# Thread: What the \$ did Pound & Rebka measure?

1. Something accelerating in a pseudoforce g of 9,81m/s get the speed g*t. "tracking" a photon at speed c give that v=g*s/c, where s is the flown distance, and as I see it in any direction(s) g being const. Redshift z=v/c and z=g*s/c^2. Their result was 2,5*10^-15 and 10m/s*22,5m/(300*10^6m/s)^2 =2,5*10^-15 ,coincidence? By my understanding this is NO never can be.
As the photon "flies" it flies past the whole earth and its mass distribution at different distances albeit 1m at the time. I have a value (factor) calculated from all (20) earths density layers. This factor decreases fast at altitude but have a value 1,27 to 1,29 [(kg/m)/(kg/m)] at earth surface ks=1,28. This factor is for gravitation calcs. (LEO satellites) and thus spot on for this application, giving z= g*s*ks^2/c^2 =4,0*10^-15 for s=22,5m. When a photon fly past a planet it ads up (simplyfies) as past a point mass, not here, different parts of earth have different densities at different angles an distances. One can easily end up calculating 2,5*10^-15 but by no means measure it. The coefficient k decrease with altitude but as it is "related" to the rotational inertia factor it can roughly be calculated for altitude rh compared to surface rs distance from mid earth k=(ks-1)/0,4*rs^2/rh^2 +1 ,at geostationary satellites distance k=1,0034 to 1,004 and at moon dist. 385*10^6m 1,00004 to 1,00005. Ihave a table with better values and based on more exact assumptions .
So what I say is that on earth surface light shifts red z=9,81*s*1,28^2/c^2 =1,79*10^-16 for every meter flight in any direction, and never go bluer in any direction. I would be interested in "paywall free" measurements of this same or similar experiments.
4.9.2022 Timo Moilanen
6.9 Ex. A photon in a earth strength field decaying from ultra blue 100nm to infra red 1000nm get a z value =9, the same as photons from the edge of universe. "Decaying" 5,36*10^-8 z/s give for z=9 at time 170milj. sec. that is 5,3 years. So keeping a photon in a "jar" would age it in no time.

2.

3. Originally Posted by Timo Moilanen
never go bluer in any direction
This isn't correct. Even if one ignores General Relativity and applies Newtonian gravitation, a photon increases in energy as it goes from a higher elevation to a lower elevation, and thus increases in frequency (is blue-shifted).

4. Originally Posted by KJW
Originally Posted by Timo Moilanen
never go bluer in any direction
This isn't correct. Even if one ignores General Relativity and applies Newtonian gravitation, a photon increases in energy as it goes from a higher elevation to a lower elevation, and thus increases in frequency (is blue-shifted).
What I am trying to say here is that the photon get spent when moving freely in a (constant) gravitation field that is causing redshift only. The magnitude of uphill / downhill flight here for small (ignored) gravitation differences would be in class of 1/10^5 and eventual blue/red shift in the same class.

5. Originally Posted by Timo Moilanen
Originally Posted by KJW
Originally Posted by Timo Moilanen
never go bluer in any direction
This isn't correct. Even if one ignores General Relativity and applies Newtonian gravitation, a photon increases in energy as it goes from a higher elevation to a lower elevation, and thus increases in frequency (is blue-shifted).
What I am trying to say here is that the photon get spent when moving freely in a (constant) gravitation field that is causing redshift only. The magnitude of uphill / downhill flight here for small (ignored) gravitation differences would be in class of 1/10^5 and eventual blue/red shift in the same class.
Because the height of the tower is very small compared to the radius of the earth, the Pound-Rebka experiment assumes that the gravitational field is constant over the change in height. The frequency shift measured in the Pound-Rebka experiment is not about the change in the gravitational field over the change in height.

In Newtonian gravitation, the gravitational field is a conservative field. For any closed path in a gravitational field, the energy of an object, including a photon, is the same at the end as it was at the beginning. The energy of a photon doesn't get "spent" simply by being in a gravitational field. This is also true for a stationary spacetime in General Relativity.

