I have done a complete re-write of the Wikipedia article, which had a rather absurd number of inaccuracies. Here is a link to my revised version of the article:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pound%E2%80%93Rebka_experiment

Please review and suggest improvements and corrections.
Thanks!

For comparison, here is an archived copy of article before my changes:
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pound%E2%80%93Rebka_experiment&oldid=1100293754

On Friday, February 24, 2023 at 3:02:47 PM UTC-8, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog wrote:
> I have done a complete re-write of the Wikipedia article, which had a rather absurd number of inaccuracies. Here is a link to my revised version of the article:
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pound%E2%80%93Rebka_experiment
>
> Please review and suggest improvements and corrections.
> Thanks!
>
> For comparison, here is an archived copy of article before my changes:
> https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pound%E2%80%93Rebka_experiment&oldid=1100293754

Well, the very important section that shows how they used the Doppler effect in order to cancel the gravitational shift (very similar to the idea of presetting the clock frequencies in GPS) has disappeared. Why?

On Friday, February 24, 2023 at 7:54:55 PM UTC-6, Dono. wrote:
> On Friday, February 24, 2023 at 3:02:47 PM UTC-8, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog wrote:
> > I have done a complete re-write of the Wikipedia article, which had a rather absurd number of inaccuracies. Here is a link to my revised version of the article:
> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pound%E2%80%93Rebka_experiment
> >
> > Please review and suggest improvements and corrections.
> > Thanks!
> >
> > For comparison, here is an archived copy of article before my changes:
> > https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pound%E2%80%93Rebka_experiment&oldid=1100293754
> Well, the very important section that shows how they used the Doppler effect in order to cancel the gravitational shift (very similar to the idea of presetting the clock frequencies in GPS) has disappeared. Why?

That "very important section" disappeared because it
represented a fundamental misunderstanding of how
Pound and Rebka located the precise position of the
absorbance maximum. Look at the animated figure.
Through a combination of the slow motions of the
hydraulic piston approximately +/- 0.01 mm/s and the
higher velocity oscillatory motions approx +/- 0.10 mm/s
of the transducer, they accumulated register count data
around four points in the maximum slope region of the
absorbance maximum. From the counts in the four
registers, they calculated the position of the absorbance
maximum.

The data collection strategy envisioned by the editors
of the older version was totally impractical. They wrote,
"The variation in absorption could be correlated with the
phase of the speaker vibration, hence with the speed of
the emitting sample and therefore the Doppler shift." In
other words, the editors somehow had the notion that
counts from the oscillator might be divided up into 10000
bins or so, and the bin with the most counts would
correspond to the absorbance maximum. Well, I suppose
that you could do it that way nowadays by assigning each
count a bin number depending on the time of receipt and
accumulating the counts in 10000 registers of a computer,
but this experiment was performed in 1959-1960, and you
just couldn't have done it that way with the available
technology.

On Friday, February 24, 2023 at 6:54:12 PM UTC-8, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog wrote:
> On Friday, February 24, 2023 at 7:54:55 PM UTC-6, Dono. wrote:
> > On Friday, February 24, 2023 at 3:02:47 PM UTC-8, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog wrote:
> > > I have done a complete re-write of the Wikipedia article, which had a rather absurd number of inaccuracies. Here is a link to my revised version of the article:
> > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pound%E2%80%93Rebka_experiment
> > >
> > > Please review and suggest improvements and corrections.
> > > Thanks!
> > >
> > > For comparison, here is an archived copy of article before my changes:
> > > https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pound%E2%80%93Rebka_experiment&oldid=1100293754
> > Well, the very important section that shows how they used the Doppler effect in order to cancel the gravitational shift (very similar to the idea of presetting the clock frequencies in GPS) has disappeared. Why?
> That "very important section" disappeared because it
> represented a fundamental misunderstanding of how
> Pound and Rebka located the precise position of the
> absorbance maximum. Look at the animated figure.
> Through a combination of the slow motions of the
> hydraulic piston approximately +/- 0.01 mm/s and the
> higher velocity oscillatory motions approx +/- 0.10 mm/s
> of the transducer, they accumulated register count data
> around four points in the maximum slope region of the
> absorbance maximum. From the counts in the four
> registers, they calculated the position of the absorbance
> maximum.
>
> The data collection strategy envisioned by the editors
> of the older version was totally impractical. They wrote,
> "The variation in absorption could be correlated with the
> phase of the speaker vibration, hence with the speed of
> the emitting sample and therefore the Doppler shift." In
> other words, the editors somehow had the notion that
> counts from the oscillator might be divided up into 10000
> bins or so, and the bin with the most counts would
> correspond to the absorbance maximum. Well, I suppose
> that you could do it that way nowadays by assigning each
> count a bin number depending on the time of receipt and
> accumulating the counts in 10000 registers of a computer,
> but this experiment was performed in 1959-1960, and you
> just couldn't have done it that way with the available
> technology.
I wasn't referring to the data collection.I was referring to the cancellation of the gravitational shift effect via the motion of the receiver.

On Friday, February 24, 2023 at 7:09:59 PM UTC-8, Dono. wrote:
> On Friday, February 24, 2023 at 6:54:12 PM UTC-8, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog wrote:
> > On Friday, February 24, 2023 at 7:54:55 PM UTC-6, Dono. wrote:
> > > On Friday, February 24, 2023 at 3:02:47 PM UTC-8, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog wrote:
> > > > I have done a complete re-write of the Wikipedia article, which had a rather absurd number of inaccuracies. Here is a link to my revised version of the article:
> > > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pound%E2%80%93Rebka_experiment
> > > >
> > > > Please review and suggest improvements and corrections.
> > > > Thanks!
> > > >
> > > > For comparison, here is an archived copy of article before my changes:
> > > > https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pound%E2%80%93Rebka_experiment&oldid=1100293754
> > > Well, the very important section that shows how they used the Doppler effect in order to cancel the gravitational shift (very similar to the idea of presetting the clock frequencies in GPS) has disappeared. Why?
> > That "very important section" disappeared because it
> > represented a fundamental misunderstanding of how
> > Pound and Rebka located the precise position of the
> > absorbance maximum. Look at the animated figure.
> > Through a combination of the slow motions of the
> > hydraulic piston approximately +/- 0.01 mm/s and the
> > higher velocity oscillatory motions approx +/- 0.10 mm/s
> > of the transducer, they accumulated register count data
> > around four points in the maximum slope region of the
> > absorbance maximum. From the counts in the four
> > registers, they calculated the position of the absorbance
> > maximum.
> >
> > The data collection strategy envisioned by the editors
> > of the older version was totally impractical. They wrote,
> > "The variation in absorption could be correlated with the
> > phase of the speaker vibration, hence with the speed of
> > the emitting sample and therefore the Doppler shift." In
> > other words, the editors somehow had the notion that
> > counts from the oscillator might be divided up into 10000
> > bins or so, and the bin with the most counts would
> > correspond to the absorbance maximum. Well, I suppose
> > that you could do it that way nowadays by assigning each
> > count a bin number depending on the time of receipt and
> > accumulating the counts in 10000 registers of a computer,
> > but this experiment was performed in 1959-1960, and you
> > just couldn't have done it that way with the available
> > technology.
> I wasn't referring to the data collection.I was referring to the cancellation of the gravitational shift effect via the motion of the receiver.
The experiment would not have worked if it weren't for this clever idea, so it should be in the wiki page.

