xyzt

LOL. Your crackpot index just jumped 100 points. Yet another 100 points on the crackpot scale. Which theory? The paper is about the GR explanation of the proposed experiment, not about falsifying any theory. You just earned yourself an additional 50 points on the crackpot scale. Err,no. You are totally ignorant on the subject, the formalism is the Schwarzschild formalism, meaning it IS GR. Take another 50 points on the crank index. Prove it. In the meanwhile, take another 100 points on the crank scale. Repeating the same crank ideas doesn't make them right. Yet another 100 points. This is worth 200 points on the crackpot index. Yes. The first thing that you copied correctly. No, it doesn't, there is a difference that is caused by the difference in the potential formula (or by the difference between the external and the internal Schwarzschild solutions). Take another 50 crank points. "Einstein Newtonian approach"? This is worth a whopping 300 crackpot points. Now you are way off in lala land, the formula for the potential inside the Earth is different than the external formula, you can't simply invert the sign . Prove your ASSertion, In the meanwhile, here is another 200 points on the crank index. OK, you can tally your total but you can easily see that your crankiness is off the charts.

Can you prove your claim. I.e. produce the math that shows that the Newtonian theory predicts the same answer as GR? Yes, it has been done, see here

So, no answer to my 3 simple questions, just a regurgitation of your fringe claims. Figures.

Or your fixation with "Einstein was wrong" is clouding your thinking?

You do not understand it because your claim is false (contradicted by experiment).

100 points on the crackpot scale. Now, to basic stuff. SR is (aside from) QM the most tested theory. To date, no test has falsified this. As to RoS, things are pretty simple. Start with the Lorentz transform: [math]t'=\gamma(t-vx/c^2)[/math] Two events separated by the time interval [math]dt[/math] and the spatial interval [math]dx[/math] in frame F are separated by [math]dt'[/math] in frame F' in motion with speed [math]v[/math] wrt F, where: [math]dt'=\gamma(dt-vdx/c^2)[/math] Now, if the events are simultaneous in F, [math]dt=0[/math] but: [math]dt'=\gamma(0-vdx/c^2)=-\gamma vdx/c^2[/math] So, [math]dt' \ne 0[/math], i.e. the events are not simultaneous in F'. This is RoS for you. Sorry to burst your bubble.

OK, I sat through your presentation. You claim that GR does not completely explain the advancement of the perihelion of Mercury and that another planet accounts for that. Two questions: 1. Prove your statement that GR doesn't completely answer. 2. Show how "Dynamic Gravity" explains the advancement. Use math. hand waving doesn't count. 3. Explain gravitational redshift via "Dynamic Gravity. Use math.

Yes but Okun seems to make a very big deal about (2) not being correct. Opportunity for him to publish yet another paper.

You don't need to get rude. The resonance frequency cannot change, it is a a local value, like proper time, What changes is the frequency of the received em radiation (as per the formula I posted). As such, in order to "recapture" the resonance at the receiver end, the receiver must be moved. This makes the frequency received from the emitter equal again to the resonance frequency.

The ratio of clock frequencies is equal to the ratio of light frequencies. Gravitational redshift affects all types of electromagnetic radiation identically. I think you misunderstood what I said. There is no "light" in the Pound Rebka experiment. What I was explaining is that, in order to measure the shift in the frequency of the [math]Fe^{57}[/math] isotope Pound came up with the clever idea of achieving the resonance at the receiver end by canceling the shift in frequency due to the gravitational effect by moving the receiver: if the gravitational shift is towards red, Pound created a blue Doppler effect by moving the receiver towards the source. If the gravitational shift is blue, Pound generated the cancellation via a red Doppler effect. I don't think you understand the experiment, nor the effect. The frequency as measured at the receiver, relates to the frequency at the emitter via: [math]\frac{f'_r}{f_e}=\sqrt{\frac{1-r_s/r_e}{1-r_s/r'_r}}[/math] Since the frequency is shifted (up or down, depending on the relative positions of the receiver and emitter), one CANNOT achieve resonance anymore UNLESS, the frequency shift is cancelled somehow. This is done via moving the emitter wrt the receiver (see my answer to swansont , above) by generating a relativistic Doppler effect. You obviously do not understand what you are reading. Can you copy and paste the exact citation?