6. Originally Posted by KJW
Originally Posted by Timo Moilanen
Originally Posted by KJW
Originally Posted by Timo Moilanen
never go bluer in any direction
This isn't correct. Even if one ignores General Relativity and applies Newtonian gravitation, a photon increases in energy as it goes from a higher elevation to a lower elevation, and thus increases in frequency (is blue-shifted).
What I am trying to say here is that the photon get spent when moving freely in a (constant) gravitation field that is causing redshift only. The magnitude of uphill / downhill flight here for small (ignored) gravitation differences would be in class of 1/10^5 and eventual blue/red shift in the same class.
Because the height of the tower is very small compared to the radius of the earth, the Pound-Rebka experiment assumes that the gravitational field is constant over the change in height. The frequency shift measured in the Pound-Rebka experiment is not about the change in the gravitational field over the change in height.

In Newtonian gravitation, the gravitational field is a conservative field. For any closed path in a gravitational field, the energy of an object, including a photon, is the same at the end as it was at the beginning. The energy of a photon doesn't get "spent" simply by being in a gravitational field. This is also true for a stationary spacetime in General Relativity.
I do not se this as closed, there is nothing demanding the field *time being close to earth and the speed is "relativistic". Same circumstances (spheres) can continue for "ever". Actually all photons are all time in gr. fields of spheres and lose color more when staying closer by a mass. Only very weak fields where v is smaller than (lambda) are weak enough for a whole quant hi to be lost to it. Shorter wavelengths decay in weaker fields and long survive much longer. And I am postulating that a photons energy is "spent" in a grav. field. The simple formulas allow no blueshift as do not my logic of incident (details), the only relativistic is photons speed, but I have not found any phenomenon to call relative, even if not expressively Newtonian.

7. Originally Posted by Timo Moilanen
And I am postulating that a photons energy is "spent" in a grav. field.
What is the basis of this postulate?

8. Originally Posted by KJW
Originally Posted by Timo Moilanen
And I am postulating that a photons energy is "spent" in a grav. field.
What is the basis of this postulate?
About 4-5 years ago I "found" the missing gravitation and the "not so straight forward" universal expansion redshift could be replaced with gravitational redshift. After assembling a "new gravitational theory" now was time for this lose end.
Mainly because energy must be conserved (also trough time) i concluded that all work needed to bend light must come from the photon itself, from the "color" this mean. Assuming that a photon can not be recharged by gravity sounds natural compared to any way of "unbending" it.
So via rather simple math. I get z=g*s/c^2 for bending around a point mass, where s is "flown" distance and for galactic scale z=4*h/r/c^2 where r is "flyby" distance and h the M*G value. The energy (and color) "spent" from electro magnetic to added "sideways" speed is (delta)E=(delta)f*(lambda)*hi where delta f is change in frequency , lambda the wavelength hi Planck constant. (delta)E also=4*h*hi/r/c.

9. Originally Posted by Timo Moilanen
Mainly because energy must be conserved (also trough time) i concluded that all work needed to bend light must come from the photon itself, from the "color" this mean.
There is no work performed in bending light. This is because the "force" is perpendicular to the direction of travel. Generally speaking, it doesn't require any work to maintain circular motion at constant speed.

10. Originally Posted by KJW
Originally Posted by Timo Moilanen
Mainly because energy must be conserved (also trough time) i concluded that all work needed to bend light must come from the photon itself, from the "color" this mean.
There is no work performed in bending light. This is because the "force" is perpendicular to the direction of travel. Generally speaking, it doesn't require any work to maintain circular motion at constant speed.
There is electromagnetic energy reduced from the photon, an amount that is not proportional to the deflection (bending) but the photon energy (color) times grav. field (force) and thus no dispersing of colors of multicolor light beams. A particle would deflect most at perpendicular direction since light speed is not anywhere near orbit sped. Light deflect in perpendicular angle to it self depending on "the force" and not depending on field angle. And it always need force impact or eq. to deflect anything of course. I called this work and the energy change is proportional to photon energy so it can not be an outer circumstance (relativistic gravitation phenomenon, try entangled quantum instead)

