In 1911, after 4 years of silence, Einstein wrote the paper "On the Influence of
Gravitation on the Propagation of Light". In the point "§ 3. Time and the Velocity of Light in the Gravitational Field", Einstein invented the formulae:

(2) f1 = f2 . (1 + g.h/c²)
2a) f1 = f2 . (1 + Φ/c²)

See: https://groups.google.com/g/sci.physics.relativity/c/qD1idT7nnW0

With the following argument, mixing SR with absolute reference frames: If a
light-generator at height "h" emits radiation toward ground with frequency f2,
it will be received with a frequency f1, caused by energy stored in the
gravitational field. To obtain formula (2), Einstein alleged that the ground had
moved with a velocity g.h/c when radiation reached Earth, so Doppler effect
could explain the formula. Also stated that, by the principle of equivalence,
g.h = Φ, the newtonian gravitational potential, which caused the shift.

In 1960, Pound and his student Rebka, prepared an complex and
expensive experiment at Harvard University, which was widely pre-announced.

The 1960 paper can be downloaded from this site:
https://journals.aps.org/prl/pdf/10.1103/PhysRevLett.4.337

but can be difficult to understand the details of its 5 pages. Instead, a
simpler but no so clear explanation can be found here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pound%E2%80%93Rebka_experiment

The idea of Pound and Rebka was to proof Einstein's 1911 formulae by
incorporating Doppler effects in a gamma radiation source at 74 feet and
using a gamma radiation receptor at ground level (actually a basement).

As the chances, with 1960 technologies, to measure Δf/f in the order of
10^-15 were ZERO, a complex interferometry arrangement was devised,
with basis on the Mossbauer discovery of recoil-free y rays emitted and
absorbed in solids, using 14.4 KeV, 0.1 microsecond spectra shift in Fe57
iron compounds, very carefully built.

As a way to counteract the action of gravity, the emitter was made to
mechanically oscillate in order to produce a vertical velocity v = g.h/c
(Einstein 1911), so it would produce a null effect on the receiver of the
gamma rays. The concept of exciting Fe57 atoms to a "well known"
hyperfine state from which gamma rays with PRECISE frequency were
emitted, causing the Fe57 receiver atoms to be excited by photons
absorption and emit a secondary photon with the PRECISE frequency
was utilized. IMHO, the idea could be back-traced to the development
of atomic clocks 4-5 years before and was the following one:

An Fe57 atom can still emit the PRECISE FREQUENCY even when excited
by radiation in a NARROW BAND centered on that frequency. This cause
a residual radiation with frequencies around such master frequency (phase noise in atomic clocks), which can be VISUALIZED by the
gaussian dispersion of frequencies re-emitted by the receptor, which
produce a very narrow area in wavelengths (equivalent to the frequency
dispersion of re-emitter's frequency around fo).

As in the Pound-Rebka paper say: "We found that the line had a Lorentzian
shape with a fractional full-width at half-height of 1.13x10^-12 when the
source was carefully prepared according to a prescription developed
from experience."

The experiment was based on counting
"pulses from the scintillation spectrometer, adjusted to select the 14.4
KeV gamma ray line, were fed into one sealer while, during the opposite
quarter cycle, they were fed into another. The difference in counts
recorded was a measure of the asymmetry in, or frequency shift between,
the emission and absorption lines."

"The relation between the counting rate difference and relative frequency
shifts between the emission and absorption lines was measured
directly by adding a Doppler shift several times the size of the
gravitational shift to the emission line."

"Although at room temperature this coefficient is but weakly dependent
on the Debye temperature, residual error in the correction for, or control
of, the temperature difference LIMITS THE ABILITY TO MEASURE
frequency shifts and favors the use of A LARGE HEIGHT difference for
the gravitational experiment."

MY NOTE: Besides all the , this comment is a confession about the
gross errors and wrondoings in such expensive experiment, YET it was
publicized as A PROOF, AGAIN, THAT EINSTEIN WAS RIGHT.

Table I, which collect the data of 4 days, gives some results on the
frequency shift that ALLEGEDLY was measured by an indirect mean of
an indirect mean, etc. It means: ZERO CERTAINTY.

