Re: Pound-Rebka: ChatGPT is TRAINED to obey, sucking asses of relativists at any cost.

On Fri, 27 Dec 2024 0:44:48 +0000, The Starmaker wrote:

The Starmaker wrote:

>
rhertz wrote:

>
I repost here the first part of my 2023 OP about the P-R HOAX.
>
****************************************************************************
>
Why 1960 Pound-Rebka experiment is an HOAX. Part I.
>
https://groups.google.com/g/sci.physics.relativity/c/0aLXD2GNp4U/m/bkuHL3f1BgAJ
>
-------------------------------------------------------------
>
For 63 years now, it has been proclamed that the 1960 Pound-Rebka
experiment was THE FIRST VALID PROOF OF GR gravitational shift,
with +/- 10% statistical error.
>
For decades, it was alleged that the Experiment proved right the 1911
Einstein's heuristic assertion that |Δf/f₀| ≈ 20E-15 for an
elevation of
the "light generator" of 22.2 meters above ground.
>
It's explained EVERYWHERE the cleverness of this duo, that used samples
of radioactive Fe⁵⁷ atoms emitting 14.4 KeV Gamma rays, with a
frequency
of 3.48E+18 Hz (3,480 PetaHz).
>
And it's claimed EVERYWHERE that the duo measured differences of about
69,660 Hz in that HUGE value of frequency, something that was/is
IMPOSSIBLE with the technology available in the last 60 years (and in
the
next 100 years too).
>
It's applauded the high degree of ingenuity for using a slowly moving
sample
so Doppler effects (red-shifting part) would cancel gravitational
effects
blue-shifting part, with sample on the tower).
>
WHAT HAS NOT BEEN SAID ANYWHERE is that those "clever guys" and his
team of collaborators DIDN'T USE RELATIVISTIC DOPPLER FORMULA, but
used the 160 years old Doppler formula (the one Hubble used in 1929).
>
So, how is this? Using Newton effects to cancel Einstein effects?
Bullshit.
>
In this part, I analyze the simple Doppler formula in its two versions.
In the
second part (II), I'll prove that they TRIMMED, COOKED AND FUDGED the
data of the experiment to obtain 14 values (out of thousands) TO FIT
"EINSTEIN'S PREDICTION".
>
First things first:
>
Relativistic Doppler
(f₁/f₀)² = (1 - v/c)/(1 + v/c) = (1 - βᵣ)/(1 + βᵣ) = p²
1 - βᵣ = p² + p² βᵣ
1 - p² = βᵣ (1 + p²)
βᵣ = (1 - p²)/(1 + p²)
>
Classic Doppler
(f₁/f₀) = (1 - v/c)/(1 + v/c) = (1 - β)/(1 + β) = p
1 - β = p + p β
1 - p = β (1 + p)
β = (1 - p)/(1 + p)
---------------------------------------
ELEMENTARY CALCULATIONS
>
(f₁/f₀) = p = (f₀ + Δf)/f₀ = 1 + Δf/f₀
>
p = 1 + Δf/f₀ = 1+ 15.5E-15 (Pound-Rebka, top-down, 1960)
>
βᵣ = (1 - p²)/(1 + p²) ≈ 15.5E-30 (relativistic, NOT USED).
>
β = (1 - p)/(1 + p) ≈ 15.5E-15 (classic, ALLEGEDLY USED)
>
v = β.c ≈ 15.5E-15 x 3E+10 cm/sec = 4.55E-04 cm/sec
>
BUT THEY CLAIMED THAT THE LINEAR VELOCITY OF THE SWINGING
SAMPLE WAS ABOUT 1 cm/sec, not 1,000 times lower than that!
>
And THIS was used to cancel gravitational blue-shifting in 22.2 mt,
given
by the einstenian formula:
>
(f₁/f₀) = √ [[1 - 2GMₑ/c² 1/(Rₑ + h)]/(1 - 2GMₑ/c²
1/Rₑ)]
>
(f₁/f₀)² = pᵣ² = [1 - 2GMₑ/c² 1/(Rₑ + h)]/(1 - 2GMₑ/c²
1/Rₑ)
>
2GMₑ/c² = 4.43503E-03 m
Rₑ = 6.378136550E+06 m
h = 22.2 m
>
(f₁/f₀)² = pᵣ² = (1 - 6.953461356E-10)/(1 - 6.953485559E-10)
(f₁/f₀)² = pᵣ² ≈ 1.000000000000000 (error < 10E-15)
>
So, the relativistic gravitational shift is BARELY NOTICED:
>
(f₁/f₀)² = pᵣ² = (1 - 6.953461356E-10)/(1 - 6.953485559E-10)
(f₁/f₀)² = pᵣ² = 0.999999999304654/0.999999999304651
(f₁/f₀)² = pᵣ² ≈ 1.000000000000000 (error < 10E-15)
>
The above calculations are a proof that the NARRATIVE about the "shift
cancellation" by using classic Dopler effect to CANCEL the einstenian
relativistic blue shifting is JUST A FAIRY TALE.
>
Any measurement of such calculations was IMPOSSIBLE TO BE MADE in
1960 and for the next 40 years.
>
What Pound & Rebka CLAIMED THAT MEASURED was below the values to
be cancelled (about +/- 15E-15).
>
The ALLEGED speed v of the sample, in the direction of the detector had
to
be around 4.55E-04 cm/sec, not the claimed 1.5 cm/sec.
>
Wikipedia estimates that v ≈ 7.5E-05 cm/sec.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pound%E2%80%93Rebka_experiment
>
The ABSOLUTE AVERAGE frequency shift had to be around 69,600 Hz,
difference IMPOSSIBLE TO BE MEASURED BY ANY MEANS on 3.48E+18 Hz
(3,480 PetaHz) frequency of Gamma ray photons.
>
So, WE ARE SUPPOSED TO BELIEVE that the 14 carefully selected
measurements that they published are ABSOLUTELY TRUE, even when
they have a FUDGE COMPENSATION FACTOR FOR TEMPERATURE that
is ALMOST THE MEASURED VALUE. As an example, this measurement,
as published:
>
Feb. 22, 5 p.m. ; Source at the bottom.
Shift observed: (-11.5 ± 3.0) x 10E-15
Temperature correction: -9.2 x 10E-15 (almost 90% cooking/fudging)
Net shift: (-20.7 ± 3.0) x 10E-15 [as predicted by Einstein]
>
NOTE: Photons without recoil are a tiny fraction f of the total amount
of
Gamma photons emitted. And this fraction has frequency shifts that are
SPREAD, in a gaussian way, around f₀ ± 34,800 Hz CALCULATED, not
measured.
>
Now, anyone wanting to redo such experiment today will have to justify
PLENTY how did they measured such uber tiny difference in 3,480 PetaHz.
>
No way then, and even today, unless you resort to fudging and
statistical
HEALING.
>
Next part will be about the 14 published measurements, as the one above.
--------------------------------------------------------

