Pound and Rebka experiment falsifies big bang theory.

http://members.optusnet.com.au/maxkeon/sachs-wf.html
has the complete package.
-----

The Pound and Rebka experiment falsifies big bang theory.

These two scenarios are valid outcomes for the Pound and Rebka
experiment.
http://members.optusnet.com.au/maxkeon/sachs1.jpg
http://members.optusnet.com.au/maxkeon/sachs2.jpg
The transmitted signals are generated from identical chunks of
radioactive iron, as was used in the experiment.

The signal received at the tower top from the frequency generator
at the tower base is noted to be redshifted, while the signal
received at the tower base from the frequency generator at the
tower top is noted to be blueshifted. Both frequency generators
are behaving according to GM/r/c^2, which is exactly as GR
demands. There are two possible reasons for this. One is that
the generated frequencies are physically varying, and the other
is that the generated frequencies at the tower base and top are
red or blue shifted as they climb from or fall to Earth's gravity
well, according to Hz'= Hz*(1+V/c^2), which is
Hz' = Hz*(1+GM/r/c^2).
t' = t*(1+G*M/r/c^2) is the same equation when applied to clock
cycle rates.

http://members.optusnet.com.au/maxkeon/sachs3.jpg

The Sachs-Wolfe effect, which I assume was proposed with the
blessing of GR, is dependent on the final scenario being true.
But it's not true at all because the frequency generators in
atomic clocks, which will be affected in exactly the same way as
a radioactive iron frequency generator, are _PROVEN_ to
physically vary. A fact which would seem to have been well
established at the time of the Pound and Rebka experiment.

Even so, the Pound and Rebka experiment was fairly obviously
intended to confirm the final scenario, apparently being the
prediction of GR at the time, which would later support the
Sachs-Wolfe effect. Proving that clock rates physically vary
would have been a fairly redundant quest anyway.

The Sachs-Wolfe effect briefly; at the time when the universe
first became transparent, matter was not isotropically
distributed but was clustered in gravitational potential wells,
so, photons released within the wells would be redshifted as they
climbed out. Hence an anisotropy in the CMBR. /P

Whether or not a wavetrain is generated by photons which are
designated wavelength or frequency, once a wavetrain has been
generated, the only alterations that can be made to its passing
frequency is through doppler effect or distortions in space-time.
If the big bang universe was permitted to expand locally, the
effect would be inconsequential over the tower height. But the
space-time distortion caused by the gravity well could be more
significant. The stretch of dimension would logically increase
with depth into the well, which would redshift a wavetrain on
the journey in, and blueshift it on the journey out. That's
certainly no answer though because it's the reverse of what GR
predicts.

---------------

The Sachs-Wolfe effect being true is essential to the big bang
theory. It cannot survive without it.

The total flux of gravitational field at a closed surface is
-4*pi*G times the total mass enclosed by the surface.

Using the Earth for this example; the closed surface can be any
imaginary shell within the Earth at any radius about its center
of mass. The total flux of the gravity field for an imaginary
shell inside the Earth alters at a linear rate per shell radius
because the mass M housed in any shell alters at M*(r1^3/r2^3).
r1 is the imaginary radius. r2 is the Earth's radius.

e.g. For the imaginary shell radius of half Earth's radius,
3187000 meters, M' = M*(3187000^3 / 6374000^3) = 7.4625e23 kg
housed in the shell. For GM'/r^2: 6.67e-11 * 7.7625e23 / 3187000^2
= 4.9m/sec^2 which is half that for the true surface.

The linear change rate is obvious.

If the entire mass of the Earth was housed uniformly around an
Earth diameter shell, 1 second for a clock at the center would
be t' = t*(1+G*M/r/c^2) = 1.0000000006937 seconds for a clock
that's unaffected by gravity. And that will be the case
regardless of where the clock is placed within the shell.

If the shell diameter containing the mass of the Earth is halved,
1 second for the internal clock would be equal to 1.0000000013874
unaffected clock seconds. _THE CLOCK SLOWING RATE HAS DOUBLED_.

Or if an atomic clock is placed centrally between two i.e. Earth
sized planets, it will be slowed according to GM/r/c^2, by both
planets. Add any number of similar planets to form a shell at
that same radius and each planet will still affect the clock
individually. Then add the entire matter of the visible universe
to the picture and every piece of that matter will affect the
clock rate to the relevant degree.

Compress the mass in the visible universe into half its current
volume and clocks everywhere will be running slower. Now picture
how slow the clocks would be running at the time when the CMBR
was first released to travel the universe.

