• Re: Pound-Rebka: ChatGPT is TRAINED to obey, sucking asses of relativis

    From LaurenceClarkCrossen@21:1/5 to rhertz on Thu Dec 26 00:41:04 2024
    On Thu, 26 Dec 2024 0:22:56 +0000, rhertz wrote:

    I've been using ChatGPT to analyze the FISHY 1959 infamous experiment
    that "proved" Einstein's 1911 predicted gravitational blue-shifting,
    with the formula g.h/c^2.

    The 1959 Pound-Rebka experiment was conducted in less than a week,
    because Pound had to lecture about his results in a conference of
    physicists, to whom he had anticipated his idea.

    Using a 22.5 meters height at the Jefferson Laboratory, a sample of radioactive Fe57 that emitted 14.4 KeV gamma rays (a fraction of them
    without recoil in the emitting atom), he and his collaborators devised
    an extremely complex array of instruments and mechanisms to MEASURE a "predicted" gravitational shift of only
    2.5x10^-15. The problem was that the source of Fe57 emitted gamma
    radiation within a band of frequencies that had a half energy width of
    about 10^-12 around the central frequency. PLUS, only a fraction of
    gamma rays were free of recoil effects.

    In 1959, and even today, to measure a contribution of GR of almost 1,000 times smaller than the bandwidth of gamma rays was/is IMPOSSIBLE. The radiation frequency of gamma rays followed a Lorentzian distribution,
    similar to a Gauss distribution, around the central frequency.

    Among the major perturbations that made such a measurement impossible by direct means were: Doppler effects (first and second order), all kind of noise in the environment and instruments, random distribution of
    frequencies of gamma rays around its central frequency, vibrations of
    any kind, IMPOSSIBILITY to separate the gravitational effect from the
    general effects of frequency shifting (it was only 1/1,000 part of the
    total frequency shift) and many other factors.

    Pound and Rebka resorted to a HEAVY STATISTICAL MANIPULATION of the
    results, and due to that, his presentation one week later to the
    physicists' convention DIDN'T mention that he had proved Einstein's
    right. That came LATER, by the hand of relativists, that started to
    praise the experiment as extraordinary and the first one conducted on
    Earth, instead of using astronomical measurements.

    Pound's experiment was claimed as having an error of about 10%, when in reality the paper published early in 1960 show an error of about 100%.

    This is what ChatGPT answered when I presented the case:

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

    Question: if the measured gravitational shift (−4.2×10^−15) was almost twice
    the predicted value (+2.5×10^−15), it's claimed that the error is only 10% with respect to the theory?

    Answer:


    The claim that the error was only 10% despite the measured gravitational shift
    (−4.2×10^−15) being significantly different from the predicted value (+2.5×10^−15) is based on the way experimental uncertainty and
    systematic corrections were handled in the Pound-Rebka experiment. Let's break this down:

    the following factors contribute to explaining the discrepancy:

    a. Calibration of Doppler Velocities
    The experiment relied on precise Doppler velocity adjustments to cancel
    out the gravitational redshift.
    Any small miscalibrations or systematic errors in determining the
    Doppler shifts could result in an apparent shift that does not perfectly match the theoretical prediction.
    These systematic effects were treated as sources of uncertainty rather
    than fundamental errors in the experiment.

    b. Noise and Statistical Averaging
    The results were derived from the averaging of many measurements, with
    noise and random variations influencing individual data points.
    Statistical analysis was applied to estimate the "true" shift by
    reducing random noise. The final reported error margin reflected this statistical uncertainty.

    c. Systematic Corrections
    The researchers applied corrections for known sources of systematic
    error, such as:
    Thermal expansion or contraction of components.
    Alignment imperfections in the source or detector.
    After applying these corrections, the discrepancy between the measured
    and predicted values was reduced to within the claimed margin of error.

    2. How the 10% Error Was Justified
    The "10% error" claim stems from the combined experimental uncertainty
    rather than the raw difference between the measured and theoretical
    values. Here's how this works:

    a. Combining Uncertainties
    The total uncertainty was a combination of:
    Statistical Error: The noise in the measurements, reduced through
    averaging.
    Systematic Error: Residual effects from calibration, alignment, and environmental factors.

    b. Accounting for the Discrepancy
    When the measured shift was adjusted to account for systematic
    corrections, the discrepancy with the theoretical value fell within this
    10% error range.
    This was considered acceptable for an experiment of this complexity and sensitivity, particularly given the pioneering nature of the work.

