"Those who do know physics do physics research.
"Those who don’t know physics do physics teaching.
"Those who don’t know how to do teaching teach how to teach physics.."

That quote is from a book of articles read at a 2009 conference about physics that was held at the University of Leicester in England. The key article is on page 31 and is titled "REPEATED ERRORS IN PHYSICS TEXTBOOKS: WHAT DO THEY SAY ABOUT THE CULTURE OF TEACHING?"

This morning, someone sent me a link to a PDF copy of the book. Here's that link: https://www.academia.edu/keypass/VlJja0dnZk1XM29UaE5jOTY4d0FYUXdIMHVUL0VlSHp4QUg1Y1ZvWTJoST0tLVhxS2pCWDNkbWlvRkFlWCtWNDEvMHc9PQ==--9d34e8e8609733ae9d01ed83c941a6776198bbb3/t/sV7gu-QeWEppP-bdz4aD/2984508/REPEATED_ERRORS_IN_PHYSICS_TEXTBOOKS_WHAT_DO_THEY_SAY_ABOUT_THE_CULTURE_OF_TEACHING

It certainly seems to explain why no two people on this forum seem to agree on anything - except on who they disagree with the most.

Ed

Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> wrote:
> "Those who do know physics do physics research.
> "Those who don’t know physics do physics teaching.
> "Those who don’t know how to do teaching teach how to teach physics."
>
> That quote is from a book of articles read at a 2009 conference about
> physics that was held at the University of Leicester in England. The key
> article is on page 31 and is titled "REPEATED ERRORS IN PHYSICS
> TEXTBOOKS: WHAT DO THEY SAY ABOUT THE CULTURE OF TEACHING?"
>
> This morning, someone sent me a link to a PDF copy of the book. Here's
> that lin
> : https://www.academia.edu/keypass/VlJja0dnZk1XM29UaE5jOTY4d0FYUXdIMHVUL0VlSHp4QUg1Y1ZvWTJoST0tLVhxS2pCWDNkbWlvRkFlWCtWNDEvMHc9PQ==--9d34e8e8609733ae9d01ed83c941a6776198bbb3/t/sV7gu-QeWEppP-bdz4aD/2984508/REPEATED_ERRORS_IN_PHYSICS_TEXTBOOKS_WHAT_DO_THEY_SAY_ABOUT_THE_CULTURE_OF_TEACHING
>
> It certainly seems to explain why no two people on this forum seem to
> agree on anything - except on who they disagree with the most.
>
> Ed
>

Isn’t it fun how easy it is to mine the internet to find quotes that
support a pet peeve?

I mean, I could take anything — that daffodils might cause cancer in dogs,
so that dog-owners should not grow daffodils in their yard — and there will
be something on the internet to support that. Isn’t that amazing?

--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

On 2022-03-28 15:59:48 +0000, Ed Lake said:

> "Those who do know physics do physics research.
> "Those who don’t know physics do physics teaching.
> "Those who don’t know how to do teaching teach how to teach physics."
>
> That quote is from a book of articles read at a 2009 conference about
> physics that was held at the University of Leicester in England.

It's much older than that. At least, I heard a very similar proposition
in the 1970s.

> The key article is on page 31 and is titled "REPEATED ERRORS IN
> PHYSICS TEXTBOOKS: WHAT DO THEY SAY ABOUT THE CULTURE OF TEACHING?"
>
> This morning, someone sent me a link to a PDF copy of the book. Here's
> that link:
> https://www.academia.edu/keypass/VlJja0dnZk1XM29UaE5jOTY4d0FYUXdIMHVUL0VlSHp4QUg1Y1ZvWTJoST0tLVhxS2pCWDNkbWlvRkFlWCtWNDEvMHc9PQ==--9d34e8e8609733ae9d01ed83c941a6776198bbb3/t/sV7gu-QeWEppP-bdz4aD/2984508/REPEATED_ERRORS_IN_PHYSICS_TEXTBOOKS_WHAT_DO_THEY_SAY_ABOUT_THE_CULTURE_OF_TEACHING
>
>
> It certainly seems to explain why no two people on this forum seem to
> agree on anything - except on who they disagree with the most.
>
> Ed

--
Athel -- French and British, living mainly in England until 1987.

On Monday, March 28, 2022 at 11:13:30 AM UTC-5, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
> On 2022-03-28 15:59:48 +0000, Ed Lake said:
>
> > "Those who do know physics do physics research.
> > "Those who don’t know physics do physics teaching.
> > "Those who don’t know how to do teaching teach how to teach physics."
> >
> > That quote is from a book of articles read at a 2009 conference about
> > physics that was held at the University of Leicester in England.
> It's much older than that. At least, I heard a very similar proposition
> in the 1970s.
> > The key article is on page 31 and is titled "REPEATED ERRORS IN
> > PHYSICS TEXTBOOKS: WHAT DO THEY SAY ABOUT THE CULTURE OF TEACHING?"
> >
> > This morning, someone sent me a link to a PDF copy of the book. Here's
> > that link:
> > https://www.academia.edu/keypass/VlJja0dnZk1XM29UaE5jOTY4d0FYUXdIMHVUL0VlSHp4QUg1Y1ZvWTJoST0tLVhxS2pCWDNkbWlvRkFlWCtWNDEvMHc9PQ==--9d34e8e8609733ae9d01ed83c941a6776198bbb3/t/sV7gu-QeWEppP-bdz4aD/2984508/REPEATED_ERRORS_IN_PHYSICS_TEXTBOOKS_WHAT_DO_THEY_SAY_ABOUT_THE_CULTURE_OF_TEACHING
> >
> >
> > It certainly seems to explain why no two people on this forum seem to
> > agree on anything - except on who they disagree with the most.
> >
> > Ed
> --
> Athel -- French and British, living mainly in England until 1987.

Here's a quote from page 34:

------------- start quote --------------------
1. In research, language and visual tools are used as convincing arguments in promoting
new ideas, but in physics textbooks they are rather a decorative complement of equations.
2. In research, explanations are crafted to be as precise and complete as possible, but in
physics textbooks they are sometimes imprecise and incomplete.
3. In research, illustrative applicative examples of an equation are authentic and relevant,
but in physics textbooks they are sometimes artificial and senseless.
4. In research, numerical values have their clear origin and meaning, but in physics textbooks
they are sometimes invented and it is even impossible for them to occur in the real
world.
5. When used in research, historical episodes are carefully studied through original articles
but in physics textbooks they are mentioned superficially and even wrongly.
It seems that textbook authors, while writing and very likely in teaching, do not practice the
culture of research.
-------------------- end quote -------------------

Someone sent me the link to the book. I've been comparing what textbooks have to say
about certain experiments. I've found textbooks that have totally different explanations
for the Pound-Rebka experiment, for example. My research must have prompted academia.edu
to send me the link to that book about textbook errors.

Ed

El lunes, 28 de marzo de 2022 a las 12:59:51 UTC-3, det...@outlook.com escribió:
> "Those who do know physics do physics research.
> "Those who don’t know physics do physics teaching.
> "Those who don’t know how to do teaching teach how to teach physics."
>
> That quote is from a book of articles read at a 2009 conference about physics that was held at the University of Leicester in England. The key article is on page 31 and is titled "REPEATED ERRORS IN PHYSICS TEXTBOOKS: WHAT DO THEY SAY ABOUT THE CULTURE OF TEACHING?"
>
> This morning, someone sent me a link to a PDF copy of the book. Here's that link: https://www.academia.edu/keypass/VlJja0dnZk1XM29UaE5jOTY4d0FYUXdIMHVUL0VlSHp4QUg1Y1ZvWTJoST0tLVhxS2pCWDNkbWlvRkFlWCtWNDEvMHc9PQ==--9d34e8e8609733ae9d01ed83c941a6776198bbb3/t/sV7gu-QeWEppP-bdz4aD/2984508/REPEATED_ERRORS_IN_PHYSICS_TEXTBOOKS_WHAT_DO_THEY_SAY_ABOUT_THE_CULTURE_OF_TEACHING
>
> It certainly seems to explain why no two people on this forum seem to agree on anything - except on who they disagree with the most.
>
> Ed

As always, you pick a particular quotation of that book, thinking that the whole physics community agrees with that quote.

You should also read the articles "RECOGNIZING THE STRUCTURAL ROLE OF MATHEMATICS IN PHYSICS LESSONS" on page 84, "STUDENTS’ VIEWS ON THE USE OF MATHEMATICS IN PHYSICS" on page 91 and "MASTER IDIFO (INNOVAZIONE DIDATTICA IN FISICA E ORIENTAMENTO): A COMMUNITY OF ITALIAN PHYSICS EDUCATION RESEARCHERS AND TEACHERS AS A MODEL FOR A RESEARCH BASED IN-SERVICE TEACHER DEVELOPMENT IN MODERN
PHYSICS" on page 97, where things related to relativity are considered.