>
"TRIMMED, COOKED AND FUDGED" is the only way any scientists can get a
million dollar grant today!
>

>
Is there a rule that Albert Einstein DIDN'T break?
https://www.enago.com/academy/10-types-of-scientific-misconduct/
>
>
>

Common Types of Scientific Misconduct
Listed below are the top 10 transgressions that peer reviewers and
journal editors look for, incorporating content from both the World
Association of Medical Editors (WAME), and the US Office of Research
Integrity:
1. Misappropriation of Ideas– taking the intellectual property of
others, perhaps as a result of reviewing someone else’s article or
manuscript, or grant application and proceeding with the idea as your
own.
Von Soldner, Voigt, Gerberg, Lorentz, Grossman, Pick, Hilbert, Bose, de
Broglie (to cite a few).
2. Plagiarism– utilizing someone else’s words, published work, research
processes, or results without giving appropriate credit via full
citation. Read about the 10 types of plagiarisms to avoid here.
Voigt, Lorentz, Poincaré, Eotvos, Laub, Grossman, Nordstöm, Besso,
Fokker, Pick, Hilbert, Bose, de Broglie, Mayer, Rosen (to cite a few).
3. Self-plagiarism– recycling or re-using your own work without
appropriate disclosure and/or citation. Any form of plagiarism can be
avoided by using plagiarism checker tools available online.
To cite a few:
1906 - On a Method for the Determination of the Ratio of the Transverse
and the Longitudinal Mass of the Electron
1906 - On the Theory of Brownian Motion
1906 - On the Theory of Light Production and Light Absorption
1906 - The Principle of Conservation of Motion of the Center of Gravity
and the Inertia of Energy
1907 - On the Inertia of Energy Required by the Relativity Principle
1907 - On the Possibility of a New Test of the Relativity Principle
1907 - On the Relativity Principle and the Conclusions Drawn from It
1908 - On the Fundamental Electromagnetic Equations for Moving Bodies
1909 - On the Present Status of the Radiation Problem
1910 - The Theory of the Opalescence of Homogeneous Fluids and Liquid
Mixtures near the Critical State
1911 - A Relationship between Elastic Behavior and Specific Heat in
Solids with a Monatomic Molecule
1911 - Correction to My Paper: A New Determination of Molecular
Dimensions
1911 - Elementary Observations on Thermal Molecular Motion in Solids
1911 - On the Ehrenfest Paradox
1911 - The Theory of Relativity
1912 - Is There a Gravitational Effect Which Is Analogous to
Electrodynamic Induction?
1912 - On the Theory of the Static Gravitational Field
1912 - The Speed of Light and the Statics of the Gravitational Field
1913 - On the Present State of the Problem of Gravitation
1913 - Physical Foundations of a Theory of Gravitation
1914 - Covariance Properties of the Field Equations of the Theory of
Gravitation Based on the Generalized Theory of Relativity
1914 - Formal Foundations of the General Theory of Relativity§
1914 - Gravitational Theory§
1914 - Nordstöm's Theory of Gravitation from the Point of View of the
Absolute Differential Calculus
1914 - On the Foundations of the Generalized Theory of Relativity and
the Theory of Gravitation
1914 - On the Present Status of the Problem of Specific Heats§
1914 - On the Principle of Relativity
1914 - On the Relativity Problem
1914 - On the Theory of Gravitation
1914 - Physical Foundations and Suggestive Thoughts for a Gravitational
Theory§
1915 - Explanation of the Perihelion Motion of Mercury from the General
Theory of Relativity
1915 - Fundamental Ideas of the General Theory of Relativity and the
Application of this Theory in Astronomy§
1915 - On the General Theory of Relativity
1915 - The Field Equations of Gravitation
1916 - Approximative Integration of the Field Equations of Gravitation
1916 - Hamilton's Principle and the General Theory of Relativity
1916 - Some Intuitive Considerations from the Field of Relativity
Theory§
1916 - The Foundation of the General Theory of Relativity
1917 - Cosmological Considerations in the General Theory of Relativity
1918 - Dialogue about Objections to the Theory of Relativity
1918 - On Gravitational Waves
1918 - On the Foundations of the General Theory of Relativity
1918 - The Law of Energy Conservation in the General Theory of
Relativity
1919 - A Test of the General Theory of Relativity
