Re: Gravitational time dilation HOAX along the years

On Thu, 19 Dec 2024 14:51:32 +0000, J. J. Lodder wrote:

rhertz <hertz778@gmail.com> 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.

>
Einstein had guessed the correct Newtonian limit
before having the complete final theory.
>
Hilbert didn't solve a thing in 1915.
All he did was producing an unphysical monstruosity,
after which he tried to steal Einstein's achievenments.
Ultimately unsuccesfully, the affair has been settled by now.
Hilbert played false with the date in preprint and the published date.
(he should have added a 'modified' date)
>
Not even Ohanian supports Hilbert in this.
(despite always being out to put Einstein down)
Hilbert just didn't have it, get over it,
>
Jan
>
[snip more of the same garbage]

Since Einstein admitted being inept at math, who did he credit for the
Field Equations?