On Monday, 28 March 2022 at 18:27:48 UTC+2, Paparios wrote:
> El lunes, 28 de marzo de 2022 a las 12:59:51 UTC-3, det...@outlook.com escribió:
> > "Those who do know physics do physics research.
> > "Those who don’t know physics do physics teaching.
> > "Those who don’t know how to do teaching teach how to teach physics."
> >
> > That quote is from a book of articles read at a 2009 conference about physics that was held at the University of Leicester in England. The key article is on page 31 and is titled "REPEATED ERRORS IN PHYSICS TEXTBOOKS: WHAT DO THEY SAY ABOUT THE CULTURE OF TEACHING?"
> >
> > This morning, someone sent me a link to a PDF copy of the book. Here's that link: https://www.academia.edu/keypass/VlJja0dnZk1XM29UaE5jOTY4d0FYUXdIMHVUL0VlSHp4QUg1Y1ZvWTJoST0tLVhxS2pCWDNkbWlvRkFlWCtWNDEvMHc9PQ==--9d34e8e8609733ae9d01ed83c941a6776198bbb3/t/sV7gu-QeWEppP-bdz4aD/2984508/REPEATED_ERRORS_IN_PHYSICS_TEXTBOOKS_WHAT_DO_THEY_SAY_ABOUT_THE_CULTURE_OF_TEACHING
> >
> > It certainly seems to explain why no two people on this forum seem to agree on anything - except on who they disagree with the most.
> >
> > Ed
> As always, you pick a particular quotation of that book, thinking that the whole physics community agrees with that quote.
>
> You should also read the articles "RECOGNIZING THE STRUCTURAL ROLE OF MATHEMATICS IN PHYSICS LESSONS"

Speaking of mathematics, it's always good to remind
that your bunch of idiots had to announce its oldest
part false, as it didn't want to fit the madness of your
idiot guru.

On Monday, March 28, 2022 at 11:27:48 AM UTC-5, Paparios wrote:
> El lunes, 28 de marzo de 2022 a las 12:59:51 UTC-3, escribió:
> > "Those who do know physics do physics research.
> > "Those who don’t know physics do physics teaching.
> > "Those who don’t know how to do teaching teach how to teach physics."
> >
> > That quote is from a book of articles read at a 2009 conference about physics that was held at the University of Leicester in England. The key article is on page 31 and is titled "REPEATED ERRORS IN PHYSICS TEXTBOOKS: WHAT DO THEY SAY ABOUT THE CULTURE OF TEACHING?"
> >
> > This morning, someone sent me a link to a PDF copy of the book. Here's that link: https://www.academia.edu/keypass/VlJja0dnZk1XM29UaE5jOTY4d0FYUXdIMHVUL0VlSHp4QUg1Y1ZvWTJoST0tLVhxS2pCWDNkbWlvRkFlWCtWNDEvMHc9PQ==--9d34e8e8609733ae9d01ed83c941a6776198bbb3/t/sV7gu-QeWEppP-bdz4aD/2984508/REPEATED_ERRORS_IN_PHYSICS_TEXTBOOKS_WHAT_DO_THEY_SAY_ABOUT_THE_CULTURE_OF_TEACHING
> >
> > It certainly seems to explain why no two people on this forum seem to agree on anything - except on who they disagree with the most.
> >
> > Ed
> As always, you pick a particular quotation of that book, thinking that the whole physics community agrees with that quote.

I didn't choose that quote because I think "the whole physics community" agrees with it.
I chose that quote because it is about TEACHING physics.

I'm researching physics textbooks. If one physics textbook describes the
Pound-Rebka experiment as being in agreement with Einstein's General
Relativity, and another textbook describes Pound-Rebka as demonstrating
a totally different (and INCORRECT) interpretation of General Relativity,
then clearly one textbook is correct and the other is incorrect. And other
experiments clearly show which book is correct and which isn't.

Ed

Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> wrote:
> On Monday, March 28, 2022 at 11:27:48 AM UTC-5, Paparios wrote:
>> El lunes, 28 de marzo de 2022 a las 12:59:51 UTC-3, escribió:
>>> "Those who do know physics do physics research.
>>> "Those who don’t know physics do physics teaching.
>>> "Those who don’t know how to do teaching teach how to teach physics."
>>>
>>> That quote is from a book of articles read at a 2009 conference about
>>> physics that was held at the University of Leicester in England. The
>>> key article is on page 31 and is titled "REPEATED ERRORS IN PHYSICS
>>> TEXTBOOKS: WHAT DO THEY SAY ABOUT THE CULTURE OF TEACHING?"
>>>
>>> This morning, someone sent me a link to a PDF copy of the book. Here's
>>> that l
>>> nk: https://www.academia.edu/keypass/VlJja0dnZk1XM29UaE5jOTY4d0FYUXdIMHVUL0VlSHp4QUg1Y1ZvWTJoST0tLVhxS2pCWDNkbWlvRkFlWCtWNDEvMHc9PQ==--9d34e8e8609733ae9d01ed83c941a6776198bbb3/t/sV7gu-QeWEppP-bdz4aD/2984508/REPEATED_ERRORS_IN_PHYSICS_TEXTBOOKS_WHAT_DO_THEY_SAY_ABOUT_THE_CULTURE_OF_TEACHING
>>>
>>>
>>> It certainly seems to explain why no two people on this forum seem to
>>> agree on anything - except on who they disagree with the most.
>>>
>>> Ed
>> As always, you pick a particular quotation of that book, thinking that
>> the whole physics community agrees with that quote.
>
> I didn't choose that quote because I think "the whole physics community"
> agrees with it.
> I chose that quote because it is about TEACHING physics.

That happens to synch with your own predilections. So easy to do on the
internet, isn’t it?

>
> I'm researching physics textbooks. If one physics textbook describes the
> Pound-Rebka experiment as being in agreement with Einstein's General
> Relativity, and another textbook describes Pound-Rebka as demonstrating
> a totally different (and INCORRECT) interpretation of General Relativity,
> then clearly one textbook is correct and the other is incorrect.

That depends on whether you have a decent understanding of general
relativity, doesn’t it? Do the books say they disagree with each other? Or
does one just agree with you (you think) and the other disagrees with you?

> And other
> experiments clearly show which book is correct and which isn't.
>
> Ed
>

--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

Ed Lake wrote:

> I'm researching physics textbooks. If one physics textbook describes
> the Pound-Rebka experiment as being in agreement with Einstein's General
> Relativity, and another textbook describes Pound-Rebka as demonstrating
> a totally different (and INCORRECT) interpretation of General
> Relativity, then clearly one textbook is correct and the other is
> incorrect. And other experiments clearly show which book is correct and
> which isn't.

paywall. Give the direct link to that crap, you stupid bag of rocks.

Ed Lake wrote:

> This morning, someone sent me a link to a PDF copy of the book. Here's
> that link:

nonsense, the corrupt nato collective western europe, and the deepen
corrupt gringos of america, bombing europe with larger bombs than Hirosima
and Nagasake, for decades now. *_Swine_flu_*, *_chicken_flu_* etc,
destroying the economy of the small countries of europe, willingly
participatory in collective western europe nato, criminal organization.

UK Column News - 28th March 2022 https://rumble.com/embed/vw7esa/

They know their countries are destroyed and say nothing. Deepen corrupt
organizations. *_Traitors_*, that for the sake of liberal capitalist
astronomic wages and privileges, are killing people around them, with no
mercy and regrets whatsoever. They are even blaming Russia, coming along,
proving the *war_crimes* in their faces.

that's why they don't love Russia, but supports the nazi "ukrainian"
criminals.

El lunes, 28 de marzo de 2022 a las 13:55:11 UTC-3, det...@outlook.com escribió:
> On Monday, March 28, 2022 at 11:27:48 AM UTC-5, Paparios wrote:
> > El lunes, 28 de marzo de 2022 a las 12:59:51 UTC-3, escribió:
> > > "Those who do know physics do physics research.
> > > "Those who don’t know physics do physics teaching.
> > > "Those who don’t know how to do teaching teach how to teach physics."
> > >
> > > That quote is from a book of articles read at a 2009 conference about physics that was held at the University of Leicester in England. The key article is on page 31 and is titled "REPEATED ERRORS IN PHYSICS TEXTBOOKS: WHAT DO THEY SAY ABOUT THE CULTURE OF TEACHING?"
> > >
> > > This morning, someone sent me a link to a PDF copy of the book. Here's that link: https://www.academia.edu/keypass/VlJja0dnZk1XM29UaE5jOTY4d0FYUXdIMHVUL0VlSHp4QUg1Y1ZvWTJoST0tLVhxS2pCWDNkbWlvRkFlWCtWNDEvMHc9PQ==--9d34e8e8609733ae9d01ed83c941a6776198bbb3/t/sV7gu-QeWEppP-bdz4aD/2984508/REPEATED_ERRORS_IN_PHYSICS_TEXTBOOKS_WHAT_DO_THEY_SAY_ABOUT_THE_CULTURE_OF_TEACHING
> > >
> > > It certainly seems to explain why no two people on this forum seem to agree on anything - except on who they disagree with the most.
> > >
> > > Ed
> > As always, you pick a particular quotation of that book, thinking that the whole physics community agrees with that quote.
> I didn't choose that quote because I think "the whole physics community" agrees with it.
> I chose that quote because it is about TEACHING physics.
>

And, of course, you agree that the quote shows how physics is done and taught!