On Friday, February 24, 2023 at 9:26:07 PM UTC-6, Dono. wrote:
> On Friday, February 24, 2023 at 7:09:59 PM UTC-8, Dono. wrote:

> > I wasn't referring to the data collection.I was referring to the cancellation of the gravitational shift effect via the motion of the receiver.
> The experiment would not have worked if it weren't for this clever idea, so it should be in the wiki page.

The experiment was not done the way that you or the editors
of the old version of the article envision.

Here are excerpts from Pound (1981) and Hentschel (1996)
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1-PSucZbhYbsPZjLZZTlpH3kERy6qIptT/view?usp=share_link

If, with modern technology, I wanted to do it the way that
you envision, I wouldn't use sinusoidal modulation. I would
use a piezoelectric transducer, applying to it a ramp voltage
varying such that each delta T would correspond to a fixed
delta V. I wouldn't bother with a hydraulic cylinder, but would
divide up the ramp into maybe 100 velocity intervals
bracketing the velocity corresponding to the gravitational
Doppler shift. I would then do a curve fit through the
cumulative counts in the 100 channels. Something like that,
anyway. We can do a lot of things with current technology
which we couldn't do 60 years ago.

On Friday, February 24, 2023 at 8:32:12 PM UTC-8, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog wrote:
> On Friday, February 24, 2023 at 9:26:07 PM UTC-6, Dono. wrote:
> > On Friday, February 24, 2023 at 7:09:59 PM UTC-8, Dono. wrote:
>
> > > I wasn't referring to the data collection.I was referring to the cancellation of the gravitational shift effect via the motion of the receiver.
> > The experiment would not have worked if it weren't for this clever idea, so it should be in the wiki page.
> The experiment was not done the way that you or the editors
> of the old version of the article envision.
>
> Here are excerpts from Pound (1981) and Hentschel (1996)
> https://drive.google.com/file/d/1-PSucZbhYbsPZjLZZTlpH3kERy6qIptT/view?usp=share_link
>
> If, with modern technology, I wanted to do it the way that
> you envision, I wouldn't use sinusoidal modulation. I would
> use a piezoelectric transducer, applying to it a ramp voltage
> varying such that each delta T would correspond to a fixed
> delta V. I wouldn't bother with a hydraulic cylinder, but would
> divide up the ramp into maybe 100 velocity intervals
> bracketing the velocity corresponding to the gravitational
> Doppler shift. I would then do a curve fit through the
> cumulative counts in the 100 channels. Something like that,
> anyway. We can do a lot of things with current technology
> which we couldn't do 60 years ago.

I don't think you are getting it: it is all about how one derives the required speed in order to get the Doppler effect that cancels out the gravitational shift. You see, in the absence of the Doppler effect, the gravitational shift precludes any reading, because the frequency of the source is gravitationally shifted, so the receiver does not resonate. Therefore, Pound had to move the source with such a speed that the Doppler shift cancelled out the gravitational shift. Now, the source and the receiver are "in tune". What should the speed of the source be? That is given by the formula that you neglected to copy from the prior version. In doing so, you stripped the experiment off its central idea. Do you get it now?

On Friday, February 24, 2023 at 11:22:43 PM UTC-6, Dono. wrote:
> On Friday, February 24, 2023 at 8:32:12 PM UTC-8, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog wrote:

> > The experiment was not done the way that you or the editors
> > of the old version of the article envision.
> >
> > Here are excerpts from Pound (1981) and Hentschel (1996)
> > https://drive.google.com/file/d/1-PSucZbhYbsPZjLZZTlpH3kERy6qIptT/view?usp=share_link
> >
> > If, with modern technology, I wanted to do it the way that
> > you envision, I wouldn't use sinusoidal modulation. I would
> > use a piezoelectric transducer, applying to it a ramp voltage
> > varying such that each delta T would correspond to a fixed
> > delta V. I wouldn't bother with a hydraulic cylinder, but would
> > divide up the ramp into maybe 100 velocity intervals
> > bracketing the velocity corresponding to the gravitational
> > Doppler shift. I would then do a curve fit through the
> > cumulative counts in the 100 channels. Something like that,
> > anyway. We can do a lot of things with current technology
> > which we couldn't do 60 years ago.
> I don't think you are getting it: it is all about how one derives the required speed in order to get the Doppler effect that cancels out the gravitational shift. You see, in the absence of the Doppler effect, the gravitational shift precludes any reading, because the frequency of the source is gravitationally shifted, so the receiver does not resonate.

The anticipated gravitational Doppler shift, about 2.5e-15
(corresponding to 0.38 μm/sec) , was only 0.0022 times
the half width of the 57Fe resonance, about 1.13e-12
(corresponding to 170 μm/sec).

So the receiver resonates with *almost* undiminished
efficiency even if one does not move the source.

The whole point of the "Modulation technique to detect
small shifts" section was to calculate the *tiny* amount
of shift which would correspond to the magnitude of
the gravitational Doppler shift.

They made no attempt to tune the system by moving the
source at a precise 0.38 μm/sec. Instead, they BRACKETED
0.38 μm/sec on both sides with the combination of
(1) slow, back-and-forth constant motions of ±0.01 mm/sec
produced by a hydraulic cylinder, and (2) fast, sinusoidal
motions with max amplitude ±0.1 mm/sec produced by a
loudspeaker coil.

0.1 mm/sec was chosen because it equals √3/3 times
the half-width of the 57Fe resonance. where there would
be greatest sensitivity to small displacements in velocity
(i.e. points of maximum slope of the resonance line,
assuming a Lorentzian shape).

The central peak would be bracketed on both sides with
a total of four off-peak measurements, two on each side.

Pound and Rebka used an interpolation procedure to
calculate the position of the absorbance peak from these
four off-peak measurements.

> Therefore, Pound had to move the source with such a speed that the Doppler shift cancelled out the gravitational shift. Now, the source and the receiver are "in tune". What should the speed of the source be? That is given by the formula that you neglected to copy from the prior version. In doing so, you stripped the experiment off its central idea. Do you get it now?