Some results in Table I:

-12.0 ± 4.1 . 10E-15
-5.7 ± 1.4 . 10E-15
-7.4 ± 2.1 . 10E-15
-6.5 ± 2.1 . 10E-15
-13.9 ± 3.1 . 10E-15
-6.6 ± 3.0 . 10E-15
-6.5 ± 2.0 . 10E-15
-10.0 ± 2.6 . 10E-15

The whole set was "corrected" to eliminate temperature effects, correlated
and presented as a triumph of Einstein's 1911 prediction, with a 10%
marging error.

Any of you can watch the huge dispersion of values, yet it's claimed a
10% average difference with Einstein's formulae and celebrated as a
glorious achievement in "experimental physics". Not only this, but Pound
obtained more founds in the next years to perfect the arrangement and
produce results with 1% error by 1964 (difference with Einstein).

Computing and averaging maximum and minimum values with Excel, as
I did, shows that the average values ARE BETWEEN

-11,13 . 10E-15 and -6.03 . 10E-15

These limits contain any permutation of ± values in Table I.

Hardly to say a 10% error with Einstein, UNLESS you FUDGE data by
manipulation of CORRECTIONS (not shown). And not to mention the
amount of "corrections" due to errors in Fe samples, mechanics, temperatura, measurement of the spectra, standard deviation used, etc.

These limits contain any permutation of ± values in Table I.

Regarding the claim for more height, the probe Gravity A was launched
vertically at 10 Km for 1.5 hours in 1976, with the outcome (of course)
that Einstein was proved right one more time. In this case, a passive
hydrogen maser was launched, and its frequency was verified with a
twin atomic clock on ground station.

GPS 1.0 was just around the corner.

Who want to fact-check this, without starting to usual insults (Dono?).

There is something real about Pound Rebka.
Light changes in energy by different gravity strengths.
It just doesn't happen at fusion.
Changing gravity will change light...
Heat at a star cools down as it heads
toward a planet. The same heat isn't
as hot as from a star as it is at its planet.

Mitchell Raemsch

On Wednesday, September 29, 2021 at 12:04:40 PM UTC-7, Richard Hertz brainfarted:

> With the following argument, mixing SR with absolute reference frames:

You are outright lying, odious kapo, there is no SR in Pound Rebka, it is all GR. There is no "absolute reference frame". There is only an absolute piece of shit named Richard Hertz.

> As the chances, with 1960 technologies, to measure Δf/f in the order of
> 10^-15 were ZERO, a complex interferometry arrangement was devised,
> with basis on the Mossbauer discovery of recoil-free y rays emitted and
> absorbed in solids, using 14.4 KeV, 0.1 microsecond spectra shift in Fe57
> iron compounds, very carefully built.
>

Pound was very smart. You are an idiot. Your only consolation is that you will die an idiot.

>
> Regarding the claim for more height, the probe Gravity A was launched
> vertically at 10 Km for 1.5 hours in 1976, with the outcome (of course)
> that Einstein was proved right one more time. In this case, a passive
> hydrogen maser was launched, and its frequency was verified with a
> twin atomic clock on ground station.
>

Yep, so you got to eat (some more) shit.
Of course, GPS followed, so you choked.

On Wednesday, September 29, 2021 at 8:19:22 PM UTC-3, Dono. wrote:

<snip>

> > With the following argument, mixing SR with absolute reference frames:
> You are outright lying, odious kapo, there is no SR in Pound Rebka, it is all GR. There is no "absolute reference frame". There is only an absolute piece of shit named Richard Hertz.

What an ignorant lifeform, which can understand English, giant lizard.

Read properly or, better, don't change on purpose what I wrote.

I was writing what Einstein wrote in his 1911 paper. I don't invent things or distort readings.
That's why I post always LINKS for anybody to fact-check what I wrote.

Here is a link, AGAIN. Read the Einstein's 1911 paper analyzed there or, better, DOWNLOAD the English
version and read it by yourself.

You'll check how Einstein mixed absolute and relative frames of reference to get his formula, without any trace of shame.

