🚀 go-pugleaf

On Jan 8, 5:25 pm, "Max Keon" <maxk...@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
> "Eric Gisse" <jowr...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:34c68db5-b7b4-4d60-9c7e-c0b926b11e20@u10g2000prn.googlegroups.com...
>
> > I'm not going to teach you what you should already know.
> > Max Keon wrote:
> >> The difference is now 3502216 added cycles in 1.4e+21 cycles,
> >> which is near enough to what is observed.
> > Imagine that.
>
> That result was generated assuming the gamma ray from the
> radioactive iron frequency generator used in the Pound and Rebka
> experiment was 1.4e21 hz. The choice of frequency was made to
> suit my original requirement to generate 1 extra cycle according
> to my erroneous equation. Doubling the gamma ray frequency
> doubles the result. It could be just pure luck that the ray I
> chose is close to the correct frequency, but maybe not. Is 1.4e21
> hz the gamma ray frequency generated by radioactive iron?
>
> But I see you are still having problems comprehending that the
> conclusions drawn from the Pound and Rebka experiment are fatally
> flawed. Get your head out of your bucket of numbers for a while
> and think about it logically.
>
> As BURT <macromi...@yahoo.com> initially wrote:
>
> >>>>> Light is blueshifted on its way into gravity.
> >>>>> Light is redshifted on its way out.
>
> A simple test of i.e. the latter statement is to set up an atomic
> clock with a digital readout that can easily be read with a
> telescope mounted at the Pound-Rebka tower top when the clock is
> placed at the tower base. Every clock tick sends a signal to an
> antenna and that is transmitted to the tower top, where every
> passing cycle is recorded. The tower base cycle count is of
> course monitored through the telescope.
>
> The following set of figures still apply in determining
> V for  f'= f(1+V/c^2)
>
>   V(a) and V(b) for the tower base and tower top is:
>       G = 6.67E-11
>       M = 5.97E+24
>       ra = 6378000   Tower base radii
>       rb = 6378023   Tower top radii (+23 meters (74 feet) high)
>   Va = G * M / ra = 62433207.902
>   Vb = G * M / rb = 62432982.7597
>
> Using 9192631763.6231 hz as the basic clock frequency "f",
>  f'=f*(1+Va/c^2) = 9192631770.00004989
> and
>  f'=f*(1+Vb/c^2) = 9192631770.00002689
> The difference is 2.3e-5 cycles per second.
>
> After just 1 day, 2 less ticks have passed by the tower top
> than were generated at the base. Where are they. The wavelength
> is  c/f =.032 meters, * 2 = .064 meters per day. Could the
> universe have expanded 64mm over the tower height in just 1 day?
>
> Apparently not. Even if the universe was expanding locally, over
> the tower length, the expansion is 4.9e-12 meters per day.
>
> So there's really no way to accommodate the stretching
> wavelengths. Even a change in the speed of light isn't going to
> help because that changes, only once, the number of waves that
> can fit over the tower height. From there on, whatever is the
> frequency generated at the tower base, is going to be _exactly_
> the same frequency as that passing by the tower top.
>
> That experiment would demolish the integrated Sach-Wolfe effect,
> along with the accursed big bang theory.

It is just gravitational redshift. Jeeeezee...

>
> If I had an atomic clock I would do the experiment myself. It's
> so damn simple. And the result is so damn obvious.
>
>  http://members.optusnet.com.au/maxkeon/the1-1a.html
> is the universe in which we all exist. The sooner you all accept
> that fact the sooner we can get on with the job, whatever it is.
>
> -----
>
> Max Keon