    3. Why the Result Was Accepted

    Despite the apparent discrepancy, the experiment's results were
    considered a validation of Einstein's prediction because:

    a. Correct Order of Magnitude
    The observed shift was of the same order of magnitude as the predicted
    value, which was a significant achievement given the technological limitations of the time.

    b. Agreement Within Experimental Uncertainty

    After accounting for uncertainties, the measured value was consistent
    with the theoretical prediction to within 10%, which was deemed
    sufficient given the challenges of measuring such a small effect.

    c. Pioneering Nature of the Experiment

    The Pound-Rebka experiment was the first direct measurement of
    gravitational redshift on Earth. The scientific community recognized its limitations but also its groundbreaking contribution to testing General Relativity.


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


    So, ChatGPT agreed that the error had an uncertainty of about 100%, but accept this for "BEING SO CLOSE TO WAS WANTED TO BE PROVEN".

    Then resort to all kind of idiocies to justify the HEROIC and
    groundbreaking experiment, after what it switches to alternate
    explanations like: The advances in the development of cesium clocks,
    highly imperfect in the '60s, allowed to prove Einstein beyond any
    doubt.

    So, folks, ChatGPT is the COLLECTIVE MIND of relativists and will not
    accept any opposite fact, even when the evidence crushes any defense of
    GR.


    The "dialog" is much more long than the resume I posted above.


    Pound-Rebka experiment IS FALSE, a hoax and a desperate attempt to
    impose Einstein's SR/GR AT ANY COST, resorting to lies, deformation of
    truth, twisting facts and, mostly, TAKING YOU AS A FUCKING IDIOT.
    So that's where you have been.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From LaurenceClarkCrossen@21:1/5 to rhertz on Thu Dec 26 03:35:51 2024
    On Thu, 26 Dec 2024 0:22:56 +0000, rhertz wrote:

    I've been using ChatGPT to analyze the FISHY 1959 infamous experiment
    that "proved" Einstein's 1911 predicted gravitational blue-shifting,
    with the formula g.h/c^2.

    The 1959 Pound-Rebka experiment was conducted in less than a week,
    because Pound had to lecture about his results in a conference of
    physicists, to whom he had anticipated his idea.

    Using a 22.5 meters height at the Jefferson Laboratory, a sample of radioactive Fe57 that emitted 14.4 KeV gamma rays (a fraction of them
    without recoil in the emitting atom), he and his collaborators devised
    an extremely complex array of instruments and mechanisms to MEASURE a "predicted" gravitational shift of only
    2.5x10^-15. The problem was that the source of Fe57 emitted gamma
    radiation within a band of frequencies that had a half energy width of
    about 10^-12 around the central frequency. PLUS, only a fraction of
    gamma rays were free of recoil effects.

    In 1959, and even today, to measure a contribution of GR of almost 1,000 times smaller than the bandwidth of gamma rays was/is IMPOSSIBLE. The radiation frequency of gamma rays followed a Lorentzian distribution,
    similar to a Gauss distribution, around the central frequency.

    Among the major perturbations that made such a measurement impossible by direct means were: Doppler effects (first and second order), all kind of noise in the environment and instruments, random distribution of
    frequencies of gamma rays around its central frequency, vibrations of
    any kind, IMPOSSIBILITY to separate the gravitational effect from the
    general effects of frequency shifting (it was only 1/1,000 part of the
    total frequency shift) and many other factors.

    Pound and Rebka resorted to a HEAVY STATISTICAL MANIPULATION of the
    results, and due to that, his presentation one week later to the
    physicists' convention DIDN'T mention that he had proved Einstein's
    right. That came LATER, by the hand of relativists, that started to
    praise the experiment as extraordinary and the first one conducted on
    Earth, instead of using astronomical measurements.

    Pound's experiment was claimed as having an error of about 10%, when in reality the paper published early in 1960 show an error of about 100%.

    This is what ChatGPT answered when I presented the case:

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

    Question: if the measured gravitational shift (−4.2×10^−15) was almost twice
    the predicted value (+2.5×10^−15), it's claimed that the error is only 10% with respect to the theory?

