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 toSo that's where you have been.
impose Einstein's SR/GR AT ANY COST, resorting to lies, deformation of
truth, twisting facts and, mostly, TAKING YOU AS A FUCKING IDIOT.
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"'in the late 1920s, physics departments were being purged of Relativity critics... reason given... to obtain maximal funds...'" - "Einstein
impose Einstein's SR/GR AT ANY COST, resorting to lies, deformation of
truth, twisting facts and, mostly, TAKING YOU AS A FUCKING IDIOT.
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. --------------------------------------------------------
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!
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: -----------------------------------------------------------------------What excuses have the relativists for this? They never gave a good
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..." ----------------------------------------------------------------
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 |Îf/fâ| â 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 Feâµâ· 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
(fâ/fâ)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
(fâ/fâ) = (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
(fâ/fâ) = p = (fâ + Îf)/fâ = 1 + Îf/fâ
p = 1 + Îf/fâ = 1+ 15.5E-15 (Pound-Rebka, top-down, 1960)
βᵣ = (1 - p²)/(1 + p²) â 15.5E-30 (relativistic, NOT USED).
β = (1 - p)/(1 + p) â 15.5E-15 (classic, ALLEGEDLY USED)
v = β.c â 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:
(fâ/fâ) = â [[1 - 2GMâ/c² 1/(Râ + h)]/(1 - 2GMâ/c²
1/Râ)]
(fâ/fâ)² = pᵣ² = [1 - 2GMâ/c² 1/(Râ + h)]/(1 - 2GMâ/c²
1/Râ)
2GMâ/c² = 4.43503E-03 m
Râ = 6.378136550E+06 m
h = 22.2 m
(fâ/fâ)² = pᵣ² = (1 - 6.953461356E-10)/(1 - 6.953485559E-10)
(fâ/fâ)² = pᵣ² â 1.000000000000000 (error < 10E-15)
So, the relativistic gravitational shift is BARELY NOTICED:
(fâ/fâ)² = pᵣ² = (1 - 6.953461356E-10)/(1 - 6.953485559E-10)
(fâ/fâ)² = pᵣ² = 0.999999999304654/0.999999999304651 >>> (fâ/fâ)² = pᵣ² â 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 â 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 fâ ± 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/
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 491 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 100:56:43 |
| Calls: | 9,681 |
| Calls today: | 2 |
| Files: | 13,725 |
| Messages: | 6,174,904 |