On Friday, February 24, 2023 at 10:48:13 PM UTC-8, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog wrote:
> On Friday, February 24, 2023 at 11:22:43 PM UTC-6, Dono. wrote:
> > On Friday, February 24, 2023 at 8:32:12 PM UTC-8, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog wrote:
>
> > > The experiment was not done the way that you or the editors
> > > of the old version of the article envision.
> > >
> > > Here are excerpts from Pound (1981) and Hentschel (1996)
> > > https://drive.google.com/file/d/1-PSucZbhYbsPZjLZZTlpH3kERy6qIptT/view?usp=share_link
> > >
> > > If, with modern technology, I wanted to do it the way that
> > > you envision, I wouldn't use sinusoidal modulation. I would
> > > use a piezoelectric transducer, applying to it a ramp voltage
> > > varying such that each delta T would correspond to a fixed
> > > delta V. I wouldn't bother with a hydraulic cylinder, but would
> > > divide up the ramp into maybe 100 velocity intervals
> > > bracketing the velocity corresponding to the gravitational
> > > Doppler shift. I would then do a curve fit through the
> > > cumulative counts in the 100 channels. Something like that,
> > > anyway. We can do a lot of things with current technology
> > > which we couldn't do 60 years ago.
> > I don't think you are getting it: it is all about how one derives the required speed in order to get the Doppler effect that cancels out the gravitational shift. You see, in the absence of the Doppler effect, the gravitational shift precludes any reading, because the frequency of the source is gravitationally shifted, so the receiver does not resonate.
> The anticipated gravitational Doppler shift, about 2.5e-15
> (corresponding to 0.38 μm/sec) , was only 0.0022 times
> the half width of the 57Fe resonance, about 1.13e-12
> (corresponding to 170 μm/sec).
>
> So the receiver resonates with *almost* undiminished
> efficiency even if one does not move the source.
>
> The whole point of the "Modulation technique to detect
> small shifts" section was to calculate the *tiny* amount
> of shift which would correspond to the magnitude of
> the gravitational Doppler shift.
>
> They made no attempt to tune the system by moving the
> source at a precise 0.38 μm/sec. Instead, they BRACKETED
> 0.38 μm/sec on both sides with the combination of
> (1) slow, back-and-forth constant motions of ±0.01 mm/sec
> produced by a hydraulic cylinder, and (2) fast, sinusoidal
> motions with max amplitude ±0.1 mm/sec produced by a
> loudspeaker coil.
>
> 0.1 mm/sec was chosen because it equals √3/3 times
> the half-width of the 57Fe resonance. where there would
> be greatest sensitivity to small displacements in velocity
> (i.e. points of maximum slope of the resonance line,
> assuming a Lorentzian shape).
>
> The central peak would be bracketed on both sides with
> a total of four off-peak measurements, two on each side.
>
> Pound and Rebka used an interpolation procedure to
> calculate the position of the absorbance peak from these
> four off-peak measurements.

Sigh

Pound needed to know the extend of the "brackets". That comes out of the formula that you snipped from the original article. Do you get it now? Still no?

On Saturday, February 25, 2023 at 9:20:46 AM UTC-6, Dono. wrote:
> On Friday, February 24, 2023 at 10:48:13 PM UTC-8, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog wrote:

> > The anticipated gravitational Doppler shift, about 2.5e-15
> > (corresponding to 0.38 μm/sec) , was only 0.0022 times
> > the half width of the 57Fe resonance, about 1.13e-12
> > (corresponding to 170 μm/sec).
> >
> > So the receiver resonates with *almost* undiminished
> > efficiency even if one does not move the source.
> >
> > The whole point of the "Modulation technique to detect
> > small shifts" section was to calculate the *tiny* amount
> > of shift which would correspond to the magnitude of
> > the gravitational Doppler shift.
> >
> > They made no attempt to tune the system by moving the
> > source at a precise 0.38 μm/sec. Instead, they BRACKETED
> > 0.38 μm/sec on both sides with the combination of
> > (1) slow, back-and-forth constant motions of ±0.01 mm/sec
> > produced by a hydraulic cylinder, and (2) fast, sinusoidal
> > motions with max amplitude ±0.1 mm/sec produced by a
> > loudspeaker coil.
> >
> > 0.1 mm/sec was chosen because it equals √3/3 times
> > the half-width of the 57Fe resonance. where there would
> > be greatest sensitivity to small displacements in velocity
> > (i.e. points of maximum slope of the resonance line,
> > assuming a Lorentzian shape).
> >
> > The central peak would be bracketed on both sides with
> > a total of four off-peak measurements, two on each side.
> >
> > Pound and Rebka used an interpolation procedure to
> > calculate the position of the absorbance peak from these
> > four off-peak measurements.
> Sigh
>
> Pound needed to know the extend of the "brackets". That comes out of the formula that you snipped from the original article. Do you get it now? Still no?

Blasted four function calculators! 2.5e-15 times the
speed of light should have been 0.75 μm/sec,
not 0.38 μm/sec. Sorry about that.
The batteries in my TI-89 are dead, so I was using
the online calculator. Should have known better :-(

Regardless, the ±0.01 mm/sec motions of the
hydraulic cylinder generously bracketed the
gravitational Doppler shift on both sides, so
I am not sure what your point is. In the excerpt
from the 1981 review by Pound, he wrote:

"This motion [of the hydraulic cylinder], at a speed
less than 10^-3 cm/s was sufficient to introduce a
Doppler shift large compared to the effect being
sought but still small compared with the line width."

In regards to the source vibration, he wrote, "The
velocity extrema of this motion corresponded
approximately to the points in the resonance
curve where the greatest rate of change of
absorption with velocity for the source-absorber
combination were recorded."