What "literature"? There is no such citation , at least in mainstream literature. You must be looking at some crackpot site. Or, you are making things up. [math]\frac{f'}{f}=\sqrt{\frac{1-r_s/r}{1-r_s/r'}}[/math] Rubbish, there is no connection to light in the Pound-Rebka experiment. All electromagnetic radiation is affected the same way by the gravitational potential. Rubbish, see above.

Yes, absolutely, the received frequency changes due to gravitational redshift. The resonance frequency cannot and does not change. This is precisely why the receiver is being moved in the Pound Rebka experiment, to cancel the gravitationally induced frequency change via a relativistic Doppler effect.

Correct. What gives you this idea? Light is affected by spacetime curvature.

You seem deeply confused, the twins paradox is not about differences in time dilation (there aren't any) but about differences in total elapsed time. And the clocks, contrary to your misconceptions, are not affected by acceleration. Google "the clock hypothesis".

This is not correct, here is the complete mathematical solution that I wrote for wiki. It is done using SR exclusively.

No, it isn't. Other members (like Mordred) understood, I do not see any point in attempting to educate you only to be "rewarded" by your impertinence. I did not claim that, I was just correcting a different misunderstanding of yours. Excellent, thank you. I appreciate that.

Like I said, you need to stop trolling. The fact that you don't get it after so many explanations is not fixable. You seem not to comprehend that the larger the t, the earlier the event. I gave you three equally possible cases, you need to try comprehending all three of them. There are two more, do you think you could read them? An event is a pair (x.y,z,t). I cannot fix all your basic misunderstandings. I made two points: 1. In general, Lorentz transforms do not preserve the order of events. 2. In particular, even for causally linked events the order is not preserved absent the clock synchronization.

"Faster than light frame"? LOL.

Has nothing to do with your inability to understand the previous posts, nor is it related in any fashion with this thread. The fact that you insist, amply demonstrates that. Nevertheless, I will explain to you. Clock A shows time "0" when clock B shows T. An event happens at location A causing another event to happen at B after time "t". Clock A shows time t when clock B shows T+t, DESPITE the fact that event A caused event B. You can just as easy have the reverse, clock B showing less elapsed time than clock A, DESPITE event A , again, causing event B. You can also have the two clocks showing the same exact time. You can stop trolling on this totally unrelated subject now.

No, it isn't wrong, the math has nothing to do with space-like intervals, despite your insistence. The fact that you can't follow is your problem, not mine. Easy. I already gave you a hint to the fact that you are missing a necessary condition. It has to do with clock synchronization.

It is the same thing, I am pointing out that motion between frames can invert the order of events in ALL cases , INCLUDING causal. It is the same math.

For two events A and B separated by a distance [math]dx[/math] in space and a interval [math]dt[/math] in time, one can have: [math]\frac{dx}{dt}>\frac{c^2}{v}[/math] [math]\frac{dx}{dt}=\frac{c^2}{v}[/math] [math]\frac{dx}{dt}<\frac{c^2}{v}[/math] where [math]v[/math] is the relative speed of frame S' wrt. S. The key point is that [math]\frac{dx}{dt}[/math] is NOT a speed and it is certainly not the speed at which the influence of event A propagates to event B. It is simply the ratio of spatial to the temporal separation. As such, it can have any value (see above) and it can certainly be larger than c.

Read here. I wrote a large part of it.

This is not what I said. In general, CasualKilla's statement is false. Actually, it can be shown to be false even for causal relations. In order to be true for causal relations, it requires an extra condition. You can stop trolling my posts now.

So, in the general case, his statement is false. That was the point. In your haste to "correct" me, you obviously missed it. Not the first time you did that. I am amused that you did not tackle my first counter to his incorrect claims. Out of curiosity, do you agree with his claim on clocks being observed to tick at 1hz?