Robert V. Pound (1919 – 2010) was a Canadian-American physicist who
devised the famous Pound–Rebka experiment supporting general relativity.

His first paper on that matter, when he was 40 y.o., was to support Einstein's
1911 paper: "On the Influence of Gravitation on the Propagation of Light",
where Einstein (WRONGFULLY) wrote the infamous set of equations (violating
his own 1905 paper), INSTALLING that gravity CREATES an additional mass
due to E=mc² and the gravitational field Φ(R) = GM/R.

Einstein wasted approximately 1,500 initial words to babble about HOW
the inertial mass SHOULD BE EQUAL to the gravitational mass, or else.

For Einstein, the INERTIAL mass was given by the work to lift to a height "h"
a body with rest energy E/c² (at ground level), which was E/c² γh, where
γ=981 cm/s² is the gravitational acceleration (at ground level)..

And, for him, the GRAVITATIONAL mass was given by the work invested to
sustain a body with rest energy E/c² (at ground level) suspended above
Earth at a distance R from its center.
That work was E₁/c² Φ(R) = E₁/c² GM/R.

But the cretin did a HUGE MISTAKE, when he wrote that γh = Φ(R)

E₁ = E₂ (1 + v/c) = E₂ (1 + γh/c²) = E₂ (1 + Φ/c²)

BECAUSE he forgot that the units of length h and R meant different things.

As for the frequency, due to PLANCK and the above equations, Einstein wrote:

υ₁ = υ₂ (1 + γh/c²) = υ₂ (1 + Φ/c²)

Pound, in his 1959 paper, noticed that ERROR, and wrote a correction.

*****************************************************
GRAVITATIONAL RED-SHIFT IN NUCLEAR RESONANCE
R. V. Pound and G. A. Rebka, Jr.
Lyman Laboratory of Physics, Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts
(Received October 15, 1959)
VOLUME 3, NUMBER 9. PHYSICAL REVIEW LETTERS November 1, 1959

Take note: Published just 15 DAYS after being received. Einstein's INFLUENCE.

INITIAL PART OF THE ARTICLE:

It is widely considered desirable to check experimentally the view that the frequencies of electromagnetic spectral lines are sensitive to the gravitational potential at the position of the emitting system. THE SEVERAL THEORIES OF RELATIVITY PREDICT THE FREQUENCY TO BE PROPORTIONAL TO THE GRAVITATIONAL POTENTIAL. Experiments are proposed to observe the timekeeping of a "clock" based on an atomic or molecular transition, when held aloft in a rocket-launched satellite, relative to a similar one kept on the ground. The frequency υ_h and thus the timekeeping at height h is related to that at the earth's surface υ₀, according to

Δυ_h = υ_h - υ₀ = υ₀ gh/c²(1 + h/R) ≈ υ₀h x (1.09x10⁻¹⁸),
*****************************************************

Pound and Rebka made a correction to the 1911 paper, where Einstein
messed up mixing "h" and "R", taking readers for GULLIBLE IMBECILES.

Not only that. Months after (in 1960), they wrote a second paper:

APPARENT WEIGHT OF PHOTONS
R. V. Pound and G. A. Rebka, Jr.
Lyman Laboratory of Physics, Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts
(Received March 9, 1960)
PUBLISHED IN APRIL 1, 1960 (Fast Einstenian track. Privileges.)

"As we proposed a few months ago, ' we have now measured the effect, originally hypothesized by Einstein, ' of gravitational potential on the
APPARENT frequency of electromagnetic radiation by using the sharply
defined energy of recoil-free y rays emitted and absorbed in solids, as
discovered by Mossbauer. "'

*************************************************

I'll make a forensic analysis of both papers later, but it's pseudo-science..

YOU HAVE TO ACCEPT THAT GRAVITY CHANGE ENERGY, SO CHANGE MASS. IF YOU DON'T OBEY, YOU'LL PAY DEARLY IF WORKING IN RELATED
FIELDS.

Einstein died in 1955.

