Anonymous Einsteinian presenting him/herself as Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog: "Major re-write of Wikipedia "Pound–Rebka experiment" Feb 25, 2023. I have done a complete re-write of the Wikipedia article, which had a rather absurd number of inaccuracies." https://groups.google.com/g/sci.physics.relativity/c/qLYe3FQljy8/m/CtpBr3tFAAAJ

Here is the new version devised by Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog:

"The Pound–Rebka experiment monitored frequency shifts in gamma rays as they rose and fell in the gravitational field of the Earth. The experiment tested Einstein's 1907 and 1911 predictions, based on the equivalence principle, that photons would gain energy when descending a gravitational potential, and would lose energy when rising through a gravitational potential. It was proposed by Robert Pound and his graduate student Glen A. Rebka Jr. in 1959, and was the last of the classical tests of general relativity to be verified. The measurement of gravitational redshift and blueshift by this experiment validated the prediction of the equivalence principle that clocks should be measured as running at different rates in different places of a gravitational field. It is considered to be the experiment that ushered in an era of precision tests of general relativity." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pound%E2%80%93Rebka_experiment

Almost everything in the above text is fraudulent but the crucial fraud is this one:

"The measurement of gravitational redshift and blueshift by this experiment validated the prediction of the equivalence principle that clocks should be measured as running at different rates in different places of a gravitational field."

The lie is too blatant, even by the standards of the Einstein Cult (normally Einsteinians advance this lie in more euphemistic ways). The truth is that the measurement of gravitational redshift and blueshift by this experiment validated the prediction of the equivalence principle that, in a gravitational field, the speed of light varies as per Newton's theory. This is so obvious that even Einsteinians often admit it explicitly:

James Hartle, Gravity: An Introduction to Einstein's General Relativity, p. 113: "If we accept the equivalence principle, we must also accept that light falls in a gravitational field with the same acceleration as material bodies." https://www.amazon.com/Gravity-Introduction-Einsteins-General-Relativity/dp/0805386629

Max Planck Institute for Gravitational Physics : "You do not need general relativity to derive the correct prediction for the gravitational redshift. A combination of Newtonian gravity, a particle theory of light, and the weak equivalence principle (gravitating mass equals inertial mass) suffices...The gravitational redshift was first measured on earth in 1960-65 by Pound, Rebka, and Snider." http://www.einstein-online.info/spotlights/redshift_white_dwarfs.html

Paul A. Tipler, Ralph A. Llewellyn, Modern Physics: "To see why a deflection of light would be expected, consider Figure 2-17, which shows a beam of light entering an accelerating compartment. Successive positions of the compartment are shown at equal time intervals. Because the compartment is accelerating, the distance it moves in each time interval increases with time. The path of the beam of light, as observed from inside the compartment, is therefore a parabola. But according to the equivalence principle, there is no way to distinguish between an accelerating compartment and one with uniform velocity in a uniform gravitational field. We conclude, therefore, that A BEAM OF LIGHT WILL ACCELERATE IN A GRAVITATIONAL FIELD AS DO OBJECTS WITH REST MASS. For example, near the surface of Earth light will fall with acceleration 9.8 m/s^2." http://web.pdx.edu/~pmoeck/books/Tipler_Llewellyn.pdf

University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign: "Consider a falling object. Its speed increases as it is falling. Hence, if we were to associate a frequency with that object the frequency should increase accordingly as it falls to earth. Because of the equivalence between gravitational and inertial mass, we should observe the same effect for light. So lets shine a light beam from the top of a very tall building. If we can measure the frequency shift as the light beam descends the building, we should be able to discern how gravity affects a falling light beam. This was done by Pound and Rebka in 1960. They shone a light from the top of the Jefferson tower at Harvard and measured the frequency shift. The frequency shift was tiny but in agreement with the theoretical prediction." https://courses.physics.illinois.edu/phys419/sp2011/lectures/Lecture13/L13r.html

Here Pound and Snider themselves explain that their experiment confirmed Newton's variable speed of light and did not confirm gravitational time dilation:

R. V. Pound and J. L. Snider, Effect of Gravity on Gamma Radiation: "It is not our purpose here to enter into the many-sided discussion of the relationship between the effect under study and general relativity or energy conservation. It is to be noted that no strictly relativistic concepts are involved and the description of the effect as an "apparent weight" of photons is suggestive. The velocity difference predicted is identical to that which a material object would acquire in free fall for a time equal to the time of flight...The view that the local time scale depends on the gravitational potential appears to require a coherent source for confirmation. The present experiment is unable to distinguish between frequency changes and velocity changes, for example. It appears as if an experimental comparison of clocks at different potentials would make a useful complementary contribution to the over-all status of confirmation of theory." http://virgo.lal.in2p3.fr/NPAC/relativite_fichiers/pound.pdf

See more here: https://twitter.com/pentcho_valev

Pentcho Valev

The Einstein Cult has total control over Wikipedia physics and yet it has somehow overlooked this:

"Emission theory, also called emitter theory or ballistic theory of light, was a competing theory for the special theory of relativity, explaining the results of the Michelson–Morley experiment of 1887...The name most often associated with emission theory is Isaac Newton. In his corpuscular theory Newton visualized light "corpuscles" being thrown off from hot bodies at a nominal speed of c with respect to the emitting object, and obeying the usual laws of Newtonian mechanics, and we then expect light to be moving towards us with a speed that is offset by the speed of the distant emitter (c ± v)." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emission_theory

Fortunately for the Einstein Cult, a century of cruel brainwashing has eradicated any rationality and integrity from the scientific community. Otherwise it would be obvious that the above text entails this:

In 1887, prior to the introduction of the length-contraction fudge factor, the Michelson-Morley experiment was compatible with Newton's variable speed of light, c'=c±v

https://qph.cf2.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-f10f1c25528a4e5edc9bae200640f31c-pjlq

and incompatible with the constant speed of light, c'=c, posited by the ether theory and "borrowed" by Einstein in 1905:

Albert Einstein: "I introduced the principle of the constancy of the velocity of light, which I borrowed from H. A. Lorentz's theory of the stationary luminiferous ether." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz_ether_theory

More here: https://twitter.com/pentcho_valev

Pentcho Valev

On Sunday, March 5, 2023 at 7:58:50 AM UTC-8, Pentcho Valev wrote:
> The Einstein Cult has total control over Wikipedia physics and yet it has somehow overlooked this:
>
> "Emission theory, also called emitter theory or ballistic theory of light, was a competing theory for the special theory of relativity, explaining the results of the Michelson–Morley experiment of 1887...The name most often associated with emission theory is Isaac Newton. In his corpuscular theory Newton visualized light "corpuscles" being thrown off from hot bodies at a nominal speed of c with respect to the emitting object, and obeying the usual laws of Newtonian mechanics, and we then expect light to be moving towards us with a speed that is offset by the speed of the distant emitter (c ± v)." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emission_theory
>
> Fortunately for the Einstein Cult, a century of cruel brainwashing has eradicated any rationality and integrity from the scientific community. Otherwise it would be obvious that the above text entails this:
>
> In 1887, prior to the introduction of the length-contraction fudge factor, the Michelson-Morley experiment was compatible with Newton's variable speed of light, c'=c±v
>
> https://qph.cf2.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-f10f1c25528a4e5edc9bae200640f31c-pjlq
>
> and incompatible with the constant speed of light, c'=c, posited by the ether theory and "borrowed" by Einstein in 1905:
>
> Albert Einstein: "I introduced the principle of the constancy of the velocity of light, which I borrowed from H. A. Lorentz's theory of the stationary luminiferous ether." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz_ether_theory
>
> More here: https://twitter.com/pentcho_valev
>
> Pentcho Valev
Pentcho Valev: You have shown that it has long been believed that the wave theory of light involves light not sharing the motion of the source of the light. An ambulance siren disproves that this is true of waves. Doyouu know when this error began? Perhaps with Einstein?

On Saturday, March 4, 2023 at 2:51:25 PM UTC-8, Pentcho Valev wrote:
Mr. Valev: given the lengths, you have gone to steel man relativity and the difficulties of doing that, doesn't this present an ideal opportunity to do just that?

On Sunday, March 5, 2023 at 7:58:50 AM UTC-8, Pentcho Valev wrote:
>
> Albert Einstein: "I introduced the principle of the constancy of the velocity of light, which I borrowed from H. A. Lorentz's theory of the stationary luminiferous ether." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz_ether_theory
From this, it seems Lorentz may have been the first to equate the wave theory with a lack of shared momentum with the source. This contradicts Galileo's principle, and Newton's corollary to his laws of motion supposedly conveyed in the first postulate. Waves also share the motion of the source.