the Gamma-ray Discrimination of Helium-3 Proportional Counters
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1702.06501.pdf
4 Instrumentation and Preliminary Characterization
4.1 Instrumentation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . .41
4.1.1 Detectors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . 41 *** THIS ***
4.1.2 Electronics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43 *** THIS ***
4.1.3 Facilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... 44
4.2 Preliminary characterization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
4.2.1 Counting Curves . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46 *** THIS ***
4.2.2 Gain . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .... . . 48
4.2.3 Energy Resolution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49 *** THIS ***
*******
6 Gamma Sensitivity
6.1 Definition of Gamma Sensitivity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64 *** THIS ***
6.2 Conversion of Gamma-Rays . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68 *** THIS ***
6.3 Gamma Sensitivity Measurements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . 72 *** THIS ***
6.4 Gamma Sensitivity calculated by using the Neutron Valley . . 78
*******
7 Pulse Shape Discrimination
7.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81 *** THIS ***
7.2 Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . 82
> The precision with which they could measure these fractional differences in frequency was a function
> of how many photons they counted.
>
> Cranshaw wrote:
> | "If a height of 10m is available, then the shift is one part in 10^15.
> | For the resonance in 57Fe, Q is 10^12 and the expected shift is
> | 10^-3 line widths. From the order of magnitude arguments
> | presented in the introduction, a measurement with an accuracy
> | of 1% could be made by counting about 10^11 photons."
> https://tinyurl.com/4hnvmdmn
> Pound and Rebka used a 0.4 Curie source at a height of 74 feet.
> Their target was 38 cm in diameter, and losses through the
> helium column amounted to 12%. Over a total cumulative data
> collection time of 10 days, the target would have received about
> 5x10^12 photons, of which a certain fraction (I missed seeing
> an exact figure) would be via recoilless emission and about 30%
> would be absorbed by the target. Overall, it appears to me that
> they had sufficient data to reach their claimed precision of
> measurement.
*************************************
"The basic elements of the apparatus finally developed to measure the gravitational shift in
frequency were a carefully prepared source containing 0.4 curie of 270-day Co⁵⁷, and a carefully
prepared, rigidly supported, iron film absorber."
......
"...they electroplated the separated Co'7 onto one side of a 2-in. diameter, 0.005-in. thick disk of
Armco iron according to our prescription.
After this disk was received, it was heated to 900 -1000 C for one hour in a hydrogen atmosphere
to diffuse the cobalt into the IRON FOIL about 3x10⁻⁵ cm."
*************************************
READ THESE LINKS, IN ORDER TO APPROXIMATE THE UNDERSTANDING OF THE COMPLEXITY AND
THE SOURCES OF RELEVANT UNCERTAINTIES, NOT CLEARLY EXPLAINED BY P&R.
There are several post year 2000 formulae in the links provided, which will shed LIGHT on the 1960 HOAX.
"Radioactive Co⁵⁷ decays to Fe⁵⁷ by β+ emission. The resulting Fe⁵⁷ is in its excited state and comes to the
ground state by emitting γ−rays. The half-life of β+ decays is 270 days and that of the γ−emission is 100 nsec.
A sample of Co⁵⁷ gives 5.0 × 210⁹ gamma rays per second."
https://www.toppr.com/ask/question/co57-decays-to-fe57-by-beta-emission-the-resulting-fe57-is-in-its-excited/
MOSSBAUER EFFECT FOR Fe⁵⁷ PRODUCED BY THE DECAY OF Co⁵⁷ DOPED SELECTIVELY IN B SITES OF MAGNETITE
https://hal.science/jpa-00215812/document
I also took the job of calculating the fraction f from the 1959 paper, about γ photons emission by Fe⁵⁷ atoms, as a
function of Debye model of lattice vibrations (θᴰ is the Debye temperature, with average of 423K).
f = exp {-3/2 (Eᵧ²/2Mc²kθᴰ) [1 + 2/3 (πT/ θᴰ)²]} = exp(-0.35) = 0.705
Finally, and if you will, take the time to find out the accuracy of each of the main instruments used in the 1960 experiments.
Dono.
Feb 3, 2023, 10:50:54 AM2/3/23
to
On Friday, February 3, 2023 at 4:38:47 AM UTC-8, Richard Hertz wrote:
>I am such an imbecile to not understand that R = Rₑ, I blame my mother and father for inbreeding.
Dick,
You flunked classical mechanics. Many times over. You will never recover from the above imbecility.
Dick,
You flunked classical mechanics. Many times over. You will never recover from the above imbecility.
Prokaryotic Capase Homolog
Feb 3, 2023, 4:19:17 PM2/3/23
to
assertion that Pound and Rebka could not have measured
gravitational time dilation.
Handwaving claims that late 50's-early 60's technology was not up
to the task really doesn't hack it.
Let me just get something clear. As I have written elsewhere, "...the
theoretical arguments predicting gravitational time dilation do not
depend on the details of general relativity at all. Any theory of gravity
will predict gravitational time dilation if it respects the principle of
equivalence. This includes Newtonian gravitation." Are we agreed
on that? You do not dispute that gravitational time dilation is a real
phenomenon. You just claim that Pound and Rebka never actually
measured it, correct?
Richard Hertz
Feb 3, 2023, 5:33:52 PM2/3/23
to
> Let me just get something clear. As I have written elsewhere, "...the
> theoretical arguments predicting gravitational time dilation do not
> depend on the details of general relativity at all. Any theory of gravity
> will predict gravitational time dilation if it respects the principle of
> equivalence. This includes Newtonian gravitation." Are we agreed
> on that? You do not dispute that gravitational time dilation is a real
> phenomenon. You just claim that Pound and Rebka never actually
> measured it, correct?
I don't believe that gravitational time dilation is REAL. I did post, weeks ago and in a trolling way, how could Einstein
> theoretical arguments predicting gravitational time dilation do not
> depend on the details of general relativity at all. Any theory of gravity
> will predict gravitational time dilation if it respects the principle of
> equivalence. This includes Newtonian gravitation." Are we agreed
> on that? You do not dispute that gravitational time dilation is a real
> phenomenon. You just claim that Pound and Rebka never actually
> measured it, correct?
have had such heuristic insight between 1907 and 1911. I can't find the thread now, as I'm kind of lazy, but let me to
state the WRONG basis of such heuristic/hallucinogenic proposal.
1) KEY BELIEF: Rest energy E₀ = m₀c² is REAL (I don't agree with this STUPID ASSERTION, which has no physical meaning).
2) If m₀ is put on inertial motion at v speed, then m₀ gains kinetic energy KE = 1/2 m₀v² (FORGET relativity for a while), and
the TOTAL ENERGY of m₀ is now E = E₀ (1 + 1/2 v²/c²).
3) THEREFORE, if I slowly rise m₀ to a tiny height d (so the gravitational acceleration g is almost CONSTANT), the WORK
performed with such action IS NOT LOST, but stored in m₀ as POTENTIAL ENERGY U = m₀gd. Hence, m₀ has now a
TOTAL ENERGY E = E₀ (1 + gd/c²).
4) NOW THE TRICKY INSIGHT (remember the IRONIC title of the P&R paper: "APPARENT WEIGHT OF PHOTONS"):
IF I have a photon with mass m₀ = hf₀/c² (Planck), and I do with it what's described in 3), THEN THE TOTAL ENERGY OF THE PHOTON IS:
E = E₀ + ∆E = hf₀ (1 + gd/c²) = hf₁
THEN, IT HAPPENED THAT THE PHOTON HAS A NEW FREQUENCY f₁, AND
f₁ = f₀ (1 + gd/c²)
HOW DID THAT HAPPEN? NO RELATIVITY AND THE SAME EINSTEIN'S 1911 FORMULA? IT CAN'T BE RIGHT, CAN BE?
BECAUSE IT'S A FAILED HEURISTIC PROPOSITION. A FAIRY TALE. SOMETHING THAT EINSTEIN THOUGHT THAT WAS A BREAKTHROUGH.
But it's WRONG, through and through. BECAUSE PHOTONS DON'T HAVE MASS!!
Then, saving the relativity GOBBLEDYGOOK, and trying to derive it from TWO KNOWN AND VALID THEORIES (Newton and Planck) PLUS
using a 1:1 relationship mass-energy (Hassenhorl was close to it by 1905, as Poincaré by 1900, and MANY OTHERS), you can derive
such STUPID FALLACY about GRAVITY affecting TIME.
BUT such assertion IS FALSE, because ELECTROMAGNETIC ENERGY HAS NO MASS INVOLVED. Einstein thought that it had, but it was
a FAULTY, WRONG proposition.