> I'm researching physics textbooks. If one physics textbook describes the
> Pound-Rebka experiment as being in agreement with Einstein's General
> Relativity, and another textbook describes Pound-Rebka as demonstrating
> a totally different (and INCORRECT) interpretation of General Relativity,
> then clearly one textbook is correct and the other is incorrect. And other
> experiments clearly show which book is correct and which isn't.
>
> Ed

All physics experiments are carefully explained by the physicists which performed those experiments. You are a nobody which do not have any qualifications to affirm that textbooks "demonstrate a totally different (and INCORRECT) interpretation of General Relativity".

This the same nonsense that you write about Einstein postulates or principles, which are completely clear from the moment he wrote them, in his 1905 paper:

"1. The laws by which the states of physical systems undergo change are not
affected, whether these changes of state be referred to the one or the other of
two systems of co-ordinates in uniform translatory motion.
2. Any ray of light moves in the “stationary” system of co-ordinates with
the determined velocity c, whether the ray be emitted by a stationary or by a
moving body".

On Monday, March 28, 2022 at 12:00:57 PM UTC-5, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> Ed Lake wrote:
> > On Monday, March 28, 2022 at 11:27:48 AM UTC-5, Paparios wrote:
> >> El lunes, 28 de marzo de 2022 a las 12:59:51 UTC-3, escribió:
> >>> "Those who do know physics do physics research.
> >>> "Those who don’t know physics do physics teaching.
> >>> "Those who don’t know how to do teaching teach how to teach physics."
> >>>
> >>> That quote is from a book of articles read at a 2009 conference about
> >>> physics that was held at the University of Leicester in England. The
> >>> key article is on page 31 and is titled "REPEATED ERRORS IN PHYSICS
> >>> TEXTBOOKS: WHAT DO THEY SAY ABOUT THE CULTURE OF TEACHING?"
> >>>
> >>> This morning, someone sent me a link to a PDF copy of the book. Here's
> >>> that l
> >>> nk: https://www.academia.edu/keypass/VlJja0dnZk1XM29UaE5jOTY4d0FYUXdIMHVUL0VlSHp4QUg1Y1ZvWTJoST0tLVhxS2pCWDNkbWlvRkFlWCtWNDEvMHc9PQ==--9d34e8e8609733ae9d01ed83c941a6776198bbb3/t/sV7gu-QeWEppP-bdz4aD/2984508/REPEATED_ERRORS_IN_PHYSICS_TEXTBOOKS_WHAT_DO_THEY_SAY_ABOUT_THE_CULTURE_OF_TEACHING
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> It certainly seems to explain why no two people on this forum seem to
> >>> agree on anything - except on who they disagree with the most.
> >>>
> >>> Ed
> >> As always, you pick a particular quotation of that book, thinking that
> >> the whole physics community agrees with that quote.
> >
> > I didn't choose that quote because I think "the whole physics community"
> > agrees with it.
> > I chose that quote because it is about TEACHING physics.
> That happens to synch with your own predilections. So easy to do on the
> internet, isn’t it?
> >
> > I'm researching physics textbooks. If one physics textbook describes the
> > Pound-Rebka experiment as being in agreement with Einstein's General
> > Relativity, and another textbook describes Pound-Rebka as demonstrating
> > a totally different (and INCORRECT) interpretation of General Relativity,
> > then clearly one textbook is correct and the other is incorrect.
> That depends on whether you have a decent understanding of general
> relativity, doesn’t it? Do the books say they disagree with each other? Or
> does one just agree with you (you think) and the other disagrees with you?

The books don’t SAY they disagree with each other. I doubt any textbook is going to SAY that it disagrees with other textbooks about some key issue.
Here is what Robert Pound and Glen Rebka Jr. wrote in their Nov. 1, 1959 paper where they described the experiment they were going to perform:

-------------------- start quote --------------------
It is widely considered desirable to check experimentally the view that the frequencies of electromagnetic spectral lines are sensitive to the gravitational potential at the position of the EMITTING SYSTEM. The several theories of relativity predict the frequency to be proportional to the gravitational potential.
---------------------- end quote -------------------

Link: https://link.aps.org/pdf/10.1103/PhysRevLett.3.439

When they finished the experiment, they wrote another paper dated April 1, 1960 in which they described the confirmed results of their experiment. The title of the second paper was “Apparent Weight of Photons.”

Link: https://link.aps.org/pdf/10.1103/PhysRevLett.4.337

Here is a list of the Top 9 physics textbooks: https://thecollegeapplication.com/best-physics-textbooks-for-college-today/

Here is what it says about the Pound-Rebka experiment on page 718 of the 12th edition of “Conceptual Physics” by Paul G. Hewitt, which is #2 on that list of the top 9 physics textbooks:

------------------ start quote ----------------------
All atoms emit light at specific frequencies characteristic of the vibrational rate of electrons within the atom. Every atom is therefore a “clock,” and a slowing down of atomic vibration indicates the slowing down of such clocks. An atom on the Sun should emit light of a lower frequency (slower vibration) than light emitted by the same element on Earth. Since red light is at the low-frequency end of the visible spectrum, a lowering of frequency shifts the color toward the red. This effect is called the gravitational red shift. The gravitational red shift is observed in light from the Sun, but various disturbing influences prevent accurate measurements of this tiny effect. It wasn’t until 1960 that an entirely new technique, using gamma rays from radioactive atoms, permitted incredibly precise and confirming measurements of THE GRAVITATIONAL SLOWING OF TIME between the top and bottom floors of a laboratory building at Harvard University.1

1In the late 1950s, shortly after Einstein’s death, the German physicist Rudolph Mössbauer discovered an important effect in nuclear physics that provides an extremely accurate method of using atomic nuclei as atomic clocks. The Mössbauer effect, for which its discoverer was awarded the Nobel Prize, has many practical applications. In late 1959, Robert Pound and Glen Rebka at Harvard University conceived an application that was a test for general relativity and performed the confirming experiment.
--------------------- end quote --------------
Link: https://www.amazon.com/Conceptual-Physics-Paul-G-Hewitt-ebook/dp/B00K57XDBG/

And here is what it says about Pound-Rebka on page 488 of the #6 book on that Top 9 list, “Modern Physics” by Kenneth Krane:

----------------- start quote -----------------
The principle of equivalence thus predicts a change in frequency of a light WAVE FALLING in the Earth’s gravity.
In 1959, R. V. Pound and G. A. Rebka allowed 14.4-keV photons from the radioactive decay of 57Co to FALL down the Harvard tower, a distance of 22.6 m. The expected fractional change in frequency, ∆f /f = gH/c2, was 2.46 × 10−15; that is, to detect the effect, they had to measure the frequency or energy of the photon at the bottom of the tower to a precision of about 1 part in 1015!
-------------- end quote ------------------
Link: http://27.109.7.67:1111/library/downloads/SS.pdf

------------- analysis --------------
“Conceptual Physics” explains how an atom at a high altitude EMITS a photon that oscillates faster than what an atom EMITS at a lower altitude. And that is what Pound and Rebka said, too.

“Modern Physics” says that the “wave” or photon changes frequency as it “FALLS” in Earth’s gravity.
That is wrong.

Ed

On Monday, March 28, 2022 at 1:56:09 PM UTC-5, Paparios wrote:
> El lunes, 28 de marzo de 2022 a las 13:55:11 UTC-3, escribió:
> > On Monday, March 28, 2022 at 11:27:48 AM UTC-5, Paparios wrote:
> > > El lunes, 28 de marzo de 2022 a las 12:59:51 UTC-3, escribió:
> > > > "Those who do know physics do physics research.
> > > > "Those who don’t know physics do physics teaching.
> > > > "Those who don’t know how to do teaching teach how to teach physics."
> > > >
> > > > That quote is from a book of articles read at a 2009 conference about physics that was held at the University of Leicester in England. The key article is on page 31 and is titled "REPEATED ERRORS IN PHYSICS TEXTBOOKS: WHAT DO THEY SAY ABOUT THE CULTURE OF TEACHING?"
> > > >
> > > > This morning, someone sent me a link to a PDF copy of the book. Here's that link: https://www.academia.edu/keypass/VlJja0dnZk1XM29UaE5jOTY4d0FYUXdIMHVUL0VlSHp4QUg1Y1ZvWTJoST0tLVhxS2pCWDNkbWlvRkFlWCtWNDEvMHc9PQ==--9d34e8e8609733ae9d01ed83c941a6776198bbb3/t/sV7gu-QeWEppP-bdz4aD/2984508/REPEATED_ERRORS_IN_PHYSICS_TEXTBOOKS_WHAT_DO_THEY_SAY_ABOUT_THE_CULTURE_OF_TEACHING
> > > >
> > > > It certainly seems to explain why no two people on this forum seem to agree on anything - except on who they disagree with the most.
> > > >
> > > > Ed
> > > As always, you pick a particular quotation of that book, thinking that the whole physics community agrees with that quote.
> > I didn't choose that quote because I think "the whole physics community" agrees with it.
> > I chose that quote because it is about TEACHING physics.
> >
> And, of course, you agree that the quote shows how physics is done and taught!
> > I'm researching physics textbooks. If one physics textbook describes the
> > Pound-Rebka experiment as being in agreement with Einstein's General
> > Relativity, and another textbook describes Pound-Rebka as demonstrating
> > a totally different (and INCORRECT) interpretation of General Relativity,
> > then clearly one textbook is correct and the other is incorrect. And other
> > experiments clearly show which book is correct and which isn't.
> >
> > Ed
> All physics experiments are carefully explained by the physicists which performed those experiments. You are a nobody which do not have any qualifications to affirm that textbooks "demonstrate a totally different (and INCORRECT) interpretation of General Relativity".