1919 - Do Gravitational Fields Play an Essential Role in the Structure
of the Elementary Particles of Matter?
1919 - Field Equations of the General Theory of Relativity in Respect to
the Cosmological Problem and the Problem of the Constitution of Matter§
1920 - To What Extent Can Modern Gravitational Theory Be Established
without Relativity?
1921 - Geometry and Experience
1921 - On a Natural Addition to the Foundation of the General Theory of
Relativity
1923 - On the General Theory of Relativity§
1927 - Formal Relationship of the Riemannian Curvature Tensor to the
Field Equations of Gravity§
1927 - General Theory of Relativity and the Law of Motion§
1931 - On the Cosmological Problem of the General Theory of Relativity§
1932 - On the relation between the expansion and the mean density of the
universe
1936 - Physics and Reality§
1937 - On gravitational waves
4. Impropriety of Authorship– claiming undeserved authorship on your own
behalf, excluding material contributors from co-authorship, including
non-contributors as authors, or submitting multi-author papers to
journals without the consensus of all named authors.
MOST OF THE ABOVE PUBLICATIONS
5. Failure to Comply with Legislative and Regulatory Requirements –
willful violations of rules concerning the safe use of chemicals, care
of human and animal test subjects, inappropriate use of investigative
drugs or equipment, and inappropriate use of research funds.
- The 20,000 marks/year paid for 12 years, since 1914, to work on
quantum
  physics at request of Planck, in Berlin University.
- The $10,000/year paid in Princeton since 1933 to do research and
teach.
- The huge amount of money collected on his travels, for zionist
funding,
  while being paid at Berlin University during 1921-1926.
- The compromise to share his Nobel Prize money with Mileva Maric.
- God knows how many other PAID lectures that he hide from Planck et
all.
6. Violation of Generally Accepted Research Practices– this can include
the proposal of the research study, manipulation of experiments to
generate preferred results, deceptive statistical or analytical
practices to generate preferred results, or improper reporting of
results to present a misleading outcome causing ethical issues in
research.
- The paper over Mercury and his embedded paragraphs about starlight
deflection.
- The paper about the GR Field Equation.
- The 1911 paper, entirely.
- On the electrodynamic of moving bodies - 1905
- So many others.....
7. Falsification of Data – rather than manipulate the experiments or the
data to generate preferred results, this transgression simply fabricates
the data entirely.
- The paper over Mercury and his embedded paragraphs about starlight
deflection.
8. Failure to Support Validation of Your Research– by refusing to supply
complete datasets or research material needed to facilitate validation
of your results through a replication study.
- The paper over Mercury and his embedded paragraphs about starlight
deflection.
9. Failure to Respond to Known Cases of Unsuccessful Validation
Attempts– published research that is found to be flawed should be
retracted from the journal that published it.
- The paper over Mercury and his embedded paragraphs about starlight
deflection.
10. Inappropriate Behavior in Relation to Suspected Misconduct– failure
to cooperate with any claims of misconduct made against you, failure to
report known or suspected misconduct, destruction of any evidence
related to any claim of misconduct, retaliation against any persons
involved in a claim of misconduct, knowingly making false claims of
misconduct.
- The paper over Mercury and his embedded paragraphs about starlight
deflection.
- The paper about the GR Field Equation.
- The 1911 paper, entirely.
- On the electrodynamic of moving bodies - 1905
- So many others.....
The rise of AI tools for research, such as AI for research papers and AI
for scientific writing, has brought significant advancements to the
academic community, but it has also raised concerns about research
misconduct. These research AI tools and technologies can enhance the
efficiency and quality of academic writing, but their misuse can lead to
issues such as plagiarism, data manipulation, and the generation of
false or misleading content.
AND I MADE THIS POST IN A JIFFY.