Yet, here we are 112 years after that 1911 paper, arguing IF EINSTEIN WAS THE MESSIAH OR JUST AN IMBECILE.
A messiah for you.
An imbecile for me.
Prokaryotic Capase Homolog
Feb 3, 2023, 6:07:35 PM2/3/23
to
gravitational time dilation.
How do you deny results such as the following?
http://www.leapsecond.com/great2016a/index.htm
http://www.leapsecond.com/great2005/
whodat
Feb 3, 2023, 6:29:07 PM2/3/23
to
arrive quicker if they don't land.
Nice!
Dono.
Feb 4, 2023, 1:23:35 AM2/4/23
to
On Friday, February 3, 2023 at 2:33:52 PM UTC-8, Richard Hertz wrote:
> IF I have a photon with mass m₀ = hf₀/c²
Photons do not have rest mass, dumbestshit. All your reasoning is an utter imbecility predicated on an utter idiocy based on your crass ignorance.
> IF I have a photon with mass m₀ = hf₀/c²
> An imbecile like me.
You got this one right, Dick.
Maciej Wozniak
Feb 4, 2023, 1:52:46 AM2/4/23
to
by your bunch of idiots GPS and TAI keep
measuring t'=t in forbidden by your bunch
of idiots old seconds.
Richard Hertz
Feb 4, 2023, 6:08:58 AM2/4/23
to
On Saturday, February 4, 2023 at 3:23:35 AM UTC-3, Dono. wrote:
> On Friday, February 3, 2023 at 2:33:52 PM UTC-8, Richard Hertz wrote:
>
> > IF I have a photon with mass m₀ = hf₀/c²
> Photons do not have rest mass, dumbestshit. All your reasoning is an utter imbecility predicated on an utter idiocy based on your crass ignorance.
It's not me. It's your fucking pagan god, Albert Fraud Einstein, Dono the moron.
> On Friday, February 3, 2023 at 2:33:52 PM UTC-8, Richard Hertz wrote:
>
> > IF I have a photon with mass m₀ = hf₀/c²
> Photons do not have rest mass, dumbestshit. All your reasoning is an utter imbecility predicated on an utter idiocy based on your crass ignorance.
And his stupid formula came directly after his 1911 gobbledygook to mess with imbecile's minds like yours, gypsy.
∆f/f₀ = gh/c²
Kick, scream, cry foul, hit your head into a wall or whatever help you to vent your rage, But you can't deny history, cretin inbreed.
Dono.
Feb 4, 2023, 9:17:14 AM2/4/23
to
On Saturday, February 4, 2023 at 3:08:58 AM UTC-8, Richard Hertz wrote:
> On Saturday, February 4, 2023 at 3:23:35 AM UTC-3, Dono. wrote:
> > On Friday, February 3, 2023 at 2:33:52 PM UTC-8, Richard Hertz wrote:
> >
> > > IF I have a photon with mass m₀ = hf₀/c²
> > Photons do not have rest mass, dumbestshit. All your reasoning is an utter imbecility predicated on an utter idiocy based on your crass ignorance.
> It's not me.
It IS you, keep it up, dumbestfuck.
> On Saturday, February 4, 2023 at 3:23:35 AM UTC-3, Dono. wrote:
> > On Friday, February 3, 2023 at 2:33:52 PM UTC-8, Richard Hertz wrote:
> >
> > > IF I have a photon with mass m₀ = hf₀/c²
> > Photons do not have rest mass, dumbestshit. All your reasoning is an utter imbecility predicated on an utter idiocy based on your crass ignorance.
> It's not me.
Richard Hertz
Feb 4, 2023, 10:14:15 AM2/4/23
to
You can't even do right with your stupid papers about relativistic Doppler, cretin. You're the laughing stock of everyone
at ResearchGate, Lithuania and Romany, gypsy.
Volney
Feb 4, 2023, 11:23:39 AM2/4/23
to
On 2/4/2023 6:08 AM, Richard Hertz wrote:
> On Saturday, February 4, 2023 at 3:23:35 AM UTC-3, Dono. wrote:
>> On Friday, February 3, 2023 at 2:33:52 PM UTC-8, Richard Hertz wrote:
>>
>>> IF I have a photon with mass m₀ = hf₀/c²
>> Photons do not have rest mass, dumbestshit. All your reasoning is an utter imbecility predicated on an utter idiocy based on your crass ignorance.
>
> It's not me. It's your fucking pagan god, Albert Fraud Einstein, Dono the moron.
It is you. Photons have momentum and energy, not rest mass. Your formula
> On Saturday, February 4, 2023 at 3:23:35 AM UTC-3, Dono. wrote:
>> On Friday, February 3, 2023 at 2:33:52 PM UTC-8, Richard Hertz wrote:
>>
>>> IF I have a photon with mass m₀ = hf₀/c²
>> Photons do not have rest mass, dumbestshit. All your reasoning is an utter imbecility predicated on an utter idiocy based on your crass ignorance.
>
> It's not me. It's your fucking pagan god, Albert Fraud Einstein, Dono the moron.
is simply wrong. Photons have a rest mass m₀=0.
E=mc² isn't relevant here, that is a special case for stationary mass.
The correct formula is E²=(m₀c²)²+(pc)² with m₀=REST mass. Photons have
no rest mass (more accurately a rest mass m₀=0) so that becomes E²=(pc)²
or E=pc for photons. Photon momentum is hf/c.
>
> And his stupid formula came directly after his 1911 gobbledygook to mess with imbecile's minds like yours, gypsy.
Why are you bringing up the 1911 paper? The 1915 paper is what is correct.
> And his stupid formula came directly after his 1911 gobbledygook to mess with imbecile's minds like yours, gypsy.
> Kick, scream, cry foul, hit your head into a wall or whatever help you to vent your rage, But you can't deny history, cretin inbreed.
validated theories, EVER.
Richard Hertz
Feb 4, 2023, 1:01:05 PM2/4/23
to
On Saturday, February 4, 2023 at 1:23:39 PM UTC-3, Volney wrote:
<snip>
> It is you. Photons have momentum and energy, not rest mass. Your formula is simply wrong. Photons have a rest mass m₀=0.
> E=mc² isn't relevant here, that is a special case for stationary mass.
WHAT COULD YOU POSSIBLY KNOW, FUCKING IGNORANT!
> The correct formula is E²=(m₀c²)²+(pc)² with m₀=REST mass. Photons have
> no rest mass (more accurately a rest mass m₀=0) so that becomes E²=(pc)²
> or E=pc for photons. Photon momentum is hf/c.
WHAT COULD YOU POSSIBLY KNOW, FUCKING IGNORANT!
> > And his stupid formula came directly after his 1911 gobbledygook to mess with imbecile's minds like yours, gypsy.
> Why are you bringing up the 1911 paper? The 1915 paper is what is correct.
WHAT COULD YOU POSSIBLY KNOW, FUCKING IGNORANT!
> > Kick, scream, cry foul, hit your head into a wall or whatever help you to vent your rage, But you can't deny history, cretin inbreed.
> And history is that Einstein's GR is one of the most tested and validated theories, EVER.
WHAT COULD YOU POSSIBLY KNOW, FUCKING IGNORANT!
I'LL SHOW YOU YOUR ARROGANT IGNORANCE, LIKE DONO'S IGNORANCE, BUT A LITTLE BIT LESS (FOR YOU).
THESE ARE THE MOST TESTED AND VALIDATED THEORIES, ever!
1. Newton's three Laws Of Motion.
2. Ohm's Law.
3. Coulomb's Law.
4. Maxwell's theory of Electromagnetism.
5. Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation.
6. Kepler's Laws.
7. Law of Conservation of Energy.
8. Law of Conservation of Momentum.
9. Four Laws of Thermodynamics.
10. Hooke's Law.
11. Pascal's Law.
12. Avogadro's Law.
13. Stefan’s Law.
14. Planck's Law.
15. Schrödinger's Wave Theory.
16. Charles's Law.
17. Graham’s Law.
18. Bernoulli's Principle.
19. Archimedes Principle.
20. Fermi's Principle.
21. Moore's Law.
22. Shockley's Equation.
23. Hahn's Model of atomic nucleus.
24. Tesla's Principle of AC.
25. Armstrong's Principle of EM Modulation.
26. Fermi's Theory of Controlled Nuclear Fission.
27. Gauss's Law.
28. Doppler's Law.
...
...
...
...
197. Lorentz-Poincaré-Einstein's CONJECTURES on Relativity Theory.
...
...