On 1/20/2023 6:48 PM, Richard Hertz wrote:
> Robert V. Pound (1919 – 2010) was a Canadian-American physicist who
> devised the famous Pound–Rebka experiment supporting general relativity.
>
> His first paper on that matter, when he was 40 y.o., was to support Einstein's
> 1911 paper: "On the Influence of Gravitation on the Propagation of Light",
> where Einstein (WRONGFULLY) wrote the infamous set of equations (violating
> his own 1905 paper), INSTALLING that gravity CREATES an additional mass
> due to E=mc² and the gravitational field Φ(R) = GM/R.
>
> Einstein wasted approximately 1,500 initial words to babble about HOW
> the inertial mass SHOULD BE EQUAL to the gravitational mass, or else.
>
> For Einstein, the INERTIAL mass was given by the work to lift to a height "h"
> a body with rest energy E/c² (at ground level), which was E/c² γh, where
> γ=981 cm/s² is the gravitational acceleration (at ground level).
>
> And, for him, the GRAVITATIONAL mass was given by the work invested to
> sustain a body with rest energy E/c² (at ground level) suspended above
> Earth at a distance R from its center.
> That work was E₁/c² Φ(R) = E₁/c² GM/R.
>
> But the cretin did a HUGE MISTAKE, when he wrote that γh = Φ(R)
>
> E₁ = E₂ (1 + v/c) = E₂ (1 + γh/c²) = E₂ (1 + Φ/c²)
>
> BECAUSE he forgot that the units of length h and R meant different things.
>
> As for the frequency, due to PLANCK and the above equations, Einstein wrote:
>
> υ₁ = υ₂ (1 + γh/c²) = υ₂ (1 + Φ/c²)
>
> Pound, in his 1959 paper, noticed that ERROR, and wrote a correction.
>
> *****************************************************
> GRAVITATIONAL RED-SHIFT IN NUCLEAR RESONANCE
> R. V. Pound and G. A. Rebka, Jr.
> Lyman Laboratory of Physics, Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts
> (Received October 15, 1959)
> VOLUME 3, NUMBER 9. PHYSICAL REVIEW LETTERS November 1, 1959
>
> Take note: Published just 15 DAYS after being received. Einstein's INFLUENCE.
>
> INITIAL PART OF THE ARTICLE:
>
> It is widely considered desirable to check experimentally the view that the frequencies of electromagnetic spectral lines are sensitive to the gravitational potential at the position of the emitting system. THE SEVERAL THEORIES OF RELATIVITY PREDICT THE FREQUENCY TO BE PROPORTIONAL TO THE GRAVITATIONAL POTENTIAL. Experiments are proposed to observe the timekeeping of a "clock" based on an atomic or molecular transition, when held aloft in a rocket-launched satellite, relative to a similar one kept on the ground. The frequency υ_h and thus the timekeeping at height h is related to that at the earth's surface υ₀, according to
>
> Δυ_h = υ_h - υ₀ = υ₀ gh/c²(1 + h/R) ≈ υ₀h x (1.09x10⁻¹⁸),
> *****************************************************
>
> Pound and Rebka made a correction to the 1911 paper, where Einstein
> messed up mixing "h" and "R", taking readers for GULLIBLE IMBECILES.
>
> Not only that. Months after (in 1960), they wrote a second paper:
>
> APPARENT WEIGHT OF PHOTONS
> R. V. Pound and G. A. Rebka, Jr.
> Lyman Laboratory of Physics, Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts
> (Received March 9, 1960)
> PUBLISHED IN APRIL 1, 1960 (Fast Einstenian track. Privileges.)
>
> "As we proposed a few months ago, ' we have now measured the effect, originally hypothesized by Einstein, ' of gravitational potential on the
> APPARENT frequency of electromagnetic radiation by using the sharply
> defined energy of recoil-free y rays emitted and absorbed in solids, as
> discovered by Mossbauer. "'
>
> *************************************************
>
> I'll make a forensic analysis of both papers later, but it's pseudo-science.
>
> YOU HAVE TO ACCEPT THAT GRAVITY CHANGE ENERGY, SO CHANGE MASS. IF YOU DON'T OBEY, YOU'LL PAY DEARLY IF WORKING IN RELATED
> FIELDS.
>

On Friday, January 20, 2023 at 10:59:18 PM UTC-3, whodat wrote:
> Einstein died in 1955.

I know. They met virtually.

On Friday, January 20, 2023 at 4:48:24 PM UTC-8, Richard Hertz wrote:
> Robert V. Pound (1919 – 2010) was a Canadian-American physicist who
> devised the famous Pound–Rebka experiment supporting general relativity.
>
> His first paper on that matter, when he was 40 y.o., was to support Einstein's
> 1911 paper: "On the Influence of Gravitation on the Propagation of Light",
> where Einstein (WRONGFULLY) wrote the infamous set of equations (violating
> his own 1905 paper), INSTALLING that gravity CREATES an additional mass
> due to E=mc² and the gravitational field Φ(R) = GM/R.
>
> Einstein wasted approximately 1,500 initial words to babble about HOW
> the inertial mass SHOULD BE EQUAL to the gravitational mass, or else.
>
> For Einstein, the INERTIAL mass was given by the work to lift to a height "h"
> a body with rest energy E/c² (at ground level), which was E/c² γh, where
> γ=981 cm/s² is the gravitational acceleration (at ground level).
>
> And, for him, the GRAVITATIONAL mass was given by the work invested to
> sustain a body with rest energy E/c² (at ground level) suspended above
> Earth at a distance R from its center.
> That work was E₁/c² Φ(R) = E₁/c² GM/R.
>
> But the cretin did a HUGE MISTAKE, when he wrote that γh = Φ(R)
>
> E₁ = E₂ (1 + v/c) = E₂ (1 + γh/c²) = E₂ (1 + Φ/c²)
>
> BECAUSE he forgot that the units of length h and R meant different things..
>
> As for the frequency, due to PLANCK and the above equations, Einstein wrote:
>
> υ₁ = υ₂ (1 + γh/c²) = υ₂ (1 + Φ/c²)
>
> Pound, in his 1959 paper, noticed that ERROR, and wrote a correction.
>
> *****************************************************
> GRAVITATIONAL RED-SHIFT IN NUCLEAR RESONANCE
> R. V. Pound and G. A. Rebka, Jr.
> Lyman Laboratory of Physics, Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts
> (Received October 15, 1959)
> VOLUME 3, NUMBER 9. PHYSICAL REVIEW LETTERS November 1, 1959
>
> Take note: Published just 15 DAYS after being received. Einstein's INFLUENCE.
>
> INITIAL PART OF THE ARTICLE:
>
> It is widely considered desirable to check experimentally the view that the frequencies of electromagnetic spectral lines are sensitive to the gravitational potential at the position of the emitting system. THE SEVERAL THEORIES OF RELATIVITY PREDICT THE FREQUENCY TO BE PROPORTIONAL TO THE GRAVITATIONAL POTENTIAL. Experiments are proposed to observe the timekeeping of a "clock" based on an atomic or molecular transition, when held aloft in a rocket-launched satellite, relative to a similar one kept on the ground. The frequency υ_h and thus the timekeeping at height h is related to that at the earth's surface υ₀, according to
>
> Δυ_h = υ_h - υ₀ = υ₀ gh/c²(1 + h/R) ≈ υ₀h x (1.09x10⁻¹⁸),
> *****************************************************
>
> Pound and Rebka made a correction to the 1911 paper, where Einstein
> messed up mixing "h" and "R", taking readers for GULLIBLE IMBECILES.
>
> Not only that. Months after (in 1960), they wrote a second paper:
>
> APPARENT WEIGHT OF PHOTONS
> R. V. Pound and G. A. Rebka, Jr.
> Lyman Laboratory of Physics, Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts
> (Received March 9, 1960)
> PUBLISHED IN APRIL 1, 1960 (Fast Einstenian track. Privileges.)
>
> "As we proposed a few months ago, ' we have now measured the effect, originally hypothesized by Einstein, ' of gravitational potential on the
> APPARENT frequency of electromagnetic radiation by using the sharply
> defined energy of recoil-free y rays emitted and absorbed in solids, as
> discovered by Mossbauer. "'
>
> *************************************************
>
> I'll make a forensic analysis of both papers later, but it's pseudo-science.
>
> YOU HAVE TO ACCEPT THAT GRAVITY CHANGE ENERGY, SO CHANGE MASS. IF YOU DON'T OBEY, YOU'LL PAY DEARLY IF WORKING IN RELATED
> FIELDS.