So, all you can do is attack me personally? You cannot actually discuss the topic?

Ed

Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> wrote:
> On Monday, March 28, 2022 at 12:00:57 PM UTC-5, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>> Ed Lake wrote:
>>> On Monday, March 28, 2022 at 11:27:48 AM UTC-5, Paparios wrote:
>>>> El lunes, 28 de marzo de 2022 a las 12:59:51 UTC-3, escribió:
>>>>> "Those who do know physics do physics research.
>>>>> "Those who don’t know physics do physics teaching.
>>>>> "Those who don’t know how to do teaching teach how to teach physics."
>>>>>
>>>>> That quote is from a book of articles read at a 2009 conference about
>>>>> physics that was held at the University of Leicester in England. The
>>>>> key article is on page 31 and is titled "REPEATED ERRORS IN PHYSICS
>>>>> TEXTBOOKS: WHAT DO THEY SAY ABOUT THE CULTURE OF TEACHING?"
>>>>>
>>>>> This morning, someone sent me a link to a PDF copy of the book. Here's
>>>>> that l
>>>>> nk:
>>>>> https://www.academia.edu/keypass/VlJja0dnZk1XM29UaE5jOTY4d0FYUXdIMHVUL0VlSHp4QUg1Y1ZvWTJoST0tLVhxS2pCWDNkbWlvRkFlWCtWNDEvMHc9PQ==--9d34e8e8609733ae9d01ed83c941a6776198bbb3/t/sV7gu-QeWEppP-bdz4aD/2984508/REPEATED_ERRORS_IN_PHYSICS_TEXTBOOKS_WHAT_DO_THEY_SAY_ABOUT_THE_CULTURE_OF_TEACHING
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> It certainly seems to explain why no two people on this forum seem to
>>>>> agree on anything - except on who they disagree with the most.
>>>>>
>>>>> Ed
>>>> As always, you pick a particular quotation of that book, thinking that
>>>> the whole physics community agrees with that quote.
>>>
>>> I didn't choose that quote because I think "the whole physics community"
>>> agrees with it.
>>> I chose that quote because it is about TEACHING physics.
>> That happens to synch with your own predilections. So easy to do on the
>> internet, isn’t it?
>>>
>>> I'm researching physics textbooks. If one physics textbook describes the
>>> Pound-Rebka experiment as being in agreement with Einstein's General
>>> Relativity, and another textbook describes Pound-Rebka as demonstrating
>>> a totally different (and INCORRECT) interpretation of General Relativity,
>>> then clearly one textbook is correct and the other is incorrect.
>> That depends on whether you have a decent understanding of general
>> relativity, doesn’t it? Do the books say they disagree with each other? Or
>> does one just agree with you (you think) and the other disagrees with you?
>
> The books don’t SAY they disagree with each other. I doubt any textbook
> is going to SAY that it disagrees with other textbooks about some key issue.

Then you are literally making something up when you say they do disagree
with each other.
What you CAN say is that you THINK one book agrees with something you
believe and that you THINK another book disagrees with something you
believe. But that’s something entirely different.

> Here is what Robert Pound and Glen Rebka Jr. wrote in their Nov. 1, 1959
> paper where they described the experiment they were going to perform:
>
> -------------------- start quote --------------------
> It is widely considered desirable to check experimentally the view that
> the frequencies of electromagnetic spectral lines are sensitive to the
> gravitational potential at the position of the EMITTING SYSTEM. The
> several theories of relativity predict the frequency to be proportional
> to the gravitational potential.
> ---------------------- end quote -------------------

The above is an example of where you are likely to misconstrue. You read it
as testing that it ONLY depends on the position of the emitting system.
Physicists know already that what matters is the DIFFERENCE in the
gravitational potential between the emitting AND the receiving system. And
so physicists will correctly read that as “keeping the position of the
receiving system the same, check experimentally that the frequencies will
be shown to vary by changing the position of the emitting system, which is
effectively changing the DIFFERENCE in the gravitational potential.”

This is also where you are going to ask, “Well, if that’s what they meant,
then why did they not say that?” And the answer is that they DO NOT HAVE TO
be so explicit for their intended audience, which is a group of physicists
who have a grasp of the underlying background concepts. This is a case
where people who are NOT physicists are likely to misconstrue the paper (as
you have done) because you lack the background to be able to parse that
language correctly.

>
> Link: https://link.aps.org/pdf/10.1103/PhysRevLett.3.439
>
> When they finished the experiment, they wrote another paper dated April
> 1, 1960 in which they described the confirmed results of their
> experiment. The title of the second paper was “Apparent Weight of Photons.”
>
> Link: https://link.aps.org/pdf/10.1103/PhysRevLett.4.337
>
> Here is a list of the Top 9 physics textbooks:
> https://thecollegeapplication.com/best-physics-textbooks-for-college-today/
>
> Here is what it says about the Pound-Rebka experiment on page 718 of the
> 12th edition of “Conceptual Physics” by Paul G. Hewitt, which is #2 on
> that list of the top 9 physics textbooks:
>
> ------------------ start quote ----------------------
> All atoms emit light at specific frequencies characteristic of the
> vibrational rate of electrons within the atom. Every atom is therefore a
> “clock,” and a slowing down of atomic vibration indicates the slowing
> down of such clocks. An atom on the Sun should emit light of a lower
> frequency (slower vibration) than light emitted by the same element on
> Earth. Since red light is at the low-frequency end of the visible
> spectrum, a lowering of frequency shifts the color toward the red. This
> effect is called the gravitational red shift. The gravitational red shift
> is observed in light from the Sun, but various disturbing influences
> prevent accurate measurements of this tiny effect. It wasn’t until 1960
> that an entirely new technique, using gamma rays from radioactive atoms,
> permitted incredibly precise and confirming measurements of THE
> GRAVITATIONAL SLOWING OF TIME between the top and bottom floors of a
> laboratory building at Harvard University.1
>
> 1In the late 1950s, shortly after Einstein’s death, the German physicist
> Rudolph Mössbauer discovered an important effect in nuclear physics that
> provides an extremely accurate method of using atomic nuclei as atomic
> clocks. The Mössbauer effect, for which its discoverer was awarded the
> Nobel Prize, has many practical applications. In late 1959, Robert Pound
> and Glen Rebka at Harvard University conceived an application that was a
> test for general relativity and performed the confirming experiment.
> --------------------- end quote --------------
> Link: https://www.amazon.com/Conceptual-Physics-Paul-G-Hewitt-ebook/dp/B00K57XDBG/
>
> And here is what it says about Pound-Rebka on page 488 of the #6 book on
> that Top 9 list, “Modern Physics” by Kenneth Krane:
>
> ----------------- start quote -----------------
> The principle of equivalence thus predicts a change in frequency of a
> light WAVE FALLING in the Earth’s gravity.
> In 1959, R. V. Pound and G. A. Rebka allowed 14.4-keV photons from the
> radioactive decay of 57Co to FALL down the Harvard tower, a distance of
> 22.6 m. The expected fractional change in frequency, ∆f /f = gH/c2, was
> 2.46 × 10−15; that is, to detect the effect, they had to measure the
> frequency or energy of the photon at the bottom of the tower to a
> precision of about 1 part in 1015!
> -------------- end quote ------------------
> Link: http://27.109.7.67:1111/library/downloads/SS.pdf
>
> ------------- analysis --------------
> “Conceptual Physics” explains how an atom at a high altitude EMITS a
> photon that oscillates faster than what an atom EMITS at a lower
> altitude. And that is what Pound and Rebka said, too.

No, and that’s where you’re misconstruing has kicked in, by focusing on the
word “EMISSION” as being the only thing that matters, when in fact is the
DIFFERENCE in gravitational potential that matters, and it is indeed the
fact that the same photon traversed that potential DIFFERENCE that matters.
You just didn’t know enough physics to be able to parse what Pound and
Rebka said correctly.