The local relationship between clock cycles and electronic
interaction cycles that generate spectral lines, and the spectrum
of a 4000 K blackbody radiator, must always be exactly the same
because they are all equally affected by changes in gravitational
potential, wherever they are generated. The 4000 K blackbody
spectrum, viewed from within the era when the CMBR was first
released, would appear exactly as it does today. But viewing that
spectrum from the time rate of today will make that spectrum
appear _enormously_ redshifted. And that redshifted image is how
the CMBR appears to us even before the expansion begins.

Expand what would already appear to be a very cold radiator and
the big bang theory collapses.

The Sachs-Wolfe effect initially makes things worse for the
big bang theory because the 4000 K blackbody spectrum from all
gravity wells is redshifted. It's the integrated Sachs-Wolfe
effect that is dispatched to save the big bang theory.
Briefly; a photon passing through a well of gravitational
potential will be blue shifted on the way in and redshifted
on the way out, and will emerge exactly as it was before the
encounter. But if the well deepens while the photon is passing
through, the photon will emerge in a redshifted state.

In the expanding big bang universe, on average, all potential
wells across the universe are weakening because the total matter
content is becoming more sparsely distributed. Photons traveling
the universe from the time of the big bang could be blueshifted
by as much as they were redshifted at the start.

But it's all just a hopeless dream of course because the
Sachs-Wolfe effect has been proven false, AND THE BIG BANG
THEORY IS FINISHED.

-----

Max Keon

On Jul 26, 8:23*pm, wrote:

[snip]

A little tiny bit of knowledge is a dangerous thing. You know just
enough about the Sachs-Wolfe effect to understand that its related to
the CMBR and gravitational redshift. You know just enough about the
Pound-Rebka experiment to understand it was a test of gravitational
redshift.

Unfortunately for you, you do not know any of the DETAILS. The Sachs-
Wolfe effect is the _fantastically_ small effect from the CMBR photons
being redshifted at emission and as they travel from the last
scattering surface to the Earth. This in no way disproves the Big Bang
theory, it just makes you look like the idiot you are.

On Jul 27, 12:23 am, wrote:
http://members.optusnet.com.au/maxkeon/sachs-wf.html
has the complete package.
-----

The Pound and Rebka experiment falsifies big bang theory.

These two scenarios are valid outcomes for the Pound and Rebka
experiment.
http://members.optusnet.com.au/maxkeon/sachs1.jpg
http://members.optusnet.com.au/maxkeon/sachs2.jpg
The transmitted signals are generated from identical chunks of
radioactive iron, as was used in the experiment.

The signal received at the tower top from the frequency generator
at the tower base is noted to be redshifted, while the signal
received at the tower base from the frequency generator at the
tower top is noted to be blueshifted. Both frequency generators
are behaving according to GM/r/c^2, which is exactly as GR
demands. There are two possible reasons for this. One is that
the generated frequencies are physically varying, and the other
is that the generated frequencies at the tower base and top are
red or blue shifted as they climb from or fall to Earth's gravity
well, according to Hz'= Hz*(1+V/c^2), which is
Hz' = Hz*(1+GM/r/c^2).
t' = t*(1+G*M/r/c^2) is the same equation when applied to clock
cycle rates.

http://members.optusnet.com.au/maxkeon/sachs3.jpg

The Sachs-Wolfe effect, which I assume was proposed with the
blessing of GR, is dependent on the final scenario being true.
But it's not true at all because the frequency generators in
atomic clocks, which will be affected in exactly the same way as
a radioactive iron frequency generator, are _PROVEN_ to
physically vary. A fact which would seem to have been well
established at the time of the Pound and Rebka experiment.

Even so, the Pound and Rebka experiment was fairly obviously
intended to confirm the final scenario, apparently being the
prediction of GR at the time, which would later support the
Sachs-Wolfe effect. Proving that clock rates physically vary
would have been a fairly redundant quest anyway.

It IS troubling that hydrogen, helium or some heavier
substance repeatedly is found in occupation of the
space that GR predicts light should do something
interesting.

Einstein's followers would rather defend absurdities
than claim prediction of the components of a mechanism.
LOL

Einstein published his theory of
gravitation, or general theory of relativity,
in 1916. And so a new paradigm, or set of
beliefs, was established. It was not until
1930 that Fritz London explained the weak,
attractive dipolar electric bonding force
(known as Van der Waals' dispersion force
or the 'London force') that causes gas
molecules to condense and form liquids
and solids. Like gravity, the London force
is always attractive and operates between
electrically neutral molecules
[...]
What a different story might have been told
if London's insight had come a few decades
earlier? Physics could, by now, have advanced
by a century instead of being bogged in a
mire of metaphysics.
http://www.holoscience.com/news.php?article=r4k29syp

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Induced_gravity

Your pages seem well thought out.



