Major re-write of Wikipedia "Pound–Rebka experiment"

[Prokaryotic Capase Homolog]

I have done a complete re-write of the Wikipedia article, which had a rather absurd number of inaccuracies. Here is a link to my revised version of the article:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pound%E2%80%93Rebka_experiment

Please review and suggest improvements and corrections.
Thanks!

For comparison, here is an archived copy of article before my changes:
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pound%E2%80%93Rebka_experiment&oldid=1100293754

[Dono.]

Well, the very important section that shows how they used the Doppler effect in order to cancel the gravitational shift (very similar to the idea of presetting the clock frequencies in GPS) has disappeared. Why?

[Prokaryotic Capase Homolog]

That "very important section" disappeared because it
represented a fundamental misunderstanding of how
Pound and Rebka located the precise position of the
absorbance maximum. Look at the animated figure.
Through a combination of the slow motions of the
hydraulic piston approximately +/- 0.01 mm/s and the
higher velocity oscillatory motions approx +/- 0.10 mm/s
of the transducer, they accumulated register count data
around four points in the maximum slope region of the
absorbance maximum. From the counts in the four
registers, they calculated the position of the absorbance
maximum.

The data collection strategy envisioned by the editors
of the older version was totally impractical. They wrote,
"The variation in absorption could be correlated with the
phase of the speaker vibration, hence with the speed of
the emitting sample and therefore the Doppler shift." In
other words, the editors somehow had the notion that
counts from the oscillator might be divided up into 10000
bins or so, and the bin with the most counts would
correspond to the absorbance maximum. Well, I suppose
that you could do it that way nowadays by assigning each
count a bin number depending on the time of receipt and
accumulating the counts in 10000 registers of a computer,
but this experiment was performed in 1959-1960, and you
just couldn't have done it that way with the available
technology.

[Dono.]

I wasn't referring to the data collection.I was referring to the cancellation of the gravitational shift effect via the motion of the receiver.

[Dono.]

The experiment would not have worked if it weren't for this clever idea, so it should be in the wiki page.

[Prokaryotic Capase Homolog]

The experiment was not done the way that you or the editors
of the old version of the article envision.

Here are excerpts from Pound (1981) and Hentschel (1996)
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1-PSucZbhYbsPZjLZZTlpH3kERy6qIptT/view?usp=share_link

If, with modern technology, I wanted to do it the way that
you envision, I wouldn't use sinusoidal modulation. I would
use a piezoelectric transducer, applying to it a ramp voltage
varying such that each delta T would correspond to a fixed
delta V. I wouldn't bother with a hydraulic cylinder, but would
divide up the ramp into maybe 100 velocity intervals
bracketing the velocity corresponding to the gravitational
Doppler shift. I would then do a curve fit through the
cumulative counts in the 100 channels. Something like that,
anyway. We can do a lot of things with current technology
which we couldn't do 60 years ago.

[Dono.]

I don't think you are getting it: it is all about how one derives the required speed in order to get the Doppler effect that cancels out the gravitational shift. You see, in the absence of the Doppler effect, the gravitational shift precludes any reading, because the frequency of the source is gravitationally shifted, so the receiver does not resonate. Therefore, Pound had to move the source with such a speed that the Doppler shift cancelled out the gravitational shift. Now, the source and the receiver are "in tune". What should the speed of the source be? That is given by the formula that you neglected to copy from the prior version. In doing so, you stripped the experiment off its central idea. Do you get it now?

[Prokaryotic Capase Homolog]

On Friday, February 24, 2023 at 11:22:43 PM UTC-6, Dono. wrote:
> On Friday, February 24, 2023 at 8:32:12 PM UTC-8, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog wrote:

> > The experiment was not done the way that you or the editors
> > of the old version of the article envision.
> >
> > Here are excerpts from Pound (1981) and Hentschel (1996)
> > https://drive.google.com/file/d/1-PSucZbhYbsPZjLZZTlpH3kERy6qIptT/view?usp=share_link
> >
> > If, with modern technology, I wanted to do it the way that
> > you envision, I wouldn't use sinusoidal modulation. I would
> > use a piezoelectric transducer, applying to it a ramp voltage
> > varying such that each delta T would correspond to a fixed
> > delta V. I wouldn't bother with a hydraulic cylinder, but would
> > divide up the ramp into maybe 100 velocity intervals
> > bracketing the velocity corresponding to the gravitational
> > Doppler shift. I would then do a curve fit through the
> > cumulative counts in the 100 channels. Something like that,
> > anyway. We can do a lot of things with current technology
> > which we couldn't do 60 years ago.
> I don't think you are getting it: it is all about how one derives the required speed in order to get the Doppler effect that cancels out the gravitational shift. You see, in the absence of the Doppler effect, the gravitational shift precludes any reading, because the frequency of the source is gravitationally shifted, so the receiver does not resonate.

The anticipated gravitational Doppler shift, about 2.5e-15
(corresponding to 0.38 μm/sec) , was only 0.0022 times
the half width of the 57Fe resonance, about 1.13e-12
(corresponding to 170 μm/sec).

So the receiver resonates with *almost* undiminished
efficiency even if one does not move the source.

The whole point of the "Modulation technique to detect
small shifts" section was to calculate the *tiny* amount
of shift which would correspond to the magnitude of
the gravitational Doppler shift.

They made no attempt to tune the system by moving the
source at a precise 0.38 μm/sec. Instead, they BRACKETED
0.38 μm/sec on both sides with the combination of
(1) slow, back-and-forth constant motions of ±0.01 mm/sec
produced by a hydraulic cylinder, and (2) fast, sinusoidal
motions with max amplitude ±0.1 mm/sec produced by a
loudspeaker coil.

0.1 mm/sec was chosen because it equals √3/3 times
the half-width of the 57Fe resonance. where there would
be greatest sensitivity to small displacements in velocity
(i.e. points of maximum slope of the resonance line,
assuming a Lorentzian shape).

The central peak would be bracketed on both sides with
a total of four off-peak measurements, two on each side.

Pound and Rebka used an interpolation procedure to
calculate the position of the absorbance peak from these
four off-peak measurements.

[Dono.]

Sigh

Pound needed to know the extend of the "brackets". That comes out of the formula that you snipped from the original article. Do you get it now? Still no?

[Prokaryotic Capase Homolog]

Blasted four function calculators! 2.5e-15 times the
speed of light should have been 0.75 μm/sec,
not 0.38 μm/sec. Sorry about that.
The batteries in my TI-89 are dead, so I was using
the online calculator. Should have known better :-(

Regardless, the ±0.01 mm/sec motions of the
hydraulic cylinder generously bracketed the
gravitational Doppler shift on both sides, so
I am not sure what your point is. In the excerpt
from the 1981 review by Pound, he wrote:

"This motion [of the hydraulic cylinder], at a speed
less than 10^-3 cm/s was sufficient to introduce a
Doppler shift large compared to the effect being
sought but still small compared with the line width."

In regards to the source vibration, he wrote, "The
velocity extrema of this motion corresponded
approximately to the points in the resonance
curve where the greatest rate of change of
absorption with velocity for the source-absorber
combination were recorded."

[Dono.]

The point is that your writeup is now devoid of any mathematical description, it is just a story. By stripping out the formula (and the associated description of the physics behind it) you are simply stripping the GR foundation of the experiment.

[Prokaryotic Capase Homolog]

I have to be mindful of the level of mathematical
sophistication of my target audience, which I generally
assume to be advanced high school through first year
college science students. In the Background section
of my re-write, I present Einstein's 1911 thought
experiment whereby he derives the gravitational
Doppler shift using the equivalence principle.

Although the mathematics presented in the Overview
section of the original article https://tinyurl.com/2pjedcp3
appears to be correct, there are no citations, which
means that so far as I can tell, it may represent original
research, which is prohibited in Wikipedia.

Furthermore, although gravitational redshift was historically
considered one of the key tests of general relativity, it is now
understood that "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." (plagiarized from myself).

So I see no reason to use a lot of formidable looking math
that would definitely drive off a first year college science
student when a simple math presentation works better and
is more understandable.

In addition, the first two paragraphs of the original article
(which also lacked citations) completely garbaged up the
description of how the gamma rays are generated, talking
about *ELECTRONS* transitioning between excited and
ground states.

And it is in this section that the original editors gave an
incorrect impression of how Pound and Rebka's experiment
was conducted, when they wrote: "Pound and Rebka varied
the relative speed v so that the Doppler redshift exactly
cancelled the gravitational blueshift."

There were so many things wrong with this section, that
I felt that a complete rewrite was necessary.

[Dono.]

This is a lame excuse. The formula is a trivial combination of the gravitational shift due to potential difference between the base and the top of the tower and the Doppler relativistic shift due to the speed difference between source and receiver. You yourself have a wiki diagram on this subject that talks about the height of a GPS satellite where the two effects cancel each other. Have you forgotten?

> Furthermore, although gravitational redshift was historically
> considered one of the key tests of general relativity, it is now
> understood that "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." (plagiarized from myself).
>

More bullshit. Let me make it (even) simpler for you, since you seem not to get it. You wrote something up, pretty good , in general. You ask for feedback but when it was provided you fight it (with lame arguments).
Pound was faced with the following question: "I have a tower of 22 m, is this height sufficient to detect gravitational shift? If I want to counter the shift with Doppler in order to achieve Mossbauer resonance, what should the speed be? If the result is 10m/s, then this is a problem. If the result is 10^-20 m/s, than this is a problem as well. So what is the SIMPLE formula that allows me to figure out if the experiment is realizable or not before I invest all the time and effort?"

> So I see no reason to use a lot of formidable looking math
> that would definitely drive off a first year college science
> student when a simple math presentation works better and
> is more understandable.
>

You have a very dim view of what college students can understand.

> In addition, the first two paragraphs of the original article
> (which also lacked citations) completely garbaged up the
> description of how the gamma rays are generated, talking
> about *ELECTRONS* transitioning between excited and
> ground states.
>

Agreed. We are not talking about that, we are talking about you chopping out the mathematical foundation of the experiment, some very simple explanation based on the gravitational shift along a vertical line (falls out from the Schwarzschild solution) plus the relativistic Doppler effect to counter the gravitational shift.

> And it is in this section that the original editors gave an
> incorrect impression of how Pound and Rebka's experiment
> was conducted, when they wrote: "Pound and Rebka varied
> the relative speed v so that the Doppler redshift exactly
> cancelled the gravitational blueshift."
>

Well, you fixed that with your animation. In fact, PR do get a maximum where the two effects cancel each other.

> There were so many things wrong with this section, that
> I felt that a complete rewrite was necessary.

The argument is not about that, I actually agree with you on that. The argument is that you threw out the baby with the bath water.

[Prokaryotic Capase Homolog]

On Saturday, February 25, 2023 at 11:17:35 AM UTC-6, Dono. wrote:
> On Saturday, February 25, 2023 at 8:59:37 AM UTC-8, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog wrote:
> > On Saturday, February 25, 2023 at 10:16:13 AM UTC-6, Dono. wrote:

> > > The point is that your writeup is now devoid of any mathematical description, it is just a story. By stripping out the formula (and the associated description of the physics behind it) you are simply stripping the GR foundation of the experiment.
> > I have to be mindful of the level of mathematical
> > sophistication of my target audience, which I generally
> > assume to be advanced high school through first year
> > college science students. In the Background section
> > of my re-write, I present Einstein's 1911 thought
> > experiment whereby he derives the gravitational
> > Doppler shift using the equivalence principle.
> >
> > Although the mathematics presented in the Overview
> > section of the original article https://tinyurl.com/2pjedcp3
> > appears to be correct, there are no citations, which
> > means that so far as I can tell, it may represent original
> > research, which is prohibited in Wikipedia.
> >
> This is a lame excuse. The formula is a trivial combination of the gravitational shift due to potential difference between the base and the top of the tower and the Doppler relativistic shift due to the speed difference between source and receiver. You yourself have a wiki diagram on this subject that talks about the height of a GPS satellite where the two effects cancel each other. Have you forgotten?

At the speeds employed, fractional microns per second,
why should we be concerned with relativistic Doppler shift?

> > Furthermore, although gravitational redshift was historically
> > considered one of the key tests of general relativity, it is now
> > understood that "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." (plagiarized from myself).
> >
> More bullshit. Let me make it (even) simpler for you, since you seem not to get it. You wrote something up, pretty good , in general. You ask for feedback but when it was provided you fight it (with lame arguments).
> Pound was faced with the following question: "I have a tower of 22 m, is this height sufficient to detect gravitational shift? If I want to counter the shift with Doppler in order to achieve Mossbauer resonance, what should the speed be? If the result is 10m/s, then this is a problem. If the result is 10^-20 m/s, than this is a problem as well. So what is the SIMPLE formula that allows me to figure out if the experiment is realizable or not before I invest all the time and effort?"
> > So I see no reason to use a lot of formidable looking math
> > that would definitely drive off a first year college science
> > student when a simple math presentation works better and
> > is more understandable.
> >
> You have a very dim view of what college students can understand.

I said college "science" students, not physics or math students.
A "Physics for Poets" student should be able to read the
article. Likewise a Chemistry or Biology student.