Another piece of gobbledygook.

--
Jan

On Saturday, January 21, 2023 at 1:45:37 AM UTC-3, JanPB wrote:

<snip>

> Another piece of gobbledygook.
>
> --
> Jan

Come on, JanPB. Demonstrate your aptitudes as a mathematician and a natural philosopher.

I wrote the OP with much care, in order to display what Einstein meant in his 1911 paper. In particular, in the four or five
first pages. I've been RESPECTFUL with the paper and extracted the ESSENCE of his line of thought as briefly as I could.

Besides the conceptual error in equating the meaning of h and R, I followed his narrative, which is STRICTLY BASED on
E=mc2 usage as total energy of a body at rest AND THE CONCEPT that different types of energy are protected, in their
closed environment, by the law of conservation of energy.

So, ZERO TROLLING HERE, but you call it "gobbledygook".

I wonder WHO (you or myself) is the "thought nazi" here. I'm not forcing anything, and properly cited the THREE PAPERS,
separated by 48 years.

Pound is REGISTERED as the FIRST PHYSICIST EVER that tried to support some assertions of GR, based on the Mossbauer's
effect that was discovered a few months before his first paper.

He saw an opportunity to gain fame in the relativity community, and spent the next 5 years working on the GR topic of gravity
modifying frequency of light.

I'd like to see how to use your BRAIN to refute what I wrote, instead of resorting some of your classic and STUPID dismissive phrases.

On Friday, January 20, 2023 at 4:48:24 PM UTC-8, Richard Hertz wrote:

> BECAUSE he forgot that the units of length h and R meant different things.
>

LOL, you are getting dumber by the post, Dick.

On Saturday, January 21, 2023 at 11:24:46 AM UTC-3, Dono. wrote:
> On Friday, January 20, 2023 at 4:48:24 PM UTC-8, Richard Hertz wrote:
> > BECAUSE he forgot that the units of length h and R meant different things.
> >
> LOL, you are getting dumber by the post, Dick.

*************** EXCERPT FROM: On the Influence of Gravitation on the Propagation of Light (1911 paper)
........
2. On the Gravitation of Energy
...........................
We consider the process of transmission of energy by radiation from S₂ to S₁ from
a system K₀, which is free of acceleration. At the moment when the radiation energy
E₂ is emitted from S₂ toward S₁, let the velocity of K₀ relative to K₀ be zero. The
radiation will arrive at S₁ when the time h/c has elapsed (to a first approximation).
But at this moment the velocity of S₁ relative to K₀ is γh/c = v. Therefore, by the
ordinary theory of relativity the radiation arriving at S₁ does not possess the energy
E₂, but a greater energy E₁, which is related to E₂; to a first approximation, by the
equation1:

(1) E₁ = E₂ (1 + v/c) = E₂ (1 + γh/c²)

By our assumption exactly the same relation holds if the same process takes place
in the system K, which is not accelerated, but is provided with a gravitational field.
In this case we may replace γh by the potential Φ of the gravitation vector in S₂,
if the arbitrary constant of Φ in S₁ is set to zero. We then have the equation:

(1a) E₁ = E₂ + E₂/c² Φ

This equation expresses the energy law for the process under observation. The energy
E₁ arriving at S₁ is greater than the energy E₂, measured by the same means, which
was emitted from S₂, the excess being the potential energy of the mass E₂=c2 in the
gravitational field. This shows that in order to satisfy the energy principle we have
to ascribe to the energy E, before its emission from S₂, a potential energy, due to
gravity, which corresponds to the (gravitational) mass E/c². Our assumption of the
equivalence of K and K₀, thus removes the difficulty mentioned at the beginning of
this Section, which is left unsolved by the ordinary theory of relativity.

***************

γh ≠ Φ(R) , because γ = GMₑ/Rₑ (with 3 digits value: 981 cm/s².

AND

γh = GMₑ h/Rₑ ≠ GMₑ/(Rₑ + h)

In 1959, Pound & Rebka CORRECTED THIS EXPRESSION, as ≈ gh/(1 + h/R) [Here R means Rₑ, and h << R]

h: height from the ground level, where inertial mass works with γ, the acceleration due to gravity on the surface of Earth.
R: distance from the center of Earth, being the gravitational potential Φ(R) = GMₑ/R.

R = Rₑ + h ; h = R - Rₑ

Now, Dono, do you have something to say, ignorant cretin?