See: https://groups.google.com/g/sci.physics.relativity/c/qD1idT7nnW0

On Wednesday, September 29, 2021 at 8:10:27 PM UTC-7, crank Richard Hertz dug himself deeper:
> On Wednesday, September 29, 2021 at 8:19:22 PM UTC-3, Dono. wrote:
>
> <snip>
> > > With the following argument, mixing SR with absolute reference frames:
> > You are outright lying, odious kapo, there is no SR in Pound Rebka, it is all GR. There is no "absolute reference frame". There is only an absolute piece of shit named Richard Hertz.

> I was writing what Einstein wrote in his 1911 paper. I don't invent things or distort readings.

Imbecile,

Pound-Rebka experiment has nothing to do with Einstein's 1911 paper. Pound=Rebka experiment is a test of GR, GR was not invented in 1911, utter crank.
> That's why I post always LINKS for anybody to fact-check what I wrote.
>
> Here is a link, AGAIN. Read the Einstein's 1911 paper analyzed there or, better, DOWNLOAD the English
> version and read it by yourself.
>
> You'll check how Einstein mixed absolute and relative frames of reference to get his formula, without any trace of shame.
>
> See: https://groups.google.com/g/sci.physics.relativity/c/qD1idT7nnW0

Posting references to your previous imbecilities does not constitute a valid proof, it simply shows that you are basing your fresh imbecilities on your older imbecilities. Do keep up the entertainment, would you, clown?

On Thursday, September 30, 2021 at 12:45:56 AM UTC-3, Dono. wrote:

<snip>

> > I was writing what Einstein wrote in his 1911 paper. I don't invent things or distort readings.
> Imbecile,
>
> Pound-Rebka experiment has nothing to do with Einstein's 1911 paper. Pound=Rebka experiment is a test of GR, GR was not invented in 1911, utter crank

I'll show to you and the rest here that you are a retarded ILLITERATE, asshole!

Did you even read the title of the Pound-Rebka paper, which link I posted, RETARDED?

APPARENT WEIGHT OF PHOTONS
R. V. Pound and G. A. Rebka, Jr.
Lyman Laboratory of Physics, Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts
APRIL 1, 1960 NUMBER 7

Do you understand now, reptile lifeform? Or should anyone give you an ENEMA with this paper liquefied?

Damm! How much ignorance exists! How much blind HATE that clog any artery feeding the brain!

Idiot, they declared that in the OPENING of the paper:

"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"

But, as you are a FUCKING PAID TROLL who makes a living here
by trolling and shilling any post related to the other retarded, you
are a BRAINLESS MF! Go and collect your 3.50 $, imbecile.

Shove this 2005 article from the APS very deep into your throath!

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
https://physics.aps.org/story/v16/st1

The Weight of Light
July 12, 2005• Phys. Rev. Focus 16, 1
In 1960 physicists finally verified Einstein’s 1911 prediction that gravity could change light’s frequency.
Understanding the effect is essential to modern navigational technology.

Before he worked out the general theory of relativity, Einstein had already deduced that gravity must affect a
light wave’s frequency and wavelength. Light moving upwards from Earth’s surface, for example, shifts to
longer wavelength and lower frequency, as gravity saps it of some energy. But the effect is tiny in earth’s
modest gravity. In 1960 Robert Pound and Glen Rebka of Harvard University finally succeed in testing this
crucial prediction, and they reported their results in PRL. Today the so-called gravitational redshift is essential
for understanding the cosmos and operating the Global Positioning System (GPS).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Choke on it, imbecile reptilian lifeform!