> > In addition, the first two paragraphs of the original article
> > (which also lacked citations) completely garbaged up the
> > description of how the gamma rays are generated, talking
> > about *ELECTRONS* transitioning between excited and
> > ground states.
> >
> Agreed. We are not talking about that, we are talking about you chopping out the mathematical foundation of the experiment, some very simple explanation based on the gravitational shift along a vertical line (falls out from the Schwarzschild solution) plus the relativistic Doppler effect to counter the gravitational shift.
> > And it is in this section that the original editors gave an
> > incorrect impression of how Pound and Rebka's experiment
> > was conducted, when they wrote: "Pound and Rebka varied
> > the relative speed v so that the Doppler redshift exactly
> > cancelled the gravitational blueshift."
> >
> Well, you fixed that with your animation. In fact, PR do get a maximum where the two effects cancel each other.
> > There were so many things wrong with this section, that
> > I felt that a complete rewrite was necessary.
> The argument is not about that, I actually agree with you on that. The argument is that you threw out the baby with the bath water.

You like math, I like experimental detail.
Perhaps we should just agree to disagree.

[Prokaryotic Capase Homolog]

On Saturday, February 25, 2023 at 11:17:35 AM UTC-6, Dono. wrote:

> Pound was faced with the following question: "I have a tower of 22 m, is this height sufficient to detect gravitational shift? If I want to counter the shift with Doppler in order to achieve Mossbauer resonance, what should the speed be? If the result is 10m/s, then this is a problem. If the result is 10^-20 m/s, than this is a problem as well. So what is the SIMPLE formula that allows me to figure out if the experiment is realizable or not before I invest all the time and effort?"

The simple formula says that the gravitational Doppler
shift amounts to 0.0022 times the half-width of the 57Fe
resonant absorbance line. Richard Hertz looked at this
figure and argued that this proves that there was no way
Pound and Rebka could have measured the gravitational
Doppler shift. My focus has been on the experimental detail
that made this measurement possible.

Like I said. You like math, I like experimental detail.

[Dono.]

On Saturday, February 25, 2023 at 9:39:44 AM UTC-8, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog wrote:
> On Saturday, February 25, 2023 at 11:17:35 AM UTC-6, Dono. wrote:
> > On Saturday, February 25, 2023 at 8:59:37 AM UTC-8, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog wrote:
> > > On Saturday, February 25, 2023 at 10:16:13 AM UTC-6, Dono. wrote:
>
> > > > The point is that your writeup is now devoid of any mathematical description, it is just a story. By stripping out the formula (and the associated description of the physics behind it) you are simply stripping the GR foundation of the experiment.
> > > I have to be mindful of the level of mathematical
> > > sophistication of my target audience, which I generally
> > > assume to be advanced high school through first year
> > > college science students. In the Background section
> > > of my re-write, I present Einstein's 1911 thought
> > > experiment whereby he derives the gravitational
> > > Doppler shift using the equivalence principle.
> > >
> > > Although the mathematics presented in the Overview
> > > section of the original article https://tinyurl.com/2pjedcp3
> > > appears to be correct, there are no citations, which
> > > means that so far as I can tell, it may represent original
> > > research, which is prohibited in Wikipedia.
> > >
> > This is a lame excuse. The formula is a trivial combination of the gravitational shift due to potential difference between the base and the top of the tower and the Doppler relativistic shift due to the speed difference between source and receiver. You yourself have a wiki diagram on this subject that talks about the height of a GPS satellite where the two effects cancel each other. Have you forgotten?
> At the speeds employed, fractional microns per second,
> why should we be concerned with relativistic Doppler shift?

Because the Mossbauer resonance is so sensitive to differences in frequency such that even a 22m difference in the height induces a frequency shift that is DETECTABLE. This is the core of the experiment, unless Pound took care of the shift (by cancelling it) the experiment makes no sense. You understood absolutely nothing of the foundations. And your stubbornness in correcting it is testimony of this.

[larry harson]

Is part of the problem perhaps you wanting to 'own' the article for yourself?

It can come across as pretty obnoxious and demoralizing for everyone to see their time and effort erased by someone else taking control of an article with possibly poor social and diplomacy skills -- I'm not saying this is you. Hence it's obvious to me that you should listen to Dono's concerns and at least split the article into basic and technical sections to elevate the article to a level neither of you are capable of doing alone.

Larry Harson

[Prokaryotic Capase Homolog]

I usually understand the term "relativistic Doppler shift"
to mean the kinematic Doppler shift resulting from motion.
It's clear that you meant the gravitational Doppler shift.
So we had a bit of a mismatch in our use of terminology.

They did not measure the gravitational Doppler shift by
"canceling" it. They measured the gravitational Doppler
shift by accumulating counts with the source in four
different states of motion: 0.11 mm/s up, 0.09 mm/s up,
0.11 mm/s down, and 0.09 mm/s down. They interpolated
the cumulative counts to calculate the value of the
gravitational Doppler shift.

These motions were centered around the portions of the
resonance absorption curve with maximum sensitivity.
Their procedure was far more efficient in use of the data
than one involving "canceling" the gravitational Doppler shift.

[J. J. Lodder]

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

> On Saturday, February 25, 2023 at 11:54:21?AM UTC-6, Dono. wrote:
> > On Saturday, February 25, 2023 at 9:39:44?AM Prokaryotic Capase Homolog:

Whatever you say, 'gravitational Doppler shift' is a misnomer,
and it should be avoided completely.
It is seriously misleading.

'Doppler shift' should be reserved for shifts cased by relative motion.
OTOH there is gravitational redshift/blueshift,
(or if you prefer, gravitational frequency shift)
which does not depend on motions.

[Richard Hertz]

Shut up, cretin!

Try to understand what prokaryotic is telling you, imbecile.

He says that this version polish and clean the fucking gobbledygook of the 1960 Pound, 95% of which was about stupid mechanical
details and a bit of radioactivity. Pound HAD ZERO DIDACTIC ABILITIES.

But all the heavy and confusing shit that he wrote server him well to almost make invisible the fucking HOAX, FRAUD.

He, a self-entitled cretin, mixed up and down paths, cooked data at will by using lame statistics, and measured a SIGNAL BURIED INTO
NOISE (no less than -8dB SNR, in terms of DATA). And you all bought his shit because "Einstein's right".

Assholes.

[Prokaryotic Capase Homolog]

Using Google Scholar, I see a fair number of peer-reviewed
papers using the term "gravitational Doppler shift", including
ones written by authors who have written textbooks that I
own such as Rindler, Grøn etc.

However, the use of the term does seem to be somewhat
frowned upon. Please check the current state of the article
that I have removed all instances of this usage.

[Dono.]

You are splitting hairs, just because you are too stubborn to accept the criticism. P=R superimposed a relativistic Doppler shift onto the gravitational shift in order to "pull" the measurements away from the minimum of the distribution curve. In order to do that they needed to quantify the gravitational effect and the Doppler effect, i.e. use the respective formulas affecting the frequency of the source as measured at the receiver. The language of physics is math, so I do not understand whay you just refuse to use the appropriate language. After all, there are plenty of wiki pages that use much more complicated math. Is this because you don't know tex?

[Dono.]

Trying to convince you to improve your writeup is getting tiresome, especially given your stubbornness. As this point I will conclude with recommending you a very good treatment of the subject by a professional physicist, Ben Crowell, from his published book: https://phys.libretexts.org/Bookshelves/Relativity/General_Relativity_(Crowell)/01:_Geometric_Theory_of_Spacetime/1.06:_The_Equivalence_Principle_(Part_2) (so it is not what wiki calls personal research).
Crowell clearly states:

"If the Mössbauer effect is carried out in a horizontal plane, resonant absorption occurs. When the source and absorber are aligned vertically, p, gravitational frequency shifts should cause a mismatch, destroying the resonance. One can move the source at a small velocity (typically a few mm/s) in order to add a Doppler shift onto the frequency; by determining the velocity that compensates for the gravitational effect, one can determine how big the gravitational effect is."

[Richard Hertz]

On Saturday, February 25, 2023 at 6:54:25 PM UTC-3, Dono. wrote:

<snip>

> Crowell clearly states:
>
> "If the Mössbauer effect is carried out in a horizontal plane, resonant absorption occurs. When the source and absorber are aligned vertically, p, gravitational frequency shifts should cause a mismatch, destroying the resonance. One can move the source at a small velocity (typically a few mm/s) in order to add a Doppler shift onto the frequency; by determining the velocity that compensates for the gravitational effect, one can determine how big the gravitational effect is."

Resonant absorption occurs in a wide range of frequencies, asshole.

There are no gamma photons emitted at a specific, unique frequency f₀ = 14.4/h Hertz.

The distribution of resonant frequencies is given, in eV, by a Lorentzian profile centered on E₀ with intensity I₀ and
full-width half-maximum (FWHM) Γ 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

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%)

Now, try to measure a 0.1% bandwidth spread (Einstein) over the resonant capture bandwidth of Γ = 4.136E−08 eV.
The gravitational effect IS REPRESENTED BY ≈ 4.136E−11 eV.

Now, do that with ANALOG INTEGRATORS OF BEEP COUNTS, even when you captured 10,000,000,000 photons that cause
RESONANCE in the FWHM Γ = 4.136E−08 eV.

And COOKING, FUDGING, CHERRY PICKING AND TRIMMING DATA AT WILL, WITHOUT ANY CERTIFICATION BY PEERS!

Fishy as hell. A true HOAX.

[Dono.]

On Saturday, February 25, 2023 at 2:34:43 PM UTC-8, Richard Hertz wrote:
> On Saturday, February 25, 2023 at 6:54:25 PM UTC-3, Dono. wrote:
>
> <snip>
> > Crowell clearly states:
> >
> > "If the Mössbauer effect is carried out in a horizontal plane, resonant absorption occurs. When the source and absorber are aligned vertically, p, gravitational frequency shifts should cause a mismatch, destroying the resonance. One can move the source at a small velocity (typically a few mm/s) in order to add a Doppler shift onto the frequency; by determining the velocity that compensates for the gravitational effect, one can determine how big the gravitational effect is."
> Resonant absorption occurs in a wide range of frequencies

Not in the case of Mossbauer effect

> asshole.

Nice new signature, Dick.

[Richard Hertz]

On Saturday, February 25, 2023 at 9:55:53 PM UTC-3, Dono. wrote:
> On Saturday, February 25, 2023 at 2:34:43 PM UTC-8, Richard Hertz wrote:

<snip>

> > Resonant absorption occurs in a wide range of frequencies
> Not in the case of Mossbauer effect

Fucking SOB, you're an EE!

Even if you don't want that spectral dispersion to be true, you KNOW that it happens with every single source of EM energy.

Stop behaving like a fucking child, insisting that gamma photons have a FUCKING DELTA DIRAC SPECTRUM, mother..f..uck..er!

[Dono.]

On Saturday, February 25, 2023 at 5:20:30 PM UTC-8, Richard Hertz wrote:
> On Saturday, February 25, 2023 at 9:55:53 PM UTC-3, Dono. wrote:
> > On Saturday, February 25, 2023 at 2:34:43 PM UTC-8, Richard Hertz wrote:
> <snip>
> > > Resonant absorption occurs in a wide range of frequencies
> > Not in the case of Mossbauer effect

> Even if you don't want that spectral dispersion to be true, you KNOW that it happens with every single source of EM energy.
>

You are eating shit. Again: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M%C3%B6ssbauer_spectroscopy#Typical_method

[Richard Hertz]

I REPEAT THIS WITH NUMBERS, SO IT MAY ENTER INTO YOUR THICK, STUPID SKULL.


No gamma photons are emitted ONLY at a specific, unique frequency f₀ = 14,400/4.136E−15 Hertz = 3,486 PetaHertz

The emission of recoil free gamma photons follows a PROPOSED Lorentzian distribution, using eV in ΔE instead of Hz as x axis:

L(E) = 14,400 (2.68)²/[ΔE² +(2.68)²] = 103,426/[ΔE² + 7.18] eV

For (FWHM) Γ/2 = ± 2.068E−08 eV separation of E₀ = 14,400 eV, |L(E)| = 7,200 eV.

DID THIS PENETRATED THE DEPLETED URANIUM SHIELD ON YOUR FUCKING HEAD?

E₀ = 14,400 eV is a ROUGH ESTIMATION. If you want the center energy TO BE ADJUSTED to the precission required for
the experiment, you should express E₀ with 15 DIGITS!. Like 14,399.5912445247 eV. THEN, AND ONLY THEN YOU COULD USE
a value of Γ/2 = ± 2.068E−08 eV.

DO YOU UNDERSTAND THIS, IMBECILE? IT'S ERROR THEORY 101 in measurements. YOU STUDIED THIS, CRETIN!

You can't obtain more precision digits in ANY MEASUREMENT where the weakest value has 5 DIGITS, even when the rest of
values have 10, 15 or 20 DIGITS!

The FULL (2 x FWHM)/E₀ = Γ/E₀ = 4.136E−08/14,000 = 2.87222E-12

AND THIS MEANS A RESONANCE WITH A Q FACTOR Q = 3.48162E+11

And this EXTRAORDINARY Q FACTOR is what makes the Mossbauer effect so useful. It's almost 10,000 higher than the
hyperfine transition of 133Cs in the Ramsay cavity!