11. Originally Posted by Timo Moilanen
Originally Posted by KJW
Originally Posted by Timo Moilanen
Mainly because energy must be conserved (also trough time) i concluded that all work needed to bend light must come from the photon itself, from the "color" this mean.
There is no work performed in bending light. This is because the "force" is perpendicular to the direction of travel. Generally speaking, it doesn't require any work to maintain circular motion at constant speed.
There is electromagnetic energy reduced from the photon, an amount that is not proportional to the deflection (bending) but the photon energy (color) times grav. field (force) and thus no dispersing of colors of multicolor light beams. A particle would deflect most at perpendicular direction since light speed is not anywhere near orbit sped. Light deflect in perpendicular angle to it self depending on "the force" and not depending on field angle. And it always need force impact or eq. to deflect anything of course. I called this work and the energy change is proportional to photon energy so it can not be an outer circumstance (relativistic gravitation phenomenon, try entangled quantum instead)
When I asked "What is the basis of this postulate?", I was asking you to justify your postulate in terms of things that I might already know (ie accepted standard physics). Standard physics does admit a change in energy of a photon due to a change in gravitational potential, but you have provided no mechanism for a change in energy without a change in gravitational potential. Also, the notion that a change in energy occurs without a change in gravitational potential disagrees with why there is a change in energy of a photon due to a change in gravitational potential. In other words, your postulate isn't new physics because it disagrees with already existing physics.

12. Originally Posted by KJW
Originally Posted by Timo Moilanen
Originally Posted by KJW
Originally Posted by Timo Moilanen
Mainly because energy must be conserved (also trough time) i concluded that all work needed to bend light must come from the photon itself, from the "color" this mean.
There is no work performed in bending light. This is because the "force" is perpendicular to the direction of travel. Generally speaking, it doesn't require any work to maintain circular motion at constant speed.
There is electromagnetic energy reduced from the photon, an amount that is not proportional to the deflection (bending) but the photon energy (color) times grav. field (force) and thus no dispersing of colors of multicolor light beams. A particle would deflect most at perpendicular direction since light speed is not anywhere near orbit sped. Light deflect in perpendicular angle to it self depending on "the force" and not depending on field angle. And it always need force impact or eq. to deflect anything of course. I called this work and the energy change is proportional to photon energy so it can not be an outer circumstance (relativistic gravitation phenomenon, try entangled quantum instead)
When I asked "What is the basis of this postulate?", I was asking you to justify your postulate in terms of things that I might already know (ie accepted standard physics). Standard physics does admit a change in energy of a photon due to a change in gravitational potential, but you have provided no mechanism for a change in energy without a change in gravitational potential. Also, the notion that a change in energy occurs without a change in gravitational potential disagrees with why there is a change in energy of a photon due to a change in gravitational potential. In other words, your postulate isn't new physics because it disagrees with already existing physics.
Explanation attempts 17.9-22
1. The photon might or might not have a mass, not significant.
2. The needed masses to explain universal redshift ( till now doppler shift) are there.
3. Photon get pressurized (exited) by nearby masses (grav. field) from any direction(s) and render one quantum (hi) worth of energy at time while "flying" in a field. Bending of light happen when these quants exit the photons energy (color) giving the photon a small deflection, by snatching a perpendicular (lambda) long piece of surrounding space on higher gravity side or causing a recoil on opposite side. However the photon " go redder" and direction change in proportion to how big ratio of the photons energy diminishes. The ratio part mean that different colors bend at equal angles in same fields (until the ratio go to same magnitude as energy of a few (lambda)).
The spent energy may give the gravity source a little nudge or disperse in surrounding electric fields or other photons.
A photon skimming the suns "surface" calculation give 1,75 arc sec bend and corroborate mathematically my idea.
5. The shelltheory do not work, I mathematically proved years ago, and since math. is outright deemed useless, I have planned an experiment to proof.
6. Since "absorb" gravity from any and all directions simultaneously, it mean that on Earth surface photons also "react" to masses on all sides that when measuring g cancel each other out. I have a good table of these +g= gtot and a k factor for gtot=k*g. Measured gravity I call g/m and gtot=k^2*g/m. On earth sea level k=1,28 and a total gravitational pressure on a photon is gtot=16m/s^2
7. These are reasons why I'm sure Pound and Rebka didn't do a very good job and even I could have quite much to give since I have made a "new" gravitation theory (better orbits) overhauled a dozen electric constants and have also useful ideas.

