I can't let this go as if nothing happened.

I copy&paste my reply to Dono, who isn't able to understand anything
that is different from what is written on his rock solid head.

*********************************************************
On Saturday, February 25, 2023 at 2:22:43 AM UTC-3, Dono. wrote:

<snip>

> 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?

Imbecile, YOU are who don't get the real thing in the FAKE EXPERIMENT.

Now I clearly understand that you are a retarded PARROT beyond redemption and CURE!

Assuming that Doppler is induced with the proper value to cancel the ALLEGED gravitational shift, you FAIL TO UNDERSTAND
that such cancellation OCCURS ONLY in a brief interval of time in the SINUSOIDAL MOTION of the source.

Being that the mechanic sine wave motion has a frequency of 50 Hz (20 msec period), the INSTANTANEOUS VELOCITY that
"allegedly" causes the cancellation of the gravitational blue shifting (photons coming down), only occur on the NEGATIVE CREST
of the sinusoidal motion, around the first quarter of the 20 msec period.

With LUCK, and it was detailed in the paper and SEVERAL OTHER SOURCES from that epoch, the DESIRED VELOCITY appears ONLY
during 0.1% of the first quarter period (FACT-CHECK the data for Lorentzian FWHM) = Γ/2 = 4.136E−08 eV).

The above means that the EXACT CANCELLATION of gravitational blue shifting by induced Doppler red shifting of photons ONLY
happens during (20/4) x 0.001 milliseconds = 5 usec.

BUT, as photons are constantly irradiated, the RATIO of cancelled photons to TOTAL PHOTONS per period (the dip in the output of
the PROPORTIONAL COUNTER) is 5 usec/20 msec = 0.00025 = 1/4,000.

Do you understand this, fucking retarded?

One CRITICAL DATA MISSING (conveniently) in the P&R 1960 paper IS THE TIME FOR EACH OF THE 14 RUNS.

If, as prokaryotic wrote, 10E+10 gamma photons without recoil were measured in the experiment, only 178,571 recoil free photons
were counted per run. In average, and assuming a run length of 10 minutes, only 7 photons were recorded per mechanical cycle.

And with this SHIT, plus the massive use of statistics, analog integration of BEEPS and all the cooking and fudging of data,
the CRETINS proved "Einstein's right" with 10% error?

Fuck it, fuck them. As I claimed all the time, a FUCKING HOAX.

Learn something, Dono the cretin.
**************************************************

HE CAN'T. HE'S PROGRAMMED TO REPEAT AS A PARROT WHAT HE READ
OR HE WAS TAUGHT.

On Sunday, February 26, 2023 at 1:33:56 PM UTC-8, Richard Hertz wrote:
> I can't let this go as if nothing happened.
>
> I copy&paste my Imbecilities I posted before
You do this all the time, cementing your position as top crank

On Sunday, 26 February 2023 at 22:40:56 UTC+1, Dono. wrote:
> On Sunday, February 26, 2023 at 1:33:56 PM UTC-8, Richard Hertz wrote:
> > I can't let this go as if nothing happened.
> >
> > I copy&paste my Imbecilities I posted before

No, he didn't. Poor idiot Dono is impudently
lying, as expected from a relativistic moron.

On Sunday, February 26, 2023 at 3:33:56 PM UTC-6, Richard Hertz wrote:

> If, as prokaryotic wrote, 10E+10 gamma photons without recoil were
> measured in the experiment, only 178,571 recoil free photons
> were counted per run.

The fraction of recoilless photons is referred to as the Lamb-Mossbauer
factor. For polycrystalline iron at room temperature, about 80% of the
14.4 keV photons are recoilless. I have added this note to the article.
Given this high fraction of recoilless photons, the maximum absorbance
dip was around 30%.

Both you and Dono have been arguing from a completely incorrect
understanding of how the experiment was conducted. The combined
motions of the transducer and hydraulic cylinder allowed the incoming
photons to be collected in four channels representing +1.1 mm/s,
+0.9 mm/s, -1.1 mm/s, and -0.9 mm/s. They collectively operated at
a 50% duty cycle, i.e. out of, say, 8 million incoming photons,
1 million would fit into the time slots of each of the four recording
channels. Given these cumulative counts, a Lorentzian curve could
be fit. See my artist's impression:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1ICs9GzdHctNgC2hi-RNlDK_5I1z7Rh_u/view?usp=share_link

Now will you two quit yelling at each other and exchanging insults.
It gets very tiring to see you two acting so.

On Monday, February 27, 2023 at 4:01:54 AM UTC-6, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog wrote:

> Given these cumulative counts, a Lorentzian curve could
> be fit. See my artist's impression:
> https://drive.google.com/file/d/1ICs9GzdHctNgC2hi-RNlDK_5I1z7Rh_u/view?usp=share_link

I am perfectly aware that my horizontal scale is messed
up, but I didn't want to waste my time making all of the
proportions correct. The general idea should be enough.

On Monday, February 27, 2023 at 4:01:54 AM UTC-6, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog wrote:
> On Sunday, February 26, 2023 at 3:33:56 PM UTC-6, Richard Hertz wrote:

> The combined
> motions of the transducer and hydraulic cylinder allowed the incoming
> photons to be collected in four channels representing +1.1 mm/s,
> +0.9 mm/s, -1.1 mm/s, and -0.9 mm/s.

Correction. That should be +0.11 mm/s, +0.09 mm/s, -0.11 mm/s, and
-0.09 mm/s.