🚀 go-pugleaf

On Jan 31, 2:14 pm, "Max Keon" <maxk...@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
> "Eric Gisse" <jowr...@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?

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.

>
> 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.

>
> >> 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.

I just did - and you failed miserably in understanding it.

>
> 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?

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >> 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.

I did no such thing. Follow the math I wrote out.

If you can't, you have no right to even try to discuss this with me.

>
> > 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.

>
> 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 ?

No, idiot.

6.4 x 10^-10, 9.19 x 10^9.

>
> > 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.

From which of your many assholes did you pull the number 4000K? 4000K
is barely enough to strip all the electrons off a high Z atom.

>
>
>
> >>>> 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.

It only appears as "militant faith" to someone who is unwilling and
unable to understand the many explanations, links, and books
referenced to him.

>
> -----
>
> Max Keon