On Saturday, February 25, 2023 at 7:54:20 AM UTC-8, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog wrote:
> On Saturday, February 25, 2023 at 9:20:46 AM UTC-6, Dono. wrote:
> > On Friday, February 24, 2023 at 10:48:13 PM UTC-8, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog wrote:
>
> > > The anticipated gravitational Doppler shift, about 2.5e-15
> > > (corresponding to 0.38 μm/sec) , was only 0.0022 times
> > > the half width of the 57Fe resonance, about 1.13e-12
> > > (corresponding to 170 μm/sec).
> > >
> > > So the receiver resonates with *almost* undiminished
> > > efficiency even if one does not move the source.
> > >
> > > The whole point of the "Modulation technique to detect
> > > small shifts" section was to calculate the *tiny* amount
> > > of shift which would correspond to the magnitude of
> > > the gravitational Doppler shift.
> > >
> > > They made no attempt to tune the system by moving the
> > > source at a precise 0.38 μm/sec. Instead, they BRACKETED
> > > 0.38 μm/sec on both sides with the combination of
> > > (1) slow, back-and-forth constant motions of ±0.01 mm/sec
> > > produced by a hydraulic cylinder, and (2) fast, sinusoidal
> > > motions with max amplitude ±0.1 mm/sec produced by a
> > > loudspeaker coil.
> > >
> > > 0.1 mm/sec was chosen because it equals √3/3 times
> > > the half-width of the 57Fe resonance. where there would
> > > be greatest sensitivity to small displacements in velocity
> > > (i.e. points of maximum slope of the resonance line,
> > > assuming a Lorentzian shape).
> > >
> > > The central peak would be bracketed on both sides with
> > > a total of four off-peak measurements, two on each side.
> > >
> > > Pound and Rebka used an interpolation procedure to
> > > calculate the position of the absorbance peak from these
> > > four off-peak measurements.
> > Sigh
> >
> > Pound needed to know the extend of the "brackets". That comes out of the formula that you snipped from the original article. Do you get it now? Still no?
> Blasted four function calculators! 2.5e-15 times the
> speed of light should have been 0.75 μm/sec,
> not 0.38 μm/sec. Sorry about that.
> The batteries in my TI-89 are dead, so I was using
> the online calculator. Should have known better :-(
>
> Regardless, the ±0.01 mm/sec motions of the
> hydraulic cylinder generously bracketed the
> gravitational Doppler shift on both sides, so
> I am not sure what your point is. In the excerpt
> from the 1981 review by Pound, he wrote:
>
> "This motion [of the hydraulic cylinder], at a speed
> less than 10^-3 cm/s was sufficient to introduce a
> Doppler shift large compared to the effect being
> sought but still small compared with the line width."
>
> In regards to the source vibration, he wrote, "The
> velocity extrema of this motion corresponded
> approximately to the points in the resonance
> curve where the greatest rate of change of
> absorption with velocity for the source-absorber
> combination were recorded."

The point is that your writeup is now devoid of any mathematical description, it is just a story. By stripping out the formula (and the associated description of the physics behind it) you are simply stripping the GR foundation of the experiment.

On Saturday, February 25, 2023 at 10:16:13 AM UTC-6, Dono. wrote:
> On Saturday, February 25, 2023 at 7:54:20 AM UTC-8, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog wrote:
> > On Saturday, February 25, 2023 at 9:20:46 AM UTC-6, Dono. wrote:

> > > Pound needed to know the extend of the "brackets". That comes out of the formula that you snipped from the original article. Do you get it now? Still no?
> > Blasted four function calculators! 2.5e-15 times the
> > speed of light should have been 0.75 μm/sec,
> > not 0.38 μm/sec. Sorry about that.
> > The batteries in my TI-89 are dead, so I was using
> > the online calculator. Should have known better :-(
> >
> > Regardless, the ±0.01 mm/sec motions of the
> > hydraulic cylinder generously bracketed the
> > gravitational Doppler shift on both sides, so
> > I am not sure what your point is. In the excerpt
> > from the 1981 review by Pound, he wrote:
> >
> > "This motion [of the hydraulic cylinder], at a speed
> > less than 10^-3 cm/s was sufficient to introduce a
> > Doppler shift large compared to the effect being
> > sought but still small compared with the line width."
> >
> > In regards to the source vibration, he wrote, "The
> > velocity extrema of this motion corresponded
> > approximately to the points in the resonance
> > curve where the greatest rate of change of
> > absorption with velocity for the source-absorber
> > combination were recorded."
> The point is that your writeup is now devoid of any mathematical description, it is just a story. By stripping out the formula (and the associated description of the physics behind it) you are simply stripping the GR foundation of the experiment.

I have to be mindful of the level of mathematical
sophistication of my target audience, which I generally
assume to be advanced high school through first year
college science students. In the Background section
of my re-write, I present Einstein's 1911 thought
experiment whereby he derives the gravitational
Doppler shift using the equivalence principle.

Although the mathematics presented in the Overview
section of the original article https://tinyurl.com/2pjedcp3
appears to be correct, there are no citations, which
means that so far as I can tell, it may represent original
research, which is prohibited in Wikipedia.

Furthermore, although gravitational redshift was historically
considered one of the key tests of general relativity, it is now
understood that "the theoretical arguments predicting
gravitational time dilation do not depend on the details of
general relativity at all. Any theory of gravity will predict
gravitational time dilation if it respects the principle of
equivalence." (plagiarized from myself).

So I see no reason to use a lot of formidable looking math
that would definitely drive off a first year college science
student when a simple math presentation works better and
is more understandable.

In addition, the first two paragraphs of the original article
(which also lacked citations) completely garbaged up the
description of how the gamma rays are generated, talking
about *ELECTRONS* transitioning between excited and
ground states.

And it is in this section that the original editors gave an
incorrect impression of how Pound and Rebka's experiment
was conducted, when they wrote: "Pound and Rebka varied
the relative speed v so that the Doppler redshift exactly
cancelled the gravitational blueshift."

There were so many things wrong with this section, that
I felt that a complete rewrite was necessary.

On Saturday, February 25, 2023 at 8:59:37 AM UTC-8, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog wrote:
> On Saturday, February 25, 2023 at 10:16:13 AM UTC-6, Dono. wrote:
> > On Saturday, February 25, 2023 at 7:54:20 AM UTC-8, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog wrote:
> > > On Saturday, February 25, 2023 at 9:20:46 AM UTC-6, Dono. wrote:
>
> > > > Pound needed to know the extend of the "brackets". That comes out of the formula that you snipped from the original article. Do you get it now? Still no?
> > > Blasted four function calculators! 2.5e-15 times the
> > > speed of light should have been 0.75 μm/sec,
> > > not 0.38 μm/sec. Sorry about that.
> > > The batteries in my TI-89 are dead, so I was using
> > > the online calculator. Should have known better :-(
> > >
> > > Regardless, the ±0.01 mm/sec motions of the
> > > hydraulic cylinder generously bracketed the
> > > gravitational Doppler shift on both sides, so
> > > I am not sure what your point is. In the excerpt
> > > from the 1981 review by Pound, he wrote:
> > >
> > > "This motion [of the hydraulic cylinder], at a speed
> > > less than 10^-3 cm/s was sufficient to introduce a
> > > Doppler shift large compared to the effect being
> > > sought but still small compared with the line width."
> > >
> > > In regards to the source vibration, he wrote, "The
> > > velocity extrema of this motion corresponded
> > > approximately to the points in the resonance
> > > curve where the greatest rate of change of
> > > absorption with velocity for the source-absorber
> > > combination were recorded."
> > The point is that your writeup is now devoid of any mathematical description, it is just a story. By stripping out the formula (and the associated description of the physics behind it) you are simply stripping the GR foundation of the experiment.
> I have to be mindful of the level of mathematical
> sophistication of my target audience, which I generally
> assume to be advanced high school through first year
> college science students. In the Background section
> of my re-write, I present Einstein's 1911 thought
> experiment whereby he derives the gravitational
> Doppler shift using the equivalence principle.
>
> Although the mathematics presented in the Overview
> section of the original article https://tinyurl.com/2pjedcp3
> appears to be correct, there are no citations, which
> means that so far as I can tell, it may represent original
> research, which is prohibited in Wikipedia.
>

This is a lame excuse. The formula is a trivial combination of the gravitational shift due to potential difference between the base and the top of the tower and the Doppler relativistic shift due to the speed difference between source and receiver. You yourself have a wiki diagram on this subject that talks about the height of a GPS satellite where the two effects cancel each other. Have you forgotten?