13. Originally Posted by Timo Moilanen
These are reasons why I'm sure Pound and Rebka didn't do a very good job
The Pound-Rebka experiment agrees with General Relativity.

Originally Posted by Timo Moilanen
even I could have quite much to give since I have made a "new" gravitation theory
It seems to me that your gravitation theory violates the equivalence principle. I don't think your idea about gravitation can be said to be "new". It seems to be based on an antiquated view of gravitation dressed up in some modernity.

14. The alleged results from the Pound Rebka experiment agrees with whatever values are put into the famous relativity theory. My theory is based on Newton, except for spherical bodies and I consider the universal gravitational constant G's value useless "by a mile". The h factor I use is v^2*r for a orbit not the same as G*M. And since the shell theory don't suite me I can't say I have much antiques preserved.
The formula for "bending" light flying by a sun would probably have been derived earlier if it had been found out that the sun actually is about 13%(part of the mainstream dark mass) heavier than "the mainstream one".
Biggest difference tough is how I see light behave in grav. field. Mainstream is that if we have a photon atop a planet it get red or blue shift depending on its path. And if a similar planet is placed atop the effect is neutralized. As I see it the direction of the light have no relevance and the second planet doubles the effect.
The measuring of equivalence principle is like comparing the dimensions of the box in the satellite to the distance to earth midpoint, I believe with smaller effort. Sorry NASA

15. Originally Posted by Timo Moilanen
The alleged results from the Pound Rebka experiment agrees with whatever values are put into the famous relativity theory.
This is pretty much what I said, but the way you're saying it suggests that you don't think the results of the Pound-Rebka experiment are valid for whatever reason.

Originally Posted by Timo Moilanen
My theory is based on Newton ... I can't say I have much antiques preserved.
You've said that your theory is based on Newton, so that alone makes your theory antiquated regardless of anything else you've included in your theory.

Originally Posted by Timo Moilanen
The measuring of equivalence principle is like comparing the dimensions of the box in the satellite to the distance to earth midpoint, I believe with smaller effort. Sorry NASA
What do you mean by this?

I think I need to ask you what your understanding of the equivalence principle is. Also, I think I need to ask you what your understanding of General Relativity is. And why would you reject a theory that has a logical basis and has passed every test that has been put to it for a 17th century theory that doesn't really explain what gravitation is and doesn't quite agree with measured results.

16. The Pound Rebka result 2,5*10^-15 can not be even close to what they should have "measured" 3,95*10^-15. Sadly their math is too messy to be followed up. But maybe measuring any redshift counts as proof.
I think very mush of physics is based on Newtons theories without being lambasted to antique and the what ever I have completed with is both mathematically (mostly) and physically 100 years newer than Gauss's and Einstein's "versions".
What comes to the NASA equivalence experiment, they will run into a geometric curiosity and that do not belie the validity of the equivalence principle.
I have believed in relativity and there are mush coherence and obvious logics and ideas, but since the theory cant calculate orbital masses even nigh I don't trust it for predicting astronomy accurately.
Here a base on my theory: For a orbit is that 8 times centripetal force of the satellite is equal to 2*pi times gravitational force.

17. Originally Posted by Timo Moilanen
The Pound Rebka result 2,5*10^-15 can not be even close to what they should have "measured" 3,95*10^-15. Sadly their math is too messy to be followed up. But maybe measuring any redshift counts as proof.
One does not prove correctness but we use experiments to see what our best theories are.

You seem unaware that physics did not stop with Pound-Rebka. Replications and refinements have been ongoing in subsequent decades. You should look at the Gravity Probe A results, which tightened the error bounds by several orders of magnitude. There may be more-recent advances, but the gaps between experiment and GR are so small that there aren’t competing theories with predictions that differ from those of GR by such small values.

ETA: I just looked up the GP-A result. The error is of the order of 70ppm. That’s a bit tighter than Pound-Rebka, yes? It is not trivially easy to displace GR.