286. Poincaré-Minkowski CONJECTURE of Spacetime.
...
...
399. Grossman-Hilbert-Einstein CONJECTURE on Gravitational Field Theory.
...
...
589. Lenard-Einstein's CONJECTURE on Ionizing EM Energy.
...
...
<snip>
> It is you. Photons have momentum and energy, not rest mass. Your formula is simply wrong. Photons have a rest mass m₀=0.
> E=mc² isn't relevant here, that is a special case for stationary mass.
> The correct formula is E²=(m₀c²)²+(pc)² with m₀=REST mass. Photons have
> no rest mass (more accurately a rest mass m₀=0) so that becomes E²=(pc)²
> or E=pc for photons. Photon momentum is hf/c.
> > And his stupid formula came directly after his 1911 gobbledygook to mess with imbecile's minds like yours, gypsy.
> Why are you bringing up the 1911 paper? The 1915 paper is what is correct.
> > Kick, scream, cry foul, hit your head into a wall or whatever help you to vent your rage, But you can't deny history, cretin inbreed.
> And history is that Einstein's GR is one of the most tested and validated theories, EVER.
I'LL SHOW YOU YOUR ARROGANT IGNORANCE, LIKE DONO'S IGNORANCE, BUT A LITTLE BIT LESS (FOR YOU).
THESE ARE THE MOST TESTED AND VALIDATED THEORIES, ever!
1. Newton's three Laws Of Motion.
2. Ohm's Law.
3. Coulomb's Law.
4. Maxwell's theory of Electromagnetism.
5. Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation.
6. Kepler's Laws.
7. Law of Conservation of Energy.
8. Law of Conservation of Momentum.
9. Four Laws of Thermodynamics.
10. Hooke's Law.
11. Pascal's Law.
12. Avogadro's Law.
13. Stefan’s Law.
14. Planck's Law.
15. Schrödinger's Wave Theory.
16. Charles's Law.
17. Graham’s Law.
18. Bernoulli's Principle.
19. Archimedes Principle.
20. Fermi's Principle.
21. Moore's Law.
22. Shockley's Equation.
23. Hahn's Model of atomic nucleus.
24. Tesla's Principle of AC.
25. Armstrong's Principle of EM Modulation.
26. Fermi's Theory of Controlled Nuclear Fission.
27. Gauss's Law.
28. Doppler's Law.
...
...
...
...
197. Lorentz-Poincaré-Einstein's CONJECTURES on Relativity Theory.
...
...
286. Poincaré-Minkowski CONJECTURE of Spacetime.
...
...
399. Grossman-Hilbert-Einstein CONJECTURE on Gravitational Field Theory.
...
...
589. Lenard-Einstein's CONJECTURE on Ionizing EM Energy.
...
...
Maciej Wozniak
Feb 4, 2023, 3:16:17 PM2/4/23
to
forbidden by your bunch of idiots GPS clocks,
after being switched from useless Einstein/ISO
mode, keep measuring t'=t just like all serious
clocks always did.
Dono.
Feb 4, 2023, 7:49:33 PM2/4/23
to
On Friday, February 3, 2023 at 2:33:52 PM UTC-8, Richard Hertz wrote:
> IF I have a photon with mass m₀ = hf₀/c²
m₀ = 0 for photons, dumbestshit
> An imbecile like me.
Yep
Richard Hertz
Feb 4, 2023, 10:04:07 PM2/4/23
to
And this one,
http://modsys.narod.ru/Library/For_Stat/Pound_R_V_2.pdf
Effect of Gravity on Gamma Radiation
R. V. Pound and J. L. Snider, 1965.
"It is not our purpose here to enter into the many-sided discussion of the relationship between the effect
under study and general relativity or energy conservation. It is to be noted that no strictly relativistic
concepts are involved and the description of the effect as an "apparent weight" of photons is suggestive.
The velocity difference predicted is identical to that which a material object would acquire in free fall for
a time equal to the time of flight."
Dono.
Feb 4, 2023, 10:18:36 PM2/4/23
to
On Saturday, February 4, 2023 at 7:04:07 PM UTC-8, Richard Hertz wrote:
> On Saturday, February 4, 2023 at 9:49:33 PM UTC-3, Dono. wrote:
> > On Friday, February 3, 2023 at 2:33:52 PM UTC-8, Richard Hertz wrote:
> > > IF I have a photon with mass m₀ = hf₀/c²
> > m₀ = 0 for photons, dumbestshit
> >
> > > An imbecile like me.
> >
> > Yep
> Your messiah Al F. Einstein didn't think so.
You are getting really desperate to cover up your imbecilities, Dick. Keep at it, dumbestshit.
> On Saturday, February 4, 2023 at 9:49:33 PM UTC-3, Dono. wrote:
> > On Friday, February 3, 2023 at 2:33:52 PM UTC-8, Richard Hertz wrote:
> > > IF I have a photon with mass m₀ = hf₀/c²
> > m₀ = 0 for photons, dumbestshit
> >
> > > An imbecile like me.
> >
> > Yep
> Your messiah Al F. Einstein didn't think so.
Richard Hertz
Feb 5, 2023, 5:28:11 PM2/5/23
to
I recently wrote a link for a 1965 R. Pound's paper (only available in Russia, for free).
Effect of Gravity on Gamma Radiation
R. V. Pound and J. L. Snider, Physical Review, 1965.
http://modsys.narod.ru/Library/For_Stat/Pound_R_V_2.pdf
In the 9 pages, full of gobbledygook about the 1960 paper and his "better" 1965 version, Bob try TO SELL HIS CRAP
with exhaustive details on gamma radiation, materials and a little bit about his experiment and its relationship with
relativity. He was making his first back-steps to redefine the experiment as A PROOF OF THE THIRD PREDICTION
(like the trumpets in Armagedon): Red-shifting due to gravity. By 1981, he was completely on this "narrative".
As of today, and just by making a little research on Google about "the interpretation of the P&R experiment", you get
a variety of questions, answers and assertions THAT ARE JUST TOO PAINFUL TO READ. You will learn, by doing this,
two things:
1) How college's education in the US and worldwide SUNK. As if people lost 20 points of IQ in 40/50 years.
2) The devastation that decades cause in the interpretation of A NOT PROPERLY, NOR CORRECTLY EXPLAINED AND NOT
TAKEN INTO CUSTODY TO PREVENT DEGENERATION/DEGRADATION of the original 1960 source (forget about the 1965 one).
Not only the 1965 paper is MUCH MORE COMPLEX TO READ than the 1960 one (as most people affirm on the WEB), but Pound
REFUSES to dodge a bullet about what he did really measure. He insisted that, thanks to an exaggerated amount (abuse) of
statistical averages of WHATEVER, with mathmagics HE COULD EXTRACT a result BURIED INTO THE NOISE OF the thousand
of measurements AND PROVE "EINSTEIN'S RIGHT", THIS TIME WITH 1% ACCURACY.
This will be my last post for a while on this topic, as I'm learning how to develop a basic mathematical/statistical framework that
MAY PROVE THE HOAX. It will no take long, because the "rotten fish" sold to gullible people for 10+ years stinks too much, and
major faults will appear easily.
The only thing required for my task is to be away from THE TOXICITY of the three papers (1959, 1960, 1965) and ANY other paper
that supported these experiments. Just a comment: by 1975, the experiments and Pound himself started to disappear as valid
references (because the papers are FISHY). The experiment became OBSOLETE really quickly, and was replaced with much more
rational experiments using microwaves and frequency, AS IT HAD TO BE DONE EVERY PRIOR TIME (not by a chain of indirect
measurements, heuristic proposals AND NOT SCIENTIFIC AT ALL experimental methods).
Effect of Gravity on Gamma Radiation
http://modsys.narod.ru/Library/For_Stat/Pound_R_V_2.pdf
In the 9 pages, full of gobbledygook about the 1960 paper and his "better" 1965 version, Bob try TO SELL HIS CRAP
with exhaustive details on gamma radiation, materials and a little bit about his experiment and its relationship with
relativity. He was making his first back-steps to redefine the experiment as A PROOF OF THE THIRD PREDICTION
(like the trumpets in Armagedon): Red-shifting due to gravity. By 1981, he was completely on this "narrative".
As of today, and just by making a little research on Google about "the interpretation of the P&R experiment", you get
a variety of questions, answers and assertions THAT ARE JUST TOO PAINFUL TO READ. You will learn, by doing this,
two things:
1) How college's education in the US and worldwide SUNK. As if people lost 20 points of IQ in 40/50 years.