On 9/30/2021 12:31 AM, Richard Hertz wrote:
> On Thursday, September 30, 2021 at 12:45:56 AM UTC-3, Dono. wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>>> I was writing what Einstein wrote in his 1911 paper. I don't invent things or distort readings.
>> Imbecile,
>>
>> Pound-Rebka experiment has nothing to do with Einstein's 1911 paper. Pound=Rebka experiment is a test of GR, GR was not invented in 1911, utter crank
>
> I'll show to you and the rest here that you are a retarded ILLITERATE, asshole!
>
> Did you even read the title of the Pound-Rebka paper, which link I posted, RETARDED?
>
> Do you understand now, reptile lifeform? Or should anyone give you an ENEMA with this paper liquefied?
>
> Damm! How much ignorance exists! How much blind HATE that clog any artery feeding the brain!
>
> Idiot, they declared that in the OPENING of the paper:

Careful, Dono, it looks like you triggered a meltdown in Richard, like
the two year old at the grocery store demanding mom buys some candy!

<snip more toddler-like thrashing and whining>

Calm down, Richard. Dono just stated (correctly) that Pound-Rebka is a
general relativity effect, and you did claim Einstein was mixing SR with
absolute frames. (aside: I saw no mention of absolute frames anywhere)

Stay calm and maybe your mommy will buy a new photograph of Einstein for
your dartboard.

And no, referring to your own posts as some sort of valid reference is
wrong, it's idiotic. If you wanted him to read the link in that post,
refer to the link again.

On Thursday, September 30, 2021 at 3:05:16 AM UTC-3, Michael Moroney wrote:

<snip>

> Calm down, Richard. Dono just stated (correctly) that Pound-Rebka is a
> general relativity effect, and you did claim Einstein was mixing SR with
> absolute frames. (aside: I saw no mention of absolute frames anywhere)

You didn't see any mention of absolute frames in the 1911 paper because
you are another pretentious idiot impersonating an engineer. And, if you
really got through college and went out with an EE degree, probably it was
at the community college of Villa Huerto Podrido in Chile, fucking retarded..

How you dare to usurp such a respectable title? Of course, a relativist is a thief,
plagiarist and copycat so, why to expect decency from a Moroney type?

I found the link for you, lazy dog:

http://www.relativitycalculator.com/pdfs/On_the_influence_of_Gravitation_on_the_Propagation_of_Light_English.pdf

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
§ 3. Time and the Velocity of Light in the Gravitational Field

If the radiation emitted in the uniformly accelerated system K′ in S2 toward S1 had
the frequency f2 relative to the clock at S2, then, relative to S1, at its arrival at S1
it no longer has the frequency f2 relative to an identical clock at S1, but a greater
frequency f1, such that, to a first approximation

(2) f1 = f2.(1 + g.h/c2)

If we AGAIN introduce the unaccelerated reference system K0, relative to which at the
time of the emission of light, K′ has no velocity, then S1, at the time of arrival of the radiation
at S1 has, relative to K0, the velocity g.(h/c) from which, by Doppler’s principle, the relation
as given results immediately.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

If you can't understand how the other retarded messed with absolute and relative reference frame, go back to
the community college of Villa Huerto Podrido, and talk with who sold you the fake EE diploma, Mr. Manuel José
Pedro Ernesto Fuentes Villareal del Horto.

On 9/30/2021 2:27 AM, Richard Hertz wrote:
> On Thursday, September 30, 2021 at 3:05:16 AM UTC-3, Michael Moroney wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>> Calm down, Richard. Dono just stated (correctly) that Pound-Rebka is a
>> general relativity effect, and you did claim Einstein was mixing SR with
>> absolute frames. (aside: I saw no mention of absolute frames anywhere)
>
> You didn't see any mention of absolute frames in the 1911 paper because
> you are another pretentious idiot impersonating an engineer. And, if you
> really got through college and went out with an EE degree, probably it was
> at the community college of Villa Huerto Podrido in Chile, fucking retarded.

I see you can't address the comments, just can throw out more insults.
>
> How you dare to usurp such a respectable title?

I didn't "usurp" anything. I paid my money, I did the coursework, and
after 4 years of that I was granted the degree I earned.

> Of course, a relativist is a thief,
> plagiarist and copycat

Shall we be hearing "the nitwit, the plagiarist and the liar" from you
shortly?

And why do you call ordinary physicists thieves, plagiarists and copycats?