>
> “Modern Physics” says that the “wave” or photon changes frequency as it
> “FALLS” in Earth’s gravity.
> That is wrong.
>
> Ed
>

--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> wrote:
> On Monday, March 28, 2022 at 1:56:09 PM UTC-5, Paparios wrote:
>> El lunes, 28 de marzo de 2022 a las 13:55:11 UTC-3, escribió:
>>> On Monday, March 28, 2022 at 11:27:48 AM UTC-5, Paparios wrote:
>>>> El lunes, 28 de marzo de 2022 a las 12:59:51 UTC-3, escribió:
>>>>> "Those who do know physics do physics research.
>>>>> "Those who don’t know physics do physics teaching.
>>>>> "Those who don’t know how to do teaching teach how to teach physics."
>>>>>
>>>>> That quote is from a book of articles read at a 2009 conference about
>>>>> physics that was held at the University of Leicester in England. The
>>>>> key article is on page 31 and is titled "REPEATED ERRORS IN PHYSICS
>>>>> TEXTBOOKS: WHAT DO THEY SAY ABOUT THE CULTURE OF TEACHING?"
>>>>>
>>>>> This morning, someone sent me a link to a PDF copy of the book.
>>>>> Here's that
>>>>> link: https://www.academia.edu/keypass/VlJja0dnZk1XM29UaE5jOTY4d0FYUXdIMHVUL0VlSHp4QUg1Y1ZvWTJoST0tLVhxS2pCWDNkbWlvRkFlWCtWNDEvMHc9PQ==--9d34e8e8609733ae9d01ed83c941a6776198bbb3/t/sV7gu-QeWEppP-bdz4aD/2984508/REPEATED_ERRORS_IN_PHYSICS_TEXTBOOKS_WHAT_DO_THEY_SAY_ABOUT_THE_CULTURE_OF_TEACHING
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> It certainly seems to explain why no two people on this forum seem to
>>>>> agree on anything - except on who they disagree with the most.
>>>>>
>>>>> Ed
>>>> As always, you pick a particular quotation of that book, thinking that
>>>> the whole physics community agrees with that quote.
>>> I didn't choose that quote because I think "the whole physics community" agrees with it.
>>> I chose that quote because it is about TEACHING physics.
>>>
>> And, of course, you agree that the quote shows how physics is done and taught!
>>> I'm researching physics textbooks. If one physics textbook describes the
>>> Pound-Rebka experiment as being in agreement with Einstein's General
>>> Relativity, and another textbook describes Pound-Rebka as demonstrating
>>> a totally different (and INCORRECT) interpretation of General Relativity,
>>> then clearly one textbook is correct and the other is incorrect. And other
>>> experiments clearly show which book is correct and which isn't.
>>>
>>> Ed
>> All physics experiments are carefully explained by the physicists which
>> performed those experiments. You are a nobody which do not have any
>> qualifications to affirm that textbooks "demonstrate a totally different
>> (and INCORRECT) interpretation of General Relativity".
>
> So, all you can do is attack me personally? You cannot actually discuss the topic?
>
> Ed
>

The reason for the personal attack, Ed, is that because of your deep lack
of background in physics, you are prone to misread things that are said in
articles that are over your head. Physicists have context that you lack,
and so when something is ASSUMED TO BE UNDERSTOOD by the audience of those
papers but LEFT UNSAID, you are naturally going to be unequipped to
understand things correctly.

MOST articles that are written for professional physicists are going to be
impossible to be correctly understood by anyone who is lacking six years of
physics education at least. Most textbooks that are written for graduate
students will not be correctly understandable by anyone who is lacking two
or three years of physics education at least. The only textbooks that are
correctly understandable by people without any background in physics are
first-year textbooks and popularizations. And popularizations are going to
represent things poorly because it is not their aim to teach the material
but to gee-whiz people.

--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

El lunes, 28 de marzo de 2022 a las 17:27:36 UTC-3, det...@outlook.com escribió:
> On Monday, March 28, 2022 at 1:56:09 PM UTC-5, Paparios wrote:

> > All physics experiments are carefully explained by the physicists which performed those experiments. You are a nobody which do not have any qualifications to affirm that textbooks "demonstrate a totally different (and INCORRECT) interpretation of General Relativity".
> So, all you can do is attack me personally? You cannot actually discuss the topic?
>

The topic you have started here is "Repeated Errors in Physics Textbooks". You are asserting (without any proof) that physics textbooks contain "errors". In fact you are writing a "book" where chapter 11 is entitled "The textbook problem".

One of your old problems is that you do not read the references that you use in your writings. As an example, you insist that Einstein
principle of the constancy of the speed of light is only what he wrote in page 1 of his 1905 paper:

"light is always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c which is independent of the state of motion of the emitting body".

But he defined that principle precisely in page 4 as:

"2. Any ray of light moves in the “stationary” system of co-ordinates with the determined velocity c, whether the ray be emitted by a stationary or by a moving body".

Everyone knowing a little of English can verify that both paragraphs say the same. The state of motion of the emitting body can be, for sure, either being stationary or being moving.

On Monday, March 28, 2022 at 4:23:18 PM UTC-5, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> Ed Lake wrote:
> > On Monday, March 28, 2022 at 12:00:57 PM UTC-5, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:

(snip)

> > Here is what Robert Pound and Glen Rebka Jr. wrote in their Nov. 1, 1959
> > paper where they described the experiment they were going to perform:
> >
> > -------------------- start quote --------------------
> > It is widely considered desirable to check experimentally the view that
> > the frequencies of electromagnetic spectral lines are sensitive to the
> > gravitational potential at the position of the EMITTING SYSTEM. The
> > several theories of relativity predict the frequency to be proportional
> > to the gravitational potential.
> > ---------------------- end quote -------------------
> The above is an example of where you are likely to misconstrue. You read it
> as testing that it ONLY depends on the position of the emitting system.
> Physicists know already that what matters is the DIFFERENCE in the
> gravitational potential between the emitting AND the receiving system. And
> so physicists will correctly read that as “keeping the position of the
> receiving system the same, check experimentally that the frequencies will
> be shown to vary by changing the position of the emitting system, which is
> effectively changing the DIFFERENCE in the gravitational potential.”

You simply don't understand. The issue is NOT about measuring the difference.
Obviously you must MEASURE the difference to KNOW there IS a difference.
The real and only issue is WHAT CAUSES the difference.

The CAUSE of the difference is that TIME ticks at a FASTER rate at the top
of a building than at the bottom of that same building.

> >
> > Link: https://link.aps.org/pdf/10.1103/PhysRevLett.3.439
> >
> > When they finished the experiment, they wrote another paper dated April
> > 1, 1960 in which they described the confirmed results of their
> > experiment. The title of the second paper was “Apparent Weight of Photons.”
> >
> > Link: https://link.aps.org/pdf/10.1103/PhysRevLett.4.337
> >
> > Here is a list of the Top 9 physics textbooks:
> > https://thecollegeapplication.com/best-physics-textbooks-for-college-today/
> >
> > Here is what it says about the Pound-Rebka experiment on page 718 of the
> > 12th edition of “Conceptual Physics” by Paul G. Hewitt, which is #2 on
> > that list of the top 9 physics textbooks:
> >
> > ------------------ start quote ----------------------
> > All atoms emit light at specific frequencies characteristic of the
> > vibrational rate of electrons within the atom. Every atom is therefore a
> > “clock,” and a slowing down of atomic vibration indicates the slowing
> > down of such clocks. An atom on the Sun should emit light of a lower
> > frequency (slower vibration) than light emitted by the same element on
> > Earth. Since red light is at the low-frequency end of the visible
> > spectrum, a lowering of frequency shifts the color toward the red. This
> > effect is called the gravitational red shift. The gravitational red shift
> > is observed in light from the Sun, but various disturbing influences
> > prevent accurate measurements of this tiny effect. It wasn’t until 1960
> > that an entirely new technique, using gamma rays from radioactive atoms,
> > permitted incredibly precise and confirming measurements of THE
> > GRAVITATIONAL SLOWING OF TIME between the top and bottom floors of a
> > laboratory building at Harvard University.1
> >
> > 1In the late 1950s, shortly after Einstein’s death, the German physicist
> > Rudolph Mössbauer discovered an important effect in nuclear physics that
> > provides an extremely accurate method of using atomic nuclei as atomic
> > clocks. The Mössbauer effect, for which its discoverer was awarded the
> > Nobel Prize, has many practical applications. In late 1959, Robert Pound
> > and Glen Rebka at Harvard University conceived an application that was a
> > test for general relativity and performed the confirming experiment.
> > --------------------- end quote --------------
> > Link: https://www.amazon.com/Conceptual-Physics-Paul-G-Hewitt-ebook/dp/B00K57XDBG/
> >
> > And here is what it says about Pound-Rebka on page 488 of the #6 book on
> > that Top 9 list, “Modern Physics” by Kenneth Krane:
> >
> > ----------------- start quote -----------------
> > The principle of equivalence thus predicts a change in frequency of a
> > light WAVE FALLING in the Earth’s gravity.
> > In 1959, R. V. Pound and G. A. Rebka allowed 14.4-keV photons from the
> > radioactive decay of 57Co to FALL down the Harvard tower, a distance of
> > 22.6 m. The expected fractional change in frequency, ∆f /f = gH/c2, was
> > 2.46 × 10−15; that is, to detect the effect, they had to measure the
> > frequency or energy of the photon at the bottom of the tower to a
> > precision of about 1 part in 1015!
> > -------------- end quote ------------------
> > Link: http://27.109.7.67:1111/library/downloads/SS.pdf
> >
> > ------------- analysis --------------
> > “Conceptual Physics” explains how an atom at a high altitude EMITS a
> > photon that oscillates faster than what an atom EMITS at a lower
> > altitude. And that is what Pound and Rebka said, too.