18. Originally Posted by Timo Moilanen
The Pound Rebka result 2,5*10^-15 can not be even close to what they should have "measured" 3,95*10^-15.
The Pound-Rebka result of 2.5 x 10–15 is in agreement with the value predicted by general relativity. If your theory is predicting 3.95 x 10–15, then it is clearly wrong. Also, the 10% accuracy of the Pound-Rebka experiment was subsequently improved to 1% by Pound and Snider, and to 0.01% by the Gravity Probe A.

Originally Posted by Timo Moilanen
I think very mush of physics is based on Newtons theories without being lambasted to antique and the what ever I have completed with is both mathematically (mostly) and physically 100 years newer than Gauss's and Einstein's "versions".
It is true that Newtonian physics is sufficient for many purposes. It is much simpler to deal with than general relativity and is the weak field limit of general relativity. But this is merely a practical convenience. When physicists consider the true nature of gravitation, they are dealing with general relativity or something more advanced. They are not harking back to Newtonian gravitation. Although Newtonian gravitation is simple to use and provides reasonably good results under commonly encountered conditions, at the theoretical level it is wrong and based on an antiquated view of reality. It doesn't matter what modifications you make to Newtonian gravitation, it will still retain the antiquated view of reality upon which Newtonian gravitation is based. The problem you face is explaining the modifications you are making to Newtonian gravitation. Because any such explanation is based on Newtonian gravitation (because that is what you are modifying), it retains the antiquated view of reality upon which Newtonian gravitation is based. And because Newtonian gravitation is wrong at the theoretical level, your explanation of the modifications you are making to Newtonian gravitation may not be transferable to a more correct theory of gravitation. In particular, your explanation isn't transferable to general relativity because gravitation has no local effects in general relativity (equivalence principle). I'll repeat this: gravitation has no local effects in general relativity. This is different to Newtonian gravitation where the gravitational field locally exerts a force on an object with mass.

Originally Posted by Timo Moilanen
What comes to the NASA equivalence experiment, they will run into a geometric curiosity and that do not belie the validity of the equivalence principle.
What is the "NASA equivalence experiment" to which you are referring? There have been several experiments that test the equivalence principle. Also, you haven't explained what you mean by the "equivalence principle". In general relativity, the equivalence principle is a consequence of the mathematical principle that in any smooth spacetime there exists a coordinate system in which the Christoffel symbols are zero along any given single path. Although spacetime curvature distinguishes gravitation from an accelerated frame of reference in flat spacetime, the effects of spacetime curvature such as the tidal effect are negligible over small distances. In the case of the Pound-Rebka experiment, the distances involved were small enough that one could treat the experiment as if it were in an accelerated frame of reference in flat spacetime.

Originally Posted by Timo Moilanen
I have believed in relativity and there are mush coherence and obvious logics and ideas, but since the theory cant calculate orbital masses even nigh I don't trust it for predicting astronomy accurately.
What do you mean by "orbital masses"? The trajectory of a test object in a gravitational field does not depend on the mass of the test object. This is a consequence of the equivalence principle.

19. Originally Posted by tk421
Originally Posted by Timo Moilanen
The Pound Rebka result 2,5*10^-15 can not be even close to what they should have "measured" 3,95*10^-15. Sadly their math is too messy to be followed up. But maybe measuring any redshift counts as proof.
One does not prove correctness but we use experiments to see what our best theories are.

You seem unaware that physics did not stop with Pound-Rebka. Replications and refinements have been ongoing in subsequent decades. You should look at the Gravity Probe A results, which tightened the error bounds by several orders of magnitude. There may be more-recent advances, but the gaps between experiment and GR are so small that there aren’t competing theories with predictions that differ from those of GR by such small values.

ETA: I just looked up the GP-A result. The error is of the order of 70ppm. That’s a bit tighter than Pound-Rebka, yes? It is not trivially easy to displace GR.
Thank you for this experiment, I'm comparing it to my " visions" and Quote "the authors declined to separateout these effects in their analysis." Quote end. some details might take time.

