🚀 go-pugleaf

"Eric Gisse" <jowr.pi@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:f89fc8fb-b6e8-4b2d-9b1e-7a3252a75e23@l1g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
> Max Keon wrote:
>> Eric Gisse wrote:
>>> There is no point in discussing equations that you have simply MADE
>>> UP. So what if observation disagrees with your made up equations? It
>>> wouldn't be the first time.
>>
>> Clock oscillators and the natural oscillators that generate
>> characteristic spectral lines have been proven to become
>> redshifted in a gravity well. Trying to explain the redshift as
>> lost energy due to a "photon's" climb from the well is absolutely
>> ridiculous.

> OK, since you aren't grasping the basic point I'll explain tiny bits.
>
> 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?

 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.

The way it was written may have been confusing to you, but it
wasn't wrong.

>> The clocks of the GPS prove beyond doubt that they _physically_
>> run slower on the Earth's surface, and because clock and spectral
>> line oscillators behave in the same manner, it's not illogical
>> to assume that every other charge interaction will behave
>> likewise. That is, so long as it takes place outside a proton or
>> neutron. The oscillation rate in that case is blueshifted in a
>> gravity well, as demonstrated by Pound and Rebka.

> But the equations you use aren't related to general relativity in any
> way, so the argument is moot.

The results are the same as from GR. Show me a proper example
where they are not. Absolute precision is completely irrelevant
in this case because the problem is so immense that just the
general effect of altitude change on a natural oscillator is all
that's needed to prove my point.

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.

>> The redshift rate in every interaction is fairly obviously
>> exactly the same as that in the interaction that provides the
>> tick rate for an atomic clock. They are all based on exactly
>> the same principle. The change rate is according to
>>  t' = t+t*(G*M/r)/c^2  where t is the time unit (= 1).

> Again, made up equations.
>
> The _actual_ solution for GR is different.
>
> For the Schwarzschild manifold - aka the exterior solution for a point
> mass - with given values for r, \theta, and \phi, the metric takes the
> form ds^2 = - (1 - 2GM/r) dt^2. Proper time is -ds^2 = d\tau^2, so d
> \tau = sqrt(1 - 2GM/r) dt. Integrate both sides, and \tau = sqrt(1 -
> 2GM/r) t + t_0 where t_0 is some arbitrary integration constant.
>
> GPS is different - the system is rotating, but the analysis is
> similar.

You are taking the square root of negative numbers. You're going
to need barrow loads of that kind of maths to bury the truth.

> 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?

So, wherever GR fails, a proviso is added to limit its scope?
It will end up being as irrelevant as SR.

>> For an Earth surface radius, 6380000 meters, the redshifted 1
>> second for a clock that was previously unaffected by Earth's
>> gravity is 1.0000000006935 seconds. For a GPS satellite radius,
>> 26570000 meters, the redshifted 1 second is 1.0000000001665
>> seconds.
>>
>> If an atomic clock tick rate is 9192631770 hz on the surface, it
>> will be 1.0000000006935 / 1.0000000001665 = 1.000000000527,
>>  * 9192631770 = 9192631774.84 hz at the GPS radius. Spectral
>> lines and every other electronic interaction taken from the
>> surface to the GPS radius will be blueshifted by that same ratio.

> 1) LEARN SCIENTIFIC NOTATION

????  1.0000000006395e+0 ?
      9.19263177484e+9 ?

> 2) Irrelevant for reasons already explained.

>> Now take your electronic interactions within a black body
>> radiator environment back the gravity well of the early universe.
>> How redshifted do you think they would be?

> A lot. That's why the background radiation is 3 degrees kelvin instead
> of hundreds of thousands of degrees.

It was initially 4000 K of course. But every electronic
interaction would have been slowed enormously in the gravity
well of the early universe. From our viewpoint, an un-stretched
4000 K radiator would have the appearance of a very much colder
radiator, but in the realm of the early universe, it would be
exactly as expected. Stretch that for 13 billion years and see
what you get.

>>>> This is how the CMBR compares with big bang's prediction. Error
>>>> bars won't help much here, will they.
>>>>
>>>>                    .
>>>>                 .     .
>>>>                .       . Actual CMBR
>>>>               .         .
>>>>             .             .
>>>>          .                   .
>>>>
>>>>        .......................... CMBR as predicted by
>>>>                                   the big bang theory.
>>>
>>> Both of these are wrong.
>>>
>>> The background radiation is blackbody.
>>
>> Accurate ASCII black body radiator graphs are not all that easy
>> to draw you know. This one was generated according to Planck's
>> formula,  # = (8*pi*h*f^3)/(c^2*(EXP((h*f)/(k*t))-1))
>>  http://members.optusnet.com.au/maxkeon/bbcmbr.jpg
>> It demonstrates very clearly that the CMBR had to be generated
>> in the same environment as a 4000 K radiator today.

> Again, pulling numbers out of your ass is not equivalent to forming a
> coherent argument. You have no justification for your claims, and it
> is getting tiresome.

Richard Dawkins, author of "Root of all evil" made the claim that
militant faith is again on the march despite the progress of
science. Perhaps that wouldn't be the case if science was raised
above the sea of indoctrinated realities, to take its rightful
place in the world as the champion of truth.

-----

Max Keon