BUT, notwithstanding such extraordinary Q factor, Fe⁵⁷ still radiates WITH A DISPERSION (NOISE).

Traduced to Hertz, Δf = 3,486E+18/3.48162E+11 Hertz = 10,012,569 Hertz of bandwidth for RESONANT GAMMA FREQUENCIES.

Now, the FULL IMBECILITY OF POUND-REBKA: Trying TO MEASURE a shift of 2.49E-15 in a NOISY BANDWIDTH OF 10 Mhz.

And this ratio is THE FABULOUS ACHIEVEMENT OF MEASURING A 0.1% SHIFT IN THE RADIATED SPECTRUM.

Do you understand now, fucking imbecile?

I presented here data in eV and Hertz.

If you persist with your imbecilities, you can go as quick as you can TO FUCK YOURSELF.

I don't hold any hope for you, Dono. You're a disgrace of A MAN, in every possible sense.

And prokaryotic, Gamma photons are emitted by the nucleus of Fe⁵⁷ atoms, not by electrons. Nucleus have the recoil.

[Dono.]

On Saturday, February 25, 2023 at 6:46:51 PM UTC-8, Richard Hertz wrote:
> On Saturday, February 25, 2023 at 10:31:11 PM UTC-3, Dono. wrote:
> > On Saturday, February 25, 2023 at 5:20:30 PM UTC-8, Richard Hertz wrote:
> > > On Saturday, February 25, 2023 at 9:55:53 PM UTC-3, Dono. wrote:
> > > > On Saturday, February 25, 2023 at 2:34:43 PM UTC-8, Richard Hertz wrote:
> > > <snip>
> > > > > Resonant absorption occurs in a wide range of frequencies
> > > > Not in the case of Mossbauer effect
> > > Even if you don't want that spectral dispersion to be true, you KNOW that it happens with every single source of EM energy.
> > >
> > You are eating shit. Again: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M%C3%B6ssbauer_spectroscopy#Typical_method

> I REPEAT THIS Imbecility

...and the stupid lies. Good work, dumbestfuck!

[Richard Hertz]

On Saturday, February 25, 2023 at 2:22:43 AM UTC-3, Dono. wrote:

<snip>

> I don't think you are getting it: it is all about how one derives the required speed in order to get the Doppler effect that cancels out the gravitational shift. You see, in the absence of the Doppler effect, the gravitational shift precludes any reading, because the frequency of the source is gravitationally shifted, so the receiver does not resonate. Therefore, Pound had to move the source with such a speed that the Doppler shift cancelled out the gravitational shift. Now, the source and the receiver are "in tune". What should the speed of the source be? That is given by the formula that you neglected to copy from the prior version. In doing so, you stripped the experiment off its central idea. Do you get it now?

Imbecile, YOU are who don't get the real thing in the FAKE EXPERIMENT.

Now I clearly understand that you are a retarded PARROT beyond redemption and CURE!

Assuming that Doppler is induced with the proper value to cancel the ALLEGED gravitational shift, you FAIL TO UNDERSTAND
that such cancellation OCCURS ONLY in a brief interval of time in the SINUSOIDAL MOTION of the source.

Being that the mechanic sine wave motion has a frequency of 50 Hz (20 msec period), the INSTANTANEOUS VELOCITY that
"allegedly" causes the cancellation of the gravitational blue shifting (photons coming down), only occur on the NEGATIVE CREST
of the sinusoidal motion, around the first quarter of the 20 msec period.

With LUCK, and it was detailed in the paper and SEVERAL OTHER SOURCES from that epoch, the DESIRED VELOCITY appears ONLY
during 0.1% of the first quarter period (FACT-CHECK the data for Lorentzian FWHM) = Γ/2 = 4.136E−08 eV).

The above means that the EXACT CANCELLATION of gravitational blue shifting by induced Doppler red shifting of photons ONLY
happens during (20/4) x 0.001 milliseconds = 5 usec.

BUT, as photons are constantly irradiated, the RATIO of cancelled photons to TOTAL PHOTONS per period (the dip in the output of
the PROPORTIONAL COUNTER) is 5 usec/20 msec = 0.00025 = 1/4,000.

Do you understand this, fucking retarded?

One CRITICAL DATA MISSING (conveniently) in the P&R 1960 paper IS THE TIME FOR EACH OF THE 14 RUNS.

If, as prokaryotic wrote, 10E+10 gamma photons without recoil were measured in the experiment, only 178,571 recoil free photons
were counted per run. In average, and assuming a run length of 10 minutes, only 7 photons were recorded per mechanical cycle.

And with this SHIT, plus the massive use of statistics, analog integration of BEEPS and all the cooking and fudging of data,
the CRETINS proved "Einstein's right" with 10% error?

Fuck it, fuck them. As I claimed all the time, a FUCKING HOAX.

Learn something, Dono the cretin.

[Dono.]

On Sunday, February 26, 2023 at 6:07:41 AM UTC-8, Richard Hertz wrote:
> On Saturday, February 25, 2023 at 2:22:43 AM UTC-3, Dono. wrote:
>
> <snip>
> > I don't think you are getting it: it is all about how one derives the required speed in order to get the Doppler effect that cancels out the gravitational shift. You see, in the absence of the Doppler effect, the gravitational shift precludes any reading, because the frequency of the source is gravitationally shifted, so the receiver does not resonate. Therefore, Pound had to move the source with such a speed that the Doppler shift cancelled out the gravitational shift. Now, the source and the receiver are "in tune". What should the speed of the source be? That is given by the formula that you neglected to copy from the prior version. In doing so, you stripped the experiment off its central idea. Do you get it now?

> Imbecile, fucking retarded, cretin.

Nice new signature, Dick. Very appropriate. You need to add "crank"

[Dono.]

On Friday, February 24, 2023 at 3:02:47 PM UTC-8, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog wrote:
> I have done a complete re-write of the Wikipedia article, which had a rather absurd number of inaccuracies. Here is a link to my revised version of the article:
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pound%E2%80%93Rebka_experiment
>
> Please review and suggest improvements and corrections.
> Thanks!
>
> For comparison, here is an archived copy of article before my changes:
> https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pound%E2%80%93Rebka_experiment&oldid=1100293754


There are serious problems with your writeup:

1. There is absolutely no reason to start with the 1911 Einstein expression of the gravitational redshift.
2. By 1960, P-R knew the exact expression (present in the prior article, replaced by you) so why aren't you using it? Just presenting a dumbed down version doesn't do P-R (and Einstein) any justice
3. What is with the irrelevant footnote about Einstein getting only half of the starlight bending by the Sun? The correct expression has been known since 1915. Are just trying to give more BS to eat to the likes of Richard Hertz?
4. It is not clear at all what the curve in your animation represents.
5. There is no mathematical formalism explaining how you get the curve
6. It would be good if you used the Ben Crowell material I recommended, his explanation is much better than yours.

[Prokaryotic Capase Homolog]

On Monday, February 27, 2023 at 9:57:28 AM UTC-6, Dono. wrote:
> On Friday, February 24, 2023 at 3:02:47 PM UTC-8, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog wrote:
> > I have done a complete re-write of the Wikipedia article, which had a rather absurd number of inaccuracies. Here is a link to my revised version of the article:
> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pound%E2%80%93Rebka_experiment
> >
> > Please review and suggest improvements and corrections.
> > Thanks!
> >
> > For comparison, here is an archived copy of article before my changes:
> > https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pound%E2%80%93Rebka_experiment&oldid=1100293754
>
>
> There are serious problems with your writeup:
>
> 1. There is absolutely no reason to start with the 1911 Einstein expression of the gravitational redshift.
> 2. By 1960, P-R knew the exact expression (present in the prior article, replaced by you) so why aren't you using it? Just presenting a dumbed down version doesn't do P-R (and Einstein) any justice

That level of detail would be appropriate for the article
on gravitational redshift. It is not appropriate for an
article on the Pound-Rebka experiment, which should
focus on the experimental protocols and analysis of
the results.

> 3. What is with the irrelevant footnote about Einstein getting only half of the starlight bending by the Sun? The correct expression has been known since 1915. Are just trying to give more BS to eat to the likes of Richard Hertz?
> 4. It is not clear at all what the curve in your animation represents.

I will see if I can clarify for you.

> 5. There is no mathematical formalism explaining how you get the curve
> 6. It would be good if you used the Ben Crowell material I recommended, his explanation is much better than yours.

Ben Crowell completely misunderstood how data was accumulated
and analyzed in this experiment.

The combined motions of the transducer and hydraulic cylinder allowed
the incoming photons to be collected in four channels representing
+0.11 mm/s, +0.09 mm/s, -0.11 mm/s, and -0.09 mm/s. They collectively
operated at a 50% duty cycle, so that out of, say, 80 million incoming photons,
10 million would fit into the time slots of each of the four recording
channels. Given these cumulative counts, a Lorentzian curve could
be fit. See my artist's impression (not to scale at all, unfortunately):
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1ICs9GzdHctNgC2hi-RNlDK_5I1z7Rh_u/view?usp=share_link

I think I need to create another illustration for the article,
sort of like the above, but with a corrected horizontal scale.

[Dono.]

On Monday, February 27, 2023 at 8:39:53 AM UTC-8, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog wrote:
> On Monday, February 27, 2023 at 9:57:28 AM UTC-6, Dono. wrote:
> > On Friday, February 24, 2023 at 3:02:47 PM UTC-8, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog wrote:
> > > I have done a complete re-write of the Wikipedia article, which had a rather absurd number of inaccuracies. Here is a link to my revised version of the article:
> > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pound%E2%80%93Rebka_experiment
> > >
> > > Please review and suggest improvements and corrections.
> > > Thanks!
> > >
> > > For comparison, here is an archived copy of article before my changes:
> > > https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pound%E2%80%93Rebka_experiment&oldid=1100293754
> >
> >
> > There are serious problems with your writeup:
> >
> > 1. There is absolutely no reason to start with the 1911 Einstein expression of the gravitational redshift.
> > 2. By 1960, P-R knew the exact expression (present in the prior article, replaced by you) so why aren't you using it? Just presenting a dumbed down version doesn't do P-R (and Einstein) any justice
> That level of detail would be appropriate for the article
> on gravitational redshift. It is not appropriate for an
> article on the Pound-Rebka experiment, which should
> focus on the experimental protocols and analysis of
> the results.

In other words, you decided to produce a dumbed down version based on the 1911 formalism. When challenged, you stick to your gun, in typical crank fashion

> > 3. What is with the irrelevant footnote about Einstein getting only half of the starlight bending by the Sun? The correct expression has been known since 1915. Are just trying to give more BS to eat to the likes of Richard Hertz?

No answer?

> > 4. It is not clear at all what the curve in your animation represents.
> I will see if I can clarify for you.

You need to clarify it for the readers, not for me. The way you have it, there is no explanation where the curve is coming from, no labeling of the axes, etc.

> > 5. There is no mathematical formalism explaining how you get the curve

No answer?

> > 6. It would be good if you used the Ben Crowell material I recommended, his explanation is much better than yours.
> Ben Crowell completely misunderstood how data was accumulated
> and analyzed in this experiment.
>
> The combined motions of the transducer and hydraulic cylinder allowed
> the incoming photons to be collected in four channels representing
> +0.11 mm/s, +0.09 mm/s, -0.11 mm/s, and -0.09 mm/s. They collectively
> operated at a 50% duty cycle, so that out of, say, 80 million incoming photons,
> 10 million would fit into the time slots of each of the four recording
> channels. Given these cumulative counts, a Lorentzian curve could
> be fit. See my artist's impression (not to scale at all, unfortunately):
> https://drive.google.com/file/d/1ICs9GzdHctNgC2hi-RNlDK_5I1z7Rh_u/view?usp=share_link
>
> I think I need to create another illustration for the article,
> sort of like the above, but with a corrected horizontal scale.

You sure do. Also, as with any curve, you need to show the mathematical expression it represents. Otherwise, it might be something that you did with Powerpoint (or MacDraw).

[Prokaryotic Capase Homolog]

On Monday, February 27, 2023 at 10:48:46 AM UTC-6, Dono. wrote:

> When challenged, you stick to your gun, in typical crank fashion

Actually, I find your misunderstandings to be extremely
enlightening in showing me how a passage that seemed
to me to be extremely clear when I wrote it, can instead
seem cryptic to others. Plus your directing me to Ben
Crowell's LibreTexts description of the experiment shows
me that you are not alone in your misunderstanding.

I do take seriously what you have to say, believe it or not.

[Dono.]

Crowell is a physicist, you are clearly not. The fact that you keep deflecting shows that you are not honest in your request for feedback.

[Prokaryotic Capase Homolog]

So. You believe that Crowell's description of the experiment
is more to be trusted than Pound's?
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1-PSucZbhYbsPZjLZZTlpH3kERy6qIptT/view?usp=share_link

[Dono.]