20. What is the "NASA equivalence experiment" to which you are referring? There have been several experiments that test the equivalence principle. Also, you haven't explained what you mean by the "equivalence principle". In general relativity, the equivalence principle is a consequence of the mathematical principle that in any smooth spacetime there exists a coordinate system in which the Christoffel symbols are zero along any given single path. Although spacetime curvature distinguishes gravitation from an accelerated frame of reference in flat spacetime, the effects of spacetime curvature such as the tidal effect are negligible over small distances. In the case of the Pound-Rebka experiment, the distances involved were small enough that one could treat the experiment as if it were in an accelerated frame of reference in flat spacetime.
I do not remember (nor can find) name of the experiment. Essentially it is a rectangular object of a material inside a box of different material onboard a orbiting "space vehicle". My point was I believe the idea they should measure 0 difference, but odds are they could measure small differences , not due to imperfections in equivalence principle but because the boxes dimensions are not zero but need be compared to distance from earth. A phenomenon ignored that have huge impact on low earth orbit satellites. The claim will be NASA already knows everything, but I suggest they stay open minded till they try lift serous cargo of surface of Mars and Moon. The gravitation fields are not classic g=M*G/r^2, quite much stronger actually, but that relativity do not concider.

21. What do you mean by "orbital masses"? The trajectory of a test object in a gravitational field does not depend on the mass of the test object. This is a consequence of the equivalence principle.
I mean that all orbited bodies are 13% more massive than Newtonian and relativistic equals, and a potential energy for a orbit is 27% bigger than mainstream. Galaxies have a quite new math. of their own. When I said new theory I did not mean minor adjustments, tough it can seem so since orbits and such phenomenon change mostly in the why and delineate where mainstream(ers) say no.

22. Originally Posted by Timo Moilanen
Thank you for this experiment, I'm comparing it to my " visions" and Quote "the authors declined to separateout these effects in their analysis." Quote end. some details might take time.
I see no such quote. When quoting, you need to specify the source of the quote.

When I read the Phys. Rev. Lett. paper of Vessot et al., Dec. 1980, I see a quite different wording to yours. Are you referring to some other paper? If so, what is it? If not, then you are guilty of distorting what was written.

In Vessot et al., they don't "decline" to separate out the effects of GR and SR, they point out that it is unnecessary to do so for reasons that they explain. Your wording makes it sound like they are hiding something.

They have a result that agrees with GR to an error bar of 70ppm. Your prediction is off by 50% or so. The agreement between experiment and GR has only improved as the experimental technique has improved. By normal scientific standards, we would have to judge "Timo-theory" as by far the poorer description of how nature actually behaves.

23. Originally Posted by tk421
Originally Posted by Timo Moilanen
Thank you for this experiment, I'm comparing it to my " visions" and Quote "the authors declined to separateout these effects in their analysis." Quote end. some details might take time.
I see no such quote. When quoting, you need to specify the source of the quote.

When I read the Phys. Rev. Lett. paper of Vessot et al., Dec. 1980, I see a quite different wording to yours. Are you referring to some other paper? If so, what is it? If not, then you are guilty of distorting what was written.

In Vessot et al., they don't "decline" to separate out the effects of GR and SR, they point out that it is unnecessary to do so for reasons that they explain. Your wording makes it sound like they are hiding something.

They have a result that agrees with GR to an error bar of 70ppm. Your prediction is off by 50% or so. The agreement between experiment and GR has only improved as the experimental technique has improved. By normal scientific standards, we would have to judge "Timo-theory" as by far the poorer description of how nature actually behaves.
I am just looking for numbers .not implementing anything . Calculating this I get the 10000km clock a smaller redshift (=faster clock) (delta)z=9,78*10^-9, that is 14 times their 7/(10*10^9). But I also "predict" that the feedback signal to earth will be redshifted. More data would have been fine.

24. Originally Posted by Timo Moilanen
Originally Posted by tk421
Originally Posted by Timo Moilanen
Thank you for this experiment, I'm comparing it to my " visions" and Quote "the authors declined to separateout these effects in their analysis." Quote end. some details might take time.
I see no such quote. When quoting, you need to specify the source of the quote.