On Saturday, January 21, 2023 at 2:19:44 PM UTC-3, Richard Hertz wrote:
> On Saturday, January 21, 2023 at 11:24:46 AM UTC-3, Dono. wrote:
> > On Friday, January 20, 2023 at 4:48:24 PM UTC-8, Richard Hertz wrote:
> > > BECAUSE he forgot that the units of length h and R meant different things.
> > >
> > LOL, you are getting dumber by the post, Dick.
> *************** EXCERPT FROM: On the Influence of Gravitation on the Propagation of Light (1911 paper)
> .......
> 2. On the Gravitation of Energy
> ..........................
> We consider the process of transmission of energy by radiation from S₂ to S₁ from
> a system K₀, which is free of acceleration. At the moment when the radiation energy
> E₂ is emitted from S₂ toward S₁, let the velocity of K₀ relative to K₀ be zero. The
> radiation will arrive at S₁ when the time h/c has elapsed (to a first approximation).
> But at this moment the velocity of S₁ relative to K₀ is γh/c = v. Therefore, by the
> ordinary theory of relativity the radiation arriving at S₁ does not possess the energy
> E₂, but a greater energy E₁, which is related to E₂; to a first approximation, by the
> equation1:
>
> (1) E₁ = E₂ (1 + v/c) = E₂ (1 + γh/c²)
>
> By our assumption exactly the same relation holds if the same process takes place
> in the system K, which is not accelerated, but is provided with a gravitational field.
> In this case we may replace γh by the potential Φ of the gravitation vector in S₂,
> if the arbitrary constant of Φ in S₁ is set to zero. We then have the equation:
>
> (1a) E₁ = E₂ + E₂/c² Φ
>
> This equation expresses the energy law for the process under observation. The energy
> E₁ arriving at S₁ is greater than the energy E₂, measured by the same means, which
> was emitted from S₂, the excess being the potential energy of the mass E₂=c2 in the
> gravitational field. This shows that in order to satisfy the energy principle we have
> to ascribe to the energy E, before its emission from S₂, a potential energy, due to
> gravity, which corresponds to the (gravitational) mass E/c². Our assumption of the
> equivalence of K and K₀, thus removes the difficulty mentioned at the beginning of
> this Section, which is left unsolved by the ordinary theory of relativity..
>
> ***************
>
> γh ≠ Φ(R) , because γ = GMₑ/Rₑ (with 3 digits value: 981 cm/s².
>
> AND
>
> γh = GMₑ h/Rₑ ≠ GMₑ/(Rₑ + h)
>
> In 1959, Pound & Rebka CORRECTED THIS EXPRESSION, as ≈ gh/(1 + h/R) [Here R means Rₑ, and h << R]
>
> h: height from the ground level, where inertial mass works with γ, the acceleration due to gravity on the surface of Earth.
> R: distance from the center of Earth, being the gravitational potential Φ(R) = GMₑ/R.
>
> R = Rₑ + h ; h = R - Rₑ
>
>
> Now, Dono, do you have something to say, ignorant cretin?

ADDITIONAL NOTE: The cretin deceiver and LIAR did it on purpose, so he DIDN'T HAVE TO EQUATE NEWTON LAW OF GRAVITATION
WITH LAPLACE acceleration of gravity on the Earth' surface.

Because he WAS A DECEIVER, A FRAUDSTER. If he did that, he would INTRODUCE the equality of inertial and gravitational mass.

ABSOLUTE CRETIN, ALL THE TIME. SUCH SCUMBAG WAS EINSTEIN.

On Friday, January 20, 2023 at 4:48:24 PM UTC-8, Richard Hertz wrote:
> Robert V. Pound (1919 – 2010) was a Canadian-American physicist who
> devised the famous Pound–Rebka experiment supporting general relativity.
>
> His first paper on that matter, when he was 40 y.o., was to support Einstein's
> 1911 paper: "On the Influence of Gravitation on the Propagation of Light",
> where Einstein (WRONGFULLY) wrote the infamous set of equations (violating
> his own 1905 paper), INSTALLING that gravity CREATES an additional mass
> due to E=mc² and the gravitational field Φ(R) = GM/R.
>
> Einstein wasted approximately 1,500 initial words to babble about HOW
> the inertial mass SHOULD BE EQUAL to the gravitational mass, or else.
>
> For Einstein, the INERTIAL mass was given by the work to lift to a height "h"
> a body with rest energy E/c² (at ground level), which was E/c² γh, where
> γ=981 cm/s² is the gravitational acceleration (at ground level).
>
> And, for him, the GRAVITATIONAL mass was given by the work invested to
> sustain a body with rest energy E/c² (at ground level) suspended above
> Earth at a distance R from its center.
> That work was E₁/c² Φ(R) = E₁/c² GM/R.
>
> But the cretin did a HUGE MISTAKE, when he wrote that γh = Φ(R)
>
> E₁ = E₂ (1 + v/c) = E₂ (1 + γh/c²) = E₂ (1 + Φ/c²)
>
> BECAUSE he forgot that the units of length h and R meant different things..
>
> As for the frequency, due to PLANCK and the above equations, Einstein wrote:
>
> υ₁ = υ₂ (1 + γh/c²) = υ₂ (1 + Φ/c²)
>
> Pound, in his 1959 paper, noticed that ERROR, and wrote a correction.
>
> *****************************************************
> GRAVITATIONAL RED-SHIFT IN NUCLEAR RESONANCE
> R. V. Pound and G. A. Rebka, Jr.
> Lyman Laboratory of Physics, Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts
> (Received October 15, 1959)
> VOLUME 3, NUMBER 9. PHYSICAL REVIEW LETTERS November 1, 1959
>
> Take note: Published just 15 DAYS after being received. Einstein's INFLUENCE.
>
> INITIAL PART OF THE ARTICLE:
>
> It is widely considered desirable to check experimentally the view that the frequencies of electromagnetic spectral lines are sensitive to the gravitational potential at the position of the emitting system. THE SEVERAL THEORIES OF RELATIVITY PREDICT THE FREQUENCY TO BE PROPORTIONAL TO THE GRAVITATIONAL POTENTIAL. Experiments are proposed to observe the timekeeping of a "clock" based on an atomic or molecular transition, when held aloft in a rocket-launched satellite, relative to a similar one kept on the ground. The frequency υ_h and thus the timekeeping at height h is related to that at the earth's surface υ₀, according to
>
> Δυ_h = υ_h - υ₀ = υ₀ gh/c²(1 + h/R) ≈ υ₀h x (1.09x10⁻¹⁸),
> *****************************************************
>
> Pound and Rebka made a correction to the 1911 paper, where Einstein
> messed up mixing "h" and "R", taking readers for GULLIBLE IMBECILES.
>
> Not only that. Months after (in 1960), they wrote a second paper:
>
> APPARENT WEIGHT OF PHOTONS
> R. V. Pound and G. A. Rebka, Jr.
> Lyman Laboratory of Physics, Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts
> (Received March 9, 1960)
> PUBLISHED IN APRIL 1, 1960 (Fast Einstenian track. Privileges.)
>
> "As we proposed a few months ago, ' we have now measured the effect, originally hypothesized by Einstein, ' of gravitational potential on the
> APPARENT frequency of electromagnetic radiation by using the sharply
> defined energy of recoil-free y rays emitted and absorbed in solids, as
> discovered by Mossbauer. "'
>
> *************************************************
>
> I'll make a forensic analysis of both papers later, but it's pseudo-science.
>
> YOU HAVE TO ACCEPT THAT GRAVITY CHANGE ENERGY, SO CHANGE MASS. IF YOU DON'T OBEY, YOU'LL PAY DEARLY IF WORKING IN RELATED
> FIELDS.
Thank you Richard. Pound-Rebka...three syllables which heretofore have been spoken in this forum and throughout online physics with only the utmost reverence. I shall contemplate the piece of your all the livelong day.

