Deutsch   English   Français   Italiano  
<676340b2$1$29715$426a74cc@news.free.fr>

View for Bookmarking (what is this?)
Look up another Usenet article

Path: ...!3.eu.feeder.erje.net!2.eu.feeder.erje.net!feeder.erje.net!feeder1-2.proxad.net!proxad.net!feeder1-1.proxad.net!cleanfeed3-a.proxad.net!nnrp1-2.free.fr!not-for-mail
Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity
Subject: Re: Gravitational time dilation HOAX along the years
From: nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder)
Reply-To: jjlxa31@xs4all.nl (J. J. Lodder)
Date: Wed, 18 Dec 2024 22:37:54 +0100
References: <84deac76f160f1f681f5275e10d7e683@www.novabbs.com> <e47a7acd067fb390d71e6fc9b6a76061@www.novabbs.com> <snA8P.4$511.3@fx08.ams4> <d5b6c7336db1a2bbf3805d67372fc551@www.novabbs.com>
Organization: De Ster
Mail-Copies-To: nobody
User-Agent: MacSOUP/2.8.5 (ea919cf118) (Mac OS 10.12.6)
Lines: 87
Message-ID: <676340b2$1$29715$426a74cc@news.free.fr>
NNTP-Posting-Date: 18 Dec 2024 22:37:54 CET
NNTP-Posting-Host: 213.10.137.58
X-Trace: 1734557874 news-3.free.fr 29715 213.10.137.58:54732
X-Complaints-To: abuse@proxad.net
Bytes: 4249

rhertz <hertz778@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Wed, 18 Dec 2024 13:48:34 +0000, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
> 
> > Den 17.12.2024 23:58, skrev rhertz:
> >> Einstein wrote, in his 1911 paper:
> >>
> >> .....................................
> >> 3. Time and the Velocity of Light in the Gravitational Field
> >>
> >> If the radiation emitted in the uniformly accelerated system K0 in S2
> >> toward S1 had the frequency f2 relative to the clock at S2, then,
> >> relative to S1, at its arrival at S1 it no longer has the frequency f2
> >> relative to an identical clock at S1, but a greater frequency f1, such
> >> that, to a first approximation
> >>
> >> (2)                  f1 = f2 (1 + gh/c?)
> >>
> >> ***************************************************************************
> >>
> >> (2')                  h?f1 = f2 (1 + gh/c?)
> >>
> >>
> >> (2'')                 E1(1 photon) - E2 (1 photon) = h?f2 gh/c?
> >>
> >>
> >> h?: Planck's constant
> >>
> >> S2 is a point on the z axis at a distance h of point S1, located at the
> >> z origin.
> >>
> >> Einstein described how a photon falling vertically from a height h,
> >> under gravity acceleration g, gained energy gh/c?. It meant that the
> >> photon's frequency was blue-shifted while it fell due to gravity.
> >>
> >> By that epoch (1911), he kept talking about clocks as reference of time.
> >> By today standards and the use of ANY atomic clock, the frequency of the
> >> EM energy is what counts in his theory. It doesn't matter what kind of
> >> EM clock is, as it ONLY counts cycles/sec of such EM energy, either at
> >> 9.6 Ghz for Cesium, 1.4 Ghz for Hydrogen maser or ANY derived frequency
> >> that is obtained by digitally down scaling the frequency. The same
> >> formula applies to 9.6 Ghz oscillation or a derived 1 Mhz signal. Clocks
> >> just COUNT pulses.
> >
> > Forget the 1911 paper.
> >
> > Einstein's last word on the matter is GR.
> >
> > What GR predicts for the Pound - Rebka experiment:
> >
> > https://paulba.no/pdf/PoundRebka.pdf
> >
> > ---------------
> >
> > Let's count pulses.
> >
> > We have two equal, very precise atomic clocks.
> > These clocks are emitting the exact frequency f = 10 GHz.
> > We place one clock on the ground, and the other clock above
> > it in a tower with height h = 22.56 m.
> >
> > After one day the ground clock will show ?? = 86400 s
> > and it will have emitted N? = 0.864e15 cycles.
> >
> > The clock on the ground will have received:
> >   N? = N??(1+g?h/c?) = N??(1+2.5e-15) = (0.864e15 + 2)
> > which means that that the clock in the tower will show:
> >   ?? = 86400 s + 0.2 ns
> >
> > After one year  ?? - ?? = 78.2 ns
> 
> 
> Your comment is worthless, as you're ACCEPTING THAT EINSTEIN WAS RIGHT
> IN 1911.

Of course he was, in the Newtonian limit of GR.

> Then, your calculations based on the 1911 formula shows a parasitic
> dependence on Einstein's words, without ANY SINGLE PROOF IN 113 YEARS.

Nonsense. Most GR textbooks (see MTW for example)
give a derivation of the Newtonian limit of GR.
And for all practical purposes the Newtonian limit is adequate.
(excepting only neutron stars and black holes)
[snip the same nonsense in more words]

Jan