Re: Gravitational time dilation HOAX along the years

On 12/18/2024 03:51 PM, rhertz wrote:

On Wed, 18 Dec 2024 21:37:54 +0000, J. J. Lodder wrote:
>

rhertz <hertz778@gmail.com> wrote:
>

On Wed, 18 Dec 2024 13:48:34 +0000, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
>

Den 17.12.2024 23:58, skrev rhertz:

Einstein wrote, in his 1911 paper:
>
.....................................
3. Time and the Velocity of Light in the Gravitational Field
>
If the radiation emitted in the uniformly accelerated system K0 in S2
toward S1 had the frequency f2 relative to the clock at S2, then,
relative to S1, at its arrival at S1 it no longer has the frequency f2
relative to an identical clock at S1, but a greater frequency f1, such
that, to a first approximation
>
(2)                  f1 = f2 (1 + gh/c?)
>
***************************************************************************
>
>
(2')                  h?f1 = f2 (1 + gh/c?)
>
>
(2'')                 E1(1 photon) - E2 (1 photon) = h?f2 gh/c?
>
>
h?: Planck's constant
>
S2 is a point on the z axis at a distance h of point S1, located at
the
z origin.
>
Einstein described how a photon falling vertically from a height h,
under gravity acceleration g, gained energy gh/c?. It meant that the
photon's frequency was blue-shifted while it fell due to gravity.
>
By that epoch (1911), he kept talking about clocks as reference of
time.
By today standards and the use of ANY atomic clock, the frequency
of the
EM energy is what counts in his theory. It doesn't matter what kind of
EM clock is, as it ONLY counts cycles/sec of such EM energy, either at
9.6 Ghz for Cesium, 1.4 Ghz for Hydrogen maser or ANY derived
frequency
that is obtained by digitally down scaling the frequency. The same
formula applies to 9.6 Ghz oscillation or a derived 1 Mhz signal.
Clocks
just COUNT pulses.

>
Forget the 1911 paper.
>
Einstein's last word on the matter is GR.
>
What GR predicts for the Pound - Rebka experiment:
>
https://paulba.no/pdf/PoundRebka.pdf
>
---------------
>
Let's count pulses.
>
We have two equal, very precise atomic clocks.
These clocks are emitting the exact frequency f = 10 GHz.
We place one clock on the ground, and the other clock above
it in a tower with height h = 22.56 m.
>
After one day the ground clock will show ?? = 86400 s
and it will have emitted N? = 0.864e15 cycles.
>
The clock on the ground will have received:
  N? = N??(1+g?h/c?) = N??(1+2.5e-15) = (0.864e15 + 2)
which means that that the clock in the tower will show:
  ?? = 86400 s + 0.2 ns
>
After one year  ?? - ?? = 78.2 ns

>
>
Your comment is worthless, as you're ACCEPTING THAT EINSTEIN WAS RIGHT
IN 1911.

>
>
>

Of course he was, in the Newtonian limit of GR.

>
1) In 1911 didn't know SHIT about 1915 Hilbert GR solution for field
equations.
   He was begging, around Europe, for some help to understand Minkowski.
   Grossman saved his ass by using Ricci - Levi-Civita only 1.5 years
after.
   And even so, he and his "friend" Besso managed to fuck up everything
that
   Grossman developed in HIS Entwurf I.
>
2) Entwurf I open with Poisson's formula ∇²φ = 4πGρ, where ρ is the mass
density of Newton's point mass M distributed in a volume of radius r.
>
As Poisson did, Einstein didn't consider the gravitational attraction
between the infinite number of particles that conformed mass M in such
volume. Poisson was an imbecile trying to re-write Newton's law in terms
of fields (like Gauss).
Poisson was playing with formulae for LEAST ACTIONS when he came with
this.
>
3) AFTER 1915 (1917), Einstein used this concept to interpret the shape
of the "universe", only to find that it collapsed into itself after a
while. It was the russian Friedman (1922) who reinterpreted the GR field
equation, giving cosmology some mathematical toys to play with.
>
4) Such Newtonian limit of GR demanded WEAK gravitational fields, masses
moving AT VERY LOW SPEEDS (v<<c), a FLAT SPACETIME and actions at
infinity.
>
>
In 1911, Einstein was playing with RADIANT ENERGY (speed c). Nothing
farther than LOW SPEED v<<c. He just assumed that LIGHT HAD MASS, and
used Planck's
E = hf to derive his PROPOSITION of light gaining energy while falling
on Earth's surface.
>
It doesn't matter HOW MANY TURNS do you want to do to justify his 1911
hypothesis of light having mass and mixing newtonian gravitational
potential with electromagnetic energy. YOU CAN'T ESCAPE FROM THESE
FACTS.
>
WATCH THIS:
>
https://physics.aps.org/story/v16/st1
>
Apparent Weight of Photons
R. V. Pound and G. A. Rebka, Jr.
Phys. Rev. Lett. 4, 337 (1960)
Published April 1, 1960
>
>