On Saturday, January 21, 2023 at 4:52:19 AM UTC-8, Richard Hertz wrote:
> On Saturday, January 21, 2023 at 1:45:37 AM UTC-3, JanPB wrote:
>
> <snip>
> > Another piece of gobbledygook.
> >
> > --
> > Jan
> Come on, JanPB. Demonstrate your aptitudes as a mathematician and a natural philosopher.

You really have a "mathematician" complex (on top of all the others).

> I'd like to see how to use your BRAIN to refute what I wrote, instead of resorting some of your classic and STUPID dismissive phrases.

You have nothing to contribute.

--
Jan

On Saturday, January 21, 2023 at 9:19:44 AM UTC-8, Richard Hertz wrote:

> γh ≠ Φ(R) , because γ = GMₑ/Rₑ (with 3 digits value: 981 cm/s².
>
Dumestfuck

g=GMₑ/Rₑ^2

You flunked basic physics once again. Keep at it, dumbeshit!

On Saturday, January 21, 2023 at 11:42:01 AM UTC-8, patdolan wrote:
> On Friday, January 20, 2023 at 4:48:24 PM UTC-8, Richard Hertz wrote:
> > Robert V. Pound (1919 – 2010) was a Canadian-American physicist who
> > devised the famous Pound–Rebka experiment supporting general relativity.
> >
> > His first paper on that matter, when he was 40 y.o., was to support Einstein's
> > 1911 paper: "On the Influence of Gravitation on the Propagation of Light",
> > where Einstein (WRONGFULLY) wrote the infamous set of equations (violating
> > his own 1905 paper), INSTALLING that gravity CREATES an additional mass
> > due to E=mc² and the gravitational field Φ(R) = GM/R.
> >
> > Einstein wasted approximately 1,500 initial words to babble about HOW
> > the inertial mass SHOULD BE EQUAL to the gravitational mass, or else.
> >
> > For Einstein, the INERTIAL mass was given by the work to lift to a height "h"
> > a body with rest energy E/c² (at ground level), which was E/c² γh, where
> > γ=981 cm/s² is the gravitational acceleration (at ground level).
> >
> > And, for him, the GRAVITATIONAL mass was given by the work invested to
> > sustain a body with rest energy E/c² (at ground level) suspended above
> > Earth at a distance R from its center.
> > That work was E₁/c² Φ(R) = E₁/c² GM/R.
> >
> > But the cretin did a HUGE MISTAKE, when he wrote that γh = Φ(R)
> >
> > E₁ = E₂ (1 + v/c) = E₂ (1 + γh/c²) = E₂ (1 + Φ/c²)
> >
> > BECAUSE he forgot that the units of length h and R meant different things.
> >
> > As for the frequency, due to PLANCK and the above equations, Einstein wrote:
> >
> > υ₁ = υ₂ (1 + γh/c²) = υ₂ (1 + Φ/c²)
> >
> > Pound, in his 1959 paper, noticed that ERROR, and wrote a correction.
> >
> > *****************************************************
> > GRAVITATIONAL RED-SHIFT IN NUCLEAR RESONANCE
> > R. V. Pound and G. A. Rebka, Jr.
> > Lyman Laboratory of Physics, Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts
> > (Received October 15, 1959)
> > VOLUME 3, NUMBER 9. PHYSICAL REVIEW LETTERS November 1, 1959
> >
> > Take note: Published just 15 DAYS after being received. Einstein's INFLUENCE.
> >
> > INITIAL PART OF THE ARTICLE:
> >
> > It is widely considered desirable to check experimentally the view that the frequencies of electromagnetic spectral lines are sensitive to the gravitational potential at the position of the emitting system. THE SEVERAL THEORIES OF RELATIVITY PREDICT THE FREQUENCY TO BE PROPORTIONAL TO THE GRAVITATIONAL POTENTIAL. Experiments are proposed to observe the timekeeping of a "clock" based on an atomic or molecular transition, when held aloft in a rocket-launched satellite, relative to a similar one kept on the ground. The frequency υ_h and thus the timekeeping at height h is related to that at the earth's surface υ₀, according to
> >
> > Δυ_h = υ_h - υ₀ = υ₀ gh/c²(1 + h/R) ≈ υ₀h x (1.09x10⁻¹⁸),
> > *****************************************************
> >
> > Pound and Rebka made a correction to the 1911 paper, where Einstein
> > messed up mixing "h" and "R", taking readers for GULLIBLE IMBECILES.
> >
> > Not only that. Months after (in 1960), they wrote a second paper:
> >
> > APPARENT WEIGHT OF PHOTONS
> > R. V. Pound and G. A. Rebka, Jr.
> > Lyman Laboratory of Physics, Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts
> > (Received March 9, 1960)
> > PUBLISHED IN APRIL 1, 1960 (Fast Einstenian track. Privileges.)
> >
> > "As we proposed a few months ago, ' we have now measured the effect, originally hypothesized by Einstein, ' of gravitational potential on the
> > APPARENT frequency of electromagnetic radiation by using the sharply
> > defined energy of recoil-free y rays emitted and absorbed in solids, as
> > discovered by Mossbauer. "'
> >
> > *************************************************
> >
> > I'll make a forensic analysis of both papers later, but it's pseudo-science.
> >
> > YOU HAVE TO ACCEPT THAT GRAVITY CHANGE ENERGY, SO CHANGE MASS. IF YOU DON'T OBEY, YOU'LL PAY DEARLY IF WORKING IN RELATED
> > FIELDS.
> Thank you Richard. Pound-Rebka...three syllables which heretofore have been spoken in this forum and throughout online physics with only the utmost reverence. I shall contemplate the piece of your all the livelong day.