> No, and that’s where you’re misconstruing has kicked in, by focusing on the
> word “EMISSION” as being the only thing that matters, when in fact is the
> DIFFERENCE in gravitational potential that matters, and it is indeed the
> fact that the same photon traversed that potential DIFFERENCE that matters.
> You just didn’t know enough physics to be able to parse what Pound and
> Rebka said correctly.

YES! The DIFFERENCE IS what matters. But more importantly, the CAUSE
of the difference is what truly matters.

Pound and Rebka demonstrated that TIME ticks at a FASTER rate atop a
building than at the bottom of a building. That means that a billion times per
second at the top of a building is FASTER than a billion times per second at the
bottom of the same building.

Therefore the CAUSE of the difference in the photon frequencies is the difference
in TIME at the different altitudes. That is what "Conceptual Physics" says, that is
what Pound and Rebka said, and that is what Einstein said.

> >
> > “Modern Physics” says that the “wave” or photon changes frequency as it
> > “FALLS” in Earth’s gravity.
> > That is wrong.

YES, it is wrong because a wave or photon DOES NOT CHANGE FREQUENCY as it
FALLS. The photon was a different frequency WHEN IT WAS CREATED

Ed

On Monday, March 28, 2022 at 4:39:21 PM UTC-5, Paparios wrote:
> El lunes, 28 de marzo de 2022 a las 17:27:36 UTC-3, escribió:
> > On Monday, March 28, 2022 at 1:56:09 PM UTC-5, Paparios wrote:
>
> > > All physics experiments are carefully explained by the physicists which performed those experiments. You are a nobody which do not have any qualifications to affirm that textbooks "demonstrate a totally different (and INCORRECT) interpretation of General Relativity".
> > So, all you can do is attack me personally? You cannot actually discuss the topic?
> >
> The topic you have started here is "Repeated Errors in Physics Textbooks".. You are asserting (without any proof) that physics textbooks contain "errors". In fact you are writing a "book" where chapter 11 is entitled "The textbook problem".
>
> One of your old problems is that you do not read the references that you use in your writings. As an example, you insist that Einstein
> principle of the constancy of the speed of light is only what he wrote in page 1 of his 1905 paper:
>
> "light is always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c which is independent of the state of motion of the emitting body".
>
> But he defined that principle precisely in page 4 as:
> "2. Any ray of light moves in the “stationary” system of co-ordinates with the determined velocity c, whether the ray be emitted by a stationary or by a moving body".
> Everyone knowing a little of English can verify that both paragraphs say the same. The state of motion of the emitting body can be, for sure, either being stationary or being moving.

You clearly do not understand ENGLISH, Paparios. Those two paragraphs do NOT say the same.

The first one says that light is ALWAYS EMITTED at c in empty space.
The second one is just about what happens when that light is viewed in a
"stationary system of co-ordinates."

Light is emitted at c whether the emitter is moving or stationary, accelerating or
decelerating. That is the KEY FACT. How the EMITTED PHOTONS are VIEWED in a
"stationary system of coordinates" is important, too, but it's a different issue.

Ed

Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> wrote:
> On Monday, March 28, 2022 at 4:23:18 PM UTC-5, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>> Ed Lake wrote:
>>> On Monday, March 28, 2022 at 12:00:57 PM UTC-5, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> (snip)
>
>>> Here is what Robert Pound and Glen Rebka Jr. wrote in their Nov. 1, 1959
>>> paper where they described the experiment they were going to perform:
>>>
>>> -------------------- start quote --------------------
>>> It is widely considered desirable to check experimentally the view that
>>> the frequencies of electromagnetic spectral lines are sensitive to the
>>> gravitational potential at the position of the EMITTING SYSTEM. The
>>> several theories of relativity predict the frequency to be proportional
>>> to the gravitational potential.
>>> ---------------------- end quote -------------------
>> The above is an example of where you are likely to misconstrue. You read it
>> as testing that it ONLY depends on the position of the emitting system.
>> Physicists know already that what matters is the DIFFERENCE in the
>> gravitational potential between the emitting AND the receiving system. And
>> so physicists will correctly read that as “keeping the position of the
>> receiving system the same, check experimentally that the frequencies will
>> be shown to vary by changing the position of the emitting system, which is
>> effectively changing the DIFFERENCE in the gravitational potential.”
>
> You simply don't understand. The issue is NOT about measuring the difference.
> Obviously you must MEASURE the difference to KNOW there IS a difference.
> The real and only issue is WHAT CAUSES the difference.
>
> The CAUSE of the difference is that TIME ticks at a FASTER rate at the top
> of a building than at the bottom of that same building.

No, and this is what I’m talking about. You have a preconceived idea of
what the cause is, and then you go mining papers for snippets that you
think support YOUR idea, rather than asking what it is they had in mind. In
this case p, you keyed on the word EMISSION and said, “See? The authors
agree with me that there is something different about the emission process
at higher and lower elevations.” But in fact, that’s not what they were
saying at all. What they stated was that by varying the height at which the
emission occurred, thus varying the difference between emission and
receiving points, they could experimentally validate the change in
frequency from emission to reception.

But you are so keyed on YOUR PRECONCEIVED IDEA that even single words get
mined out and misinterpreted as supporting your contention.

>
>>>
>>> Link: https://link.aps.org/pdf/10.1103/PhysRevLett.3.439
>>>
>>> When they finished the experiment, they wrote another paper dated April
>>> 1, 1960 in which they described the confirmed results of their
>>> experiment. The title of the second paper was “Apparent Weight of Photons.”
>>>
>>> Link: https://link.aps.org/pdf/10.1103/PhysRevLett.4.337
>>>
>>> Here is a list of the Top 9 physics textbooks:
>>> https://thecollegeapplication.com/best-physics-textbooks-for-college-today/
>>>
>>> Here is what it says about the Pound-Rebka experiment on page 718 of the
>>> 12th edition of “Conceptual Physics” by Paul G. Hewitt, which is #2 on
>>> that list of the top 9 physics textbooks:
>>>
>>> ------------------ start quote ----------------------
>>> All atoms emit light at specific frequencies characteristic of the
>>> vibrational rate of electrons within the atom. Every atom is therefore a
>>> “clock,” and a slowing down of atomic vibration indicates the slowing
>>> down of such clocks. An atom on the Sun should emit light of a lower
>>> frequency (slower vibration) than light emitted by the same element on
>>> Earth. Since red light is at the low-frequency end of the visible
>>> spectrum, a lowering of frequency shifts the color toward the red. This
>>> effect is called the gravitational red shift. The gravitational red shift
>>> is observed in light from the Sun, but various disturbing influences
>>> prevent accurate measurements of this tiny effect. It wasn’t until 1960
>>> that an entirely new technique, using gamma rays from radioactive atoms,
>>> permitted incredibly precise and confirming measurements of THE
>>> GRAVITATIONAL SLOWING OF TIME between the top and bottom floors of a
>>> laboratory building at Harvard University.1
>>>
>>> 1In the late 1950s, shortly after Einstein’s death, the German physicist
>>> Rudolph Mössbauer discovered an important effect in nuclear physics that
>>> provides an extremely accurate method of using atomic nuclei as atomic
>>> clocks. The Mössbauer effect, for which its discoverer was awarded the
>>> Nobel Prize, has many practical applications. In late 1959, Robert Pound
>>> and Glen Rebka at Harvard University conceived an application that was a
>>> test for general relativity and performed the confirming experiment.
>>> --------------------- end quote --------------
>>> Link: https://www.amazon.com/Conceptual-Physics-Paul-G-Hewitt-ebook/dp/B00K57XDBG/
>>>
>>> And here is what it says about Pound-Rebka on page 488 of the #6 book on
>>> that Top 9 list, “Modern Physics” by Kenneth Krane:
>>>
>>> ----------------- start quote -----------------
>>> The principle of equivalence thus predicts a change in frequency of a
>>> light WAVE FALLING in the Earth’s gravity.
>>> In 1959, R. V. Pound and G. A. Rebka allowed 14.4-keV photons from the
>>> radioactive decay of 57Co to FALL down the Harvard tower, a distance of
>>> 22.6 m. The expected fractional change in frequency, ∆f /f = gH/c2, was
>>> 2.46 × 10−15; that is, to detect the effect, they had to measure the
>>> frequency or energy of the photon at the bottom of the tower to a
>>> precision of about 1 part in 1015!
>>> -------------- end quote ------------------
>>> Link: http://27.109.7.67:1111/library/downloads/SS.pdf
>>>
>>> ------------- analysis --------------
>>> “Conceptual Physics” explains how an atom at a high altitude EMITS a
>>> photon that oscillates faster than what an atom EMITS at a lower
>>> altitude. And that is what Pound and Rebka said, too.
>
>> No, and that’s where you’re misconstruing has kicked in, by focusing on the
>> word “EMISSION” as being the only thing that matters, when in fact is the
>> DIFFERENCE in gravitational potential that matters, and it is indeed the
>> fact that the same photon traversed that potential DIFFERENCE that matters.
>> You just didn’t know enough physics to be able to parse what Pound and
>> Rebka said correctly.
>
> YES! The DIFFERENCE IS what matters. But more importantly, the CAUSE
> of the difference is what truly matters.
>
> Pound and Rebka demonstrated that TIME ticks at a FASTER rate atop a
> building than at the bottom of a building. That means that a billion times per
> second at the top of a building is FASTER than a billion times per second at the
> bottom of the same building.

