🚀 go-pugleaf

On Jan 28, 5:52 pm, "Max Keon" <maxk...@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
> "Eric Gisse" <jowr...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:a7476325-ebe0-458d-8e95-308d9602ce70@e4g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
>
> > On Jan 25, 1:53 pm, "Max Keon" <maxk...@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
> > [snip junk]
>
> You have my sympathy, but physics is the medium of truth and
> truth will always prevail in the end.

If you were doing physics, I'd agree. Un/fortunately you aren't.

>
> > 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 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 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.

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.

>
> 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
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.

> Does, by nothing, seem logical to you?
>
> >> 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.

http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmolog.htm

Get a clue, and stop spewing ignorant crap.

> And that is just not possible.

That's because you don't know what the hell you are talking about.

>
> Take note of what the big bang theory really predicts.

The universe is finite?

Try to make an argument that wouldn't be laughed apart were it
muttered to an actual physicist.

>
> -----
>
> Max Keon