____THE CONSEQUENCES____
Building blocks of matter. 17-7-08
Gravity (the real story). 17-7-08
E/M radiation per concept. 17-7-08
Experiment in E/M radiation. 26-12-01
Photoelectric emission. 17-7-08
Ring laser gyro's and clocks. 17-7-08
Waves and black body radiation. 17-7-08
Cosmic microwave background radiation. 21-8-05
The nuclear atom?? 26-12-01
Development of the elements. 17-7-08

Light speed anisotropy demonstrated. 17-7-08
The fallacy of dark matter. 17-7-08
Big bang theory falsified. 27-7-08
http://members.optusnet.com.au/maxkeon/


You might compare your:
http://members.optusnet.com.au/maxkeon/gravity.html

with:

The Origin of Gravity
Authors: C. P. Kouropoulos
http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0107015v6

and find a few places where coherent matter fits
better that altered light speed.

Regards,

Sue...




The Sachs-Wolfe effect briefly; at the time when the universe
first became transparent, matter was not isotropically
distributed but was clustered in gravitational potential wells,
so, photons released within the wells would be redshifted as they
climbed out. Hence an anisotropy in the CMBR. /P

Whether or not a wavetrain is generated by photons which are
designated wavelength or frequency, once a wavetrain has been
generated, the only alterations that can be made to its passing
frequency is through doppler effect or distortions in space-time.
If the big bang universe was permitted to expand locally, the
effect would be inconsequential over the tower height. But the
space-time distortion caused by the gravity well could be more
significant. The stretch of dimension would logically increase
with depth into the well, which would redshift a wavetrain on
the journey in, and blueshift it on the journey out. That's
certainly no answer though because it's the reverse of what GR
predicts.

---------------

The Sachs-Wolfe effect being true is essential to the big bang
theory. It cannot survive without it.

The total flux of gravitational field at a closed surface is
-4*pi*G times the total mass enclosed by the surface.

Using the Earth for this example; the closed surface can be any
imaginary shell within the Earth at any radius about its center
of mass. The total flux of the gravity field for an imaginary
shell inside the Earth alters at a linear rate per shell radius
because the mass M housed in any shell alters at M*(r1^3/r2^3).
r1 is the imaginary radius. r2 is the Earth's radius.

e.g. For the imaginary shell radius of half Earth's radius,
3187000 meters, M' = M*(3187000^3 / 6374000^3) = 7.4625e23 kg
housed in the shell. For GM'/r^2: 6.67e-11 * 7.7625e23 / 3187000^2
= 4.9m/sec^2 which is half that for the true surface.

The linear change rate is obvious.

If the entire mass of the Earth was housed uniformly around an
Earth diameter shell, 1 second for a clock at the center would
be t' = t*(1+G*M/r/c^2) = 1.0000000006937 seconds for a clock
that's unaffected by gravity. And that will be the case
regardless of where the clock is placed within the shell.

If the shell diameter containing the mass of the Earth is halved,
1 second for the internal clock would be equal to 1.0000000013874
unaffected clock seconds. _THE CLOCK SLOWING RATE HAS DOUBLED_.

Or if an atomic clock is placed centrally between two i.e. Earth
sized planets, it will be slowed according to GM/r/c^2, by both
planets. Add any number of similar planets to form a shell at
that same radius and each planet will still affect the clock
individually. Then add the entire matter of the visible universe
to the picture and every piece of that matter will affect the
clock rate to the relevant degree.

Compress the mass in the visible universe into half its current
volume and clocks everywhere will be running slower. Now picture
how slow the clocks would be running at the time when the CMBR
was first released to travel the universe.

The local relationship between clock cycles and electronic
interaction cycles that generate spectral lines, and the spectrum
of a 4000 K blackbody radiator, must always be exactly the same
because they are all equally affected by changes in gravitational
potential, wherever they are generated. The 4000 K blackbody
spectrum, viewed from within the era when the CMBR was first
released, would appear exactly as it does today. But viewing that
spectrum from the time rate of today will make that spectrum
appear _enormously_ redshifted. And that redshifted image is how
the CMBR appears to us even before the expansion begins.