On Friday, February 24, 2023 at 3:02:47 PM UTC-8, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog wrote:
> I have done a complete re-write of the Wikipedia article, which had a rather absurd number of inaccuracies. Here is a link to my revised version of the article:
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pound%E2%80%93Rebka_experiment
>
> Please review and suggest improvements and corrections.
> Thanks!
>
> For comparison, here is an archived copy of article before my changes:
> https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pound%E2%80%93Rebka_experiment&oldid=1100293754

Some more rubbish: your closing paragraph says "However, after the launch of the Global Positioning System (which depends on general relativity for its proper functioning[11]) and its integration into everyday life, gravitational time dilation is, for the most part, no longer considered a theoretical phenomenon requiring testing, but rather is considered a practical engineering concern in various fields requiring precision measurement, along with special relativity.[12]"

There is no "special relativity" in GPS, the functionality is completely explained within the GR formalism.
See Ashby.

[Dono.]

I said that Crowell explanation is much better tan YOURS. Please stop deflecting and distorting.

[Dono.]

"than"

[Volney]

It's not a Dirac delta spectrum, but it IS very narrow. You said
"Resonant absorption occurs in a wide range of frequencies" Dono said
not so for the Mossbauer effect, which is correct since the Mossbauer
effect has resonant absorption over a very narrow frequency range.
Narrow as in opposite of wide...

[Dono.]

On Monday, February 27, 2023 at 3:11:56 PM UTC-8, Volney wrote:

> It's not a Dirac delta spectrum, but it IS very narrow. You said
> "Resonant absorption occurs in a wide range of frequencies" Dono said
> not so for the Mossbauer effect, which is correct since the Mossbauer
> effect has resonant absorption over a very narrow frequency range.
> Narrow as in opposite of wide...

The agnorant crank will have a coronary

[larry harson]

On Friday, February 24, 2023 at 11:02:47 PM UTC, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog wrote:
> I have done a complete re-write of the Wikipedia article, which had a rather absurd number of inaccuracies. Here is a link to my revised version of the article:
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pound%E2%80%93Rebka_experiment
>
> Please review and suggest improvements and corrections.
> Thanks!
>
> For comparison, here is an archived copy of article before my changes:
> https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pound%E2%80%93Rebka_experiment&oldid=1100293754

I prefer the original which is precise, gives a very good overview, and focuses on the main important components which will appeal to a wider audience. Enough links are given for a tiny minority to delve into the experiment further. The rewrite also comes across as very good, but written by someone with an OTT intense interest in the experiment, and using the article to show-off their technical skills rather than putting their audience first.

A compromised improvement would be to have the original at the top, and the OTT rewrite below it for the minority who will benefit from this.

Larry Harson

[larry harson]

Hmm, after looking at it again I prefer the rewrite which is a great job that will be appreciated by those reading it: so thanks to the author. A hell of a lot of work has gone into it, and it shows.

Larry Harson

[Prokaryotic Capase Homolog]

The first paragraph of the overview begins with
"Consider an electron bound to an atom in an excited state...."

The second paragraph states "Now consider two copies of this
electron-atom system....if the two systems are in a gravitational
field then the photon may undergo gravitational redshift"

This is absolutely and totally WRONG!!! The gamma rays are
from NUCLEAR TRANSITIONS, not transitions of electrons in
orbitals.

In describing the experiment, it states, "By vibrating the speaker
cone the gamma ray source moved with varying speed, thus creating
varying Doppler shifts. When the Doppler shift canceled out the
gravitational blueshift, the receiving sample absorbed gamma rays
and the number of gamma rays detected by the scintillation counter
dropped accordingly."

This is a fundamental misconception of how the experiment worked.
It doesn't matter that this same wrong story has been repeated
many times over on the internet. It is still WRONG.

[Dono.]

On Monday, February 27, 2023 at 4:41:30 PM UTC-8, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog wrote:
> On Monday, February 27, 2023 at 6:15:09 PM UTC-6, larry harson wrote:
> > On Friday, February 24, 2023 at 11:02:47 PM UTC, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog wrote:
> > > I have done a complete re-write of the Wikipedia article, which had a rather absurd number of inaccuracies. Here is a link to my revised version of the article:
> > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pound%E2%80%93Rebka_experiment
> > >
> > > Please review and suggest improvements and corrections.
> > > Thanks!
> > >
> > > For comparison, here is an archived copy of article before my changes:
> > > https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pound%E2%80%93Rebka_experiment&oldid=1100293754
> > I prefer the original which is precise, gives a very good overview, and focuses on the main important components which will appeal to a wider audience. Enough links are given for a tiny minority to delve into the experiment further. The rewrite also comes across as very good, but written by someone with an OTT intense interest in the experiment, and using the article to show-off their technical skills rather than putting their audience first.
> >
> > A compromised improvement would be to have the original at the top, and the OTT rewrite below it for the minority who will benefit from this.
> The first paragraph of the overview begins with
> "Consider an electron bound to an atom in an excited state...."
>
> The second paragraph states "Now consider two copies of this
> electron-atom system....if the two systems are in a gravitational
> field then the photon may undergo gravitational redshift"
>
> This is absolutely and totally WRONG!!! The gamma rays are
> from NUCLEAR TRANSITIONS, not transitions of electrons in
> orbitals.
>

Yes, this is indeed incorrect

> In describing the experiment, it states, "By vibrating the speaker
> cone the gamma ray source moved with varying speed, thus creating
> varying Doppler shifts. When the Doppler shift canceled out the
> gravitational blueshift, the receiving sample absorbed gamma rays
> and the number of gamma rays detected by the scintillation counter
> dropped accordingly."
>

Actually, this part is correct. The fact that the experiment was more complicated by using a speed that varied sinusoidally around the value that cancels out the gravitational shift via the Doppler shift doesn't change the fact that there is a maximum of gamma ray absorption at the speed value that produces a Doppler effect that exactly cancels the gravitational shift. So, your description is more complete but totally lacks the mathematical foundations. I am starting to think that you cannot write that part because it is not present in any of the Pound-Rebka-Snyder papers (nor is it present anywhere in literature). This doesn't mean that a couple of lines of formulas cannot be borrowed from the previous incarnation. For example, you could (and should) add the formulas behind generating fig.1. Otherwise people might think that you used Powerpoint (or Adobe) Animator to create it.

[Prokaryotic Capase Homolog]

On Monday, February 27, 2023 at 6:37:06 PM UTC-6, larry harson wrote:

> Hmm, after looking at it again I prefer the rewrite which is a great job that will be appreciated by those reading it: so thanks to the author. A hell of a lot of work has gone into it, and it shows.

It will be even better after I take care of several issues
that confused Richard and Dono. Their criticisms have
been valuable. :-)

First order of business will be a cleaned-up version
of this figure, with the gross mis-scalings of the
horizontal axis corrected:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1ICs9GzdHctNgC2hi-RNlDK_5I1z7Rh_u/view?usp=share_link
I'll probably use my explanation of this figure almost
unchanged from the way that I described it to Dono.

[Dono.]

I wasn't confused at all, I simply pointed out the weaknesses in your description (and a few items that have no place whatsoever). I take it that the end result is still going to be fully devoid of any mathematical background.

[Prokaryotic Capase Homolog]

No, trying to determine the maximum of gamma ray absorption
by canceling out the gravitational shift would have been an
extremely inefficient way of determining the shift. Since the
the derivative at the maximum is zero, small deviations from
the maximum would result in hardly any differences in count
rate. What they actually did was monitor counts around the
points of maximum slope. Mathematically, assuming a
Lorentzian curve, this would be at sqrt(3)/3 times the half
width of the curve. They adjusted the speaker vibrations to
about +/- 0.10 mm/s since the half-width of the 57Fe
resonant emission was 0.17 mm/s.

[Dono.]

On Monday, February 27, 2023 at 5:29:57 PM UTC-8, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog wrote:
> On Monday, February 27, 2023 at 7:13:42 PM UTC-6, Dono. wrote:
> > On Monday, February 27, 2023 at 4:41:30 PM UTC-8, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog wrote:
>
> > > The first paragraph of the overview begins with
> > > "Consider an electron bound to an atom in an excited state...."
> > >
> > > The second paragraph states "Now consider two copies of this
> > > electron-atom system....if the two systems are in a gravitational
> > > field then the photon may undergo gravitational redshift"
> > >
> > > This is absolutely and totally WRONG!!! The gamma rays are
> > > from NUCLEAR TRANSITIONS, not transitions of electrons in
> > > orbitals.
> > >
> > Yes, this is indeed incorrect
> > > In describing the experiment, it states, "By vibrating the speaker
> > > cone the gamma ray source moved with varying speed, thus creating
> > > varying Doppler shifts. When the Doppler shift canceled out the
> > > gravitational blueshift, the receiving sample absorbed gamma rays
> > > and the number of gamma rays detected by the scintillation counter
> > > dropped accordingly."
> > >
> > Actually, this part is correct. The fact that the experiment was more complicated by using a speed that varied sinusoidally around the value that cancels out the gravitational shift via the Doppler shift doesn't change the fact that there is a maximum of gamma ray absorption at the speed value that produces a Doppler effect that exactly cancels the gravitational shift. So, your description is more complete but totally lacks the mathematical foundations. I am starting to think that you cannot write that part because it is not present in any of the Pound-Rebka-Snyder papers (nor is it present anywhere in literature). This doesn't mean that a couple of lines of formulas cannot be borrowed from the previous incarnation. For example, you could (and should) add the formulas behind generating fig.1. Otherwise people might think that you used Powerpoint (or Adobe) Animator to create it.
> No, trying to determine the maximum of gamma ray absorption
> by canceling out the gravitational shift would have been an
> extremely inefficient way of determining the shift.

I didn't say that, you need to engage brain when reading and stop distorting what I am actually writing.

> What they actually did was monitor counts around the points of maximum slope.

Actually this is incorrect, according to Rebka's thesis what was measured was counts around the points of inflection: https://www.physics.harvard.edu/files/newsletter_fall_2021.pdf

[Richard Hertz]

On Monday, February 27, 2023 at 10:29:57 PM UTC-3, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog wrote:

<snip>

> No, trying to determine the maximum of gamma ray absorption
> by canceling out the gravitational shift would have been an
> extremely inefficient way of determining the shift. Since the
> the derivative at the maximum is zero, small deviations from
> the maximum would result in hardly any differences in count
> rate. What they actually did was monitor counts around the
> points of maximum slope. Mathematically, assuming a
> Lorentzian curve, this would be at sqrt(3)/3 times the half
> width of the curve. They adjusted the speaker vibrations to
> about +/- 0.10 mm/s since the half-width of the 57Fe
> resonant emission was 0.17 mm/s.

I ask you to consider this:

1) The recoil-less gamma photons follow a Lorentzian distribution

L(E) = I₀ (Γ/2)²/[ΔE² +(Γ/2)²] = 14,400 (2.68)²/[ΔE² +(2.68)²] = 103,426/[ΔE² + 7.18] eV
L(E) = 103,426/[ΔE² + 7.18] eV

This means that, in a bandwidth of Γ/2 = ± 2.0638E−08 eV (± 5.0063 MHz), you have PURE gamma photons emitted
without recoil, which will find compatible Fe⁵⁷ atoms willing to absorb such photons, and emit photons that will be
counted by the scintillator.

The SOURCE emits photons over a bandwidth ± Γ/2, randomly. The probability of any photon with energy E₀ ± ΔE is dictated
by the above Lorentzian spectral distribution.

The RECEPTOR also absorbs photons in the same bandwidth ± Γ/2, randomly. You only know that the absorption PEAKS at
E₀ energy, because it's at this level where the amount of photons is maximum.

That's why it's difficult to write A SIMPLE EXPRESSION for the emitter-receiver process, which has to be expressed statistically.


2) When the induced Doppler effect has the value to cancel gh/c², there is a dip in the absorption curve.

The induced Doppler can be expressed as

Δfᴰ/f₀ = - V₀/c cos(ωᴰt), where V₀ is the peak speed of the Doppler induced effect.

For ANY absorbed photon, this equation for the total shift has to be considered:

Δf/f₀ = Δf/f₀ + gh/c² - V₀/c cos(ωᴰt)

* Δf/f₀: frequency shift for any emitted photon with ΔE around E₀, within the ± Γ/2 bandwidth (Δf/f₀ = 0 for E =14.4 KeV).
* gh/c²: the alleged gravitational blue shift (source at the top)
* - V₀/c cos(ωᴰt): the artificially induced Doppler effect, in the range of 10E-15. See Fermi derivation for photon absorption by atoms.

Now, the problem is that the absorption is a DISCRETE statistical process, which correlates with the random emission of photons
within ± Γ/2.

The only way to generate a meaningful absorption curve in the proportional counter is to amplify 30,000 times any scintillation, and
accumulate the electric pulses count over a long period of time.

The PROBLEM with the induced Doppler is that it's variable, between - V₀/c and + V₀/c. This will cause that the random arrival of
photons with a random shift Δf/f₀ + gh/c² will be ALTERED when adding Doppler. So, a large number of photons will be erroneously
counted as belonging to the sides of the absorption curve.

This creates additional NOISE, which is added to the INTRINSIC NOISE of the random emission around ± Γ/2.

The scenario described above is what forced Pound to heavily used statistics TO COMPENSATE (not only temperature).

PLUS, the alleged gravitational shift gh/c² is only 0.1% of the spectral width Δf/f₀, which is formed by random emission. To this,
add further complications with the induced Doppler, as explained above.

My conclusion: The 1960 or the 1965 experiments ARE OPEN to extreme data manipulation due to the explained FACTS. I don't
believe in the honesty of Pound and Rebka, and I sustain that they FORGED the results to fit expected results (Einstein's right).

As you can read, I didn't consider MANY OTHER SUSPICIOUS FACTORS, like the quality of the samples with Fe⁵⁷ atoms grossly
spread on the surface, or the temperature correction, or many other weird aspects.

As I posted in another place, by 2012, Fe⁵⁷ spectroscopy improved no less than one order of magnitude, and Fe⁵⁷ samples are
much, much more precise, requiring only a few grams of Fe⁵⁷ carefully spread over a substrate.


You could use the general equation for total random shifts, creating a program with (say) 10,000 runs with random emission-absorption.

Also, wonder why this experiment was not repeated, even when Mossbauer spectrocospy gained wide adoption in many fields.

[Dono.]

On Monday, February 27, 2023 at 6:45:58 PM UTC-8, Richard Hertz wrote:

> Δf/f₀ = Δf/f₀ + gh/c² - V₀/c cos(ωᴰt)

Monumental imbecility, congratulations, Dick!
You are at your most entertaining when you try your hand at formalizing your cretinisms in the math form.

[Prokaryotic Capase Homolog]

On Monday, February 27, 2023 at 8:13:53 PM UTC-6, Dono. wrote:

> > What they actually did was monitor counts around the points of maximum slope.
> Actually this is incorrect, according to Rebka's thesis what was measured was counts around the points of inflection:

Hmmm...

By the way, you've linked to a VERY nice article!
*** HIGHLY RECOMMENDED READING ***
I'll include it among the external links.

https://www.physics.harvard.edu/files/newsletter_fall_2021.pdf

[Prokaryotic Capase Homolog]

On Monday, February 27, 2023 at 10:48:46 AM UTC-6, Dono. wrote:

> You sure do. Also, as with any curve, you need to show the mathematical expression it represents. Otherwise, it might be something that you did with Powerpoint (or MacDraw).

Actually, I used Inkscape, basing my initial drawings on
one in Hentschel. After creating two alternative images,
I exported the bitmaps and converted to an animated
GIF using Gimp.

[Dono.]

If you want to do a proper job of the article, you would get a lot of help from Glen Rebka's PhD thesis. It will be much more detailed than the papers and it most likely contains the proper chapter on the theory of the experiment. See if Harvard can give you a copy, it is not on the web.

[Richard Hertz]

On Tuesday, February 28, 2023 at 12:55:00 AM UTC-3, Dono. wrote:
> On Monday, February 27, 2023 at 6:45:58 PM UTC-8, Richard Hertz wrote:

<snip>

> > Δf/f₀ = Δf/f₀ + gh/c² - V₀/c cos(ωᴰt)

> Monumental imbecility, congratulations, Dick!
> You are at your most entertaining when you try your hand at formalizing your cretinisms in the math form.

You are right. I was tired and made the mistake of writing Δf/f₀ TWICE, while meaning them to be different things.

The term on the left should be Δfᵀᵒᵗᵃˡ/f₀, and is composed by three terms:

1) Δf/f₀: RANDOM shift, at the emitter, for photons being radiated in the ± Γ/2 Lorentzian bandwidth.

2) gh/c²: Alleged gravitational shift at the RECEIVER. A fixed value.

3) - V₀/c cos(ωᴰt): Artificially induced Doppler at the emitter side. Is a variable Doppler with ωᴰ = 2π.50 rad/sec, and V₀ the peak
velocity of the moving emitter.

The total shift registered at the receiver is RANDOM for 1) and predictable by 3).

Δfᵀᵒᵗᵃˡ/f₀ = Δf/f₀ + gh/c² - V₀/c cos(ωᴰt)


The frequency f₀ correspond to emissions at E₀ = 14,400 eV, when ΔE = 0.

You should have figured out this instantaneously, genius.

[Dono.]

On Tuesday, February 28, 2023 at 4:46:53 AM UTC-8, Richard Hertz wrote:
> On Tuesday, February 28, 2023 at 12:55:00 AM UTC-3, Dono. wrote:
> > On Monday, February 27, 2023 at 6:45:58 PM UTC-8, Richard Hertz wrote:
> <snip>
> > > Δf/f₀ = Δf/f₀ + gh/c² - V₀/c cos(ωᴰt)
>
> > Monumental imbecility, congratulations, Dick!
> > You are at your most entertaining when you try your hand at formalizing your cretinisms in the math form.
> You are right.

Thank you for confirming that you are an imbecile.

> The total shift registered at the receiver is RANDOM for 1) and predictable by 3).
>
> Δfᵀᵒᵗᵃˡ/f₀ = Δf/f₀ + gh/c² - V₀/c cos(ωᴰt)
>

Still incorrect. Keep it up, dumbestfuck!

[Richard Hertz]

On Tuesday, February 28, 2023 at 12:53:51 PM UTC-3, Dono. wrote:

<snip>

> > The total shift registered at the receiver is RANDOM for 1) and predictable by 3).
> >
> > Δfᵀᵒᵗᵃˡ/f₀ = Δf/f₀ + gh/c² - V₀/c cos(ωᴰt)


> Still incorrect. Keep it up, dumbestfuck!

What could you possibly know, ignorant! You're just an EE that worked in computer graphics all your life and got
a degree in relativistic dynamics in Romany some years ago.

And you only manage BASIC CALCULUS. You don't know shit about this.

Read and learn, moron. I told you that I work with successive refinements. This version is the first and, BY FAR, the
best explanation of P&R math. I could replace Δf/f₀ for a statistical PDF and Δfᵀᵒᵗᵃˡ/f₀, along with V₀/c cos(ωᴰt)
for a discrete expression of the sum of the effect of N photons, being N large enough.

You, imbecile, can't even blow your stinky nose.

[Richard Hertz]

I forgot to add that the above expression can be mathematically linked to the scintillator count, and from there and using
a conversion function, to the expression for the statistical train of electric pulses that are fed to the proportional counter.

Meanwhile, you CAN'T UNDERSTAND a single word of what I wrote, because you're an ignorant cretin. That's your past and your fate.

[Dono.]

On Tuesday, February 28, 2023 at 8:35:40 AM UTC-8, Richard Hertz wrote:
> On Tuesday, February 28, 2023 at 12:53:51 PM UTC-3, Dono. wrote:
>
> <snip>
> > > The total shift registered at the receiver is RANDOM for 1) and predictable by 3).
> > >
> > > Δfᵀᵒᵗᵃˡ/f₀ = Δf/f₀ + gh/c² - V₀/c cos(ωᴰt)
>
>
> > Still incorrect. Keep it up, dumbestfuck!

> What could I possibly know, being an ignorant crank !

Yup, the formula that you pulled out of your ass is still wrong. Keep it up, dumbestfuck!

[Dono.]

On Tuesday, February 28, 2023 at 8:40:29 AM UTC-8, Richard Hertz wrote:

> Meanwhile, I continue to be an ignorant cretin. That's my past and my fate.

Indeed.
Must pain you immensely to get you to try using GR to get the correct formula. Keep it up, dumbesfuck!

[Richard Hertz]

On Tuesday, February 28, 2023 at 2:03:47 PM UTC-3, Dono. wrote:

<snip>

> Must pain you immensely to get you to try using GR to get the correct formula. Keep it up, dumbesfuck!

See why you are a fucking retarded and ignorant?

gh/c² = 2.49E-15 is A FUCKING CONSTANT HERE, ASSHOLE!

For ωᴰ = 314.2 rad/sec (fᴰ = 50 Hz), and V₀ = 7.5E−07 m/s

Δfᵀᵒᵗᵃˡ/f₀ = Δf/f₀ + 2.49E-15 - 2.502E-15 cos(314.2t)

Now, IMBECILE, this is the shift for a single gamma photon, which was emitted at an Δf frequency shift from f₀ = 3.486 PetaHz,
which correspond to E₀ = 14,400 eV exactly,

This individual shift is labeled as δᵤ = Δfᵤ/f₀, which correspond to the u-esim photon in a series of N photons counted on each run
of the 1960 experiment.

It's assumed that ANY u-esim PHOTON emitted by the source Fe⁵⁷ atom has A COUNTERPART, in the detector (within the
± Γ/2 Lorentzian bandwidth), that will absorb the u-esim PHOTON without recoil.

Then, STARTING AT t = 0, the accumulation in the proportional counter for any end time tₑ (N photons without recoil were emitted
during the time-lapse tₑ) gives an STATISTICAL SHIFT

Δfᵀᵒᵗᵃˡ/Nf₀ = 1/N . [Σᵘ⁼ᴺᵤ₌₁ δᵤ + 2.49E-15 - 2.502E-15 cos(314.2t)]

N, the photon count per run, is calculated using radiation formulae that account for the photons falling down EXACTLY over the detector.

N is related to tₑ by the obtained radiation formulae for photons hitting the detector.

THE ONLY THING MISSING IS: to derive a DISCRETE FORMULA FOR δᵤ THAT INCORPORATE THE PROBABILITY, OVER tₑ, THAT
a matched pair of Fe⁵⁷ atoms emit-absorb the recoil free photon with intrinsic shift δᵤ from f₀.

THE VALUE Δfᵀᵒᵗᵃˡ/Nf₀ is, after a final conversion to electric signals, what P&R measured on each of the 14 runs.

THE PROBLEM, HENCE THE HOAX, is that the target gh/c² = 2.49E-15 IS BURIED INTO THE NOISE THAT THIS FORMULA CAUSES:

1/N . [Σᵘ⁼ᴺᵤ₌₁ δᵤ - 2.502E-15 cos(314.2t)]

And is buried 1,000 times below such AVERAGED AND TEMPERATURE MODIFIED spectral shift.

And such problem converted the experiment in A FUCKING FRAUD, because it's impossible to rescue such einstenian shift.



But you, Dono, are too stupid and ignorant TO UNDERSTAND the above development. Because you are just a self-entitled cretin.

And no cure for your level of cretinism exist.

No, go fuck yourself.

[Dono.]

On Tuesday, February 28, 2023 at 2:15:20 PM UTC-8, Richard Hertz wrote:
> On Tuesday, February 28, 2023 at 2:03:47 PM UTC-3, Dono. wrote:
>
> <snip>
> > Must pain you immensely to get you to try using GR to get the correct formula. Keep it up, dumbesfuck!

> why am I a fucking retarded and ignorant?

Because you were born this way. The formula that you pulled out of your ass is wrong.

> Δfᵀᵒᵗᵃˡ/f₀ = Δf/f₀ + 2.49E-15 - 2.502E-15 cos(314.2t)
>

Nope. Replacing the variables with numbers doesn't change the fact that the above is wrong. Keep frothing on that.



> No, I have to go and fuck myself.

Please do. You already inserted both your feet in your mouth.

[Richard Hertz]

On Tuesday, February 28, 2023 at 7:15:20 PM UTC-3, Richard Hertz wrote:

<snip>

FOR OTHERS THAN THE CRETIN IGNORANT DONO:

> gh/c² = 2.49E-15 is A FUCKING CONSTANT HERE, ASSHOLE!
>
> For ωᴰ = 314.2 rad/sec (fᴰ = 50 Hz), and V₀ = 7.5E−07 m/s
>
> Δfᵀᵒᵗᵃˡ/f₀ = Δf/f₀ + 2.49E-15 - 2.502E-15 cos(314.2t)
>
> Now, IMBECILE, this is the shift for a single gamma photon, which was emitted at an Δf frequency shift from f₀ = 3.486 PetaHz,
> which correspond to E₀ = 14,400 eV exactly,

IT CAN BE CLEARLY SEEN THAT, FOR A PHOTON HAVING EXACTLY 14,400 eV, Δf = 0.

THEN, FOR SUCH PHOTON AT THE RECEIVER, THERE IS AN 57Fe ATOM WAITING TO ABSORB SUCH PHOTON WITHOUT RECOIL,

THEN, Δfᵀᵒᵗᵃˡ/f₀ = 2.49E-15 - 2.502E-15 cos(314.2t) = 0 FOR A PAIRED 57Fe ATOM AT THE RECEIVER.

THE ABSORPTION, HENCE THE SECONDARY PHOTON EMITTED TOWARD THE SCINTILLATOR (TO BE COUNTED), OCCURS AT
THE PEAK VALUE OF 14,400 eV IF, AND ONLY IF, cos(314.2t) = +1 :: 314.2t = K 2π (K = 0, 1, 2, 3, ....).

This means that THE CANCELLATION OF gh/c² = 2.49E-15 OCCURS ONLY ONCE EVERY 20 msec (for 50Hz).

This is ONE INSTANT ONLY in the 50 Hz period of the mechanically induced Doppler.

AT ANY OTHER INSTANT WITHIN THE DOPPLER PERIOD, THE SHIFT OF THE PHOTON WILL VARY FROM 0+ TO 5.0E-15.

THE PHOTON WILL STILL BE ABSORBED, BUT AT A NON-NULL Δf SHIFT, WITHIN THE LORENTZIAN EMISSION-ABSORPTION SPECTRUM.