Pattycakes

Keep you nose up Dick's ass.

On Saturday, January 21, 2023 at 8:40:29 PM UTC-3, Dono. wrote:
> On Saturday, January 21, 2023 at 9:19:44 AM UTC-8, Richard Hertz wrote:
>
> > γh ≠ Φ(R) , because γ = GMₑ/Rₑ (with 3 digits value: 981 cm/s².
> >
> Dumestfuck
>
> g=GMₑ/Rₑ^2
>
> You flunked basic physics once again. Keep at it, dumbeshit!

Imbecile and ignorant worm.

IF the cretin did that, on the 1911 paper, he would be MIXING the separate definitions of inertial
and gravitational masses, NOT DECLARED YET!

The cretin wanted that gullible IMBECILES like you be MARVELED by the power of his deductive intellect.

And you, as the perfect relativist, buy ANY SHIT with the brand name "Einstein", because YOU ARE A RELATIVISTIC IDIOT.

On Saturday, January 21, 2023 at 3:49:20 PM UTC-8, Richard Hertz wrote:
> On Saturday, January 21, 2023 at 8:40:29 PM UTC-3, Dono. wrote:
> > On Saturday, January 21, 2023 at 9:19:44 AM UTC-8, Richard Hertz wrote:
> >
> > > γh ≠ Φ(R) , because γ = GMₑ/Rₑ (with 3 digits value: 981 cm/s².
> > >
> > Dumestfuck
> >
> > g=GMₑ/Rₑ^2
> >
> > You flunked basic physics once again. Keep at it, dumbeshit!
> Imbecile and ignorant worm.
>

Nice new signature , Dick

You have been exposed once again for the "Imbecile and Ignorant" that you are.

On Saturday, January 21, 2023 at 9:19:44 AM UTC-8, Richard Hertz wrote:
> because γ = GMₑ/Rₑ (with 3 digits value: 981 cm/s².
>

First Dick Hurts imbecility

> AND
>
> γh = GMₑ h/Rₑ ≠ GMₑ/(Rₑ + h)
>

Second Dick Hurts imbecility.

Richard Hertz fails basic CLASSICAL physics.