2) The devastation that decades cause in the interpretation of A NOT PROPERLY, NOR CORRECTLY EXPLAINED AND NOT
TAKEN INTO CUSTODY TO PREVENT DEGENERATION/DEGRADATION of the original 1960 source (forget about the 1965 one).
Not only the 1965 paper is MUCH MORE COMPLEX TO READ than the 1960 one (as most people affirm on the WEB), but Pound
REFUSES to dodge a bullet about what he did really measure. He insisted that, thanks to an exaggerated amount (abuse) of
statistical averages of WHATEVER, with mathmagics HE COULD EXTRACT a result BURIED INTO THE NOISE OF the thousand
of measurements AND PROVE "EINSTEIN'S RIGHT", THIS TIME WITH 1% ACCURACY.
This will be my last post for a while on this topic, as I'm learning how to develop a basic mathematical/statistical framework that
MAY PROVE THE HOAX. It will no take long, because the "rotten fish" sold to gullible people for 10+ years stinks too much, and
major faults will appear easily.
The only thing required for my task is to be away from THE TOXICITY of the three papers (1959, 1960, 1965) and ANY other paper
that supported these experiments. Just a comment: by 1975, the experiments and Pound himself started to disappear as valid
references (because the papers are FISHY). The experiment became OBSOLETE really quickly, and was replaced with much more
rational experiments using microwaves and frequency, AS IT HAD TO BE DONE EVERY PRIOR TIME (not by a chain of indirect
measurements, heuristic proposals AND NOT SCIENTIFIC AT ALL experimental methods).
Dono.
Feb 5, 2023, 8:30:04 PM2/5/23
to
On Sunday, February 5, 2023 at 2:28:11 PM UTC-8, Richard Hertz wrote:
> Pound REFUSES to dodge a bullet
LOL, you are at your best when you write such cretinisms, Dick.
> Pound REFUSES to dodge a bullet
Dono.
Feb 7, 2023, 6:12:12 PM2/7/23
to
What makes you so entertaining is the contrast between your utter ignorance and your incredibly high arrogance. This is a very combusitble combination. Keep it up, dumbestfuck!
Dono.
Feb 7, 2023, 6:24:07 PM2/7/23
to
On Saturday, February 4, 2023 at 10:01:05 AM UTC-8, Richard Hertz wrote:
> WHAT COULD I POSSIBLY KNOW, BEING A FUCKING IGNORANT!
You got that right, Dick.
> WHAT COULD I POSSIBLY KNOW, BEING A FUCKING IGNORANT!
You got that right, Dick.
Richard Hertz
Feb 7, 2023, 9:59:52 PM2/7/23
to
On Thursday, February 2, 2023 at 8:36:23 PM UTC-3, Richard Hertz wrote:
> This OP explores, with more details, the claim about the HOAX that the 1960
> paper was. A cooked paper, with data cherry-picking and fudging experiments.
>
> This time, I'll use spectroscopy's jargon, abandoning the focus on gamma rays
> frequency, bandwidths of emission and absorption and the shift of gh/c² in
> terms of frequency. Instead, I'll use eV as proportional to Hz, as given by
> Planck's formula E = h.f.
>
> The first clue about how deceptive the 1960 paper was going to be, is visible
> on its title:
>
> "APPARENT WEIGHT OF PHOTONS".
>
> Like with modern "click-baits", the fame thirsty Pound used that deceptive
> but "eye catching" title. Not even ONCE, within the paper, such topic
> appeared, even remotely. But this first deception had "Einstein" embedded.
>
> The IDEA for the experiment came from the work and paper of the British physicists Cranshaw, Schiffer, and Whitehead, which Pound "borrowed" by+
> repeating the experiment at Harvard, trying to EXPLODE the 43% error in
> the final result that these physicists published. Pound claimed that his
> paper, with a similar arrangement, was much more precise in proving
> "Einstein's right" on its 1911 "HEURISTIC" idea about |Δf/f₀| = gh/c² for ANY
> EM RADIATION, providing that the height "h" was small enough to use
> conception was born in 1907, 4 years before his 1911 paper. Also, in the
> same publication, Pound CHANGED the meaning of experiment, referring
> to it as a "Gravitational Red-Shifting" proof, maybe forgetting that his 1960
> paper was a MIX of 14 sets of 8 measurements EACH (using only 112
> measurements out of hundreds). Of these 14 datasets, 8 were about the
> alleged RED-SHIFTING and 6 were about the alleged BLUE-SHIFTING.
>
> Fudging the experiment one time of many, Pound didn't hesitate to MIX
> and AVERAGE two completely different experiments, asking for your
> forgiveness and comprehension, given that he obtained a "virtual height"
> of 2 x 22.2 m, "doubling" (he sold that) the accuracy. This is the SECOND
> deceiving fact, presented as a clever maneuver (not A FUDGE).
>
> For h = 22.2 m, gh/c² ≈ 2.42E-15, while average γ rays spread |Δf/f₀| varied
> from 4.3-15 to 18.6E-15 (a 4.3 ratio, and 2 times to 9 times the einsteinian
> gh/c² to be MEASURED).
>
> Using the EXCUSE of difference of temperature corrections between source
> and detector of γ rays, Pound did THEORETICAL corrections to narrow the
> |Δf/f₀| spread as 9.3-15 to 24.5E-15 (a 2.6 ratio, and 4 times to 10 times the
> einsteinian gh/c² to be MEASURED). This is the THIRD deceiving fact.
>
> Pound used WEIGHTED averages of his own to present:
>
> RED-SHIFTING weighted average (8 sets of data) = -15.5 ± 0.8 (x 10E-15)
> BLUE-SHIFTING weighted average (6 sets of data) = -19.7 ± 0.8 (x 10E-15)
> ------------------------------------------
> Difference of averages (mixing RED and BLUE) = -4.2 ± 1.1 (x 10E-15)
> Net fractional shift = -5.13 ± 0.51 (x 10E-15)
>
> Difference with einsteinian 2gh/c²: better than 10%.
>
> This is the FOURTH deceiving fact. If I have to explain, you're in denial or
> you are a gullible moron.
>
> **************************************************
>
> As Pound explained, in the opening of the paper, he used a Lorentzian shape:
>
> L(x) = 1/π ( Γ/2)/[(x - x₀)² +( Γ/2)²]
>
> According to him, this shape is enough to explain the dispersion of energy
> in the emission or absorption of 14.4 KeV γ rays.
>
> Instead of frequency f, in spectroscopy is used energy E to quantify the
> spread of γ radiation, due to relationship E = h.f = h/T. The values of energy
> are in eV. A Lorentzian profile centered on E₀ with intensity I₀ and full-width
> half-maximum (FWHM) Γ is given by:
>
> L(E) = I₀ (Γ/2)²/[(E - E₀)² +(Γ/2)²] = I₀ (Γ/2)²/[ΔE² +(Γ/2)²] , where
>
> I₀: Nominal peak energy of the shape (eV).
> Γ: Bandwidth for L(E) = ± I₀/2 (eV).
>
> The shape fall to half its maximum at E = (E₀ ± Γ/2).
>
> Fractional FWHM = Γ/2
>
> In spectroscopy, due to the Uncertainty Principle, there are limits in the
> precision with which the energy of a state can be defined, depending on the
> lifetime of the state and the change of energy along the line width Γ (eV).
>
> The natural lifetime τ defines the certainty with which the energy E can be
> defined. The imprecision of the energy ΔE = Γ depends on τ and, for Fe⁵⁷:
>
> τ(Fe⁵⁷) = 100 nsec
> h ≈ 4.136E−15 eV.sec
>
> ΔE. τ = Γ. τ ≈ h
>
> Γ ≈ h/τ = 4.136E−08 eV
>
> Fractional FWHM = |± 1.43E-12| (Pound quoted |1.13E-12|)
>
> RATIO of Gravitational Effect to 2xFractional FWHM ≈ 0.001 (0.1%)
>
> So, the KEY OF THE EXPERIMENT is to MEASURE a 0.1% CHANGE IN
> THE SPECTRAL WIDTH at the absorber side, considering that:
>
> - The emitter has a Γ = 4.136E−08 eV.
> - The absorber also has an uncorrelated Γ = 4.136E−08 eV.
> - The gravitational effect IS REPRESENTED BY ≈ 4.136E−11 eV.
>
> * The detection is based on a scintillator that multiply the ionization of
> a γ photon by approximately 30,000 times and convert it to an electric
> pulse that feed A COUNTER, which count is constantly stored. Either
> γ photons with RECOIL or Mössbauer's γ photons without RECOIL cause
> ionization, hence electric signals in the scintillator.