    Answer:


    The claim that the error was only 10% despite the measured gravitational shift
    (−4.2×10^−15) being significantly different from the predicted value (+2.5×10^−15) is based on the way experimental uncertainty and
    systematic corrections were handled in the Pound-Rebka experiment. Let's break this down:

    the following factors contribute to explaining the discrepancy:

    a. Calibration of Doppler Velocities
    The experiment relied on precise Doppler velocity adjustments to cancel
    out the gravitational redshift.
    Any small miscalibrations or systematic errors in determining the
    Doppler shifts could result in an apparent shift that does not perfectly match the theoretical prediction.
    These systematic effects were treated as sources of uncertainty rather
    than fundamental errors in the experiment.

    b. Noise and Statistical Averaging
    The results were derived from the averaging of many measurements, with
    noise and random variations influencing individual data points.
    Statistical analysis was applied to estimate the "true" shift by
    reducing random noise. The final reported error margin reflected this statistical uncertainty.

    c. Systematic Corrections
    The researchers applied corrections for known sources of systematic
    error, such as:
    Thermal expansion or contraction of components.
    Alignment imperfections in the source or detector.
    After applying these corrections, the discrepancy between the measured
    and predicted values was reduced to within the claimed margin of error.

    2. How the 10% Error Was Justified
    The "10% error" claim stems from the combined experimental uncertainty
    rather than the raw difference between the measured and theoretical
    values. Here's how this works:

    a. Combining Uncertainties
    The total uncertainty was a combination of:
    Statistical Error: The noise in the measurements, reduced through
    averaging.
    Systematic Error: Residual effects from calibration, alignment, and environmental factors.

    b. Accounting for the Discrepancy
    When the measured shift was adjusted to account for systematic
    corrections, the discrepancy with the theoretical value fell within this
    10% error range.
    This was considered acceptable for an experiment of this complexity and sensitivity, particularly given the pioneering nature of the work.

    3. Why the Result Was Accepted

    Despite the apparent discrepancy, the experiment's results were
    considered a validation of Einstein's prediction because:

    a. Correct Order of Magnitude
    The observed shift was of the same order of magnitude as the predicted
    value, which was a significant achievement given the technological limitations of the time.

    b. Agreement Within Experimental Uncertainty

    After accounting for uncertainties, the measured value was consistent
    with the theoretical prediction to within 10%, which was deemed
    sufficient given the challenges of measuring such a small effect.

    c. Pioneering Nature of the Experiment

    The Pound-Rebka experiment was the first direct measurement of
    gravitational redshift on Earth. The scientific community recognized its limitations but also its groundbreaking contribution to testing General Relativity.


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


    So, ChatGPT agreed that the error had an uncertainty of about 100%, but accept this for "BEING SO CLOSE TO WAS WANTED TO BE PROVEN".

    Then resort to all kind of idiocies to justify the HEROIC and
    groundbreaking experiment, after what it switches to alternate
    explanations like: The advances in the development of cesium clocks,
    highly imperfect in the '60s, allowed to prove Einstein beyond any
    doubt.

    So, folks, ChatGPT is the COLLECTIVE MIND of relativists and will not
    accept any opposite fact, even when the evidence crushes any defense of
    GR.


    The "dialog" is much more long than the resume I posted above.


    Pound-Rebka experiment IS FALSE, a hoax and a desperate attempt to
    impose Einstein's SR/GR AT ANY COST, resorting to lies, deformation of
    truth, twisting facts and, mostly, TAKING YOU AS A FUCKING IDIOT.
    "'in the late 1920s, physics departments were being purged of Relativity critics... reason given... to obtain maximal funds...'" - "Einstein
    Unmasked" by Jeremy Fiennes c. 2024.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From The Starmaker@21:1/5 to rhertz on Thu Dec 26 14:02:18 2024
    rhertz wrote:

    I repost here the first part of my 2023 OP about the P-R HOAX.

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

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

    https://groups.google.com/g/sci.physics.relativity/c/0aLXD2GNp4U/m/bkuHL3f1BgAJ

    -------------------------------------------------------------

    For 63 years now, it has been proclamed that the 1960 Pound-Rebka
    experiment was THE FIRST VALID PROOF OF GR gravitational shift,
    with +/- 10% statistical error.

    For decades, it was alleged that the Experiment proved right the 1911 Einstein's heuristic assertion that |Δf/f₀| ≈ 20E-15 for an elevation of the "light generator" of 22.2 meters above ground.