> Furthermore, although gravitational redshift was historically
> considered one of the key tests of general relativity, it is now
> understood that "the theoretical arguments predicting
> gravitational time dilation do not depend on the details of
> general relativity at all. Any theory of gravity will predict
> gravitational time dilation if it respects the principle of
> equivalence." (plagiarized from myself).
>

More bullshit. Let me make it (even) simpler for you, since you seem not to get it. You wrote something up, pretty good , in general. You ask for feedback but when it was provided you fight it (with lame arguments).
Pound was faced with the following question: "I have a tower of 22 m, is this height sufficient to detect gravitational shift? If I want to counter the shift with Doppler in order to achieve Mossbauer resonance, what should the speed be? If the result is 10m/s, then this is a problem. If the result is 10^-20 m/s, than this is a problem as well. So what is the SIMPLE formula that allows me to figure out if the experiment is realizable or not before I invest all the time and effort?"

> So I see no reason to use a lot of formidable looking math
> that would definitely drive off a first year college science
> student when a simple math presentation works better and
> is more understandable.
>

You have a very dim view of what college students can understand.

> In addition, the first two paragraphs of the original article
> (which also lacked citations) completely garbaged up the
> description of how the gamma rays are generated, talking
> about *ELECTRONS* transitioning between excited and
> ground states.
>

Agreed. We are not talking about that, we are talking about you chopping out the mathematical foundation of the experiment, some very simple explanation based on the gravitational shift along a vertical line (falls out from the Schwarzschild solution) plus the relativistic Doppler effect to counter the gravitational shift.

> And it is in this section that the original editors gave an
> incorrect impression of how Pound and Rebka's experiment
> was conducted, when they wrote: "Pound and Rebka varied
> the relative speed v so that the Doppler redshift exactly
> cancelled the gravitational blueshift."
>

Well, you fixed that with your animation. In fact, PR do get a maximum where the two effects cancel each other.
> There were so many things wrong with this section, that
> I felt that a complete rewrite was necessary.
The argument is not about that, I actually agree with you on that. The argument is that you threw out the baby with the bath water.

On Saturday, February 25, 2023 at 11:17:35 AM UTC-6, Dono. wrote:
> On Saturday, February 25, 2023 at 8:59:37 AM UTC-8, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog wrote:
> > On Saturday, February 25, 2023 at 10:16:13 AM UTC-6, Dono. wrote:

> > > The point is that your writeup is now devoid of any mathematical description, it is just a story. By stripping out the formula (and the associated description of the physics behind it) you are simply stripping the GR foundation of the experiment.
> > I have to be mindful of the level of mathematical
> > sophistication of my target audience, which I generally
> > assume to be advanced high school through first year
> > college science students. In the Background section
> > of my re-write, I present Einstein's 1911 thought
> > experiment whereby he derives the gravitational
> > Doppler shift using the equivalence principle.
> >
> > Although the mathematics presented in the Overview
> > section of the original article https://tinyurl.com/2pjedcp3
> > appears to be correct, there are no citations, which
> > means that so far as I can tell, it may represent original
> > research, which is prohibited in Wikipedia.
> >
> This is a lame excuse. The formula is a trivial combination of the gravitational shift due to potential difference between the base and the top of the tower and the Doppler relativistic shift due to the speed difference between source and receiver. You yourself have a wiki diagram on this subject that talks about the height of a GPS satellite where the two effects cancel each other. Have you forgotten?

At the speeds employed, fractional microns per second,
why should we be concerned with relativistic Doppler shift?

> > Furthermore, although gravitational redshift was historically
> > considered one of the key tests of general relativity, it is now
> > understood that "the theoretical arguments predicting
> > gravitational time dilation do not depend on the details of
> > general relativity at all. Any theory of gravity will predict
> > gravitational time dilation if it respects the principle of
> > equivalence." (plagiarized from myself).
> >
> More bullshit. Let me make it (even) simpler for you, since you seem not to get it. You wrote something up, pretty good , in general. You ask for feedback but when it was provided you fight it (with lame arguments).
> Pound was faced with the following question: "I have a tower of 22 m, is this height sufficient to detect gravitational shift? If I want to counter the shift with Doppler in order to achieve Mossbauer resonance, what should the speed be? If the result is 10m/s, then this is a problem. If the result is 10^-20 m/s, than this is a problem as well. So what is the SIMPLE formula that allows me to figure out if the experiment is realizable or not before I invest all the time and effort?"
> > So I see no reason to use a lot of formidable looking math
> > that would definitely drive off a first year college science
> > student when a simple math presentation works better and
> > is more understandable.
> >
> You have a very dim view of what college students can understand.

I said college "science" students, not physics or math students.
A "Physics for Poets" student should be able to read the
article. Likewise a Chemistry or Biology student.

> > In addition, the first two paragraphs of the original article
> > (which also lacked citations) completely garbaged up the
> > description of how the gamma rays are generated, talking
> > about *ELECTRONS* transitioning between excited and
> > ground states.
> >
> Agreed. We are not talking about that, we are talking about you chopping out the mathematical foundation of the experiment, some very simple explanation based on the gravitational shift along a vertical line (falls out from the Schwarzschild solution) plus the relativistic Doppler effect to counter the gravitational shift.
> > And it is in this section that the original editors gave an
> > incorrect impression of how Pound and Rebka's experiment
> > was conducted, when they wrote: "Pound and Rebka varied
> > the relative speed v so that the Doppler redshift exactly
> > cancelled the gravitational blueshift."
> >
> Well, you fixed that with your animation. In fact, PR do get a maximum where the two effects cancel each other.
> > There were so many things wrong with this section, that
> > I felt that a complete rewrite was necessary.
> The argument is not about that, I actually agree with you on that. The argument is that you threw out the baby with the bath water.

You like math, I like experimental detail.
Perhaps we should just agree to disagree.