Den 21.01.2023 20:41, skrev patdolan:
> On Friday, January 20, 2023 at 4:48:24 PM UTC-8, Richard Hertz wrote:
>> Robert V. Pound (1919 – 2010) was a Canadian-American physicist who
>> devised the famous Pound–Rebka experiment supporting general relativity.
>>
>> His first paper on that matter, when he was 40 y.o., was to support Einstein's
>> 1911 paper: "On the Influence of Gravitation on the Propagation of Light",
>> where Einstein (WRONGFULLY) wrote the infamous set of equations (violating
>> his own 1905 paper), INSTALLING that gravity CREATES an additional mass
>> due to E=mc² and the gravitational field Φ(R) = GM/R.
>>
>> Einstein wasted approximately 1,500 initial words to babble about HOW
>> the inertial mass SHOULD BE EQUAL to the gravitational mass, or else.
>>
>> For Einstein, the INERTIAL mass was given by the work to lift to a height "h"
>> a body with rest energy E/c² (at ground level), which was E/c² γh, where
>> γ=981 cm/s² is the gravitational acceleration (at ground level).
>>
>> And, for him, the GRAVITATIONAL mass was given by the work invested to
>> sustain a body with rest energy E/c² (at ground level) suspended above
>> Earth at a distance R from its center.
>> That work was E₁/c² Φ(R) = E₁/c² GM/R.
>>
>> But the cretin did a HUGE MISTAKE, when he wrote that γh = Φ(R)
>>
>> E₁ = E₂ (1 + v/c) = E₂ (1 + γh/c²) = E₂ (1 + Φ/c²)
>>
>> BECAUSE he forgot that the units of length h and R meant different things.
>>
>> As for the frequency, due to PLANCK and the above equations, Einstein wrote:
>>
>> υ₁ = υ₂ (1 + γh/c²) = υ₂ (1 + Φ/c²)
>>
>> Pound, in his 1959 paper, noticed that ERROR, and wrote a correction.
>>
>> *****************************************************
>> GRAVITATIONAL RED-SHIFT IN NUCLEAR RESONANCE
>> R. V. Pound and G. A. Rebka, Jr.
>> Lyman Laboratory of Physics, Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts
>> (Received October 15, 1959)
>> VOLUME 3, NUMBER 9. PHYSICAL REVIEW LETTERS November 1, 1959
>>
>> Take note: Published just 15 DAYS after being received. Einstein's INFLUENCE.
>>
>> INITIAL PART OF THE ARTICLE:
>>
>> It is widely considered desirable to check experimentally the view that the frequencies of electromagnetic spectral lines are sensitive to the gravitational potential at the position of the emitting system. THE SEVERAL THEORIES OF RELATIVITY PREDICT THE FREQUENCY TO BE PROPORTIONAL TO THE GRAVITATIONAL POTENTIAL. Experiments are proposed to observe the timekeeping of a "clock" based on an atomic or molecular transition, when held aloft in a rocket-launched satellite, relative to a similar one kept on the ground. The frequency υ_h and thus the timekeeping at height h is related to that at the earth's surface υ₀, according to
>>
>> Δυ_h = υ_h - υ₀ = υ₀ gh/c²(1 + h/R) ≈ υ₀h x (1.09x10⁻¹⁸),
>> *****************************************************
>>
>> Pound and Rebka made a correction to the 1911 paper, where Einstein
>> messed up mixing "h" and "R", taking readers for GULLIBLE IMBECILES.
>>
>> Not only that. Months after (in 1960), they wrote a second paper:
>>
>> APPARENT WEIGHT OF PHOTONS
>> R. V. Pound and G. A. Rebka, Jr.
>> Lyman Laboratory of Physics, Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts
>> (Received March 9, 1960)
>> PUBLISHED IN APRIL 1, 1960 (Fast Einstenian track. Privileges.)
>>
>> "As we proposed a few months ago, ' we have now measured the effect, originally hypothesized by Einstein, ' of gravitational potential on the
>> APPARENT frequency of electromagnetic radiation by using the sharply
>> defined energy of recoil-free y rays emitted and absorbed in solids, as
>> discovered by Mossbauer. "'
>>
>> *************************************************
>>
>> I'll make a forensic analysis of both papers later, but it's pseudo-science.
>>
>> YOU HAVE TO ACCEPT THAT GRAVITY CHANGE ENERGY, SO CHANGE MASS. IF YOU DON'T OBEY, YOU'LL PAY DEARLY IF WORKING IN RELATED
>> FIELDS.
> Thank you Richard. Pound-Rebka...three syllables which heretofore have been spoken in this forum and throughout online physics with only the utmost reverence. I shall contemplate the piece of your all the livelong day.

https://paulba.no/pdf/PoundRebka.pdf
https://paulba.no/paper/Pound&Rebka.pdf

--
Paul

https://paulba.no/

Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> wrote:

> Robert V. Pound (1919 – 2010) was a Canadian-American physicist who
> devised the famous Pound–Rebka experiment supporting general relativity.
>
> His first paper on that matter, when he was 40 y.o., was to support Einstein's
> 1911 paper: "On the Influence of Gravitation on the Propagation of Light",
> where Einstein (WRONGFULLY) wrote the infamous set of equations (violating
> his own 1905 paper), INSTALLING that gravity CREATES an additional mass
> due to E=mc? and the gravitational field ?(R) = GM/R.
>
> Einstein wasted approximately 1,500 initial words to babble about HOW
> the inertial mass SHOULD BE EQUAL to the gravitational mass, or else.
>
> For Einstein, the INERTIAL mass was given by the work to lift to a height "h"
> a body with rest energy E/c? (at ground level), which was E/c? ?h, where
> ?=981 cm/s? is the gravitational acceleration (at ground level).
>
> And, for him, the GRAVITATIONAL mass was given by the work invested to
> sustain a body with rest energy E/c? (at ground level) suspended above
> Earth at a distance R from its center.
> That work was E?/c? ?(R) = E?/c? GM/R.
>
> But the cretin did a HUGE MISTAKE, when he wrote that ?h = ?(R)
>
> E? = E? (1 + v/c) = E? (1 + ?h/c?) = E? (1 + ?/c?)
>
> BECAUSE he forgot that the units of length h and R meant different things.
>
> As for the frequency, due to PLANCK and the above equations, Einstein wrote:
>
> ?? = ?? (1 + ?h/c?) = ?? (1 + ?/c?)

Summary: Before having found general relativity Einstein (1911)
found the correct gravitational redshift by partly heuristic arguments.
(in the Newtonian approximation)
The result was confirmed by rederiving it from general relativity.
(again in the Newtonian approximation)

> Pound, in his 1959 paper, noticed that ERROR, and wrote a correction.
>
> *****************************************************
> GRAVITATIONAL RED-SHIFT IN NUCLEAR RESONANCE
> R. V. Pound and G. A. Rebka, Jr.
> Lyman Laboratory of Physics, Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts
> (Received October 15, 1959)
> VOLUME 3, NUMBER 9. PHYSICAL REVIEW LETTERS November 1, 1959
>
> Take note: Published just 15 DAYS after being received. Einstein's
> INFLUENCE.
>
> INITIAL PART OF THE ARTICLE:
>
> It is widely considered desirable to check experimentally the view that
> the frequencies of electromagnetic spectral lines are sensitive to the
> gravitational potential at the position of the emitting system. THE
> SEVERAL THEORIES OF RELATIVITY PREDICT THE FREQUENCY TO BE PROPORTIONAL TO
> THE GRAVITATIONAL POTENTIAL. Experiments are proposed to observe the
> timekeeping of a "clock" based on an atomic or molecular transition, when
> held aloft in a rocket-launched satellite, relative to a similar one kept
> on the ground.