AND THIS IS NOISE, EVEN WHEN THE EMITTED PHOTON HAD EXACTLY 14,400 eV.

WHEN YOU ACCUMULATE THE ALMOST INFINITE DIFFERENCES IN THE Δfᵀᵒᵗᵃˡ/f₀ EQUATION, FOR BILLION OF PHOTONS, YOU WILL
ARRIVE TO THIS CONCLUSION:

EVEN WITH ALL THE STATISTICAL TOOLS IN THE 1960 WORLD, YOU CAN NOT REGISTER A DIP IN THE ABSORPTION CURVE THAT
CAN JUSTIFY gh/c² = 2.49E-15 PROVEN.

Such value is absolutely buried into RANDOM NOISE, without any pattern of known behavior.

It's like to try to receive a radio-signal with a reception SNR level of -10dB or MUCH WORSE.

The experiment was an HOAX, and the data was cooked, fudged, trimmed and "temperature compensated" AT WILL, to serve
the purposes of the CRETINS Pound and Rebka.

[Dono.]

On Wednesday, March 1, 2023 at 1:27:56 PM UTC-8, Richard Hertz wrote:

>
> FOR OTHERS THAN THE CRETIN IGNORANT Dick Hertz

Pound and Rebka made measurements at different speeds, obtaining multiple buckets. Contrary to your cretinoid claims, the main buckets were positioned at the inflection points of the Mossbauer absorption curves (see my correction to prokariotic). You got to eat shit again, crank.

[Richard Hertz]

On Wednesday, March 1, 2023 at 8:00:09 PM UTC-3, Dono. wrote:

<snip>

> Pound and Rebka made measurements at different speeds, obtaining multiple buckets. Contrary to your cretinoid claims, the main buckets were positioned at the inflection points of the Mossbauer absorption curves (see my correction to prokariotic). You got to eat shit again, crank.

I know that, fucking retarded. More data to cook, fudge, trim, using gobbledygook to justify it for gullible retarded like you.

THIS IS THE INFANTILE EXPLANATION THAT YOU WROTE, EARLIER ON THIS THREAD. READ HOW STUPID IS YOUR COMMENT: "You see, in the absence of the Doppler effect, the gravitational shift precludes any reading, because the frequency of the source is gravitationally shifted, so the receiver does not resonate".

NO, IMBECILE. THE RECEIVING 57Fe ATOM IS WILLING TO ABSORB, WITHOUT RECOIL, ANY RECOIL-LESS PHOTON THAT ARRIVES
WITHIN THE ± Γ/2 LORENTZIAN BANDWIDTH. FOR MÖSSBAUER PHOTONS, ± Γ/2 = 4.136E−08 eV.

THIS BW REPRESENTS A SHIFT OF ± 4.136E−08/14,400 = 2.87E-12. MEANWHILE, A SHIFT OF 2.5E-15, RANDOMLY BURIED WITHIN,
IS EXPECTED TO BE MEASURED AND ACCEPTED AS VALID BY IMBECILES LIKE YOU, FUCKING RELATIVIST.


Therefore, Pound had to move the source with such a speed that the Doppler shift cancelled out the gravitational shift. Now, the source and the receiver are "in tune". What should the speed of the source be? That is given by the formula that you neglected to copy from the prior version. In doing so, you stripped the experiment off its central idea. Do you get it now?

YOUR STUPID COMMENT, NOT EVEN VALID FOR A SINGLE FUCKING PHOTON, REVEALS HOW IGNORANT AND CRETIN YOU ARE.

THIS IS WHAT IS VALID FOR A SINGLE PHOTON, ASSHOLE: gh/c² - V₀/c cos(ωᴰt) = 0.

NOW CHOOSE THE FREQUENCY fᴰ, and the value of the induced Doppler V₀/c comes CLEAN, but only serves for ONE INSTANT
OVER THE PERIOD 1/fᴰ.

I can't keep writing about this just for you. You make me PUKE, disgusting lifeform.

[Dono.]

On Wednesday, March 1, 2023 at 5:12:30 PM UTC-8, Richard Hertz wrote:
> On Wednesday, March 1, 2023 at 8:00:09 PM UTC-3, Dono. wrote:
>
> <snip>
> > Pound and Rebka made measurements at different speeds, obtaining multiple buckets. Contrary to your cretinoid claims, the main buckets were positioned at the inflection points of the Mossbauer absorption curves (see my correction to prokariotic). You got to eat shit again, crank.

> I know that, since I am a fucking retarded.


> THIS IS WHAT IS VALID FOR A SINGLE PHOTON, gh/c² - V₀/c cos(ωᴰt) = 0.


It is entertaining to see you piling up imbecilities.

[Prokaryotic Capase Homolog]

On Tuesday, February 28, 2023 at 12:07:50 AM UTC-6, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog wrote:
> On Monday, February 27, 2023 at 8:13:53 PM UTC-6, Dono. wrote:
>
> > > What they actually did was monitor counts around the points of maximum slope.
> > Actually this is incorrect, according to Rebka's thesis what was measured was counts around the points of inflection:
> Hmmm...

To judge by your post here: https://tinyurl.com/mrxnrpz7
where you wrote, "see my correction to prokariotic", you
do not realize, *even now*, why I was humming. It was to
let you know politely, without calling you out, that the points
of maximum slope corresponded to the points of inflection,
and that your so-called "correction" wasn't a correction at all,
merely a brain-fart on your part. We all are entitled to the
occasional brain-fart. I certainly have my share. But I seriously
object to your going around crowing that you "corrected" me,
when you actually did not. And yes, I *am* aware that the
terms "points of maximum slope" and "points of inflection"
are not synonyms, so don't go around trying to pretend that
I am not aware of the distinction.

At least, you now finally understand the principle behind
Pound and Rebka's measurement. So that's good. I'm not
complaining.

Incidentally, the method of determining the maximum of
an absorbance/emission curve by monitoring the slopes
on either side of the maximum has a long history. The first
mention that I am aware of was in Cornu's refinement of
Fizeau's measurement of the speed of light, where, instead
of trying to ascertain the maximum darkening of his tooth
wheel apparatus, he made intensity measurements on
either side of the intensity maxima: https://tinyurl.com/2p9b3dvh
(Yes, I wrote this section)

An interesting variant of this method was used in the
Kennedy/Illingworth refinement of Michelson-Morley. The
human eye cannot reliably discern fringe movement of less
than about 1/20 fringe. But Kennedy developed a clever
optical arrangement that enabled making side-by-side
comparisons of slope regions from adjacent fringes, so
that keen-eyed observers could detect fringe moments on
the order of thousandths of a fringe. (The text is a jumble
of stuff that I wrote and stuff that other people wrote, but
the computer simulation is mine: https://tinyurl.com/86xt5ntj)

[Prokaryotic Capase Homolog]

On Wednesday, March 1, 2023 at 11:55:07 PM UTC-6, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog wrote:
> Incidentally, the method of determining the maximum of
> an absorbance/emission curve by monitoring the slopes
> on either side of the maximum has a long history. The first
> mention that I am aware of was in Cornu's refinement of
> Fizeau's measurement of the speed of light,

If somebody could embarrass me by a few hundred years by
showing that showing me that, for example, some ancient
astronomer timed the Moon's transit by recording the leading
and trailing edges as it crossed the meridian, or that Galileo
did something or other like this as explained in his writings,
please do so! :-)

[Dono.]

On Wednesday, March 1, 2023 at 9:55:07 PM UTC-8, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog wrote:
> On Tuesday, February 28, 2023 at 12:07:50 AM UTC-6, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog wrote:
> > On Monday, February 27, 2023 at 8:13:53 PM UTC-6, Dono. wrote:
> >
> > > > What they actually did was monitor counts around the points of maximum slope.
> > > Actually this is incorrect, according to Rebka's thesis what was measured was counts around the points of inflection:
> > Hmmm...
> To judge by your post here: https://tinyurl.com/mrxnrpz7
> where you wrote, "see my correction to prokariotic", you
> do not realize, *even now*, why I was humming. It was to
> let you know politely, without calling you out, that the points
> of maximum slope corresponded to the points of inflection,
> and that your so-called "correction" wasn't a correction at all,
> merely a brain-fart on your part.

I was simply citing the Rebka thesis <shrug>. There is no proof that the inflection points are the points of maximum slope.
As to "corrections", the much more serious issues with your writeup are that you are using the 1911 paper (why? PR certainly know standard stock relativity), that you have a figure with no labeling on the two axis and with no formalism behind it, that you added for no reason whatsoever a crackpot footnote referring to the original starlight deflection.

> We all are entitled to the occasional brain-fart. I certainly have my share.

Sure you do, see above.

> And yes, I *am* aware that the
> terms "points of maximum slope" and "points of inflection"
> are not synonyms, so don't go around trying to pretend that
> I am not aware of the distinction.
>

Then, why are you eating shit about the correction from the Rebka thesis?

[Prokaryotic Capase Homolog]

I've added a new animation to illustrate how the
cumulative counts in the four registers was used to
determine the line center.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pound%E2%80%93Rebka_experiment#Modulation_technique_to_detect_small_shifts

[Richard Hertz]

This article may help to widen your understanding of these kinds of measurements. Not for 57Fe, but helpful anyway.

Determination of photon emission probabilities for the main gamma-rays and half-life measurements of 64Cu
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6290464/

[Richard Hertz]

Also, this article is useful to gain modern understanding:


Mossbauer Spectroscopy
https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/earth-and-planetary-sciences/mossbauer-spectroscopy

Both isomer shift and quadrupole splitting are customarily given in terms of the source velocity in millimetres per second.
.....
The ideal Mössbauer line shape is the Lorentzian, and experimental data are often computer-fitted with this. However, deviations from Lorentzian shape may occur because of variations of local environments or fluctuations of parameters, to name just two factors. In such cases, the data may have to be fitted using other functions, for example, the Voigtian (a convolution of Gaussian and Lorentzian functions) or distributions of Lorentzians.

[RichD]

On March 2, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog wrote:
> If somebody could embarrass me by a few hundred years by
> showing that showing me that, for example, some ancient
> astronomer timed the Moon's transit by recording the leading
> and trailing edges as it crossed the meridian, or that Galileo
> did something or other like this as explained in his writings,
> please do so! :-)

I'm not sure, but Eratosthenes is a good bet -

--
Rich

[Prokaryotic Capase Homolog]

On Wednesday, March 1, 2023 at 3:27:56 PM UTC-6, Richard Hertz wrote:

> EVEN WITH ALL THE STATISTICAL TOOLS IN THE 1960 WORLD, YOU CAN NOT REGISTER A DIP IN THE ABSORPTION CURVE THAT
> CAN JUSTIFY gh/c² = 2.49E-15 PROVEN.
>
> Such value is absolutely buried into RANDOM NOISE, without any pattern of known behavior.
>
> It's like to try to receive a radio-signal with a reception SNR level of -10dB or MUCH WORSE.
>
> The experiment was an HOAX, and the data was cooked, fudged, trimmed and "temperature compensated" AT WILL, to serve
> the purposes of the CRETINS Pound and Rebka.

The problem with your above analysis is that you, along
with various others in this newsgroup along with multiple
textbook authors and so forth, have had an incorrect idea
of how Pound and Rebka did their measurements. Given
how so many people have had a false notion of how things
were done, you are really not to blame.

Crowell, for instance, wrote:
| One can move the source at a small velocity (typically a
| few mm/s) in order to add a Doppler shift onto the
| frequency; | by determining the velocity that compensates
| for the gravitational effect, one can determine how big
| the gravitational effect is.

As you correctly point out, such a procedure would be
hopelessly insensitive. Let me calculate how hopeless:
a) Assuming a Lorentzian distribution, omitting the "1/π",
setting γ=1 and setting x_0 = 0 gives
f = 1/(x^2 + 1)
b) The maximum absorbance in the P&R experiment was
only 30%, so
f = 0.3/(x^2 + 1)
c) The expected gravitational redshift was only 0.0022 of
the half-width. Therefore the diminution of counts would be
only by a factor of 1.4e-6. One would need to accumulate
about 4e11 counts to be able to detect a diminution with
one standard deviation of statistical certainty.

Pound and Rebka did not use such a silly procedure. Instead,
as explained in my article, they used slope detection. Each
channel to the right of the peak would have displayed a few
parts per ten-thousand difference in counts from its matching
channel to the left of the peak. A few tens of millions of counts
would be able to establish the probable existence of
gravitational redshift and to get a rough estimate of its
magnitude: https://tinyurl.com/5n99na5j

[Richard Hertz]

I will not argue anymore with you about the theory behind a complex experiment performed more than 60 years ago,
when Mössbauer spectroscopy was in its infancy, and an enormous amount of knowledge on quantum and nuclear
effects on gamma rays emissions were unknown.

I've been reading some papers on the progress of Mössbauer spectroscopy since the '70s, and what came out was impressive.

What emerged in the refinement around Mössbauer's effect utilization and support technology REINFORCES my belief that P&R
just fudged data to fit their goals. By 1965, Pound refined HIS NARRATIVE, not the theoretical background, which is WRONG due
to unknowns around gamma rays absorption and very poor technology, compared with what we have today, 60 years after.