On Saturday, February 25, 2023 at 11:17:35 AM UTC-6, Dono. wrote:

> Pound was faced with the following question: "I have a tower of 22 m, is this height sufficient to detect gravitational shift? If I want to counter the shift with Doppler in order to achieve Mossbauer resonance, what should the speed be? If the result is 10m/s, then this is a problem. If the result is 10^-20 m/s, than this is a problem as well. So what is the SIMPLE formula that allows me to figure out if the experiment is realizable or not before I invest all the time and effort?"

The simple formula says that the gravitational Doppler
shift amounts to 0.0022 times the half-width of the 57Fe
resonant absorbance line. Richard Hertz looked at this
figure and argued that this proves that there was no way
Pound and Rebka could have measured the gravitational
Doppler shift. My focus has been on the experimental detail
that made this measurement possible.

Like I said. You like math, I like experimental detail.

On Saturday, February 25, 2023 at 9:39:44 AM UTC-8, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog wrote:
> On Saturday, February 25, 2023 at 11:17:35 AM UTC-6, Dono. wrote:
> > On Saturday, February 25, 2023 at 8:59:37 AM UTC-8, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog wrote:
> > > On Saturday, February 25, 2023 at 10:16:13 AM UTC-6, Dono. wrote:
>
> > > > The point is that your writeup is now devoid of any mathematical description, it is just a story. By stripping out the formula (and the associated description of the physics behind it) you are simply stripping the GR foundation of the experiment.
> > > I have to be mindful of the level of mathematical
> > > sophistication of my target audience, which I generally
> > > assume to be advanced high school through first year
> > > college science students. In the Background section
> > > of my re-write, I present Einstein's 1911 thought
> > > experiment whereby he derives the gravitational
> > > Doppler shift using the equivalence principle.
> > >
> > > Although the mathematics presented in the Overview
> > > section of the original article https://tinyurl.com/2pjedcp3
> > > appears to be correct, there are no citations, which
> > > means that so far as I can tell, it may represent original
> > > research, which is prohibited in Wikipedia.
> > >
> > This is a lame excuse. The formula is a trivial combination of the gravitational shift due to potential difference between the base and the top of the tower and the Doppler relativistic shift due to the speed difference between source and receiver. You yourself have a wiki diagram on this subject that talks about the height of a GPS satellite where the two effects cancel each other. Have you forgotten?
> At the speeds employed, fractional microns per second,
> why should we be concerned with relativistic Doppler shift?

Because the Mossbauer resonance is so sensitive to differences in frequency such that even a 22m difference in the height induces a frequency shift that is DETECTABLE. This is the core of the experiment, unless Pound took care of the shift (by cancelling it) the experiment makes no sense. You understood absolutely nothing of the foundations. And your stubbornness in correcting it is testimony of this.

On Saturday, February 25, 2023 at 5:50:52 PM UTC, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog wrote:
> On Saturday, February 25, 2023 at 11:17:35 AM UTC-6, Dono. wrote:
>
> > Pound was faced with the following question: "I have a tower of 22 m, is this height sufficient to detect gravitational shift? If I want to counter the shift with Doppler in order to achieve Mossbauer resonance, what should the speed be? If the result is 10m/s, then this is a problem. If the result is 10^-20 m/s, than this is a problem as well. So what is the SIMPLE formula that allows me to figure out if the experiment is realizable or not before I invest all the time and effort?"
> The simple formula says that the gravitational Doppler
> shift amounts to 0.0022 times the half-width of the 57Fe
> resonant absorbance line. Richard Hertz looked at this
> figure and argued that this proves that there was no way
> Pound and Rebka could have measured the gravitational
> Doppler shift. My focus has been on the experimental detail
> that made this measurement possible.
>
> Like I said. You like math, I like experimental detail.

Is part of the problem perhaps you wanting to 'own' the article for yourself?

It can come across as pretty obnoxious and demoralizing for everyone to see their time and effort erased by someone else taking control of an article with possibly poor social and diplomacy skills -- I'm not saying this is you. Hence it's obvious to me that you should listen to Dono's concerns and at least split the article into basic and technical sections to elevate the article to a level neither of you are capable of doing alone.

Larry Harson

On Saturday, February 25, 2023 at 11:54:21 AM UTC-6, Dono. wrote:
> On Saturday, February 25, 2023 at 9:39:44 AM UTC-8, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog wrote:

> > At the speeds employed, fractional microns per second,
> > why should we be concerned with relativistic Doppler shift?
> Because the Mossbauer resonance is so sensitive to differences in frequency such that even a 22m difference in the height induces a frequency shift that is DETECTABLE. This is the core of the experiment, unless Pound took care of the shift (by cancelling it) the experiment makes no sense. You understood absolutely nothing of the foundations. And your stubbornness in correcting it is testimony of this.

I usually understand the term "relativistic Doppler shift"
to mean the kinematic Doppler shift resulting from motion.
It's clear that you meant the gravitational Doppler shift.
So we had a bit of a mismatch in our use of terminology.

They did not measure the gravitational Doppler shift by
"canceling" it. They measured the gravitational Doppler
shift by accumulating counts with the source in four
different states of motion: 0.11 mm/s up, 0.09 mm/s up,
0.11 mm/s down, and 0.09 mm/s down. They interpolated
the cumulative counts to calculate the value of the
gravitational Doppler shift.

These motions were centered around the portions of the
resonance absorption curve with maximum sensitivity.
Their procedure was far more efficient in use of the data
than one involving "canceling" the gravitational Doppler shift.

Prokaryotic Capase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com>
wrote:

> On Saturday, February 25, 2023 at 11:54:21?AM UTC-6, Dono. wrote:
> > On Saturday, February 25, 2023 at 9:39:44?AM Prokaryotic Capase Homolog:
>
> > > At the speeds employed, fractional microns per second,
> > > why should we be concerned with relativistic Doppler shift?
> > Because the Mossbauer resonance is so sensitive to differences in
> > frequency such that even a 22m difference in the height induces a
> > frequency shift that is DETECTABLE. This is the core of the experiment,
> > unless Pound took care of the shift (by cancelling it) the experiment
> > makes no sense. You understood absolutely nothing of the foundations.
> > And your stubbornness in correcting it is testimony of this.
> >
> I usually understand the term "relativistic Doppler shift"
> to mean the kinematic Doppler shift resulting from motion.
> It's clear that you meant the gravitational Doppler shift.
> So we had a bit of a mismatch in our use of terminology.
>
> They did not measure the gravitational Doppler shift by
> "canceling" it. They measured the gravitational Doppler
> shift by accumulating counts with the source in four
> different states of motion: 0.11 mm/s up, 0.09 mm/s up,
> 0.11 mm/s down, and 0.09 mm/s down. They interpolated
> the cumulative counts to calculate the value of the
> gravitational Doppler shift.
>
> These motions were centered around the portions of the
> resonance absorption curve with maximum sensitivity.
> Their procedure was far more efficient in use of the data
> than one involving "canceling" the gravitational Doppler shift.