Summary: there was nothing to correct,
Pound used Einstein's correct result.
(and went on to confirm it experimentally)

[snip foaming at the mouth]

Jan

On Sunday, 22 January 2023 at 12:08:14 UTC+1, J. J. Lodder wrote:

> Summary: there was nothing to correct,
> Pound used Einstein's correct result.
> (and went on to confirm it experimentally)

But in the meantime in the real world - forbidden
by your bunch of idiots GPS and TAI keep measuring
t'=t, just like all serious clocks always did.

On Sunday, January 22, 2023 at 5:34:14 AM UTC-3, Paul B. Andersen wrote:

<snip>

> https://paulba.no/pdf/PoundRebka.pdf
> https://paulba.no/paper/Pound&Rebka.pdf

Ahh! The vanity of Paul!

Only replied with two links:

1) https://paulba.no/pdf/PoundRebka.pdf :: "What GR predicts for the Pound - Rebka experiment", Paul B. Andersen, October 26, 2013.

2) https://paulba.no/paper/Pound&Rebka.pdf :: "GRAVITATIONAL RED-SHIFT IN NUCLEAR RESONANCE", R. V. Pound and G. A. Rebka, Jr.
Lyman Laboratory of Physics, Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts (Received October 15, 1959)

The second paper, a copy of the FIRST paper of the duo Pound-Rebka on this matter, IS NOT which has ANY quantitative meaning, and
is completely worthless. It only AFFIRMS their will to prove Einstein's 1911 paper, NO MATTER WHAT (like using Mössbauer effect)

But YOU, Paul the vain, deliberately OMIT the next Pound-Rebka paper (published only 4 months after, with the FISHY experiment):
"APPARENT WEIGHT OF PHOTONS", R. V. Pound and G. A. Rebka, Jr., Lyman Laboratory of Physics, Harvard University, Cambridge,
Massachusetts. (Received March 9, 1960)".

Maybe YOU ARE ASHAMED OF THE RIDICULE TITLE AND EVEN MORE WITH THE COMPLEX AND OVER-COOKED CONTENT, which is
THE REAL PAPER on this matter, which made the couple rather famous. Why did it, Paul?

**************************************
Regarding the first link, IT'S NOT A SCIENTIFIC PAPER. It's a Paul Andersen's essay, PRETENDING TO BE A PHYSICIST.

1. Introduction: "We will calculate what GR predicts for the experiment."
2. Calculation of the prediction
--- 2.1 Precise calculation: "Mathurbation along six equations MISUSSING Schwarzschild". PAUL!. Shame on you!
--- 2.2 Approximated calculation: "Mathurbation intensifies in the next four equations, to end in what, Paul? Einstein's 1911 formula?

Δυ/υ = γh/c² , Einstein's 1911 formula (2) from Point "3. Time and the Velocity of Light in the Gravitational Field"

Δυ/υ ≈ gh/c² , Andersen's 2013 formula (10).

Δυ_h/υ₀ = gh/c²(1 + h/R) ≈ υ₀h x (1.09x10⁻¹⁸) , Pound-Rebka 1959 formula correcting Einstein's 1911 formula.

ARE YOU HAPPY NOW, VAIN CRETIN? Your name appear along with Einstein, Pound and Rebka (1959, not 1960).

You are a PIECE OF WORK, Paul. What the fuck did you pretend? Don't you feel even A BIT of shame for what you wrote?

THIS IS THE FINAL PART OF YOUR LAME ESSAY:

3. Comparison with the measurements

* "So the precise prediction of GR (YOUR EQUATION 6) is:"
* "and the approximated prediction (YOUR EQUATION 10) is:"
* "Pound & Rebka measured:"

Now, at a distance, DO YOU SEE THE ENTIRE PICTURE, PAUL?
You, nobody, pretending to be IN THE CLUB along with Einstein, Pound and his pupil Rebka?

And YOU, nobody, validated a UBER-FISHY 1960 paper with the complex mechanisms for measurement of deviations in 22 mt,
with a NEW (untested) effect of PARTIAL ZERO RECOIL, which forces using STATISTICS to filter the MAJORITY PORTION of
Gamma rays HAVING RECOIL, so a lot of TRIM, COOK AND FUDGE to accommodate results to what was expected!

Why don't you explain, in detail and in another 2023 essay, why DO YOU BELIEVE that the 1960 paper is correct, and not a forgery?

I'd like to see how did you get precision in the order of 10E-15 in 1960, when MEASURING FREQUENCY!

Such order of precision required 30-40 MORE YEARS to be achieved!. And DON'T COME WITH INDIRECT MEASUREMENT.

You are a CRETIN FANATIC RELATIVIST like the rest of the insane church.

On Saturday, January 21, 2023 at 6:18:31 PM UTC-8, Dono. wrote:
> On Saturday, January 21, 2023 at 9:19:44 AM UTC-8, Richard Hertz wrote:
> > because γ = GMₑ/Rₑ (with 3 digits value: 981 cm/s².
> >
> First Dick Hurts imbecility
> > AND
> >
> > γh = GMₑ h/Rₑ ≠ GMₑ/(Rₑ + h)
> >
> Second Dick Hurts imbecility.
>
> Richard Hertz fails basic CLASSICAL physics.
Based on the above, we all know who the cretin is. Hint: Richard Hertz.