No, that is not what they claimed to have proven. That is YOUR
INTERPRETATION, and it’s based on the inclusion of a SINGLE WORD: emission.
They did NOT say that the cause of the effect was that time ticks at faster
rate at higher elevations, but that’s what you wanted to see, because it’s
what you believe is going on.

So the exercise for you — the most important thing you can do — is to
ABSTAIN from having an opinion about the explanation, until you’ve read a
lot more about the phenomena that you’re interested in. This is not your
habit, but the habit you do have gets you in trouble fast.

>
> Therefore the CAUSE of the difference in the photon frequencies is the difference
> in TIME at the different altitudes. That is what "Conceptual Physics" says, that is
> what Pound and Rebka said, and that is what Einstein said.
>
>>>
>>> “Modern Physics” says that the “wave” or photon changes frequency as it
>>> “FALLS” in Earth’s gravity.
>>> That is wrong.
>
> YES, it is wrong because a wave or photon DOES NOT CHANGE FREQUENCY as it
> FALLS.

This is your opinion. It’s also not what physicists think.

> The photon was a different frequency WHEN IT WAS CREATED
>
> Ed
>

--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

On Tuesday, March 29, 2022 at 10:24:56 AM UTC-4, det...@outlook.com wrote:

> You clearly do not understand ENGLISH, Paparios.

I maintain that it is YOU that does not Cleary understand ENGLISH. See below.

> Those two paragraphs do NOT say the same.

Yes they do.

> The first one says that light is ALWAYS EMITTED at c ...

Just in that sentence, who is the 'observer' , the one noting that the
speed is c?

> Light is emitted at c whether the emitter is moving or stationary, accelerating or
> decelerating.

Again, who is the observer that is noting that the speed is c in those cases?

On Tuesday, March 29, 2022 at 12:52:42 PM UTC-5, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> Ed Lake wrote:
> > On Monday, March 28, 2022 at 4:23:18 PM UTC-5, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> Ed Lake wrote:
> >>> On Monday, March 28, 2022 at 12:00:57 PM UTC-5, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >
> > (snip)
> >
> >>> Here is what Robert Pound and Glen Rebka Jr. wrote in their Nov. 1, 1959
> >>> paper where they described the experiment they were going to perform:
> >>>
> >>> -------------------- start quote --------------------
> >>> It is widely considered desirable to check experimentally the view that
> >>> the frequencies of electromagnetic spectral lines are sensitive to the
> >>> gravitational potential at the position of the EMITTING SYSTEM. The
> >>> several theories of relativity predict the frequency to be proportional
> >>> to the gravitational potential.
> >>> ---------------------- end quote -------------------
> >> The above is an example of where you are likely to misconstrue. You read it
> >> as testing that it ONLY depends on the position of the emitting system..
> >> Physicists know already that what matters is the DIFFERENCE in the
> >> gravitational potential between the emitting AND the receiving system. And
> >> so physicists will correctly read that as “keeping the position of the
> >> receiving system the same, check experimentally that the frequencies will
> >> be shown to vary by changing the position of the emitting system, which is
> >> effectively changing the DIFFERENCE in the gravitational potential.”
> >
> > You simply don't understand. The issue is NOT about measuring the difference.
> > Obviously you must MEASURE the difference to KNOW there IS a difference..
> > The real and only issue is WHAT CAUSES the difference.
> >
> > The CAUSE of the difference is that TIME ticks at a FASTER rate at the top
> > of a building than at the bottom of that same building.
> No, and this is what I’m talking about. You have a preconceived idea of
> what the cause is, and then you go mining papers for snippets that you
> think support YOUR idea, rather than asking what it is they had in mind. In
> this case p, you keyed on the word EMISSION and said, “See? The authors
> agree with me that there is something different about the emission process
> at higher and lower elevations.” But in fact, that’s not what they were
> saying at all. What they stated was that by varying the height at which the
> emission occurred, thus varying the difference between emission and
> receiving points, they could experimentally validate the change in
> frequency from emission to reception.

But WHY? Do you really believe that Pound and Rebka DIDN'T CARE WHY
"they could experimentally validate the change in frequency from emission to reception"?

The paper they wrote after the experiment says,

------- start quote ----
As we proposed a few months ago, we have now measured the effect, originally hypothesized
by Einstein, of GRAVITATIONAL POTENTIAL on the apparent frequency of electromagnetic
radiation by using the sharply defined energy of recoil-free y rays emitted and absorbed in solids,
as discovered by Mossbauer.
------- end quote -------

They were measuring THE EFFECT OF GRAVITATIONAL POTENTIAL at two
different locations on the frequency of electromagnetic radiation emitted
at those two different locations. They were NOT measuring the effect
of photons FALLING from one location to another. They were measuring
the difference in GRAVITATIONAL POTENTIAL at two different locations.

(snip)
> > Pound and Rebka demonstrated that TIME ticks at a FASTER rate atop a
> > building than at the bottom of a building. That means that a billion times per
> > second at the top of a building is FASTER than a billion times per second at the
> > bottom of the same building.
> No, that is not what they claimed to have proven. That is YOUR
> INTERPRETATION, and it’s based on the inclusion of a SINGLE WORD: emission.
> They did NOT say that the cause of the effect was that time ticks at faster
> rate at higher elevations, but that’s what you wanted to see, because it’s
> what you believe is going on.

Yes, they DID say that the cause of the effect was that time ticks at a faster rate
at higher locations. They just used the term "gravitational potential" to refer
to different locations at different altitudes.

And they said. "Thus it is absolutely necessary to measure a change in the relative
frequency that is produced by the perturbation being studied."

"Perturbation" is defined as "a deviation of a system, moving object, or process from
its regular or normal state or path, caused by an outside influence." The "outside
influence" is putting the emitter and receiver at different altitudes.

(snip)

> >>> “Modern Physics” says that the “wave” or photon changes frequency as it
> >>> “FALLS” in Earth’s gravity.
> >>> That is wrong.
> >
> > YES, it is wrong because a wave or photon DOES NOT CHANGE FREQUENCY as it
> > FALLS.
> This is your opinion. It’s also not what physicists think.

It is what INTELLIGENT physicists have thought since experiments showed that
Einstein was right. There is NO EVIDENCE whatsoever that a photon changes
frequency as it falls. All the FACTS AND EVIDENCE say a new photon oscillates at a
frequency that is determined by the type of atom that created that new photon and
the location of that atom, and the photon will continue to oscillate at that frequency
until it is absorbed by another atom.

Ed

El martes, 29 de marzo de 2022 a las 11:24:56 UTC-3, det...@outlook.com escribió:
> On Monday, March 28, 2022 at 4:39:21 PM UTC-5, Paparios wrote:
> > El lunes, 28 de marzo de 2022 a las 17:27:36 UTC-3, escribió:
> > > On Monday, March 28, 2022 at 1:56:09 PM UTC-5, Paparios wrote:
> >
> > > > All physics experiments are carefully explained by the physicists which performed those experiments. You are a nobody which do not have any qualifications to affirm that textbooks "demonstrate a totally different (and INCORRECT) interpretation of General Relativity".
> > > So, all you can do is attack me personally? You cannot actually discuss the topic?
> > >
> > The topic you have started here is "Repeated Errors in Physics Textbooks". You are asserting (without any proof) that physics textbooks contain "errors". In fact you are writing a "book" where chapter 11 is entitled "The textbook problem".
> >
> > One of your old problems is that you do not read the references that you use in your writings. As an example, you insist that Einstein
> > principle of the constancy of the speed of light is only what he wrote in page 1 of his 1905 paper:
> >
> > "light is always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c which is independent of the state of motion of the emitting body".
> >
> > But he defined that principle precisely in page 4 as:
> > "2. Any ray of light moves in the “stationary” system of co-ordinates with the determined velocity c, whether the ray be emitted by a stationary or by a moving body".
> > Everyone knowing a little of English can verify that both paragraphs say the same. The state of motion of the emitting body can be, for sure, either being stationary or being moving.
> You clearly do not understand ENGLISH, Paparios. Those two paragraphs do NOT say the same.
>
> The first one says that light is ALWAYS EMITTED at c in empty space.
> The second one is just about what happens when that light is viewed in a
> "stationary system of co-ordinates."
>
> Light is emitted at c whether the emitter is moving or stationary, accelerating or
> decelerating. That is the KEY FACT. How the EMITTED PHOTONS are VIEWED in a
> "stationary system of coordinates" is important, too, but it's a different issue.
>
> Ed

"light is always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c which is independent of the state of motion of the emitting body".