Whatever you say, 'gravitational Doppler shift' is a misnomer,
and it should be avoided completely.
It is seriously misleading.

'Doppler shift' should be reserved for shifts cased by relative motion.
OTOH there is gravitational redshift/blueshift,
(or if you prefer, gravitational frequency shift)
which does not depend on motions.

On Saturday, February 25, 2023 at 2:54:21 PM UTC-3, Dono. wrote:
> On Saturday, February 25, 2023 at 9:39:44 AM UTC-8, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog wrote:
> > On Saturday, February 25, 2023 at 11:17:35 AM UTC-6, Dono. wrote:
> > > On Saturday, February 25, 2023 at 8:59:37 AM UTC-8, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog wrote:
> > > > On Saturday, February 25, 2023 at 10:16:13 AM UTC-6, Dono. wrote:
> >
> > > > > The point is that your writeup is now devoid of any mathematical description, it is just a story. By stripping out the formula (and the associated description of the physics behind it) you are simply stripping the GR foundation of the experiment.
> > > > I have to be mindful of the level of mathematical
> > > > sophistication of my target audience, which I generally
> > > > assume to be advanced high school through first year
> > > > college science students. In the Background section
> > > > of my re-write, I present Einstein's 1911 thought
> > > > experiment whereby he derives the gravitational
> > > > Doppler shift using the equivalence principle.
> > > >
> > > > Although the mathematics presented in the Overview
> > > > section of the original article https://tinyurl.com/2pjedcp3
> > > > appears to be correct, there are no citations, which
> > > > means that so far as I can tell, it may represent original
> > > > research, which is prohibited in Wikipedia.
> > > >
> > > This is a lame excuse. The formula is a trivial combination of the gravitational shift due to potential difference between the base and the top of the tower and the Doppler relativistic shift due to the speed difference between source and receiver. You yourself have a wiki diagram on this subject that talks about the height of a GPS satellite where the two effects cancel each other. Have you forgotten?
> > At the speeds employed, fractional microns per second,
> > why should we be concerned with relativistic Doppler shift?
> Because the Mossbauer resonance is so sensitive to differences in frequency such that even a 22m difference in the height induces a frequency shift that is DETECTABLE. This is the core of the experiment, unless Pound took care of the shift (by cancelling it) the experiment makes no sense. You understood absolutely nothing of the foundations. And your stubbornness in correcting it is testimony of this.

Shut up, cretin!

Try to understand what prokaryotic is telling you, imbecile.

He says that this version polish and clean the fucking gobbledygook of the 1960 Pound, 95% of which was about stupid mechanical
details and a bit of radioactivity. Pound HAD ZERO DIDACTIC ABILITIES.

But all the heavy and confusing shit that he wrote server him well to almost make invisible the fucking HOAX, FRAUD.

He, a self-entitled cretin, mixed up and down paths, cooked data at will by using lame statistics, and measured a SIGNAL BURIED INTO
NOISE (no less than -8dB SNR, in terms of DATA). And you all bought his shit because "Einstein's right".

Assholes.

On Saturday, February 25, 2023 at 1:51:01 PM UTC-6, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> Prokaryotic Capase Homolog <prokaryotic.c...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > On Saturday, February 25, 2023 at 11:54:21?AM UTC-6, Dono. wrote:
> > > On Saturday, February 25, 2023 at 9:39:44?AM Prokaryotic Capase Homolog:
> >
> > > > At the speeds employed, fractional microns per second,
> > > > why should we be concerned with relativistic Doppler shift?
> > > Because the Mossbauer resonance is so sensitive to differences in
> > > frequency such that even a 22m difference in the height induces a
> > > frequency shift that is DETECTABLE. This is the core of the experiment,
> > > unless Pound took care of the shift (by cancelling it) the experiment
> > > makes no sense. You understood absolutely nothing of the foundations.
> > > And your stubbornness in correcting it is testimony of this.
> > >
> > I usually understand the term "relativistic Doppler shift"
> > to mean the kinematic Doppler shift resulting from motion.
> > It's clear that you meant the gravitational Doppler shift.
> > So we had a bit of a mismatch in our use of terminology.
> >
> > They did not measure the gravitational Doppler shift by
> > "canceling" it. They measured the gravitational Doppler
> > shift by accumulating counts with the source in four
> > different states of motion: 0.11 mm/s up, 0.09 mm/s up,
> > 0.11 mm/s down, and 0.09 mm/s down. They interpolated
> > the cumulative counts to calculate the value of the
> > gravitational Doppler shift.
> >
> > These motions were centered around the portions of the
> > resonance absorption curve with maximum sensitivity.
> > Their procedure was far more efficient in use of the data
> > than one involving "canceling" the gravitational Doppler shift.
> Whatever you say, 'gravitational Doppler shift' is a misnomer,
> and it should be avoided completely.
> It is seriously misleading.
>
> 'Doppler shift' should be reserved for shifts cased by relative motion.
> OTOH there is gravitational redshift/blueshift,
> (or if you prefer, gravitational frequency shift)
> which does not depend on motions.

Using Google Scholar, I see a fair number of peer-reviewed
papers using the term "gravitational Doppler shift", including
ones written by authors who have written textbooks that I
own such as Rindler, Grøn etc.

However, the use of the term does seem to be somewhat
frowned upon. Please check the current state of the article
that I have removed all instances of this usage.

On Saturday, February 25, 2023 at 11:18:08 AM UTC-8, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog wrote:
> On Saturday, February 25, 2023 at 11:54:21 AM UTC-6, Dono. wrote:
> > On Saturday, February 25, 2023 at 9:39:44 AM UTC-8, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog wrote:
>
> > > At the speeds employed, fractional microns per second,
> > > why should we be concerned with relativistic Doppler shift?
> > Because the Mossbauer resonance is so sensitive to differences in frequency such that even a 22m difference in the height induces a frequency shift that is DETECTABLE. This is the core of the experiment, unless Pound took care of the shift (by cancelling it) the experiment makes no sense. You understood absolutely nothing of the foundations. And your stubbornness in correcting it is testimony of this.
> I usually understand the term "relativistic Doppler shift"
> to mean the kinematic Doppler shift resulting from motion.
> It's clear that you meant the gravitational Doppler shift.
> So we had a bit of a mismatch in our use of terminology.
>
> They did not measure the gravitational Doppler shift by
> "canceling" it. They measured the gravitational Doppler
> shift by accumulating counts with the source in four
> different states of motion: 0.11 mm/s up, 0.09 mm/s up,
> 0.11 mm/s down, and 0.09 mm/s down. They interpolated
> the cumulative counts to calculate the value of the
> gravitational Doppler shift.
>
> These motions were centered around the portions of the
> resonance absorption curve with maximum sensitivity.
> Their procedure was far more efficient in use of the data
> than one involving "canceling" the gravitational Doppler shift.

