Path: eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!i2pn.org!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: clzb93ynxj@att.net (LaurenceClarkCrossen)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity
Subject: Re: Pound-Rebka: ChatGPT is TRAINED to obey, sucking asses of relativists
 at any cost.
Date: Fri, 27 Dec 2024 05:03:16 +0000
Organization: novaBBS
Message-ID: <2c5050f45485cd033cadb5697a9abfa0@www.novabbs.com>
References: <6a7610a42b2509b3a6eabb47e3526dfb@www.novabbs.com> <4ded9be7f8059f6da02f4f3f130214cb@www.novabbs.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="647434"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="HcQFdl4zp4UQRQ9N18ivMn6Fl9V8n4SPkK4oZHLgYdQ";
User-Agent: Rocksolid Light
X-Rslight-Posting-User: a2f761a7401f13abeefca3440f16b2f27b708180
X-Rslight-Site: $2y$10$p7M81Lm1Rm4w.wdwtgUyKOAPLDqVeq4wPh/ERZa5Lz1NuomJiLJyO
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0

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.