    It's explained EVERYWHERE the cleverness of this duo, that used samples
    of radioactive Fe⁵⁷ atoms emitting 14.4 KeV Gamma rays, with a frequency of 3.48E+18 Hz (3,480 PetaHz).

    And it's claimed EVERYWHERE that the duo measured differences of about
    69,660 Hz in that HUGE value of frequency, something that was/is
    IMPOSSIBLE with the technology available in the last 60 years (and in
    the
    next 100 years too).

    It's applauded the high degree of ingenuity for using a slowly moving
    sample
    so Doppler effects (red-shifting part) would cancel gravitational
    effects
    blue-shifting part, with sample on the tower).

    WHAT HAS NOT BEEN SAID ANYWHERE is that those "clever guys" and his
    team of collaborators DIDN'T USE RELATIVISTIC DOPPLER FORMULA, but
    used the 160 years old Doppler formula (the one Hubble used in 1929).

    So, how is this? Using Newton effects to cancel Einstein effects?
    Bullshit.

    In this part, I analyze the simple Doppler formula in its two versions.
    In the
    second part (II), I'll prove that they TRIMMED, COOKED AND FUDGED the
    data of the experiment to obtain 14 values (out of thousands) TO FIT "EINSTEIN'S PREDICTION".

    First things first:

    Relativistic Doppler
    (f₁/f₀)² = (1 - v/c)/(1 + v/c) = (1 - βᵣ)/(1 + βᵣ) = p²
    1 - βᵣ = p² + p² βᵣ
    1 - p² = βᵣ (1 + p²)
    βᵣ = (1 - p²)/(1 + p²)

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

    (f₁/f₀) = p = (f₀ + Δf)/f₀ = 1 + Δf/f₀

    p = 1 + Δf/f₀ = 1+ 15.5E-15 (Pound-Rebka, top-down, 1960)

    βᵣ = (1 - p²)/(1 + p²) ≈ 15.5E-30 (relativistic, NOT USED).

    β = (1 - p)/(1 + p) ≈ 15.5E-15 (classic, ALLEGEDLY USED)

    v = β.c ≈ 15.5E-15 x 3E+10 cm/sec = 4.55E-04 cm/sec

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

    And THIS was used to cancel gravitational blue-shifting in 22.2 mt,
    given
    by the einstenian formula:

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

    (f₁/f₀)² = pᵣ² = [1 - 2GMₑ/c² 1/(Rₑ + h)]/(1 - 2GMₑ/c² 1/Rₑ)

    2GMₑ/c² = 4.43503E-03 m
    Rₑ = 6.378136550E+06 m
    h = 22.2 m

    (f₁/f₀)² = pᵣ² = (1 - 6.953461356E-10)/(1 - 6.953485559E-10) (f₁/f₀)² = pᵣ² ≈ 1.000000000000000 (error < 10E-15)

    So, the relativistic gravitational shift is BARELY NOTICED:

    (f₁/f₀)² = pᵣ² = (1 - 6.953461356E-10)/(1 - 6.953485559E-10) (f₁/f₀)² = pᵣ² = 0.999999999304654/0.999999999304651
    (f₁/f₀)² = pᵣ² ≈ 1.000000000000000 (error < 10E-15)

    The above calculations are a proof that the NARRATIVE about the "shift cancellation" by using classic Dopler effect to CANCEL the einstenian relativistic blue shifting is JUST A FAIRY TALE.

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

    What Pound & Rebka CLAIMED THAT MEASURED was below the values to
    be cancelled (about +/- 15E-15).

    The ALLEGED speed v of the sample, in the direction of the detector had
    to
    be around 4.55E-04 cm/sec, not the claimed 1.5 cm/sec.

    Wikipedia estimates that v ≈ 7.5E-05 cm/sec. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pound%E2%80%93Rebka_experiment

    The ABSOLUTE AVERAGE frequency shift had to be around 69,600 Hz,
    difference IMPOSSIBLE TO BE MEASURED BY ANY MEANS on 3.48E+18 Hz
    (3,480 PetaHz) frequency of Gamma ray photons.