>
> * A MINIMUM IN THE COUNT IS EXPECTED PERIODICALLY IF a
> slowly induced Doppler effect (by mechanical means in the source) causes
> that in Mössbauer's γ photons the "gravitational effect" is CANCELLED.
> This technique, useful for a quarter of the sine wave that moves the source,
> transform such recoilless γ photons in NON IONIZING ONES.
>
> * ALLEGEDLY, the entire arrangement for the generation, carrying and
> detection of γ photons is:
>
> ------ ISOLATED from losses of γ photons during the path, providing a
> CONSTANT FLOW OF γ photons.
>
> ------ Changes in TEMPERATURE at the source and detector are perfectly
> registered, so STATISTICAL CORRECTIONS FOR NUCLEAR RESONANCE
> VARIATIONS (THEORETICAL VALUES) can be used at will.
>
> ------ RANDOM CHANGES in the material and locations of source and
> absorber are made, in order to generate variations in measurement
> that ARE CLAIMED TO BE STATISTICALLY CANCELLED.
>
> ------ No discrimination about the QUANTUM ORIGIN of γ photons
> OR quantum absorption given by the different levels of energy, spins, etc.,
> except for Γ. Unknown effects by then (and even now) are not accounted,
> like hyperfine transitions or OTHERS, which Pound acknowledged as
> potential sources of errors.
>
> ******** YET, EINSTEIN'S PROVEN RIGHT EVEN WHEN THE CONTRIBUTION
> TO THE ENERGY OF PHOTONS IS ABOUT 0.1% *************
>
> EITHER IT'S FISHY AND FRAUDULENT, OR POUND WAS A TIME TRAVELER
> THAT CAME FROM YEAR 3,000 TO GAIN ONE STAR IN THE HALL FAME OF
> RELATIVITY.
>
> I'M WITH THE FISHY THING, STARTING BY THE LIE IN THE TITLE OF THE PAPER.
The con man Pound fooled his colleagues with pure gobbledygook, but NEVER SHOWED MEASUREMENTS
NOR ARBITRARY CORRECTIONS ON TEMPERATURE. The papers are full of shitty explanations, trimming,
cooking and HEAVY COOKING.
The key of the experiment was the cancellation of the alleged gravitational shifting by inducing Doppler, being
IRRELEVANT if it was the real classic Doppler or the FANTASY of a relativistic one.
In every cycle of about 20 msec of sinusoidal motion to induce Doppler, the exact value for cancellation last
AN INSTANT, just an instant over zillion of other values in the quarter period of 5 msec.
Yet, this cretin Pound, along with his partners in crime CLAIMED THAT THEY MEASURED AN AVERAGE SHIFT OF 2.4E-15,
which is IMPOSSIBLE due to the chain of indirect measurements of random values, which BURIED what allegedly measured
no less than 10dB under NOISE.
They claimed triumph from uber-cooked statistical measurements and fudged theoretical calculations INSERTED into
datasets of PHYSICAL measurements. Stinky, fishy experiments.
But what can you expect from an opportunist relativist looking for fame?
> This OP explores, with more details, the claim about the HOAX that the 1960
> paper was. A cooked paper, with data cherry-picking and fudging experiments.
>
> This time, I'll use spectroscopy's jargon, abandoning the focus on gamma rays
> frequency, bandwidths of emission and absorption and the shift of gh/c² in
> terms of frequency. Instead, I'll use eV as proportional to Hz, as given by
> Planck's formula E = h.f.
>
> The first clue about how deceptive the 1960 paper was going to be, is visible
> on its title:
>
> "APPARENT WEIGHT OF PHOTONS".
>
> Like with modern "click-baits", the fame thirsty Pound used that deceptive
> but "eye catching" title. Not even ONCE, within the paper, such topic
> appeared, even remotely. But this first deception had "Einstein" embedded.
>
> The IDEA for the experiment came from the work and paper of the British physicists Cranshaw, Schiffer, and Whitehead, which Pound "borrowed" by+
> repeating the experiment at Harvard, trying to EXPLODE the 43% error in
> the final result that these physicists published. Pound claimed that his
> paper, with a similar arrangement, was much more precise in proving
> "Einstein's right" on its 1911 "HEURISTIC" idea about |Δf/f₀| = gh/c² for ANY
> EM RADIATION, providing that the height "h" was small enough to use
> "g = GM/R" as a CONSTANT.
>
> In 1981, Pound enhanced the figure of Einstein claiming that his "heuristic"
>
> conception was born in 1907, 4 years before his 1911 paper. Also, in the
> same publication, Pound CHANGED the meaning of experiment, referring
> to it as a "Gravitational Red-Shifting" proof, maybe forgetting that his 1960
> paper was a MIX of 14 sets of 8 measurements EACH (using only 112
> measurements out of hundreds). Of these 14 datasets, 8 were about the
> alleged RED-SHIFTING and 6 were about the alleged BLUE-SHIFTING.
>
> Fudging the experiment one time of many, Pound didn't hesitate to MIX
> and AVERAGE two completely different experiments, asking for your
> forgiveness and comprehension, given that he obtained a "virtual height"
> of 2 x 22.2 m, "doubling" (he sold that) the accuracy. This is the SECOND
> deceiving fact, presented as a clever maneuver (not A FUDGE).
>
> For h = 22.2 m, gh/c² ≈ 2.42E-15, while average γ rays spread |Δf/f₀| varied
> from 4.3-15 to 18.6E-15 (a 4.3 ratio, and 2 times to 9 times the einsteinian
> gh/c² to be MEASURED).
>
> Using the EXCUSE of difference of temperature corrections between source
> and detector of γ rays, Pound did THEORETICAL corrections to narrow the
> |Δf/f₀| spread as 9.3-15 to 24.5E-15 (a 2.6 ratio, and 4 times to 10 times the
> einsteinian gh/c² to be MEASURED). This is the THIRD deceiving fact.
>
> Pound used WEIGHTED averages of his own to present:
>
> RED-SHIFTING weighted average (8 sets of data) = -15.5 ± 0.8 (x 10E-15)
> BLUE-SHIFTING weighted average (6 sets of data) = -19.7 ± 0.8 (x 10E-15)
> ------------------------------------------
> Difference of averages (mixing RED and BLUE) = -4.2 ± 1.1 (x 10E-15)
> Net fractional shift = -5.13 ± 0.51 (x 10E-15)
>
> Difference with einsteinian 2gh/c²: better than 10%.
>
> This is the FOURTH deceiving fact. If I have to explain, you're in denial or
> you are a gullible moron.
>
> **************************************************
>
> As Pound explained, in the opening of the paper, he used a Lorentzian shape:
>
> L(x) = 1/π ( Γ/2)/[(x - x₀)² +( Γ/2)²]
>
> According to him, this shape is enough to explain the dispersion of energy
> in the emission or absorption of 14.4 KeV γ rays.
>
> Instead of frequency f, in spectroscopy is used energy E to quantify the
> spread of γ radiation, due to relationship E = h.f = h/T. The values of energy
> are in eV. A Lorentzian profile centered on E₀ with intensity I₀ and full-width
> half-maximum (FWHM) Γ is given by:
>
> L(E) = I₀ (Γ/2)²/[(E - E₀)² +(Γ/2)²] = I₀ (Γ/2)²/[ΔE² +(Γ/2)²] , where
>
> I₀: Nominal peak energy of the shape (eV).
> Γ: Bandwidth for L(E) = ± I₀/2 (eV).
>
> The shape fall to half its maximum at E = (E₀ ± Γ/2).
>
> Fractional FWHM = Γ/2
>
> In spectroscopy, due to the Uncertainty Principle, there are limits in the
> precision with which the energy of a state can be defined, depending on the
> lifetime of the state and the change of energy along the line width Γ (eV).
>
> The natural lifetime τ defines the certainty with which the energy E can be
> defined. The imprecision of the energy ΔE = Γ depends on τ and, for Fe⁵⁷:
>
> τ(Fe⁵⁷) = 100 nsec
> h ≈ 4.136E−15 eV.sec
>
> ΔE. τ = Γ. τ ≈ h
>
> Γ ≈ h/τ = 4.136E−08 eV
>
> Fractional FWHM = |± 1.43E-12| (Pound quoted |1.13E-12|)
>
> RATIO of Gravitational Effect to 2xFractional FWHM ≈ 0.001 (0.1%)
>
> So, the KEY OF THE EXPERIMENT is to MEASURE a 0.1% CHANGE IN
> THE SPECTRAL WIDTH at the absorber side, considering that:
>
> - The emitter has a Γ = 4.136E−08 eV.