When I read the Phys. Rev. Lett. paper of Vessot et al., Dec. 1980, I see a quite different wording to yours. Are you referring to some other paper? If so, what is it? If not, then you are guilty of distorting what was written.

In Vessot et al., they don't "decline" to separate out the effects of GR and SR, they point out that it is unnecessary to do so for reasons that they explain. Your wording makes it sound like they are hiding something.

They have a result that agrees with GR to an error bar of 70ppm. Your prediction is off by 50% or so. The agreement between experiment and GR has only improved as the experimental technique has improved. By normal scientific standards, we would have to judge "Timo-theory" as by far the poorer description of how nature actually behaves.
I am just looking for numbers .not implementing anything . Calculating this I get the 10000km clock a smaller redshift (=faster clock) (delta)z=9,78*10^-9, that is 14 times their 7/(10*10^9). But I also "predict" that the feedback signal to earth will be redshifted. More data would have been fine.

You replied, but did not really answer, so I am assuming that you are now tacitly admitting that when you wrote

Originally Posted by Timo
Quote "the authors declined to separate out these effects in their analysis." Quote end.
that you were not, in fact quoting, but engaging in creative writing in an effort to cast some doubt on the Vessot et al paper. The phrase you "quoted" does not actually appear anywhere in the paper. That, Timo, is a form of dishonesty.

You are now apparently claiming some sort of numerical near-agreement that is substantially better than the earlier claims you made. But you haven't shown us any calculations. Given that your credibility has been damaged by your casual dissembling, I'm not inclined to give you the benefit of the doubt.

25. Originally Posted by tk421
Originally Posted by Timo Moilanen
Originally Posted by tk421
Originally Posted by Timo Moilanen
Thank you for this experiment, I'm comparing it to my " visions" and Quote "the authors declined to separateout these effects in their analysis." Quote end. some details might take time.
I see no such quote. When quoting, you need to specify the source of the quote.

When I read the Phys. Rev. Lett. paper of Vessot et al., Dec. 1980, I see a quite different wording to yours. Are you referring to some other paper? If so, what is it? If not, then you are guilty of distorting what was written.

In Vessot et al., they don't "decline" to separate out the effects of GR and SR, they point out that it is unnecessary to do so for reasons that they explain. Your wording makes it sound like they are hiding something.

They have a result that agrees with GR to an error bar of 70ppm. Your prediction is off by 50% or so. The agreement between experiment and GR has only improved as the experimental technique has improved. By normal scientific standards, we would have to judge "Timo-theory" as by far the poorer description of how nature actually behaves.
I am just looking for numbers .not implementing anything . Calculating this I get the 10000km clock a smaller redshift (=faster clock) (delta)z=9,78*10^-9, that is 14 times their 7/(10*10^9). But I also "predict" that the feedback signal to earth will be redshifted. More data would have been fine.

You replied, but did not really answer, so I am assuming that you are now tacitly admitting that when you wrote

Originally Posted by Timo
Quote "the authors declined to separate out these effects in their analysis." Quote end.
that you were not, in fact quoting, but engaging in creative writing in an effort to cast some doubt on the Vessot et al paper. The phrase you "quoted" does not actually appear anywhere in the paper. That, Timo, is a form of dishonesty.

You are now apparently claiming some sort of numerical near-agreement that is substantially better than the earlier claims you made. But you haven't shown us any calculations. Given that your credibility has been damaged by your casual dissembling, I'm not inclined to give you the benefit of the doubt.
The page I copy pasted from I found via Gravity Probe A Wiki and it was a NASA page 1976 . If you know from where (Vessot et al or whoever) I have "not copied" or not said I copied. The who's text may I have copied or who's falsified. What comes to technical and numerical details about the probe there are many stories. No very exact parameters mentioned anywhere.
Since your accusation is very harsh and not in any way proven from you side, I see you owing me a serious apology.
The sooner the better. 28.9-22 Timo Moilanen
Here is where I copied:https://www.physics.umd.edu/courses/...rris_paper.pdf

26. Originally Posted by Timo Moilanen
I do not remember (nor can find) name of the experiment. Essentially it is a rectangular object of a material inside a box of different material onboard a orbiting "space vehicle". My point was I believe the idea they should measure 0 difference, but odds are they could measure small differences , not due to imperfections in equivalence principle but because the boxes dimensions are not zero but need be compared to distance from earth.
I don't like tests of the equivalence principle based on different gravitational properties of different materials. To me, it seems like a stab in the dark to find materials that would have different gravitational properties in the absence of the equivalence principle. I prefer the equivalence between local gravitation and an accelerated frame of reference because it is about the properties of spacetime rather than the properties of material objects.

Originally Posted by Timo Moilanen
The gravitation fields are not classic g=M*G/r^2, quite much stronger actually, but that relativity do not concider.
This doesn't make sense because the strength of gravitation is precisely that required for the known orbits of the planets. Except for a small deviation due to general relativity, gravitation satisfies an inverse square law. Note that Newton was able to deduce this from Kepler's laws of planetary motion. Also, the Laplace-Runge-Lenz vector (which describes the shape and orientation of an orbit) is conserved under an inverse square law (the anomalous precession of Mercury is due to the small deviation from the inverse square law in general relativity).

Originally Posted by Timo Moilanen
I mean that all orbited bodies are 13% more massive than Newtonian and relativistic equals
The mass of the sun is known from the orbits of the planets around it. Even if dark matter did contribute to the mass of the sun, it would still be part of the mass determined from the orbits of the planets, not an addition to it.

Originally Posted by Timo Moilanen
When I said new theory I did not mean minor adjustments
Why do you think gravitation theory needs any adjustment?

27. Originally Posted by Timo Moilanen
The page I copy pasted from I found via Gravity Probe A Wiki and it was a NASA page 1976 . If you know from where (Vessot et al or whoever) I have "not copied" or not said I copied. The who's text may I have copied or who's falsified. What comes to technical and numerical details about the probe there are many stories. No very exact parameters mentioned anywhere.
Since your accusation is very harsh and not in any way proven from you side, I see you owing me a serious apology.
I don't see that at all. You initially offered a self-serving quote without citing the source. I asked for the citation. Instead, you evaded answering and posted some irrelevant shite instead. I pointed that out at the time ("you replied but did not answer"). And now you play the aggrieved party.

The reason citing the source is important is that readers need to be able to see for themselves what the context of the quotation is, to see if the quotation has been selectively edited or cherry-picked to twist the meaning, and to see who is being quoted. You declined to provide the citation until now. So why did you hide this source until now?

Reading the full quotation reveals a likely answer: That paper enumerates some of the many experiments that support GR, the theory that you wish to displace. By selectively quoting a phrase from the paper out of context, you sought to invoke a third party's voice to sow doubt on GP-A's results. When one reads the entirety of what you now have cited at last, it is easy to see why you would wish to hide the fact that the paper is in support of GR, and thus against your theory.

I dislike acts of intellectual dishonesty, subtle or blatant. I know you wish to keep alive the fantasy that you have a better theory than GR, but you aren't going to convince anyone by throwing shade at the experiments through misrepresentation of random quotations. It only hurts your case to resort to such dishonorable (and, as we just saw, easily discovered) tactics. We use experiments to test theories. GP-A's numbers agree with GR to 70ppm. As KJW showed, experimental tests have tightened the agreement by leaps since Pound-Rebka's ~10%.

The experiments are in excellent agreement with GR. The functioning of GPS relies on quantitatively accounting for GR's effects. Your only riposte is a feeble "they didn't show their working". So you are apparently sticking stubbornly to the fantasy that there has been a grand conspiracy to publish falsified accounts of experiments, and you are willing to quote-mine in a vain attempt to make it seem as if there are authoritative sources who feel the same.

Nonsense.

 Bookmarks
##### Bookmarks
 Posting Permissions
 You may not post new threads You may not post replies You may not post attachments You may not edit your posts   BB code is On Smilies are On [IMG] code is On [VIDEO] code is On HTML code is Off Trackbacks are Off Pingbacks are Off Refbacks are On Terms of Use Agreement