    So, WE ARE SUPPOSED TO BELIEVE that the 14 carefully selected
    measurements that they published are ABSOLUTELY TRUE, even when
    they have a FUDGE COMPENSATION FACTOR FOR TEMPERATURE that
    is ALMOST THE MEASURED VALUE. As an example, this measurement,
    as published:

    Feb. 22, 5 p.m. ; Source at the bottom.
    Shift observed: (-11.5 ± 3.0) x 10E-15
    Temperature correction: -9.2 x 10E-15 (almost 90% cooking/fudging)
    Net shift: (-20.7 ± 3.0) x 10E-15 [as predicted by Einstein]

    NOTE: Photons without recoil are a tiny fraction f of the total amount
    of
    Gamma photons emitted. And this fraction has frequency shifts that are SPREAD, in a gaussian way, around f₀ ± 34,800 Hz CALCULATED, not
    measured.

    Now, anyone wanting to redo such experiment today will have to justify
    PLENTY how did they measured such uber tiny difference in 3,480 PetaHz.

    No way then, and even today, unless you resort to fudging and
    statistical
    HEALING.

    Next part will be about the 14 published measurements, as the one above. --------------------------------------------------------

    "TRIMMED, COOKED AND FUDGED" is the only way any scientists can get a
    million dollar grant today!











    --
    The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
    to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable,
    and challenge the unchallengeable.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From The Starmaker@21:1/5 to The Starmaker on Thu Dec 26 16:44:48 2024
    The Starmaker wrote:

    rhertz wrote:

    I repost here the first part of my 2023 OP about the P-R HOAX.

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

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

    https://groups.google.com/g/sci.physics.relativity/c/0aLXD2GNp4U/m/bkuHL3f1BgAJ

    -------------------------------------------------------------

    For 63 years now, it has been proclamed that the 1960 Pound-Rebka experiment was THE FIRST VALID PROOF OF GR gravitational shift,
    with +/- 10% statistical error.

    For decades, it was alleged that the Experiment proved right the 1911 Einstein's heuristic assertion that |Δf/f₀| ≈ 20E-15 for an elevation of
    the "light generator" of 22.2 meters above ground.

    It's explained EVERYWHERE the cleverness of this duo, that used samples
    of radioactive Fe⁵⁷ atoms emitting 14.4 KeV Gamma rays, with a frequency
    of 3.48E+18 Hz (3,480 PetaHz).

    And it's claimed EVERYWHERE that the duo measured differences of about 69,660 Hz in that HUGE value of frequency, something that was/is
    IMPOSSIBLE with the technology available in the last 60 years (and in
    the
    next 100 years too).

    It's applauded the high degree of ingenuity for using a slowly moving sample
    so Doppler effects (red-shifting part) would cancel gravitational
    effects
    blue-shifting part, with sample on the tower).

    WHAT HAS NOT BEEN SAID ANYWHERE is that those "clever guys" and his
    team of collaborators DIDN'T USE RELATIVISTIC DOPPLER FORMULA, but
    used the 160 years old Doppler formula (the one Hubble used in 1929).

    So, how is this? Using Newton effects to cancel Einstein effects?
    Bullshit.

    In this part, I analyze the simple Doppler formula in its two versions.
    In the
    second part (II), I'll prove that they TRIMMED, COOKED AND FUDGED the
    data of the experiment to obtain 14 values (out of thousands) TO FIT "EINSTEIN'S PREDICTION".

    First things first:

    Relativistic Doppler
    (f₁/f₀)² = (1 - v/c)/(1 + v/c) = (1 - βᵣ)/(1 + βᵣ) = p²
    1 - βᵣ = p² + p² βᵣ
    1 - p² = βᵣ (1 + p²)
    βᵣ = (1 - p²)/(1 + p²)

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

    (f₁/f₀) = p = (f₀ + Δf)/f₀ = 1 + Δf/f₀

    p = 1 + Δf/f₀ = 1+ 15.5E-15 (Pound-Rebka, top-down, 1960)

    βᵣ = (1 - p²)/(1 + p²) ≈ 15.5E-30 (relativistic, NOT USED).