Then, your calculations based on the 1911 formula shows a parasitic
dependence on Einstein's words, without ANY SINGLE PROOF IN 113 YEARS.

>
Nonsense. Most GR textbooks (see MTW for example)
give a derivation of the Newtonian limit of GR.
And for all practical purposes the Newtonian limit is adequate.
(excepting only neutron stars and black holes)
[snip the same nonsense in more words]
>
Jan

>
>
Like these stupid links, trying to justify the IMPOSSIBLE?
>
>
Newtonian limit
https://phys.au.dk/~fedorov/backup/gtr/notes/note8.pdf
>
>
GENERAL RELATIVITY AND THE NEWTONIAN LIMIT
https://www.math.uchicago.edu/~may/VIGRE/VIGRE2010/REUPapers/Tolish.pdf
>
Newtonian limit
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newtonian_limit
>
>
>
THEY ALL FAIL, AS THEY DON'T CONSIDER NEWTONIAN ATTRACTION OF
MICROPARTICLES THAT FORMED THE ORIGINAL POINT-LIKE MASS M, from Newton.
>
>
It's like to say that the N-Body problem, with N approaching infinity,
is solved in A SINGLE FUCKING EQUATION from 200 years ago. Get a grip.

If you consider that gravity in its usual formulation
or "Newton's law" is a constant violation of conservation
of energy, then perhaps you might understand why something
like a sum-of-histories sum-of-potentials least-action
least-gradient with a universal gradient provided by
time in space makes for a principled theory of a fall-gravity,
where the potential fields are the real fields,
and the Lagrangian is the wider out-side,
and inverse-square distance-proportional is inertial,
then for space-contraction-linear and space-contraction-rotational,
otherwise there's that GR says nothing except "classical in the
limit", while equipping classical mechanics with a real
potentialist approach, the space-contraction is real and
that space-contraction-linear and space-contraction-rotational
are two different things, while, Einstein's formulations
are "linear", yet the derivations always nominally "un-linear",
as with regards to why the Lorentzian is just fine
yet explains at least two entirely different things.
It's the unstated assumptions underneath classical mechanics
that simply revisited make simply retrofitted.
That the Lorentzian and then the Hamiltonians and the
eigensystems all are both linear and _partial_,
makes that they're "merely" approximations,
and furthermore, under-defined and over-defined,
variously, contrivances of convenience.
So, it's easy to have a better theory that's
always "attained" to, since mathematics has it
in universals, ideals, and absolutes, then as
with regards to the "severe abstraction" and
what would be a "mechanical reduction".
Two of Einstein's greatest contributions are
mass-energy equivalency, "formally un-linear",
i.e. with usual space-contraction-rotational,
because time-dilation and length-contraction
are always together for extended bodies, accelerated,
and "a vanishing yet non-zero cosmological constant".
The usual idea of discontinuities at all,
is just wrong. The space-time is, as according
to the cosmological constant, "flat, yet curving".
That is to say, that a theory, can take and keep GR,
and take and keep SR, and be a continuum mechanics,
and introduces a super-classical "zero-eth" law
of motion, or "worlds turn", the formally "un-linear".
Also of course to be providing why all the experiments
result as they do.