> - The absorber also has an uncorrelated Γ = 4.136E−08 eV.
> - The gravitational effect IS REPRESENTED BY ≈ 4.136E−11 eV.
>
> * The detection is based on a scintillator that multiply the ionization of
> a γ photon by approximately 30,000 times and convert it to an electric
> pulse that feed A COUNTER, which count is constantly stored. Either
> γ photons with RECOIL or Mössbauer's γ photons without RECOIL cause
> ionization, hence electric signals in the scintillator.
>
> * A MINIMUM IN THE COUNT IS EXPECTED PERIODICALLY IF a
> slowly induced Doppler effect (by mechanical means in the source) causes
> that in Mössbauer's γ photons the "gravitational effect" is CANCELLED.
> This technique, useful for a quarter of the sine wave that moves the source,
> transform such recoilless γ photons in NON IONIZING ONES.
>
> * ALLEGEDLY, the entire arrangement for the generation, carrying and
> detection of γ photons is:
>
> ------ ISOLATED from losses of γ photons during the path, providing a
> CONSTANT FLOW OF γ photons.
>
> ------ Changes in TEMPERATURE at the source and detector are perfectly
> registered, so STATISTICAL CORRECTIONS FOR NUCLEAR RESONANCE
> VARIATIONS (THEORETICAL VALUES) can be used at will.
>
> ------ RANDOM CHANGES in the material and locations of source and
> absorber are made, in order to generate variations in measurement
> that ARE CLAIMED TO BE STATISTICALLY CANCELLED.
>
> ------ No discrimination about the QUANTUM ORIGIN of γ photons
> OR quantum absorption given by the different levels of energy, spins, etc.,
> except for Γ. Unknown effects by then (and even now) are not accounted,
> like hyperfine transitions or OTHERS, which Pound acknowledged as
> potential sources of errors.
>
> ******** YET, EINSTEIN'S PROVEN RIGHT EVEN WHEN THE CONTRIBUTION
> TO THE ENERGY OF PHOTONS IS ABOUT 0.1% *************
>
> EITHER IT'S FISHY AND FRAUDULENT, OR POUND WAS A TIME TRAVELER
> THAT CAME FROM YEAR 3,000 TO GAIN ONE STAR IN THE HALL FAME OF
> RELATIVITY.
>
> I'M WITH THE FISHY THING, STARTING BY THE LIE IN THE TITLE OF THE PAPER.
The con man Pound fooled his colleagues with pure gobbledygook, but NEVER SHOWED MEASUREMENTS
NOR ARBITRARY CORRECTIONS ON TEMPERATURE. The papers are full of shitty explanations, trimming,
cooking and HEAVY COOKING.
The key of the experiment was the cancellation of the alleged gravitational shifting by inducing Doppler, being
IRRELEVANT if it was the real classic Doppler or the FANTASY of a relativistic one.
In every cycle of about 20 msec of sinusoidal motion to induce Doppler, the exact value for cancellation last
AN INSTANT, just an instant over zillion of other values in the quarter period of 5 msec.
Yet, this cretin Pound, along with his partners in crime CLAIMED THAT THEY MEASURED AN AVERAGE SHIFT OF 2.4E-15,
which is IMPOSSIBLE due to the chain of indirect measurements of random values, which BURIED what allegedly measured
no less than 10dB under NOISE.
They claimed triumph from uber-cooked statistical measurements and fudged theoretical calculations INSERTED into
datasets of PHYSICAL measurements. Stinky, fishy experiments.
But what can you expect from an opportunist relativist looking for fame?
Dono.
Feb 7, 2023, 10:08:10 PM2/7/23
to
On Tuesday, February 7, 2023 at 6:59:52 PM UTC-8, Richard Hertz wrote:
> trying to EXPLODE the 43% error in
> > the final result that these physicists published.
Riight, trying to "explode"
> trying to EXPLODE the 43% error in
> > the final result that these physicists published.
> Pound claimed that his
> > paper, with a similar arrangement, was much more precise in proving
> > "Einstein's right" on its 1911 "HEURISTIC" idea about |Δf/f₀| = gh/c² for ANY
> > EM RADIATION, providing that the height "h" was small enough to use
> > "g = GM/R" as a CONSTANT.
Volney
Feb 8, 2023, 10:33:13 PM2/8/23
to
E=√((mc²)²+(pc)²). For stationary mass (p=0) this simplifies to E=mc².
For something with zero rest mass, it simplifies to E=pc, the energy and
momentum of a photon.
Additionally you are too ignorant to use the 1915 paper, not the 1911 paper.
You didn't even know that relativity is one of the most tested theories
ever.
That's why you are so fucking ignorant, which at least you admitted to.
Volney
Feb 8, 2023, 10:39:44 PM2/8/23
to
"Agnorant". Someone who is completely ignorant and totally arrogant
about their ignorance. Just about all the cranks here are "agnorant" to
a certain degree. Dick is just much more "agnorant" than the others are.
Dono.
Feb 8, 2023, 10:51:38 PM2/8/23
to
Paul Alsing
Feb 8, 2023, 11:29:23 PM2/8/23
to
On Wednesday, February 8, 2023 at 7:39:44 PM UTC-8, Volney wrote:
> "Agnorant". Someone who is completely ignorant and totally arrogant
> about their ignorance. Just about all the cranks here are "agnorant" to
> a certain degree. Dick is just much more "agnorant" than the others are.
Brilliant! 😉
> "Agnorant". Someone who is completely ignorant and totally arrogant
> about their ignorance. Just about all the cranks here are "agnorant" to
> a certain degree. Dick is just much more "agnorant" than the others are.
Paul Alsing
Feb 8, 2023, 11:29:51 PM2/8/23
to
On Wednesday, February 8, 2023 at 7:51:38 PM UTC-8, Dono. wrote:
> "Fucknorant"?
Another good one... 😉
> "Fucknorant"?
Another good one... 😉
Maciej Wozniak
Feb 9, 2023, 1:33:05 AM2/9/23
to
On Thursday, 9 February 2023 at 04:33:13 UTC+1, Volney wrote:
> On 2/7/2023 6:24 PM, Dono. wrote:
> > On Saturday, February 4, 2023 at 10:01:05 AM UTC-8, Richard Hertz wrote:
> >
> >> WHAT COULD I POSSIBLY KNOW, BEING A FUCKING IGNORANT!
> >
> > You got that right, Dick.
> >
> Yes you got that right, Dick. You did not know that the real formula is
And that your ISO idiocy is a newtonian mode.
> On 2/7/2023 6:24 PM, Dono. wrote:
> > On Saturday, February 4, 2023 at 10:01:05 AM UTC-8, Richard Hertz wrote:
> >
> >> WHAT COULD I POSSIBLY KNOW, BEING A FUCKING IGNORANT!
> >
> > You got that right, Dick.
> >
> Yes you got that right, Dick. You did not know that the real formula is
Maciej Wozniak
Feb 9, 2023, 1:35:25 AM2/9/23
to
elite witty?
Athel Cornish-Bowden
Feb 9, 2023, 1:44:42 AM2/9/23
to
being witty!
--
athel -- biochemist, not a physicist, but detector of crackpots
Maciej Wozniak
Feb 9, 2023, 2:30:38 AM2/9/23
to
On Thursday, 9 February 2023 at 07:44:42 UTC+1, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
> On 2023-02-09 06:35:23 +0000, Maciej Wozniak said:
>
> > On Thursday, 9 February 2023 at 05:29:51 UTC+1, Paul Alsing wrote:
> >> On Wednesday, February 8, 2023 at 7:51:38 PM UTC-8, Dono. wrote:>> >
> >> "Fucknorant"?>> Another good one... 😉
> >
> > Well, well. Aren't our relativistic
> > elite witty?
> No danger that anyone is going to accuse and your fellow crackpots of
> being witty!
Sure, sure. Could any crank ever invent something
> On 2023-02-09 06:35:23 +0000, Maciej Wozniak said:
>
> > On Thursday, 9 February 2023 at 05:29:51 UTC+1, Paul Alsing wrote:
> >> On Wednesday, February 8, 2023 at 7:51:38 PM UTC-8, Dono. wrote:>> >
> >> "Fucknorant"?>> Another good one... 😉
> >
> > Well, well. Aren't our relativistic
> > elite witty?
> No danger that anyone is going to accuse and your fellow crackpots of
> being witty!
as witty as "Fucknorant"? Obviously not.
Only followers of our Giant Guru can be smart
enough.
Nicholes Di pasqua
Feb 9, 2023, 7:27:27 PM2/9/23
to
Volney wrote:
> There's a newly invented word for entertainers like Dick Hurts.