You are splitting hairs, just because you are too stubborn to accept the criticism. P=R superimposed a relativistic Doppler shift onto the gravitational shift in order to "pull" the measurements away from the minimum of the distribution curve. In order to do that they needed to quantify the gravitational effect and the Doppler effect, i.e. use the respective formulas affecting the frequency of the source as measured at the receiver. The language of physics is math, so I do not understand whay you just refuse to use the appropriate language. After all, there are plenty of wiki pages that use much more complicated math. Is this because you don't know tex?

On Saturday, February 25, 2023 at 1:33:36 PM UTC-8, Dono. wrote:
> On Saturday, February 25, 2023 at 11:18:08 AM UTC-8, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog wrote:
> > On Saturday, February 25, 2023 at 11:54:21 AM UTC-6, Dono. wrote:
> > > On Saturday, February 25, 2023 at 9:39:44 AM UTC-8, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog wrote:
> >
> > > > At the speeds employed, fractional microns per second,
> > > > why should we be concerned with relativistic Doppler shift?
> > > Because the Mossbauer resonance is so sensitive to differences in frequency such that even a 22m difference in the height induces a frequency shift that is DETECTABLE. This is the core of the experiment, unless Pound took care of the shift (by cancelling it) the experiment makes no sense. You understood absolutely nothing of the foundations. And your stubbornness in correcting it is testimony of this.
> > I usually understand the term "relativistic Doppler shift"
> > to mean the kinematic Doppler shift resulting from motion.
> > It's clear that you meant the gravitational Doppler shift.
> > So we had a bit of a mismatch in our use of terminology.
> >
> > They did not measure the gravitational Doppler shift by
> > "canceling" it. They measured the gravitational Doppler
> > shift by accumulating counts with the source in four
> > different states of motion: 0.11 mm/s up, 0.09 mm/s up,
> > 0.11 mm/s down, and 0.09 mm/s down. They interpolated
> > the cumulative counts to calculate the value of the
> > gravitational Doppler shift.
> >
> > These motions were centered around the portions of the
> > resonance absorption curve with maximum sensitivity.
> > Their procedure was far more efficient in use of the data
> > than one involving "canceling" the gravitational Doppler shift.
> You are splitting hairs, just because you are too stubborn to accept the criticism. P=R superimposed a relativistic Doppler shift onto the gravitational shift in order to "pull" the measurements away from the minimum of the distribution curve. In order to do that they needed to quantify the gravitational effect and the Doppler effect, i.e. use the respective formulas affecting the frequency of the source as measured at the receiver. The language of physics is math, so I do not understand whay you just refuse to use the appropriate language. After all, there are plenty of wiki pages that use much more complicated math. Is this because you don't know tex?

Trying to convince you to improve your writeup is getting tiresome, especially given your stubbornness. As this point I will conclude with recommending you a very good treatment of the subject by a professional physicist, Ben Crowell, from his published book: https://phys.libretexts.org/Bookshelves/Relativity/General_Relativity_(Crowell)/01:_Geometric_Theory_of_Spacetime/1..06:_The_Equivalence_Principle_(Part_2) (so it is not what wiki calls personal research).
Crowell clearly states:

"If the Mössbauer effect is carried out in a horizontal plane, resonant absorption occurs. When the source and absorber are aligned vertically, p, gravitational frequency shifts should cause a mismatch, destroying the resonance. One can move the source at a small velocity (typically a few mm/s) in order to add a Doppler shift onto the frequency; by determining the velocity that compensates for the gravitational effect, one can determine how big the gravitational effect is."

On Saturday, February 25, 2023 at 6:54:25 PM UTC-3, Dono. wrote:

<snip>

> Crowell clearly states:
>
> "If the Mössbauer effect is carried out in a horizontal plane, resonant absorption occurs. When the source and absorber are aligned vertically, p, gravitational frequency shifts should cause a mismatch, destroying the resonance. One can move the source at a small velocity (typically a few mm/s) in order to add a Doppler shift onto the frequency; by determining the velocity that compensates for the gravitational effect, one can determine how big the gravitational effect is."

Resonant absorption occurs in a wide range of frequencies, asshole.

There are no gamma photons emitted at a specific, unique frequency f₀ = 14.4/h Hertz.

The distribution of resonant frequencies is given, in eV, by a Lorentzian profile centered on E₀ with intensity I₀ and
full-width half-maximum (FWHM) Γ given by:

L(E) = I₀ (Γ/2)²/[(E - E₀)² +(Γ/2)²] = I₀ (Γ/2)²/[ΔE² +(Γ/2)²] , where

I₀: Nominal peak energy of the shape (eV).
Γ: Bandwidth for L(E) = ± I₀/2 (eV).

The shape fall to half its maximum at E = (E₀ ± Γ/2).

Fractional FWHM = Γ/2

Γ ≈ h/τ = 4.136E−08 eV

Fractional FWHM = |± 1.43E-12| (Pound quoted |1.13E-12|)

RATIO of Gravitational Effect to 2xFractional FWHM ≈ 0.001 (0.1%)

Now, try to measure a 0.1% bandwidth spread (Einstein) over the resonant capture bandwidth of Γ = 4.136E−08 eV.
The gravitational effect IS REPRESENTED BY ≈ 4.136E−11 eV.

Now, do that with ANALOG INTEGRATORS OF BEEP COUNTS, even when you captured 10,000,000,000 photons that cause
RESONANCE in the FWHM Γ = 4.136E−08 eV.

And COOKING, FUDGING, CHERRY PICKING AND TRIMMING DATA AT WILL, WITHOUT ANY CERTIFICATION BY PEERS!

Fishy as hell. A true HOAX.

On Saturday, February 25, 2023 at 2:34:43 PM UTC-8, Richard Hertz wrote:
> On Saturday, February 25, 2023 at 6:54:25 PM UTC-3, Dono. wrote:
>
> <snip>
> > Crowell clearly states:
> >
> > "If the Mössbauer effect is carried out in a horizontal plane, resonant absorption occurs. When the source and absorber are aligned vertically, p, gravitational frequency shifts should cause a mismatch, destroying the resonance. One can move the source at a small velocity (typically a few mm/s) in order to add a Doppler shift onto the frequency; by determining the velocity that compensates for the gravitational effect, one can determine how big the gravitational effect is."
> Resonant absorption occurs in a wide range of frequencies

Not in the case of Mossbauer effect

> asshole.

Nice new signature, Dick.