> I found the link for you, lazy dog:

I already found and read it. If you were paying attention, I did mention
that I found no references to an absolute frame in it.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> § 3. Time and the Velocity of Light in the Gravitational Field
>
> If the radiation emitted in the uniformly accelerated system K′ in S2 toward S1 had
> the frequency f2 relative to the clock at S2, then, relative to S1, at its arrival at S1
> it no longer has the frequency f2 relative to an identical clock at S1, but a greater
> frequency f1, such that, to a first approximation
>
> (2) f1 = f2.(1 + g.h/c2)
>
> If we AGAIN introduce the unaccelerated reference system K0, relative to which at the
> time of the emission of light, K′ has no velocity, then S1, at the time of arrival of the radiation
> at S1 has, relative to K0, the velocity g.(h/c) from which, by Doppler’s principle, the relation
> as given results immediately.
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> If you can't understand how the other retarded messed with absolute and relative reference frame,

Sorry, there are no references to any absolute frame. There is an
accelerated system K', the gravitational frame where S1 is which is
called K elsewhere, and an unaccelerated (note NOT absolute!) frame K0.
Unaccelerated means inertial. You always misinterpret things and find
a mistake that comes from your misinterpretation, but blame it on
SR/Einstein, not yourself. It appears to me you misinterpreted
"unaccelerated" to mean "absolute", not "inertial".

> go back to
> the community college of Villa Huerto Podrido, and talk with who sold
you the fake EE diploma, Mr. Manuel José
> Pedro Ernesto Fuentes Villareal del Horto.

I don't know of that place, don't involve me in any quixotic quest you
have with them.

On Wednesday, September 29, 2021 at 9:31:38 PM UTC-7, Richard Hertz frothed at the mouth:
> On Thursday, September 30, 2021 at 12:45:56 AM UTC-3, Dono. wrote:
> > Imbecile,
> >
> > Pound-Rebka experiment has nothing to do with Einstein's 1911 paper. Pound=Rebka experiment is a test of GR, GR was not invented in 1911, utter crank

> "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"
>

The gravitational time dilation measured by Pound experiment is a consequence of GR, ignoramus. Continue to froth at the mouth and choke on your bile.

On Thursday, 30 September 2021 at 16:50:56 UTC+2, Dono. wrote:
> On Wednesday, September 29, 2021 at 9:31:38 PM UTC-7, Richard Hertz frothed at the mouth:
> > On Thursday, September 30, 2021 at 12:45:56 AM UTC-3, Dono. wrote:
>
> > > Imbecile,
> > >
> > > Pound-Rebka experiment has nothing to do with Einstein's 1911 paper. Pound=Rebka experiment is a test of GR, GR was not invented in 1911, utter crank
> > "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"
> >
> The gravitational time dilation measured by Pound experiment is a consequence of GR,

In the meantime in the real world, however, GPS clocks
keep indicating t'=t, just like all serious clocks always did,
ignoramus. Continue to froth at the mouth and choke on your bile.

On Thursday, September 30, 2021 at 4:36:42 AM UTC-3, Michael Moroney wrote:

<snip>

> >> Calm down, Richard. Dono just stated (correctly) that Pound-Rebka is a
> >> general relativity effect, and you did claim Einstein was mixing SR with
> >> absolute frames. (aside: I saw no mention of absolute frames anywhere)

> > I found the link for you, lazy dog:

> I already found and read it. If you were paying attention, I did mention
> that I found no references to an absolute frame in it.

It's a pity that your former tutor, Mr. Manuel José Pedro Ernesto Fuentes Villareal del Horto from the community
college of Villa Huerto Podrido, didn't taught to you to read an article or a book from the beggining to the end. The
lack of comprehension abilities that nature forgot to give to you, obviously was augmented several magnitudes in
your stance of 6 months at college, to get your fake EE degree.