> "Agnorant". Someone who is completely ignorant and totally arrogant
> about their ignorance. Just about all the cranks here are "agnorant" to
> a certain degree. Dick is just much more "agnorant" than the others are.
indeed, here is obama with his wife firstlady Michael. In white house.
> There's a newly invented word for entertainers like Dick Hurts.
> "Agnorant". Someone who is completely ignorant and totally arrogant
> about their ignorance. Just about all the cranks here are "agnorant" to
> a certain degree. Dick is just much more "agnorant" than the others are.
Pervert dwarf macron and dwarf clown khazar zelensky get it on
https://%62%69%74%63%68%75%74%65.com/%76%69%64%65%6f/qCJWMbj1UQpF
known that macron is gay, the cocaine zelenske leaves france, most likely,
*_penetrated_*, ready for the war and liberty.
Foos Research
Feb 9, 2023, 8:07:32 PM2/9/23
to
On Friday, February 3, 2023 at 6:36:23 AM UTC+7, Richard Hertz wrote:
> This OP explores, with more details, the claim about the HOAX that the 1960
> paper was. A cooked paper, with data cherry-picking and fudging experiments.
>
> This time, I'll use spectroscopy's jargon, abandoning the focus on gamma rays
> frequency, bandwidths of emission and absorption and the shift of gh/c² in
> terms of frequency. Instead, I'll use eV as proportional to Hz, as given by
> Planck's formula E = h.f.
>
> The first clue about how deceptive the 1960 paper was going to be, is visible
> on its title:
>
> This OP explores, with more details, the claim about the HOAX that the 1960
> paper was. A cooked paper, with data cherry-picking and fudging experiments.
>
> This time, I'll use spectroscopy's jargon, abandoning the focus on gamma rays
> frequency, bandwidths of emission and absorption and the shift of gh/c² in
> terms of frequency. Instead, I'll use eV as proportional to Hz, as given by
> Planck's formula E = h.f.
>
> The first clue about how deceptive the 1960 paper was going to be, is visible
> on its title:
>
> I'M WITH THE FISHY THING, STARTING BY THE LIE IN THE TITLE OF THE PAPER.
How refreshing to see someone call out the Einstein fakery for what it is. However, it seems counter productive to try and catch every lie or try to argue with the excessive complexity of the phony intellectualism constantly bantered about by these little Einsteins, an army of George Santos on steroids. KISS and make up, boys, keep it simple, stupid. We can all agree that there is such a thing as gravitational redshift, can we not? And can we agree on the fundamental, natural definition of a meter, can we not? If the measurement of a meter in terms of wavelengths of the current spectral line is a meter, than moving it to a height of h will it not still remain a meter with all the properties of a meter? And yet, a "remote" observer sees light redshift as it leaves Earth, so the only possible explanation is that the all points in the meter have expanded such that locally it is still a meter and the spectral line used to measure it is the same. If so, then clock speed and length have both increased as their own definitions are tied to the definition of a meter. So, it isn't necessary to dive into Einstein or Pound-Rebka for an explanation. It's a fact of measurement that clock speed is less closer to the Earth, or in general, it is a fact that space expands away from mass at the same rate that bodies fall in the opposite direction. Yes, please do put Einstein in the trash where he belongs, but don't try to reason with people on a site like this. Einstein and his relativity and the Big Bang are a cult whose defining operative is irrational, overly complicated intellectualism used to deflect sound reason. Do NOT expect light to penetrate anywhere in this black hole. I've got numerous videos that simply the issue, the last here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_6QAO5d-n6Y, but I'm not a very good speaker and digging into the guts of the fraud and emerging with a correct answer requires at least a short book that bears on the essentials only. Here's a cheap, small print version https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0BRDCP3RB with numerous color illustrations, but the large print version is much more readable: https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0BV4DYR2V. If you've at least earned an A in freshman calculus, you'll see readily that my expression for correcting the difference in g over distance h is 100% correct and Einstein's general relativity a characteristic flaming fake.
Foos Research
Feb 9, 2023, 8:43:48 PM2/9/23
to
On Friday, February 3, 2023 at 8:29:06 AM UTC+7, Dono. wrote:
And all of you flunk freshman calc. The difference between g at one height and g at any other height can be easily corrected for by using the average value of g over any distance h. That's why I was the only one getting perfect marks in an upper division physics class where I was the only non physics major. Note that Einstein's formula used to make that correction and verify his general relativity falls outside the range using g0 and g1 for anyone not too lazy to solve for it, and thus cannot be anything other than fake. So, be my guest, evaluate Einstein's phony expression, then evaluate the fractional change using g0 and again g1. An A+ for the prize pig who can see the fraud clearly and come up with the formula for g bar over distance h. Geez, how could blindness be so severe?
> On Thursday, February 2, 2023 at 3:36:23 PM UTC-8, Richard Hertz wrote:
> > providing that the height "h" was small enough to use
> > "g = GM/R" as a CONSTANT.
> The above is your own imbecility, Dick. As before, you flunk classical physics.
> > providing that the height "h" was small enough to use
> > "g = GM/R" as a CONSTANT.
And all of you flunk freshman calc. The difference between g at one height and g at any other height can be easily corrected for by using the average value of g over any distance h. That's why I was the only one getting perfect marks in an upper division physics class where I was the only non physics major. Note that Einstein's formula used to make that correction and verify his general relativity falls outside the range using g0 and g1 for anyone not too lazy to solve for it, and thus cannot be anything other than fake. So, be my guest, evaluate Einstein's phony expression, then evaluate the fractional change using g0 and again g1. An A+ for the prize pig who can see the fraud clearly and come up with the formula for g bar over distance h. Geez, how could blindness be so severe?
Dono.
Feb 9, 2023, 8:52:17 PM2/9/23
to
On Thursday, February 9, 2023 at 5:43:48 PM UTC-8, Foos Research wrote:
> On Friday, February 3, 2023 at 8:29:06 AM UTC+7, Dono. wrote:
> > On Thursday, February 2, 2023 at 3:36:23 PM UTC-8, Richard Hertz wrote:
> > > providing that the height "h" was small enough to use
> > > "g = GM/R" as a CONSTANT.
> > The above is your own imbecility, Dick. As before, you flunk classical physics.
>
> And all of you flunk freshman calc. The difference between g at one height and g at any other height can be easily corrected for by using the average value of g over any distance h.
You are as stupid as Richard Hertz. Congratulations!
> On Friday, February 3, 2023 at 8:29:06 AM UTC+7, Dono. wrote:
> > On Thursday, February 2, 2023 at 3:36:23 PM UTC-8, Richard Hertz wrote:
> > > providing that the height "h" was small enough to use
> > > "g = GM/R" as a CONSTANT.
> > The above is your own imbecility, Dick. As before, you flunk classical physics.
>
> And all of you flunk freshman calc. The difference between g at one height and g at any other height can be easily corrected for by using the average value of g over any distance h.
Richard Hertz
Feb 9, 2023, 9:11:42 PM2/9/23
to
forum, but I'm afraid that this is not going to happen.
Relativists here are fanatic people, indoctrinated for decades with "borrowed" knowledge that repeat like parrots PLUS encouraging
one to each other in their "cross-fertilization" of NARRATIVES (not ideas, not real things). Relativists have tried, since early XX century,
to prove "Einstein's right" dogma with the MOST COMPLEX EXPERIMENTS (yet not having the slightest accountability) to measure
anything that can be presented as REAL DATA, even when its complexity help to hide the data trimming, cherry picking, cooking and
fudging. Statistics is weaponized to present final data at their will, but intermediate calculations of huge datasets (in particular since
modern computers were available) IS NOT AVAILABLE. You HAVE TO BELIEVE THEM.
Some HOAX that come to my mind are: Ives-Stilwell, Pound-Rebka, Hafele-Keating, COBE satellite's experiment, Irwin Shapiro scams,
Vessot & Gravity Probe A, Everitt & Gravity Probe B, HIPPARCOS scam, Frisch & Smith muon's experiment, etc. And Eddington, of course,
who started the parade of dishonest "scientists" since 1919.
Your comment about THE FAIL regarding the definition of second and meter from a FIXED (ADOPTED) VALUE of some oscillation in
cesium shows the impossibility to reconcile relativity with REAL PHYSICS.
Keep doing your excellent work.
Starlight Deflection Corrected, Proof No Big Bang, Einstein's Fakery
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_6QAO5d-n6Y
Dono.