Just one factor, THEORETICAL temperature compensation manipulation IN THE ORDER OF THE MEASURED VALUE, is enough for
any RATIONAL MIND to discard the experiment for being FRAUDULENT.

But you have to put P&R in the correct historical perspective: the need of the USA to promote itself over USSR as the most advanced
technological country in the world, in the middle of Cold War and the space race. So, it's not so weird that THIS KIND of papers had
green light to be published. In that epoch, all of Europe was just recovering from WWII and, except France, was doing that by the forced
adoption of US technology (UK, Italy, Germany, ...). They have little money of their own for science, as they were deeply indebted with
USA (Marshall's Plan, etc.). This, I know very well and almost first-hand due to my activities with their scientists.

What was discovered/developed since 1965 around Mössbauer's spectroscopy shows that such experiment MISSED an important
amount of NEW, UNKNOWN factors. I put here a link to a modern paper, which will allow you to find what wasn't know by then.

Synchrotron Mössbauer source of 57 Fe radiation
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/241046947_Synchrotron_Mossbauer_source_of_57_Fe_radiation

https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Quadrupole-splitting-of-the-excited-state-of-57-Fe-with-I-3-2-and-the-resulting_fig3_287448153

Mossbauer Spectroscopy
MIT Department of Physics
http://web.mit.edu/shawest/Public/jlab/Mossbauer/labguide.pdf

I'm not qualified to analyze the 1960 paper on light of the new concepts that should be accounted, in particular the FOUR classes
of gamma rays absorption, the random existence of quadrupoles, etc.

And I think that Dono the cretin is equally NOT QUALIFIED to make assertions on the 1960 paper topic. But he's A CRETIN and a
dishonest SOB, and I'm not either.

So, I left this topic for good.

[Dono.]

On Saturday, March 4, 2023 at 5:36:25 AM UTC-8, Richard Hertz wrote:

> And I think that I the biggest cretin am equally NOT QUALIFIED to make assertions on the 1960 paper topic. But I/m THE CRETIN and a dishonest SOB

You got that right, Dick.

[Maciej Wozniak]

On Saturday, 4 March 2023 at 15:13:34 UTC+1, Dono. wrote:
> On Saturday, March 4, 2023 at 5:36:25 AM UTC-8, Richard Hertz wrote:
>
> > And I think that I the biggest cretin am equally NOT QUALIFIED to make assertions on the 1960 paper topic. But I/m THE CRETIN and a dishonest SOB

No he didn't write it. Dono is impudently lying,
as expected from relativistic trash.

[Richard Hertz]

Let him do it. He's mentally ill, so I learned to be pitiful and tolerate this abnormal compulsion to change other people's posts.

He doesn't suffer his mental degradation, which is like an Alzheimer slow decline. Their relatives pay the price.

[Maciej Wozniak]

On Saturday, 4 March 2023 at 15:53:26 UTC+1, Richard Hertz wrote:
> On Saturday, March 4, 2023 at 11:15:45 AM UTC-3, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> > On Saturday, 4 March 2023 at 15:13:34 UTC+1, Dono. wrote:
> > > On Saturday, March 4, 2023 at 5:36:25 AM UTC-8, Richard Hertz wrote:
> > >
> > > > And I think that I the biggest cretin am equally NOT QUALIFIED to make assertions on the 1960 paper topic. But I/m THE CRETIN and a dishonest SOB
> > No he didn't write it. Dono is impudently lying,
> > as expected from relativistic trash.
> Let him do it. He's mentally ill,

He doesn't need my permission to lie.
He's free to do it, and I'm free to point it.

[Volney]

On 3/4/2023 9:53 AM, Richard Hertz wrote:
> On Saturday, March 4, 2023 at 11:15:45 AM UTC-3, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
>> On Saturday, 4 March 2023 at 15:13:34 UTC+1, Dono. wrote:
>>> On Saturday, March 4, 2023 at 5:36:25 AM UTC-8, Richard Hertz wrote:
>>>
>>>> And I think that I the biggest cretin am equally NOT QUALIFIED to make assertions on the 1960 paper topic. But I/m THE CRETIN and a dishonest SOB
>> No he didn't write it. Dono is impudently lying,
>> as expected from relativistic trash.
>
> Let him do it. He's mentally ill, so I learned to be pitiful and tolerate this abnormal compulsion to change other people's posts.

And I learned to be pitiful and tolerate this abnormal compulsion to
attack Einstein and relativity irrationally.

> He doesn't suffer his mental degradation, which is like an Alzheimer slow decline. Their relatives pay the price.

I'm sure you don't suffer from your mental degradation. You enjoy every
moment of it. (your relatives pay the price, I'm sure)

[Maciej Wozniak]

On Saturday, 4 March 2023 at 18:52:42 UTC+1, Volney wrote:
> On 3/4/2023 9:53 AM, Richard Hertz wrote:
> > On Saturday, March 4, 2023 at 11:15:45 AM UTC-3, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> >> On Saturday, 4 March 2023 at 15:13:34 UTC+1, Dono. wrote:
> >>> On Saturday, March 4, 2023 at 5:36:25 AM UTC-8, Richard Hertz wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> And I think that I the biggest cretin am equally NOT QUALIFIED to make assertions on the 1960 paper topic. But I/m THE CRETIN and a dishonest SOB
> >> No he didn't write it. Dono is impudently lying,
> >> as expected from relativistic trash.
> >
> > Let him do it. He's mentally ill, so I learned to be pitiful and tolerate this abnormal compulsion to change other people's posts.
> And I learned to be pitiful and tolerate

Another very impudent lie from stupid Mike.

[Prokaryotic Capase Homolog]

Regardless, my article has benefited by my needing to
respond to *both* Richard's and Dono's critiques. As I've
stated before, I may write a passage or create an illustration
that makes perfect sense *to me*, but actually turns out to
have been worded or drawn less than optimally. I thank
them both for their contributions.

I call it "my article" even though 12.6% of the character
count was from the earlier version of the article. I believe
that most of the legacy character count comes from the
citations that I carried over from the previous version, and
that if we exclude these, my percentage character count
should be greater than 95%. See the "Authorship" pie chart:
https://xtools.wmflabs.org/articleinfo/en.wikipedia.org/Pound%E2%80%93Rebka_experiment

[Prokaryotic Capase Homolog]

On Saturday, March 4, 2023 at 3:39:11 PM UTC-6, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog wrote:

> Regardless, my article has benefited by my needing to
> respond to *both* Richard's and Dono's critiques. As I've
> stated before, I may write a passage or create an illustration
> that makes perfect sense *to me*, but actually turns out to
> have been worded or drawn less than optimally. I thank
> them both for their contributions.

I have expanded the section, "Current status of gravitational redshift"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pound%E2%80%93Rebka_experiment#Current_status_of_gravitational_redshift

[Jane]

On 25/2/23 10:02, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog wrote:
> I have done a complete re-write of the Wikipedia article, which had a rather absurd number of inaccuracies. Here is a link to my revised version of the article:
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pound%E2%80%93Rebka_experiment
>
> Please review and suggest improvements and corrections.
> Thanks!
>
> For comparison, here is an archived copy of article before my changes:
> https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pound%E2%80%93Rebka_experiment&oldid=1100293754

Typical relativist propaganda. I wont be donating to Wiki any more if
they are going to publish biased crap like this.

For one thing, light or gamma doesn't possess an intrinsic 'frequency'.
It has a wavelength.

Light speeds up as it falls and by a fractional amount that is exactly
equal to the supposed GR prediction.

Calculation of the speed increase of a
falling GPS photon of mass m, orbit radius h.
Earth's mass = M, radius = r.

An object (mass m) in GPS orbit has potential energy of:
PE = GMm(1/r-1/h), relative to ground level.
Let R = (1/r-1/h)
For GPS:
r =  6 378 000 mtr
h = 26,560 000 mtr
R = 20 182 000 / 169.39e12
  = 1.19e-7

If light is emitted at c, downwards:
Initial KE = 1/2 mc^2
Final KE = 1/2 m(c+v)^2
Difference = 1/2 mv (2c+v),  ~= cv

So:
GM*1.19e-7 = cv
v = GM*1.19e-7/c
GM = 6.67384e*E-11 * 5.9742e24 = 39.87e13
v = 39.87e13 * 1.19/2.997e15
= 0.1583 m/s

A falling photon increases speed by 0.1598 m/s while falling from
26560km to Earth.

In fractional terms:

0.1583/2.997E8 = 5.28E-10

..Which is identical to 'gravitational component' of the GR 'correction
factor'.
equivalent to 45.2 us/day......or approximately 5.23E-10

(The 'speed component' of the 'GR correction' is -7us per day.
Subtracting that gives the result of 38.2us per day.)

--
Jane - lover of truth.

[Laurence Clark Crossen]

On Monday, March 6, 2023 at 4:26:41 PM UTC-8, Jane wrote:
>
> Typical relativist propaganda. I wont be donating to Wiki any more if
> they are going to publish biased crap like this.
>
> For one thing, light or gamma doesn't possess an intrinsic 'frequency'.
> It has a wavelength.
>
> Light speeds up as it falls and by a fractional amount that is exactly
> equal to the supposed GR prediction.

She is correct, as Pentcho Valev has shown. Light has a constant wavelength contrary to relativity. To claim otherwise is purely ad hoc nonsense. The frequency varies because the relative speed of light varies.

[Jane]

The supposed 'frequency' of light is defined as c/Lambda, which has one
and only one physical meaning...the rate at which wavelengths depart
from the source or pass any other point. In the frame of the light
itself, nothing oscillates. If you check Maxwell's equations, you will
see why. You will also see that light moves at c relative to its source
but at any other speed relative to other objects.
Assigning a frequency to a radio signal is excusable and quite practical
even though, again, nothing actually oscillates while it is traveling.
It is the frequency applied to the antenna and that to which a
receiver's filters must be tuned. Light is not produced by an AC signal
on any antenna or any other known oscillatory process. There is no
apparent reason for believing that it and radio are fundamentally similar.

It is amazing that Physics academia and even NASA still use the term
'frequency of light'. It reveals a chronic misinterpretation of facts.

[Tom Roberts]

On 3/6/23 10:01 PM, Jane wrote:
> On 7/3/23 11:51, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
>> On Monday, March 6, 2023 at 4:26:41 PM UTC-8, Jane wrote:
>>> For one thing, light or gamma doesn't possess an intrinsic
>>> 'frequency'.

True.

>>> It has a wavelength.

Hmmm. Not an intrinsic wavelength.

For a given monochromatic light ray, both its frequency and its
wavelength depend on how it is measured. The value obtained depends on
the relationship between the light ray and the measuring instrument. In
most cases this is expressed in terms of the relative velocity between
source and detector. The difference between the value measured at the
source and detector is called the Doppler shift.

>>> Light speeds up as it falls and by a fractional amount that is
>>> exactly equal to the supposed GR prediction.

Making such assertions without evidence is useless. Actual measurements
of the wavelength of light rays show that it varies, as predicted by GR.
For instance, look up the annual Doppler effect (noting that the
spectrometers used measure the wavelength of the light).

>> She is correct, as Pentcho Valev has shown.

How silly. The only thing Valev has shown is that he is completely
incompetent and ignorant of basic physics.

>> Light has a constant wavelength contrary to relativity.

Again, making such assertions without evidence is useless. Actual
measurements of the wavelength of light rays show that it varies, as
predicted by GR. For instance, look up the annual Doppler effect (noting
that the spectrometers used measure the wavelength of the light).

> [... much nonsense displaying the writer's ignorance of basic
> physics]

Tom Roberts

[Maciej Wozniak]

On Wednesday, 8 March 2023 at 06:39:20 UTC+1, Tom Roberts wrote:
> On 3/6/23 10:01 PM, Jane wrote:
> > On 7/3/23 11:51, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> >> On Monday, March 6, 2023 at 4:26:41 PM UTC-8, Jane wrote:
> >>> For one thing, light or gamma doesn't possess an intrinsic
> >>> 'frequency'.
> True.
>
> >>> It has a wavelength.
>
> Hmmm. Not an intrinsic wavelength.
>
> For a given monochromatic light ray, both its frequency and

And we're FORCED!!! To THE BEST WAY!!!
Which is, no doubt, the way of our beloved Giant
Guru and his obedient minion Tom.

[Jane]

On 8/3/23 16:39, Tom Roberts wrote:
> On 3/6/23 10:01 PM, Jane wrote:
>> On 7/3/23 11:51, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
>>> On Monday, March 6, 2023 at 4:26:41 PM UTC-8, Jane wrote:
>>>> For one thing, light or gamma doesn't possess an intrinsic
>>>> 'frequency'.
>
> True.
>
>>>> It has a wavelength.
>
> Hmmm. Not an intrinsic wavelength.
>
> For a given monochromatic light ray, both its frequency and its
> wavelength depend on how it is measured. The value obtained depends on
> the relationship between the light ray and the measuring instrument. In
> most cases this is expressed in terms of the relative velocity between
> source and detector. The difference between the value measured at the
> source and detector is called the Doppler shift.