Now, go back and read again the 1911 paper with these hints:

1) In "§ 1. A Hypothesis as to the Physical Nature of the Gravitational Field", he renounced to his 1905 relativity stating in the first page:
**************************
"To avoid unnecessary complications, let us for the present disregard the THEORY OF RELATIVITY, and REGARD both systems
from the CUSTOMARY POINT OF VIEW OF KINEMATICS, and the movements occurring in them from that of ORDINARY MECHANICS."
........
"For the accelerated system K0 this follows directly from Galileo's principle, but for the system K, at rest in a homogeneous gravitational
field, it follows from the experience that all bodies in such a field are equally and uniformly accelerated. This experience, of the equal
falling of all bodies in the gravitational field, is one of the most universal which the observation of nature has yielded to us;"
............
"As long as we restrict ourselves to purely mechanical processes IN THE REALM WHERE NEWTON'S MECHANIC IS VALID is valid, we are
certain of the equivalence of the systems K and K0."
******************

NOTE: He abandoned 1905 relativity for a while, to get some gains in a world with ABSOLUTE REFERENCES (Newton, Galileo).

2) In "§ 2. On the Gravitation of Energy", he mess with your mind and his gobbledygook to install the ABSOLUTISM of the principle
of equivalence:
**************
"The theory of relativity shows that the inertial mass of a body increases with the energy it contains; if the increase of energy amounts
to E, the increase in inertial mass is equal to E/c², where c denotes the velocity of light.

(THIS!) Now, is there an INCREASE of gravitational mass corresponding to this INCREASE of inertial mass?

IF NOT, then a body would fall in the same gravitational field with VARYING ACCELERATION according to the energy it contained.

And then the highly satisfactory result of the theory of relativity, by which the law of the conservation of mass leads to the law of
conservation of energy, could not be maintained, because it would compel us to abandon the LAW OF THE CONSERVATION OF MASS
in its OLD FORM for inertial mass, but MANTAIN it for gravitational mass.

This must be regarded as very improbable."
******************

NOTE: With fallacies and mixing SR with absolute newtonian mechanics, introduced the equivalence principle. BECAUSE HE'S
OPENLY INTRODUCING that mass INCREASES with velocity, WHICH IS FALSE as it was demonstrated. And ALSO, Einstein's
Equivalence Principle IS FALSE AS WELL AS EVERYTHING THAT'S DERIVED IN THIS 1911 PAPER, like changes in frequency due
to gravity.

I hope, Moroney, that a bit of reason still remains on your indoctrinated mind and that it's not 100% fossilized.

He was telling, at plain sight that, for any inertial mass mᵢ on Earth, it has to be a gravitational mass mₑ, which verifies:

d(mᵢ.v)/dt = G.Mₑ.mₑ/r² ---------> mᵢ.dv/dt = mᵢ.g = G.Mₑ.mₑ/r² ------------> g = G.Mₑ/r²

because mᵢ = mₑ (OLD NEWTONIAN FORM), NOT using relativistic relationship mᵢ = mᵢₒ . 1/√(1 - v²/c²)
and declaring (in your face) that

dmᵢ/dt = 0 , just like that, forgetting that (as v = g.t), the NON RELATIVISTIC EXPRESSION mᵢ(t) = mᵢₒ . 1/√(1 - g².t²/c²)

So, there you have your king of fallacies and distortion getting IN and OUT from SR at his convenience, to arrive to:

(1) E1 = E2.(1 + g.h/c²) , and

(1a) E1 = E2.(1 + Φ/c²)

and to further state that (in § 3) the relationship

(2a) f1 = f2.(1 + Φ/c²)

which was what the Pound-Rebka tried to prove.

I hope that a ray of hope may illuminate your stubborn, indoctrinated mind, and you may be able to see the LIGHT!

Einstein was a liar, a deceiver, an hypnotiser (french) with his twisted, lunatic gobbledygook that made so many
to surrender under him. That's the work of a charlatan, a qualitative philosopher that cultivated the dogmas of fallacy.

Are you going to surrender to his chants too?

Pound Rebka influences EM energy of the CMBR..
shifting it...

Visible light from distant galaxies will red shift
by universal expansion aether causing them
to be seen at radio wavelength. The galaxies need
the right amount of distance.