    β = (1 - p)/(1 + p) ≈ 15.5E-15 (classic, ALLEGEDLY USED)

    v = β.c ≈ 15.5E-15 x 3E+10 cm/sec = 4.55E-04 cm/sec

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

    And THIS was used to cancel gravitational blue-shifting in 22.2 mt,
    given
    by the einstenian formula:

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

    (f₁/f₀)² = pᵣ² = [1 - 2GMₑ/c² 1/(Rₑ + h)]/(1 - 2GMₑ/c² 1/Rₑ)

    2GMₑ/c² = 4.43503E-03 m
    Rₑ = 6.378136550E+06 m
    h = 22.2 m

    (f₁/f₀)² = pᵣ² = (1 - 6.953461356E-10)/(1 - 6.953485559E-10) (f₁/f₀)² = pᵣ² ≈ 1.000000000000000 (error < 10E-15)

    So, the relativistic gravitational shift is BARELY NOTICED:

    (f₁/f₀)² = pᵣ² = (1 - 6.953461356E-10)/(1 - 6.953485559E-10) (f₁/f₀)² = pᵣ² = 0.999999999304654/0.999999999304651
    (f₁/f₀)² = pᵣ² ≈ 1.000000000000000 (error < 10E-15)

    The above calculations are a proof that the NARRATIVE about the "shift cancellation" by using classic Dopler effect to CANCEL the einstenian relativistic blue shifting is JUST A FAIRY TALE.

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

    What Pound & Rebka CLAIMED THAT MEASURED was below the values to
    be cancelled (about +/- 15E-15).

    The ALLEGED speed v of the sample, in the direction of the detector had
    to
    be around 4.55E-04 cm/sec, not the claimed 1.5 cm/sec.

    Wikipedia estimates that v ≈ 7.5E-05 cm/sec. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pound%E2%80%93Rebka_experiment

    The ABSOLUTE AVERAGE frequency shift had to be around 69,600 Hz,
    difference IMPOSSIBLE TO BE MEASURED BY ANY MEANS on 3.48E+18 Hz
    (3,480 PetaHz) frequency of Gamma ray photons.

    So, WE ARE SUPPOSED TO BELIEVE that the 14 carefully selected
    measurements that they published are ABSOLUTELY TRUE, even when
    they have a FUDGE COMPENSATION FACTOR FOR TEMPERATURE that
    is ALMOST THE MEASURED VALUE. As an example, this measurement,
    as published:

    Feb. 22, 5 p.m. ; Source at the bottom.
    Shift observed: (-11.5 ± 3.0) x 10E-15
    Temperature correction: -9.2 x 10E-15 (almost 90% cooking/fudging)
    Net shift: (-20.7 ± 3.0) x 10E-15 [as predicted by Einstein]

    NOTE: Photons without recoil are a tiny fraction f of the total amount
    of
    Gamma photons emitted. And this fraction has frequency shifts that are SPREAD, in a gaussian way, around f₀ ± 34,800 Hz CALCULATED, not measured.

    Now, anyone wanting to redo such experiment today will have to justify PLENTY how did they measured such uber tiny difference in 3,480 PetaHz.

    No way then, and even today, unless you resort to fudging and
    statistical
    HEALING.

    Next part will be about the 14 published measurements, as the one above. --------------------------------------------------------

    "TRIMMED, COOKED AND FUDGED" is the only way any scientists can get a
    million dollar grant today!


    Is there a rule that Albert Einstein DIDN'T break? https://www.enago.com/academy/10-types-of-scientific-misconduct/




    --
    The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
    to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable,
    and challenge the unchallengeable.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From LaurenceClarkCrossen@21:1/5 to rhertz on Fri Dec 27 05:03:16 2024
    On Thu, 26 Dec 2024 17:14:17 +0000, rhertz wrote:

    What were the findings of the Pound-Rebka Experiment?

    https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/362002/what-were-the-findings-of-the-pound-rebka-experiment

    ***** THE EXPERIMENT IS CONSIDERED AS A NON-RELATIVISTIC PROOF OF
    NEWTONIAN THEORY OF LIGHT, AND ITS RESULTS ARE NOT RELATED TO GENERAL RELATIVITY. THE NARRATIVE ABOUT SUCH EXPERIMENT BEING THE PROOF OF THE
    THIRD EINSTEIN'S PREDICTION (MERCURY AND LIGHT DEFLECTION) ABOUT GRAVITATIONAL RED-SHIFTING IS JUST PROPAGANDA. *****



    QUOTE: -----------------------------------------------------------------------
    The Pound-Rebka experiment demonstrated that the velocity difference (acceleration) of photons is "identical to that which a material object
    would acquire in free fall", as predicted by Newton's emission theory of light and in violation of Einstein's relativity:

    R. V. Pound and J. L. Snider, Effect of Gravity on Gamma Radiation
    (pdf): "It is not our purpose here to enter into the many-sided
    discussion of the relationship between the effect under study and
    general relativity or energy conservation. It is to be noted that no
    strictly relativistic concepts are involved and the description of the
    effect as an "apparent weight" of photons is suggestive. The velocity difference predicted is identical to that which a material object would acquire in free fall for a time equal to the time of flight."