Expand what would already appear to be a very cold radiator and
the big bang theory collapses.

The Sachs-Wolfe effect initially makes things worse for the
big bang theory because the 4000 K blackbody spectrum from all
gravity wells is redshifted. It's the integrated Sachs-Wolfe
effect that is dispatched to save the big bang theory.
Briefly; a photon passing through a well of gravitational
potential will be blue shifted on the way in and redshifted
on the way out, and will emerge exactly as it was before the
encounter. But if the well deepens while the photon is passing
through, the photon will emerge in a redshifted state.

In the expanding big bang universe, on average, all potential
wells across the universe are weakening because the total matter
content is becoming more sparsely distributed. Photons traveling
the universe from the time of the big bang could be blueshifted
by as much as they were redshifted at the start.

But it's all just a hopeless dream of course because the
Sachs-Wolfe effect has been proven false, AND THE BIG BANG
THEORY IS FINISHED.

-----

Max Keon

On Jul 26, 9:52*pm, "Sue..." wrote:
[snip google output]

You couldn't even put sachs-wolfe into google?

On Jul 27, 2:13 am, Eric Gisse wrote:
On Jul 26, 9:52 pm, "Sue..." wrote:
[snip google output]

You couldn't even put sachs-wolfe into google?

It seems to be related to:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weapons...oton_torpedoes

See:
http://nobelprize.org/physics/articl...ong/index.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emitter_theory

Sue...

On Jul 27, 12:08*am, "Sue..." wrote:
On Jul 27, 2:13 am, Eric Gisse wrote:

On Jul 26, 9:52 pm, "Sue..." wrote:
[snip google output]

You couldn't even put sachs-wolfe into google?

It seems to be related to:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weapons...oton_torpedoes

See:http://nobelprize.org/physics/articl...Emitter_theory

Sue...

0 for 3 - what the hell are you entering into Google? Quit posting
until you learn to use a search engine.

On Jul 27, 2:52*pm, Eric Gisse wrote:
On Jul 26, 8:23=A0pm, wrote:

[snip]

A little tiny bit of knowledge is a dangerous thing. You know just
enough about the Sachs-Wolfe effect to understand that its related to
the CMBR and gravitational redshift. You know just enough about the
Pound-Rebka experiment to understand it was a test of gravitational
redshift.

Unfortunately for you, you do not know any of the DETAILS. The Sachs-
Wolfe effect is the _fantastically_ small effect from the CMBR photons
being redshifted at emission and as they travel from the last
scattering surface to the Earth.

Well you have that bit right. But it's the extension of that
effect, the integrated Sachs-Wolfe effect which could step up
and save the big bang theory. The expansion of the universe from
the time of CMBR release would have reduced the depths of all
gravity wells in the universe to the levels of today, with
photons constantly travelling through them and blueshifting all
the way to now. But Pound and Rebka have already proven that the
effect doesn't exist. So the big bang theory is up the creek
without a paddle.

This in no way disproves the Big Bang
theory, it just makes you look like the idiot you are.

By the way, I wasn't trying to describe the Pound and Rebka
experiment, I was just using some FACTS that were derived from
it. You should try reading it.

I was just watching a documentary which gave a pi graph of the
standard model of the universe, consisting of a tiny wedge for
the known matter, a much bigger chunk for the dark matter, and
a huge chunk for the dark energy. Has science really
"progressed" so far that we can now firmly believe that something
exists just because we need it to fill a gap in our _FAILED_
theories. Your theories are wrong, and have been proven so.

Something else in the documentary that was a little bewildering
was a computor generated simulation of the milky way galaxy which
very closely matched the real one. That match was taken as
fairly conclusive evidence that the components of the pi graph
actually existed in the predicted proportions. The predicted
proportions were derived from what was required to balance
the observed anomaly and those figures were used in generating
the simulated galaxy. Why wouldn't it be a match for the real
one?

And much the same for the W-MAP data. That also supported the
existence of dark matter and dark energy for the same reasons.

Do you really think anyone is believing this stuff?

-----

Max Keon

On Jul 27, 5:29*am, wrote:
On Jul 27, 2:52*pm, Eric Gisse wrote:

On Jul 26, 8:23=A0pm, wrote:

[snip]
A little tiny bit of knowledge is a dangerous thing. You know just
enough about the Sachs-Wolfe effect to understand that its related to
the CMBR and gravitational redshift. You know just enough about the
Pound-Rebka experiment to understand it was a test of gravitational
redshift.

