Path: ...!news.misty.com!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!i2pn.org!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: hertz778@gmail.com (rhertz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity
Subject: Re: Argument with ChatGPT about that Pound-Rebka experiment was A FRAUD.
Date: Wed, 8 Jan 2025 16:50:58 +0000
Organization: novaBBS
Message-ID: <83d868eecfe731eb592fa87b53d711db@www.novabbs.com>
References: <3b78e0c128ecdc966a66fd37b6de07fd@www.novabbs.com> <ff475971506169bab3f6c59b0f266445@www.novabbs.com> <05f9aaea77b2e88a5bbfd20b5b423d90@www.novabbs.com> <06a782c98fd042e2c23407d82baf1d55@www.novabbs.com> <984342cbac12bb5aebe658e0081b2ae7@www.novabbs.com> <e9f2cde1246361a578d00b6323871d5e@www.novabbs.com> <b6405c314f9a3cc38d0c518fad8f91d3@www.novabbs.com> <b6699383da411f55d91f67b81922e016@www.novabbs.com> <e5e4d568bc03fdc16a75b6ab22a2a001@www.novabbs.com> <0a0f22aae738970f1e8ee2f04e52fd06@www.novabbs.com> <9962efd90527e5fabea26cd16a81c5fc@www.novabbs.com> <5164245e969a8acafa6e4e0160bdb32b@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="2638138"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="OjDMvaaXMeeN/7kNOPQl+dWI+zbnIp3mGAHMVhZ2e/A";
User-Agent: Rocksolid Light
X-Rslight-Posting-User: 26080b4f8b9f153eb24ebbc1b47c4c36ee247939
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
X-Rslight-Site: $2y$10$YUH9QXGQPcamhitrIRgUsei8MxMLiGhHRgl41ZgJjuG1HfVm3I0Ye
Bytes: 3462
Lines: 46

Some things that I forgot to post:

1) In the 1959 paper, as well as in the one from 1965, he ADMITTEDLY did
the following:

- Added, after averaging, two counters for the left side of the curve.
- Also added, after averaging, the other two counts for the right side.

That's why his published averages (14) are all NEGATIVES.

2) As it can be seen in the photo attached in the post above this one,
he focused ONLY in obtaining a difference close to 2gh/c^2.

The photo shows what seems to be total counts involved on each
calculation, for which he also scrambled around numbers gathered for
positions of the emitter down and up.

The table with the original measurements WAS NEVER PUBLISHED, which made
it IMPOSSIBLE for anyone else TO VERIFY the dark calculations and
manipulations made over the entire dataset.

3) Both papers (1960 and 1965) are written in a dark, confusing
language, with lengthy explanations about materials, setups for the
experiments AND LOT OF EXCUSES for things that he didn't include in the
calculations, like:

- Mechanical vibrations upon the building, which translated into ERRORS
in the
  functioning of the emitter.
- Compton scattering of gamma rays along the 22.5 meters path, which
were
  redshifted due to this.
- Doubts about WHICH HYPERFINE PEAK he was measuring (there are six).
- The effects caused by gamma rays with recoil shift that were counted.
- The effects of additional X-rays and 122 KeV gamma rays that were
COUNTED.
- Non-linearities in the motion of the mechanical piston in 1960, which
were
  tried to be partially corrected in 1965.
- Differences in temperatures in the rooms where emitter and absorber
were
  located (tried to fix in 1965 with air conditioners, which finally
couldn't
  be used due to induced mechanical vibrations).
- Mismatch between emitter and absorber samples, which SHOULD HAVE BEEN
EXACTLY+
  EQUAL.