Re: Pseudoscience III: Each SR/GR experiment is a FRAUD!

On Fri, 27 Sep 2024 2:41:50 +0000, rhertz wrote:

QUOTE:
**********************************************************************
I really don't understand why you should be against Pound-Rebka.
Although gravitational redshift was one of the classical tests of
general relativity, it is now universally recognized that ANY theory
of gravitation that respects the equivalence principle will predict
gravitational redshift. THIS INCLUDES NEWTONIAN GRAVITATION.
>
>
Just because Einstein predicted gravitational redshift does not mean
that it is wrong or doesn't exist.
**********************************************************************
>
Prokaryotic, we discussed a lot about this in the former forum.
>
Why 1960 Pound-Rebka experiment is an HOAX. Part II.
https://groups.google.com/g/sci.physics.relativity/c/ak4FDh0meLQ/m/8BCY9o5PCAAJ
>
Why 1960 Pound-Rebka experiment is an HOAX. Part I.
https://groups.google.com/g/sci.physics.relativity/c/0aLXD2GNp4U/m/bkuHL3f1BgAJ
>
>
------------------------------------------------------------------
>
Even when I consider this a heavy task, I'll try to display the best of
what I wrote.
https://groups.google.com/g/sci.physics.relativity/c/ak4FDh0meLQ/m/1QuaIAmvBgAJ

[SNIP copy-paste of arguments from the above link]

To summarize about the IMPOSSIBILITY OF EXTRACTING DATA WHICH VERIFY A
SHIFT given by gh/c² ≈ 2.42E-15, in a short set of data that had a
RANDOM DISPERSION of ± 1.43E-12 (which configures NOISE 1,000 HIGHER
than what you PRETEND TO EXTRACT FROM DATASETS) was, is and will be
IMPOSSIBLE, unless you are a crook, a liar, a deceiver and else.
>
Fractional FWHM = |± 1.43E-12| (Pound quoted |1.13E-12|)
>
Had you said that Einstein's shift IS ENCODED WITH A KNOWN ALGORITHM, I
would approve the experiment, because the technique of wideband coding
of signals to hide them under noise is known since 1970, at least.
>
This technique was developed by Plessey and used for communications
during the Malvinas War in 1982. The signal was submerged into noise,
and it was impossible to even DETECT by the Argentinian military.
>
This technique, more elaborated, was used by the end of the '90s to
codify the 2G telephony, in open competition with the winner (European
GSM, based on TDM and used for more than 15 years, until the arrival of
3G, 4G and 5G.

This is very interesting information. I appreciate when I learn things
from your posts.

But such pseudo-random encoding of Einstein's shift DIDN'T EXIST. Then,
to extract a shift of 2.42E-15 from a source with noise close to 10E-12
is absolutely RIDICULOUS, no matter which statistical tools you used to
COOK THE DATA. By the way, the receiver section was a GROSS MIX of
electromechanics and photonics, with a WIDE RANGE OF UNCERTAINTY for
that epoch.

======================================================================
That is a rather absurd argument. Consider that the linewidth of the
cesium hyperfine resonance ranges from 1 to 10 Hz, depending on the
atomic beam or fountain configuration, interrogation time, and other
details of clock construction. By your argument, it should be
impossible for even the best cesium clocks to hold time to better than
about 1 part in 9192631770, or 9 microseconds per day. In reality,
the 5071A (a portable cesium beam clock) exhibits an accuracy of
±5×10^−13 and a stability of 2.7×10^−14 over 100,000 s, while cesium
fountain clocks exhibit accuracy and stability in the 10^-16 range.
Are cesium clocks FAKE???
======================================================================

I strongly believe about this HOAX, because I have a life with more than
 45 years spent working into THIS KIND OF TECHNOLOGY for military
purposes, besides other works (I was very prolific).
>
One of the most important applications of signal extraction from noise
IS the processing of radar's received signals UNDER HEAVY JAMMING. I
worked on this too, for many years.
>
Pound and Rebka are fraudsters with many accomplishes. Pound, years
later, changed his NARRATIVE when he started to speak publicly that he
had proven EM blue/red-shifting.
>
But, by 1981, NOBODY paid attention on what he said in different
seminars. He was toasted, done, and the scientific community turned
their back on him. The price for being a crook.

======================================================================
Nope. Pound continued to receive honors throughout his career,
including the National Medal of Science in 1990 for his lifetime
contributions to the field of physics. Did you know that Pound might
possibly have shared the 1952 Nobel prize for his work in NMR? Instead,
his collaborator Edward Purcell shared the prize with Felix Block,
while Pound was explicitly cited in the Nobel presentation as an
important collaborator.
https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/physics/1952/ceremony-speech/
======================================================================
As I stated previously, I am not going to argue with you about the
details of the Pound-Rebka experiment.
If you deny the existence of gravitational redshift, you deny the
validity of any theory of gravitation that respects the equivalence
principle, including Newtonian gravitation.
What do you propose as a replacement for Newtonian gravitation?