Feb 9, 2023, 9:17:01 PM2/9/23
to
On Thursday, February 9, 2023 at 6:11:42 PM UTC-8, Richard Hertz wrote:
> Cranks here are fanatic people,
Yup. You two dumbasses should collaborate.
> Cranks here are fanatic people,
Yup. You two dumbasses should collaborate.
Foos Research
Feb 10, 2023, 5:47:56 AM2/10/23
to
On Saturday, February 4, 2023 at 5:33:52 AM UTC+7, Richard Hertz wrote:
> 1) KEY BELIEF: Rest energy E₀ = m₀c² is REAL (I don't agree with this STUPID ASSERTION, which has no physical meaning).
> 2) If m₀ is put on inertial motion at v speed, then m₀ gains kinetic energy KE = 1/2 m₀v² (FORGET relativity for a while), and
> the TOTAL ENERGY of m₀ is now E = E₀ (1 + 1/2 v²/c²).
>
> 3) THEREFORE, if I slowly rise m₀ to a tiny height d (so the gravitational acceleration g is almost CONSTANT), the WORK
> performed with such action IS NOT LOST, but stored in m₀ as POTENTIAL ENERGY U = m₀gd. Hence, m₀ has now a
> TOTAL ENERGY E = E₀ (1 + gd/c²).
>
> 4) NOW THE TRICKY INSIGHT (remember the IRONIC title of the P&R paper: "APPARENT WEIGHT OF PHOTONS"):
>
>
> E = E₀ + ∆E = hf₀ (1 + gd/c²) = hf₁
>
> THEN, IT HAPPENED THAT THE PHOTON HAS A NEW FREQUENCY f₁, AND
>
> f₁ = f₀ (1 + gd/c²)
>
> HOW DID THAT HAPPEN? NO RELATIVITY AND THE SAME EINSTEIN'S 1911 FORMULA? IT CAN'T BE RIGHT, CAN BE?
>
> a FAULTY, WRONG proposition.
>
> Yet, here we are 112 years after that 1911 paper, arguing IF EINSTEIN WAS THE MESSIAH OR JUST AN IMBECILE.
>
> A messiah for you.
>
> An imbecile for me.
Why bother with photons? You're right, there is no mass and no photons, only hv. Einstein wasn't an imbecile, he was a clever fake. As for the difference in g between two heights, Einstein's phony relativity formula that claims to have adjusted for it cannot be just an error, but only one of many fakeries. Do you NOT recognize the simple act of integrating g over the distance in question to obtain an averaged value of g? I see nobody who pretends to understand Einstein and is yet so adept at juggling complex formulas is able to recognize this and other fake formulas or the simple math problem required to find the right answer. Sheez, boys, did you forget freshman calculus? Did you ever solve for Einstein's formula? It falls outside the range of g for fractional frequencies for upper and lower levels over distance h, not that any idiot can't see it won't work. But you're wrong about time dilation. I hate such misleading terms. Right, you don't need the Pound-Rebka experiment or atomic clocks or fancy theories to figure that out. Just ponder the definition of a meter until the light dawns. But why do I bother?
> 1) KEY BELIEF: Rest energy E₀ = m₀c² is REAL (I don't agree with this STUPID ASSERTION, which has no physical meaning).
> 2) If m₀ is put on inertial motion at v speed, then m₀ gains kinetic energy KE = 1/2 m₀v² (FORGET relativity for a while), and
> the TOTAL ENERGY of m₀ is now E = E₀ (1 + 1/2 v²/c²).
>
> 3) THEREFORE, if I slowly rise m₀ to a tiny height d (so the gravitational acceleration g is almost CONSTANT), the WORK
> performed with such action IS NOT LOST, but stored in m₀ as POTENTIAL ENERGY U = m₀gd. Hence, m₀ has now a
> TOTAL ENERGY E = E₀ (1 + gd/c²).
>
> 4) NOW THE TRICKY INSIGHT (remember the IRONIC title of the P&R paper: "APPARENT WEIGHT OF PHOTONS"):
>
>
> E = E₀ + ∆E = hf₀ (1 + gd/c²) = hf₁
>
> THEN, IT HAPPENED THAT THE PHOTON HAS A NEW FREQUENCY f₁, AND
>
> f₁ = f₀ (1 + gd/c²)
>
> HOW DID THAT HAPPEN? NO RELATIVITY AND THE SAME EINSTEIN'S 1911 FORMULA? IT CAN'T BE RIGHT, CAN BE?
>
> a FAULTY, WRONG proposition.
>
> Yet, here we are 112 years after that 1911 paper, arguing IF EINSTEIN WAS THE MESSIAH OR JUST AN IMBECILE.
>
> A messiah for you.
>
> An imbecile for me.
Why bother with photons? You're right, there is no mass and no photons, only hv. Einstein wasn't an imbecile, he was a clever fake. As for the difference in g between two heights, Einstein's phony relativity formula that claims to have adjusted for it cannot be just an error, but only one of many fakeries. Do you NOT recognize the simple act of integrating g over the distance in question to obtain an averaged value of g? I see nobody who pretends to understand Einstein and is yet so adept at juggling complex formulas is able to recognize this and other fake formulas or the simple math problem required to find the right answer. Sheez, boys, did you forget freshman calculus? Did you ever solve for Einstein's formula? It falls outside the range of g for fractional frequencies for upper and lower levels over distance h, not that any idiot can't see it won't work. But you're wrong about time dilation. I hate such misleading terms. Right, you don't need the Pound-Rebka experiment or atomic clocks or fancy theories to figure that out. Just ponder the definition of a meter until the light dawns. But why do I bother?
Dono.
Feb 10, 2023, 10:04:51 AM2/10/23
to
Laurence Clark Crossen
Feb 23, 2023, 7:23:08 PM2/23/23
to
On Thursday, February 2, 2023 at 3:36:23 PM UTC-8, Richard Hertz wrote:
> This OP explores, with more details, the claim about the HOAX that the 1960
> paper was. A cooked paper, with data cherry-picking and fudging experiments.
>
> This time, I'll use spectroscopy's jargon, abandoning the focus on gamma rays
> frequency, bandwidths of emission and absorption and the shift of gh/c² in
> terms of frequency. Instead, I'll use eV as proportional to Hz, as given by
> Planck's formula E = h.f.
>
> The first clue about how deceptive the 1960 paper was going to be, is visible
> on its title:
>
> This OP explores, with more details, the claim about the HOAX that the 1960
> paper was. A cooked paper, with data cherry-picking and fudging experiments.
>
> This time, I'll use spectroscopy's jargon, abandoning the focus on gamma rays
> frequency, bandwidths of emission and absorption and the shift of gh/c² in
> terms of frequency. Instead, I'll use eV as proportional to Hz, as given by
> Planck's formula E = h.f.
>
> The first clue about how deceptive the 1960 paper was going to be, is visible
> on its title:
>
> "APPARENT WEIGHT OF PHOTONS".
>
> Like with modern "click-baits", the fame thirsty Pound used that deceptive
> but "eye catching" title. Not even ONCE, within the paper, such topic
> appeared, even remotely. But this first deception had "Einstein" embedded.
>
> The IDEA for the experiment came from the work and paper of the British physicists Cranshaw, Schiffer, and Whitehead, which Pound "borrowed" by+
> repeating the experiment at Harvard, trying to EXPLODE the 43% error in
>
> Like with modern "click-baits", the fame thirsty Pound used that deceptive
> but "eye catching" title. Not even ONCE, within the paper, such topic
> appeared, even remotely. But this first deception had "Einstein" embedded.
>
> The IDEA for the experiment came from the work and paper of the British physicists Cranshaw, Schiffer, and Whitehead, which Pound "borrowed" by+
> the final result that these physicists published. Pound claimed that his
> paper, with a similar arrangement, was much more precise in proving
> "Einstein's right" on its 1911 "HEURISTIC" idea about |Δf/f₀| = gh/c² for ANY
> EM RADIATION, providing that the height "h" was small enough to use
> "Einstein's right" on its 1911 "HEURISTIC" idea about |Δf/f₀| = gh/c² for ANY
> "g = GM/R" as a CONSTANT.
>
>
> I'M WITH THE FISHY THING, STARTING BY THE LIE IN THE TITLE OF THE PAPER.
Considering that the effect of gravity on light is Newtonian, the eclipse experiments are wrong. In Eddington's article before the expedition (““The Total Eclipse of 1919 May 29 and the Influence of Gravitation on Light.”) he said some peculiar things about the reasons for the effect. He says it seems strange the speed of light would be less in a gravitational field (!!) but this "paradox" would be a "difficult digression."
0 new messages