"Any ray of light moves in the “stationary” system of co-ordinates with the determined velocity c, whether the ray be emitted by a stationary or by a moving body".

Both paragraphs clearly say that the light moves at speed c, independently of the state of motion (stationary or moving) of the emitting body.

On Tuesday, March 29, 2022 at 2:57:02 PM UTC-5, rotchm wrote:
> On Tuesday, March 29, 2022 at 10:24:56 AM UTC-4, wrote:
>
> > You clearly do not understand ENGLISH, Paparios.
> I maintain that it is YOU that does not Cleary understand ENGLISH. See below.
> > Those two paragraphs do NOT say the same.
> Yes they do.
>
> > The first one says that light is ALWAYS EMITTED at c ...
>
> Just in that sentence, who is the 'observer' , the one noting that the
> speed is c?

The emitter is the only "observer."

> > Light is emitted at c whether the emitter is moving or stationary, accelerating or
> > decelerating.
> Again, who is the observer that is noting that the speed is c in those cases?

The emitter is the only "observer." The emitter emits photons at c and
c is the speed PER SECOND at the location of the emitter.

Ed

On Tuesday, March 29, 2022 at 5:17:09 PM UTC-4, det...@outlook.com wrote:
> On Tuesday, March 29, 2022 at 2:57:02 PM UTC-5, rotchm wrote:

> > > The first one says that light is ALWAYS EMITTED at c ...
> >
> > Just in that sentence, who is the 'observer' , the one noting that the
> > speed is c?
> The emitter is the only "observer."

OK. However, to those who can read English, those who can understand what is written (or the intention thereof),
the above not only means that the 'observer' is the emitter, but that the observer can be any (inertial) observer.

But yes, some may interpret the above that the only observer is the emitter.
Those people (you?) should investigate more the meaning of that sentence to see if they understood it correctly.

> > > Light is emitted at c whether the emitter is moving or stationary, accelerating or
> > > decelerating.
> > Again, who is the observer that is noting that the speed is c in those cases?
> The emitter is the only "observer."

In the now above, it is much more clear that the author meant that any (inertial) observer is/are the ones
declaring that it is 'c'; that the emitter is NOT 'the' observer. Anyone who understands English, would have understood/interpreted it like that. Do you agree with my comments in this reply?

> The emitter emits photons at c and
> c is the speed PER SECOND at the location of the emitter.

He (inertial) who choses to measure the speed of that photon is the Observer. And this Observer will get the value of c.
That is what is meant (English) by E's postulate. That is how a good reader would understand it.

Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> wrote:
> On Tuesday, March 29, 2022 at 12:52:42 PM UTC-5, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>> Ed Lake wrote:
>>> On Monday, March 28, 2022 at 4:23:18 PM UTC-5, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>> Ed Lake wrote:
>>>>> On Monday, March 28, 2022 at 12:00:57 PM UTC-5, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>
>>> (snip)
>>>
>>>>> Here is what Robert Pound and Glen Rebka Jr. wrote in their Nov. 1, 1959
>>>>> paper where they described the experiment they were going to perform:
>>>>>
>>>>> -------------------- start quote --------------------
>>>>> It is widely considered desirable to check experimentally the view that
>>>>> the frequencies of electromagnetic spectral lines are sensitive to the
>>>>> gravitational potential at the position of the EMITTING SYSTEM. The
>>>>> several theories of relativity predict the frequency to be proportional
>>>>> to the gravitational potential.
>>>>> ---------------------- end quote -------------------
>>>> The above is an example of where you are likely to misconstrue. You read it
>>>> as testing that it ONLY depends on the position of the emitting system.
>>>> Physicists know already that what matters is the DIFFERENCE in the
>>>> gravitational potential between the emitting AND the receiving system. And
>>>> so physicists will correctly read that as “keeping the position of the
>>>> receiving system the same, check experimentally that the frequencies will
>>>> be shown to vary by changing the position of the emitting system, which is
>>>> effectively changing the DIFFERENCE in the gravitational potential.”
>>>
>>> You simply don't understand. The issue is NOT about measuring the difference.
>>> Obviously you must MEASURE the difference to KNOW there IS a difference.
>>> The real and only issue is WHAT CAUSES the difference.
>>>
>>> The CAUSE of the difference is that TIME ticks at a FASTER rate at the top
>>> of a building than at the bottom of that same building.
>> No, and this is what I’m talking about. You have a preconceived idea of
>> what the cause is, and then you go mining papers for snippets that you
>> think support YOUR idea, rather than asking what it is they had in mind. In
>> this case p, you keyed on the word EMISSION and said, “See? The authors
>> agree with me that there is something different about the emission process
>> at higher and lower elevations.” But in fact, that’s not what they were
>> saying at all. What they stated was that by varying the height at which the
>> emission occurred, thus varying the difference between emission and
>> receiving points, they could experimentally validate the change in
>> frequency from emission to reception.
>
> But WHY? Do you really believe that Pound and Rebka DIDN'T CARE WHY
> "they could experimentally validate the change in frequency from emission to reception"?

Of course they cared why. They just didn’t state the cause as explicitly as
you’d like. Nor did they have to, because the intended audience of this
paper already understood the putative cause without needing to have it
stated in the paper. This is where you lack context that physicists have.

>
> The paper they wrote after the experiment says,
>
> ------- start quote ----
> As we proposed a few months ago, we have now measured the effect, originally hypothesized
> by Einstein, of GRAVITATIONAL POTENTIAL on the apparent frequency of electromagnetic
> radiation by using the sharply defined energy of recoil-free y rays
> emitted and absorbed in solids,
> as discovered by Mossbauer.
> ------- end quote -------
>
> They were measuring THE EFFECT OF GRAVITATIONAL POTENTIAL at two
> different locations on the frequency of electromagnetic radiation emitted
> at those two different locations. They were NOT measuring the effect
> of photons FALLING from one location to another. They were measuring
> the difference in GRAVITATIONAL POTENTIAL at two different locations.

Every physicist (or for that matter, any student who’s had at least a year
of physics) knows that gravitational potential itself means nothing, and
it’s only the travel THROUGH a change in gravitational potential that makes
a difference. This, for a physicist, goes without saying. And I know you
don’t have the benefit of that background knowledge. This is an example of
material that would make it easier for to follow what physicists are
saying, and isn’t really covered in popularizations.

>
> (snip)
>>> Pound and Rebka demonstrated that TIME ticks at a FASTER rate atop a
>>> building than at the bottom of a building. That means that a billion times per
>>> second at the top of a building is FASTER than a billion times per second at the
>>> bottom of the same building.
>> No, that is not what they claimed to have proven. That is YOUR
>> INTERPRETATION, and it’s based on the inclusion of a SINGLE WORD: emission.
>> They did NOT say that the cause of the effect was that time ticks at faster
>> rate at higher elevations, but that’s what you wanted to see, because it’s
>> what you believe is going on.
>
> Yes, they DID say that the cause of the effect was that time ticks at a faster rate
> at higher locations. They just used the term "gravitational potential" to refer
> to different locations at different altitudes.

No, you are substituting words and changing meaning.

>
> And they said. "Thus it is absolutely necessary to measure a change in the relative
> frequency that is produced by the perturbation being studied."
>
> "Perturbation" is defined as "a deviation of a system, moving object, or process from
> its regular or normal state or path, caused by an outside influence." The "outside
> influence" is putting the emitter and receiver at different altitudes.

The perturbation is the light traveling through that potential difference.

>
> (snip)
>
>>>>> “Modern Physics” says that the “wave” or photon changes frequency as it
>>>>> “FALLS” in Earth’s gravity.
>>>>> That is wrong.
>>>
>>> YES, it is wrong because a wave or photon DOES NOT CHANGE FREQUENCY as it
>>> FALLS.
>> This is your opinion. It’s also not what physicists think.
>
> It is what INTELLIGENT physicists have thought

Sorry, no. You are not in a position to judge which physicists are
intelligent and which are not. And it does your reputation no good service
to say that the physicists that agree with your common sense instincts are
the intelligent ones. That’s just self serving propaganda, and it’s seen as
that.

> since experiments showed that
> Einstein was right. There is NO EVIDENCE whatsoever that a photon changes
> frequency as it falls. All the FACTS AND EVIDENCE say a new photon oscillates at a
> frequency that is determined by the type of atom that created that new photon and
> the location of that atom, and the photon will continue to oscillate at that frequency
> until it is absorbed by another atom.
>
> Ed
>

--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables