🚀 go-pugleaf

On Feb 4, 12:57 am, "Max Keon" <maxk...@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
> "Eric Gisse" <jowr...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:d814f181-db22-409c-8df7-208e9d5ddbab@s12g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
> > Max Keon wrote:
> >> Eric Gisse wrote:
> ---
> >>> The equations you are using are made up. They do not correspond to any
> >>> standard physical theory, much less a well accepted one. The
> >>> conclusions you derive from them that are incompatible with
> >>> observation imply that _your made up equations_ are false, not the
> >>> comparisons you draw between them and other theories.
>
> >> The results are the same as with GR. A clock fixed with the ECI
> >> frame at an Earth surface radius loses 5.28e-10 seconds per
> >> second of a GPS satellite radius clock. Multiply that by 86160
> >>  = 4.55e-5 seconds per sidereal day. What's wrong with that?
> > Are you unable to tell the difference between being a fair distance
> > from a point mass to being immersed in an isotopic spray of matter?
> >>  1+V/c^2 is the gravitational redshift factor, and that applies
> >> to every electronic interaction, including clocks. V is GM/r. So
> >> that becomes  1+(G*M/r)/c^2  which is the same as my equation
> >>  t' = t+t*(G*M/r)/c^2  so long as "t" is specified as the time
> >> unit, which is always 1.
> > Your equation is wrong, as I already demonstrated.
>
> My equation gives the correct answer.

Does it?

Let's see the computation.

>
> >> The way it was written may have been confusing to you, but it
> >> wasn't wrong.
> > Actually, it is. You are taking the weak field approximation to GR,
> > and then you apply it incorrectly.
>
> But I get the right answer don't I.

It has zero chance of getting the right answer for GPS since movement
is not taken into account, and I see no comparison against Pound &
Rebka.

> ---
>
> >> You probably need to explain why everything in the early universe
> >> was not gravitationally redshifted ENORMOUSLY, when GR, through
> >> error, inadvertently predicts that it would be.
> > What's the gravitational field from a point mass?
>
> > Whats the gravitational field in an isotropic distribution of matter?
>
> > If you think they are the same, you are stupid. If you think they are
> > different, why are you arguing as if they were?
>
> At the Earth's center of mass the gravitational field is
> isotropic, but the field hasn't gone anywhere. An isotropic
> gravity doesn't remove its consequences. Do you think it logical
> that a clock enroute to the Earth center from a distance above
> the surface, will continue to slow until it enters the body of
> the Earth, then rather rapidly speed up until it's running as
> fast as would a clock in deep space, where Earth's gravity is of
> virtually no consequence? Do you really imagine that Earth's
> gravity is of no more consequence to electronic interactions at
> its center than in deep space? I have a bridge that may interest
> you.

Woosh! The point goes over your head.

The gravitational field of a point source at an extended distance is
much different from the gravitational field of an extended
distribution of matter. If you want to discuss how much redshift the
CMBR has accumulated since its' time of emission, you need to use a
model that is consistent with observation - namely, an extended
isotropic distribution of matter.

>
> Dimension is still being shifted through everything at the center
> of mass, in all directions at once. That's how the zero origin
> universe works.

Salad O' Words.

>
> A clock tick rate won't further reduce once it has entered the
> body of the Earth, nor will it speed up. What it was at the
> surface will prevail right down to the center. Every electronic
> interaction within the Earth remains redshifted as it would be
> at the surface.
>
> Compressing the Earth to half its diameter doubles the previous
> clock slowing rate at the surface, and that redshift rate
> prevails throughout the body.
>
> So, shrinking the universe back to the era when it first became
> transparent, when its temperature had reduced below 4000 K, is
> going to produce an ENORMOUS gravitational redshift throughout
> the body of the early universe. The CMBR started off with the
> spectrum of a very cold blackbody radiator. Then it was
> stretched.

Let's see....you still don't have a computation supporting your
assertions, nor do you have a reference justifying your 4000K
assertion.

>
> Assuming that gravitational redshift is zero within the
> isotropically distributed mass of the early universe will prove
> to be fatal for the big bang theory.

I never claimed that it was, I was merely trying to get you to think a
little.

>
> This graph is according to your theories, showing no time loss
> whatever for a clock at the Earth's center of mass.
>  http://members.optusnet.com.au/maxkeon/erthclok.jpg
> But the clock rate is very wrong according to mine.

DAMN you missed the point. See above.

>
> The curves were generated according to Gauss's law, as applied
> to gravity. M was determined thus,
>  (new M) = (last M) / (previous radius / current radius) ^3
> Is that all too much for you?

The irony of someone who doesn't know the difference between potential
energy and force asking if I know Gauss' law is almost too much.

BTW: That's not Gauss' law.

>
> Proving that clocks don't speed up as radius shrinks within the
> Earth is relatively simple.
>
> One of two clocks synchronized at a depth below the Earth's
> surface e.g. 6370000 meter radius, is shifted further into the
> surface by 10000 meters, and they are both left running for some
> time. The clock closest to the surface is then brought down to
> the lower clock and compared.
>
> I say they will both display the same elapsed time.
>
> This is what you say.
> For clocks at 6370000 and 6360000 radii:
>  (new M) = 5.967e24 / (6370000 / 6360000) ^3 = 5.942e24 kg
>
>  (G*(last M)/r)/c^2 = 6.9457e-10 m/sec^2
>  (G*(new M)/r)/c^2 =  6.924e-10 m/sec^2
>
> The difference is 2.17e-12 m/sec^2. Which is only 6.8e-5 seconds
> per year. The difference is fairly minute, but it should be
> detectable if it's there.
> ---
>
> >>> Either way, the equations _YOU ARE MAKING UP_ have no relation to how
> >>> general relativity actually treats the matter. In fact, the manifolds
> >>> used to describe both Pound&Rebka and GPS _cannot_ describe the large
> >>> scale structure and behavior of the universe.
>
> >> Surely the large scale structure and behavior of the universe
> >> is only an extension of what is applicable around the Earth?
> > No, idiot.
> > ds^2 = -dt^2 + a(t)[dx^2 + dy^2 + dz^2] is the proper manifold to use
> > for the early expanding universe. Stuff in a perfect fluid as a source
> > in the field equations, and solve for a(t). This is done in most
> > general relativity textbooks that cover cosmology.
>
> You can confuse the issue with math jargon all you like, but so
> long as I get the right answer, that's all that matters.

True - but do you get the right answer?

I don't see any computations or references supporting your assertions.
In fact, the only computations are in regards to something that is
utterly irrelevant since you missed the point of my analogy.

>
> It's not your math that's at fault, it the theory that the math
> is applied to that's wrong. i.e. The 4000 K blackbody spectrum
> generated in the early universe was mandatorilly exactly what it
> is today. But that would be impossible in the environment of the
> early universe. Don't you think so?

Why do you say things that have been known to be not true for nearly
twenty years now? The CMBR is redshifted.

>
> -----
>
> Max Keon