You seem very confused. Light doesn't have a 'frequency. How could it?
Please define your version of light's supposed 'frequency'.
It creates a frequency when it is intercepted, namely (c+v)/wavelength

>
>>>> Light speeds up as it falls and by a fractional amount that is
>>>> exactly equal to the supposed GR prediction.
>
> Making such assertions without evidence is useless. Actual measurements
> of the wavelength of light rays show that it varies, as predicted by GR.
> For instance, look up the annual Doppler effect (noting that the
> spectrometers used measure the wavelength of the light).

Like all lengths, light's wavelength is absolute...but it certainly can
change.

>>> She is correct, as Pentcho Valev has shown.
>
> How silly. The only thing Valev has shown is that he is completely
> incompetent and ignorant of basic physics.
>
>>> Light has a constant wavelength contrary to relativity.
>
> Again, making such assertions without evidence is useless. Actual
> measurements of the wavelength of light rays show that it varies, as
> predicted by GR. For instance, look up the annual Doppler effect (noting
> that the spectrometers used measure the wavelength of the light).
>
>> [... much nonsense displaying the writer's ignorance of basic physics]
>
> Tom Roberts
>

[Tom Roberts]

On 3/10/23 4:39 PM, Jane wrote:
> On 8/3/23 16:39, Tom Roberts wrote:

>> [...]
> You seem very confused.

It is not I who is confused here.

> Light doesn't have a 'frequency. How could it? Please define your
> version of light's supposed 'frequency'.

I said quite clearly earlier in this thread, "light [...] doesn't

possess an intrinsic 'frequency'."

> It creates a frequency when it is intercepted, namely
> (c+v)/wavelength

Well, "creates" is the wrong word. But by using an instrument that
measures the wavelength of a monochromatic light beam, one can measure
its wavelength. Similarly, by using an instrument that measures the
frequency of a monochromatic light beam, one can measure its frequency.
perform both of those measurements at rest in some inertial frame, and
for a given monochromatic light beam in vacuum
wavelength * frequency = c
(All traveling waves have the property wavelength*frequency=speed,
because that is what these words mean.)

> Like all lengths, light's wavelength is absolute...but it certainly
> can change.

Apparently you don't know what those words actually mean. In this
context, "absolute" means "is independent of any measurement", which
directly implies that it does not change.

I repeat: light has neither an intrinsic frequency nor an intrinsic
wavelength -- both of those properties, for a given monochromatic light
beam in vacuum, depend on how they are measured, specifically on which
inertial frame the measuring instrument is at rest.

[Some people fantasize that the wavelength of
light is "absolute" and does not change. Don't
be fooled by such sophistry, because it is
proven wrong by literally zillions of actual
measurements.]

Tom Roberts

[Richard Hertz]

On Saturday, March 11, 2023 at 12:55:23 PM UTC-3, Tom Roberts wrote:

<snip>

> I repeat: light has neither an intrinsic frequency nor an intrinsic
> wavelength -- both of those properties, for a given monochromatic light
> beam in vacuum, depend on how they are measured, specifically on which
> inertial frame the measuring instrument is at rest.

You are wrong, as usual. Go to the BIPM, if you dare, and make your claim there. Watch:

https://www.bipm.org/en/si-base-units/second

SI base unit: second (s)
The second, symbol s, is the SI unit of time. It is defined by taking the fixed numerical value of the caesium frequency Δν_Cs, the unperturbed ground-state hyperfine transition frequency of the caesium-133 atom, to be 9192631770 when expressed in the unit Hz,
which is equal to s⁻¹.

https://www.bipm.org/en/si-base-units/metre

SI base unit: metre (m)
The metre, symbol m, is the SI unit of length. It is defined by taking the fixed numerical value of the speed of light in vacuum
c to be 299792458 when expressed in the unit m s⁻¹, where the second is defined in terms of the caesium frequency Δν_Cs.


SIMPLE CALCULATIONS

By definition (consensus),

c₀ = 299792458 m s⁻¹
Δν_Cs = 9192631770 Hz (s⁻¹)

λ(Δν_Cs) = 0.0326122557174941 m


That LIGHT, when emerges from the caesium-133 atom (in vacuum), and is fed to a Ramsey cavity in an atomic clock,
has very specific, INTRINSIC, absolute values of frequency and wavelength. BIPM has declared so, BY DEFINITION.

BIPM (Bureau International des Poind et Mesures) is the maximum authority in the world, which keep the values of SI units
and global time UTC.
It's conformed by 63 Member States, and supported by the rest of national offices for standards.

Who are you, compared with BIPM?

[Dono.]

Dumbestfuck,

You have just demonstrated that you are as stupid as janitor Maciej. you confuse the unit of measurement (meter) for the physical entity being measured (wavelength). Congratulations, your ignorance is escalating!

[rotchm]

On Saturday, March 11, 2023 at 10:55:23 AM UTC-5, Tom Roberts wrote:
> On 3/10/23 4:39 PM, Jane wrote:

Tom...tom..tom...
Again, although you are quite clear and correct in your assessments,
you fail to see when you are being trolled.

"jane" is a troll (and a nutcase). You got got.

DO NOT STROKE THE TROLLS.
Report it as spam.

[Volney]

Actually he's confusing the unit of measurement, the second, with the
thing being measured (time, or frequency, 1/time), which is even more
like our janitor's stupid mistakes.

[Maciej Wozniak]

And do you still believe that adjusting clocks
to your ISO 9 192 631 770 idiocy means
some "Newton mode"? You're such an
amazing idiot, stupid Mike, even considering
the relativistic standards.

[Jane]

On 12/3/23 02:55, Tom Roberts wrote:
> On 3/10/23 4:39 PM, Jane wrote:
>> On 8/3/23 16:39, Tom Roberts wrote:
>>> [...]
>> You seem very confused.
>
> It is not I who is confused here.
>
>> Light doesn't have a 'frequency. How could it? Please define your
>> version of light's supposed 'frequency'.
>
> I said quite clearly earlier in this thread, "light [...] doesn't
> possess an intrinsic 'frequency'."

That is very good....but why then do you keep referring to one?

>
>> It creates a frequency when it is intercepted, namely (c+v)/wavelength
>
> Well, "creates" is the wrong word.

OK.  it induces a frequency on interception ....defined as wave arrival
rate. (one that has never been actually measured)

> But by using an instrument that
> measures the wavelength of a monochromatic light beam, one can measure
> its wavelength. Similarly, by using an instrument that measures the
> frequency of a monochromatic light beam, one can measure its frequency.

Please name such an instrument....but remember you just said it doesn't
have a 'frequency'....so how can it measure something that doesn't exist?

> perform both of those measurements at rest in some inertial frame, and
> for a given monochromatic light beam in vacuum
>     wavelength * frequency = c

You should know that the only 'frequency' that has ever been associated
with light is defined as c/lambda, which is the rate of emission of
waves. It is not present in traveling light.

> (All traveling waves have the property wavelength*frequency=speed,
> because that is what these words mean.)

Do you understand what you just wrote?

Have you not realized that quite obviously:
wavelength*frequency = wavelength*c/wavelength = c

That's 5yo stuff.

>> Like all lengths, light's wavelength is absolute...but it certainly
>> can change.
>
> Apparently you don't know what those words actually mean. In this
> context, "absolute" means "is independent of any measurement", which
> directly implies that it does not change.

That's right. A rod defines an absolute spatial length, which is
precisely the same and has the same value in all frames.

>
> I repeat: light has neither an intrinsic frequency nor an intrinsic
> wavelength -- both of those properties, for a given monochromatic light
> beam in vacuum, depend on how they are measured, specifically on which
> inertial frame the measuring instrument is at rest.

Light has an intrinsic wavelength. In the case of a radio signal, it is
the distance travelled from the antenna during one cycle of the applied
AC. That distance can be represented by a rigid rod and is therefore
absolute and the same in all frames.
Light doesn't have an obvious 'antenna'...so we cannot be sure what happens.

>
>     [Some people fantasize that the wavelength of
>      light is "absolute" and does not change. Don't
>      be fooled by such sophistry, because it is
>      proven wrong by literally zillions of actual
>      measurements.]

Is a prism or grating sensitive to wavelength or wave arrival rate...or
both?

All lengths are absolute. Light's wavelength can change but only under
specific circumstances that you know nothing about.

[Tom Roberts]

On 3/12/23 6:37 PM, Jane wrote:
> On 12/3/23 02:55, Tom Roberts wrote:
>> I said quite clearly earlier in this thread, "light [...] doesn't
>> possess an intrinsic 'frequency'."
> That is very good....but why then do you keep referring to one?

The light ITSELF does not possess an intrinsic wavelength or frequency.
But in certain physical situations one can measure those properties for
a monochromatic light beam.

>> But by using an instrument that measures the wavelength of a
>> monochromatic light beam, one can measure its wavelength.
>> Similarly, by using an instrument that measures the frequency of a
>> monochromatic light beam, one can measure its frequency.
>
> Please name such an instrument.

To measure the frequency of a monochromatic EM wave up to 10 GHz or so,
simply place a detector in the beam and count its output; its frequency
is then counts/second. To measure the wavelength of such a beam, use an
interferometer (details are more complicated).

In the infrared and above (higher frequency, smaller wavelength) we
don't have detectors that will directly measure their frequency, but one
can put two such beams onto a photodetector and measure the difference
in their frequencies up to ~10 GHz. Using multiple stages like that, one
can determine the frequency of a monochromatic visible-light beam.
Interferometers and diffraction-grating spectrometers can directly
measure the wavelength of such beams; atomic crystals can be used to
determine such wavelengths up to X-rays.

> ...but remember you just said it doesn't have a 'frequency'....so
> how can it measure something that doesn't exist?

An EM wave does not have an INTRINSIC frequency. But for a monochromatic
light beam one can use an appropriate detector to measure a frequency.
Placing detectors in differently-moving inertial frames will give
different values, so we KNOW the frequency is not intrinsic to the light
beam.

[To measure the intrinsic length of a moving rod, one
can measure it in the lab and then transform to the
rod's rest frame. An EM wave has no rest frame....]

> You should know that the only 'frequency' that has ever been
> associated with light is defined as c/lambda, which is the rate of
> emission of waves. It is not present in traveling light.

Hmmm. As I said before, all traveling waves have
frequency*wavelength=speed. Whether a monochromatic light beam is such a
traveling wave depends on how one models it. Such a beam can also be
modeled as a very large number of photons. While individual photons have
no intrinsic properties corresponding to frequency or wavelength, the
way they preserve information about their creation means that in certain
physical situations one can accurately model such a beam as a traveling
wave; in that case one can measure its frequency, wavelength, and speed.
This has been done many times, and in vacuum the speed is found to be c,
with both frequency and wavelength varying, depending on the frame used
for the measurement.

>>> Like all lengths, light's wavelength is absolute...but it
>>> certainly can change.
>>
>> Apparently you don't know what those words actually mean. In this
>> context, "absolute" means "is independent of any measurement",
>> which directly implies that it does not change.
> That's right. A rod defines an absolute spatial length, which is
> precisely the same and has the same value in all frames.

Yes. Unlike a monochromatic EM wave, a rod does have an intrinsic length
(aka its proper length). The notion "proper length" simply does not
apply to an EM wave, for the simple reason that it has no rest frame.

>> I repeat: light has neither an intrinsic frequency nor an intrinsic
>> wavelength -- both of those properties, for a given monochromatic
>> light beam in vacuum, depend on how they are measured, specifically
>> on which inertial frame the measuring instrument is at rest.
> Light has an intrinsic wavelength.

Bald claims without justification are useless. If light actually had an
intrinsic wavelength, all inertial frames would obtain that value when
they measure its wavelength; they don't.

Note also that when a monochromatic light beam enters an optical medium,
its wavelength and speed change, but measurements of its frequency do
not. This also shows that wavelength is not intrinsic to the light beam.

> In the case of a radio signal, it is the distance travelled from the
> antenna during one cycle of the applied AC.

Yes, IN THE FRAME OF THE SOURCE ANTENNA. In other frames, measuring its
wavelength can yield other values.

> That distance can be represented by a rigid rod and is therefore
> absolute and the same in all frames.

Not true. The length of that rod will depend on its rest frame, and the
relation of its rest frame to the rest frame of the antenna.

> Light doesn't have an obvious 'antenna'...so we cannot be sure what
> happens.

Light has an obvious source. Invariably atoms are the ultimate sources
of light. You attempt to make a distinction without a difference. But
yes, radio antennas can be accurately modeled classically, while the
emission of photons by atoms cannot.

> Is a prism or grating sensitive to wavelength or wave arrival
> rate...or both?

It depends on how one uses it, and how one models it.

> All lengths are absolute.

Not true. Just making a claim like this is useless without experiments
that support it. This has none.

> Light's wavelength can change but only under specific circumstances
> that you know nothing about.

Hmmm. The problem is not mine, it is in your poorly-worded statements,
and in your ignorance of actual physics.

Tom Roberts

[Dono.]

On Monday, March 13, 2023 at 10:06:54 AM UTC-7, Tom Roberts wrote:
You are engaging with a troll

[rotchm]

On Monday, March 13, 2023 at 1:06:54 PM UTC-4, Tom Roberts wrote:
> On 3/12/23 6:37 PM, Jane wrote:

Jane is making fun of you, and you are falling for it.
DO NOT STROKE THE TROOLS.
Report it as spam. I have.