Unfortunately for you, you do not know any of the DETAILS. The Sachs-
Wolfe effect is the _fantastically_ small effect from the CMBR photons
being redshifted at emission and as they travel from the last
scattering surface to the Earth.

Well you have that bit right. But it's the extension of that
effect, the integrated Sachs-Wolfe effect which could step up
and save the big bang theory. The expansion of the universe from
the time of CMBR release would have reduced the depths of all
gravity wells in the universe to the levels of today, with
photons constantly travelling through them and blueshifting all
the way to now. But Pound and Rebka have already proven that the
effect doesn't exist. So the big bang theory is up the creek
without a paddle.

You don't actually know what the Sachs-Wolfe effect is! You confuse
the gravitational redshift of CMBR photons [late-time & integrated
Sachs-Wolfe] with the redshift due to the expansion of the universe.


This in no way disproves the Big Bang
theory, it just makes you look like the idiot you are.

By the way, I wasn't trying to describe the Pound and Rebka
experiment, I was just using some FACTS that were derived from
it. You should try reading it.

Been there done that. Try arguing from a position that isn't of
immense confusion before telling me to do anything.


I was just watching a documentary which gave a pi graph of the
standard model of the universe, consisting of a tiny wedge for
the known matter, a much bigger chunk for the dark matter, and
a huge chunk for the dark energy. Has science really
"progressed" so far that we can now firmly believe that something
exists just because we need it to fill a gap in our _FAILED_
theories. Your theories are wrong, and have been proven so.

YAWN. Same old claptrap. I should probably put what I put below into a
text file for future copy-pastefu.

There is ample /historical/ precedent of indirect detection methods:
i) Neptune - guessed at by perturbation theory.
ii) Pluto - perturbation theory again.
iii) The vast majority of initially discovered extrasolar planets -
observed through solar wobble.
iv) Neutrinos - conjured up to explain the spectrum of energies in
beta decay and to conserve angular momentum.

Dark energy is more vacous but its' effects are well observed. An
integral component of the lambda-CDM model for big bang cosmology,
evident in the acceleration of expansion as observed in SN1a light
curves, and meaningfully suggested by the vacuum energy /
observationally/ implied by the Casimir effect. Neglect the 120 order
of magnitude difference.

There is then dark matter - indirectly observed through its' effects
on galactic rotation curves and essential to big bang cosmology via
the lambda-CDM model. Which has since been _extensively_ mapped
through weak gravitational lensing in galaxy collisions, Bullet
Cluster, MACS J0025.4-1222.

When you know what you are talking about, you can talk the way you do.
Until then, shut your pie hole because if your ONLY source of
information on cosmology is from a goddamn documentary then you have
NO idea what the state of the art is. Watching TV does not make you an
expert.


Something else in the documentary that was a little bewildering
was a computor generated simulation of the milky way galaxy which
very closely matched the real one. That match was taken as
fairly conclusive evidence that the components of the pi graph
actually existed in the predicted proportions. The predicted
proportions were derived from what was required to balance
the observed anomaly and those figures were used in generating
the simulated galaxy. Why wouldn't it be a match for the real
one?

And much the same for the W-MAP data. That also supported the
existence of dark matter and dark energy for the same reasons.

Like you know what you are talking about. Feel free to fit the WMAP
data to your own personal theory - it's available right on the site
you have never viewed. Wake me when you can fit the observed CMBR
power spectrum into a 6 parameter theory that matches observation to
every degree.


Do you really think anyone is believing this stuff?

Do you really think someone whose knowledge doesn't extend past what
he watches on TV is really qualified to **** all over cosmology?


-----

Max Keon

On Jul 27, 4:08*am, "Sue..." wrote:
On Jul 27, 2:13 am, Eric Gisse wrote:

On Jul 26, 9:52 pm, "Sue..." wrote:
[snip google output]

You couldn't even put sachs-wolfe into google?

It seems to be related to:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weapons...oton_torpedoes

See:http://nobelprize.org/physics/articl...Emitter_theory

Sue...

I think it seems to be related to chocolate cake. But then, that's
just me.

On 27 jul, 04:08, "Sue..." wrote:
On Jul 27, 2:13 am, Eric Gisse wrote:

On Jul 26, 9:52 pm, "Sue..." wrote:
[snip google output]

You couldn't even put sachs-wolfe into google?

It seems to be related to:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weapons...oton_torpedoes

See:http://nobelprize.org/physics/articl...Emitter_theory

Sue...

Wrong....better see http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teachin...s/node108.html

Miguel Rios