    That the speed of falling light varies like the speed of ordinary
    falling bodies is so obvious that many scientists confirm the fact and
    so inadvertently disprove Einstein's relativity:

    University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign: "Consider a falling object.
    ITS SPEED INCREASES AS IT IS FALLING. Hence, if we were to associate a frequency with that object the frequency should increase accordingly as
    it falls to earth. Because of the equivalence between gravitational and inertial mass, WE SHOULD OBSERVE THE SAME EFFECT FOR LIGHT. So lets
    shine a light beam from the top of a very tall building. If we can
    measure the frequency shift as the light beam descends the building, we should be able to discern how gravity affects a falling light beam. This
    was done by Pound and Rebka in 1960. They shone a light from the top of
    the Jefferson tower at Harvard and measured the frequency shift. The frequency shift was tiny but in agreement with the theoretical
    prediction. Consider a light beam that is travelling away from a gravitational field. Its frequency should shift to lower values. This is known as the gravitational red shift of light."

    Albert Einstein Institute: "One of the three classical tests for general relativity is the gravitational redshift of light or other forms of electromagnetic radiation. However, in contrast to the other two tests -
    the gravitational deflection of light and the relativistic perihelion
    shift -, you do not need general relativity to derive the correct
    prediction for the gravitational redshift. A combination of Newtonian gravity, a particle theory of light, and the weak equivalence principle (gravitating mass equals inertial mass) suffices. [...] The
    gravitational redshift was first measured on earth in 1960-65 by Pound, Rebka, and Snider at Harvard University..." ----------------------------------------------------------------
    What excuses have the relativists for this? They never gave a good
    explanation of the doubling nonsense.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From LaurenceClarkCrossen@21:1/5 to The Starmaker on Fri Dec 27 04:53:01 2024
    On Fri, 27 Dec 2024 0:44:48 +0000, The Starmaker wrote:

    The Starmaker wrote:

    rhertz wrote:

    I repost here the first part of my 2023 OP about the P-R HOAX.

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

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

    https://groups.google.com/g/sci.physics.relativity/c/0aLXD2GNp4U/m/bkuHL3f1BgAJ

    -------------------------------------------------------------

    For 63 years now, it has been proclamed that the 1960 Pound-Rebka
    experiment was THE FIRST VALID PROOF OF GR gravitational shift,
    with +/- 10% statistical error.

    For decades, it was alleged that the Experiment proved right the 1911
    Einstein's heuristic assertion that |Δf/f₀| ≈ 20E-15 for an >>> elevation of
    the "light generator" of 22.2 meters above ground.

    It's explained EVERYWHERE the cleverness of this duo, that used samples
    of radioactive Fe⁵⁷ atoms emitting 14.4 KeV Gamma rays, with a >>> frequency
    of 3.48E+18 Hz (3,480 PetaHz).

    And it's claimed EVERYWHERE that the duo measured differences of about
    69,660 Hz in that HUGE value of frequency, something that was/is
    IMPOSSIBLE with the technology available in the last 60 years (and in
    the
    next 100 years too).

    It's applauded the high degree of ingenuity for using a slowly moving
    sample
    so Doppler effects (red-shifting part) would cancel gravitational
    effects
    blue-shifting part, with sample on the tower).

    WHAT HAS NOT BEEN SAID ANYWHERE is that those "clever guys" and his
    team of collaborators DIDN'T USE RELATIVISTIC DOPPLER FORMULA, but
    used the 160 years old Doppler formula (the one Hubble used in 1929).

    So, how is this? Using Newton effects to cancel Einstein effects?
    Bullshit.

    In this part, I analyze the simple Doppler formula in its two versions.
    In the
    second part (II), I'll prove that they TRIMMED, COOKED AND FUDGED the
    data of the experiment to obtain 14 values (out of thousands) TO FIT
    "EINSTEIN'S PREDICTION".

    First things first:

    Relativistic Doppler
    (f₁/f₀)² = (1 - v/c)/(1 + v/c) = (1 - βᵣ)/(1 + βᵣ) = p²
    1 - βᵣ = p² + p² βᵣ
    1 - p² = βᵣ (1 + p²)
    βᵣ = (1 - p²)/(1 + p²)

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

    (f₁/f₀) = p = (f₀ + Δf)/f₀ = 1 + Δf/f₀

    p = 1 + Δf/f₀ = 1+ 15.5E-15 (Pound-Rebka, top-down, 1960)

    βᵣ = (1 - p²)/(1 + p²) ≈ 15.5E-30 (relativistic, NOT USED).

    β = (1 - p)/(1 + p) ≈ 15.5E-15 (classic, ALLEGEDLY USED)

    v = β.c ≈ 15.5E-15 x 3E+10 cm/sec = 4.55E-04 cm/sec

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

    And THIS was used to cancel gravitational blue-shifting in 22.2 mt,
    given
    by the einstenian formula:

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

    (f₁/f₀)² = pᵣ² = [1 - 2GMₑ/c² 1/(Rₑ + h)]/(1 - 2GMₑ/c²
    1/Rₑ)

    2GMₑ/c² = 4.43503E-03 m
    Rₑ = 6.378136550E+06 m
    h = 22.2 m

    (f₁/f₀)² = pᵣ² = (1 - 6.953461356E-10)/(1 - 6.953485559E-10)
    (f₁/f₀)² = pᵣ² ≈ 1.000000000000000 (error < 10E-15)

    So, the relativistic gravitational shift is BARELY NOTICED:

    (f₁/f₀)² = pᵣ² = (1 - 6.953461356E-10)/(1 - 6.953485559E-10)
    (f₁/f₀)² = pᵣ² = 0.999999999304654/0.999999999304651 >>> (f₁/f₀)² = pᵣ² ≈ 1.000000000000000 (error < 10E-15)

    The above calculations are a proof that the NARRATIVE about the "shift
    cancellation" by using classic Dopler effect to CANCEL the einstenian
    relativistic blue shifting is JUST A FAIRY TALE.

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

    What Pound & Rebka CLAIMED THAT MEASURED was below the values to
    be cancelled (about +/- 15E-15).

    The ALLEGED speed v of the sample, in the direction of the detector had
    to
    be around 4.55E-04 cm/sec, not the claimed 1.5 cm/sec.

    Wikipedia estimates that v ≈ 7.5E-05 cm/sec.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pound%E2%80%93Rebka_experiment

    The ABSOLUTE AVERAGE frequency shift had to be around 69,600 Hz,
    difference IMPOSSIBLE TO BE MEASURED BY ANY MEANS on 3.48E+18 Hz
    (3,480 PetaHz) frequency of Gamma ray photons.

    So, WE ARE SUPPOSED TO BELIEVE that the 14 carefully selected
    measurements that they published are ABSOLUTELY TRUE, even when
    they have a FUDGE COMPENSATION FACTOR FOR TEMPERATURE that
    is ALMOST THE MEASURED VALUE. As an example, this measurement,
    as published:

    Feb. 22, 5 p.m. ; Source at the bottom.
    Shift observed: (-11.5 ± 3.0) x 10E-15
    Temperature correction: -9.2 x 10E-15 (almost 90% cooking/fudging)
    Net shift: (-20.7 ± 3.0) x 10E-15 [as predicted by Einstein]

    NOTE: Photons without recoil are a tiny fraction f of the total amount
    of
    Gamma photons emitted. And this fraction has frequency shifts that are
    SPREAD, in a gaussian way, around f₀ ± 34,800 Hz CALCULATED, not >>> measured.

    Now, anyone wanting to redo such experiment today will have to justify
    PLENTY how did they measured such uber tiny difference in 3,480 PetaHz.

    No way then, and even today, unless you resort to fudging and
    statistical
    HEALING.

    Next part will be about the 14 published measurements, as the one above. >>> --------------------------------------------------------

    "TRIMMED, COOKED AND FUDGED" is the only way any scientists can get a
    million dollar grant today!


    Is there a rule that Albert Einstein DIDN'T break? https://www.enago.com/academy/10-types-of-scientific-misconduct/



    I don't see any, do you?

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)