Mitchell Raemsch

On 9/30/2021 1:56 PM, Richard Hertz wrote:
> On Thursday, September 30, 2021 at 4:36:42 AM UTC-3, Michael Moroney wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>>>> Calm down, Richard. Dono just stated (correctly) that Pound-Rebka is a
>>>> general relativity effect, and you did claim Einstein was mixing SR with
>>>> absolute frames. (aside: I saw no mention of absolute frames anywhere)
>
>>> I found the link for you, lazy dog:
>
>> I already found and read it. If you were paying attention, I did mention
>> that I found no references to an absolute frame in it.
>
> It's a pity that your former tutor, Mr. Manuel José Pedro Ernesto Fuentes Villareal del Horto from the community
> college of Villa Huerto Podrido, didn't taught to you to read an article or a book from the beggining to the end. The
> lack of comprehension abilities that nature forgot to give to you, obviously was augmented several magnitudes in
> your stance of 6 months at college, to get your fake EE degree.

Too bad for you my degree is real, and I never heard of your windmill
nemesis at some community college I never heard of.
>
> Now, go back and read again the 1911 paper with these hints:
>
> 1) In "§ 1. A Hypothesis as to the Physical Nature of the Gravitational Field", he renounced to his 1905 relativity stating in the first page:
> **************************
> "To avoid unnecessary complications, let us for the present disregard the THEORY OF RELATIVITY, and REGARD both systems
> from the CUSTOMARY POINT OF VIEW OF KINEMATICS, and the movements occurring in them from that of ORDINARY MECHANICS."

He did not renounce anything (renunciation is essentially permanent), he
just decided not to complicate things here. I don't know how widely
accepted SR was in 1911 but a possibility was it was not widely accepted
yet and he didn't want this paper dismissed because others thought it
was just more SR. Also in 1911 his GR was not complete.

> NOTE: He abandoned 1905 relativity for a while, to get some gains in a world with ABSOLUTE REFERENCES (Newton, Galileo).

Wait a minute, why are you discussing absolute references regarding the
creator of relativity (Galileo)? Newton was a followon to Galileo. The
best you can claim was that time was universal and absolute in those
systems. He is explicitly comparing to relative frames (K amd K0) to be
equivalent to each other, not absolute.
>
> 2) In "§ 2. On the Gravitation of Energy", he mess with your mind and his gobbledygook to install the ABSOLUTISM of the principle
> of equivalence:
> **************
> "The theory of relativity shows that the inertial mass of a body increases with the energy it contains; if the increase of energy amounts
> to E, the increase in inertial mass is equal to E/c², where c denotes the velocity of light.
>
> (THIS!) Now, is there an INCREASE of gravitational mass corresponding to this INCREASE of inertial mass?
>
> IF NOT, then a body would fall in the same gravitational field with VARYING ACCELERATION according to the energy it contained.
>
> And then the highly satisfactory result of the theory of relativity, by which the law of the conservation of mass leads to the law of
> conservation of energy, could not be maintained, because it would compel us to abandon the LAW OF THE CONSERVATION OF MASS
> in its OLD FORM for inertial mass, but MANTAIN it for gravitational mass.
>
> This must be regarded as very improbable."
> ******************
>
> NOTE: With fallacies and mixing SR with absolute newtonian mechanics, introduced the equivalence principle. BECAUSE HE'S
> OPENLY INTRODUCING that mass INCREASES with velocity, WHICH IS FALSE as it was demonstrated.

"Mass increasing" is an outdated concept now. Physicists consider "rest
mass" to be invariant and energy (including kinetic energy of motion) to
have inertia. Einstein is using the old concept of apparent mass
increasing.

> And ALSO, Einstein's
> Equivalence Principle IS FALSE AS WELL AS EVERYTHING THAT'S DERIVED IN THIS 1911 PAPER, like changes in frequency due
> to gravity.

Why is it false? Because you say so?

> because mᵢ = mₑ (OLD NEWTONIAN FORM), NOT using relativistic relationship mᵢ = mᵢₒ . 1/√(1 - v²/c²)

He said he was using Newtonian mechanics throughout. Why complain that
he actually did?

> Are you going to surrender to his chants too?
>
Once again, you blame Einstein for your mistakes. Considering how dumb
you are at times with you making so many mistakes, no wonder you hate
him so much.