Galaxy cluster at z=1.4 challenges BBT

The astro research newsgroup seems to have gone into
hybernation, which is restricting my right to reply.
Thus I'm complelled to broaden my horizons. This is one
of two unpresentable submissions to the above subject.
The rest of the story can be found on sci.astro.research
-------

Bjoern Feuerbacher wrote:
Max Keon wrote:
Ulf Torkelsson wrote:

Max Keon wrote:
-----
-----
In the zero origin universe, the image of the early universe will
continue to flow in from everywhere, from right back to the
infinitely distant origin. But because the evolution rate of the
universe is increasing at a squaring rate per fixed time rate, the
early universe had a closer background/foreground relationship than
exists today. The background will eventually disappear altogether
when the universe really gets going.


This does not make any sense.


How could it, in your universe?

Unfortunately for you, "our" universe is the real one.

I'm beginning to see the pointlessness in trying to explain the
zero origin universe to you while your universe still (barely)
survives. Some of its failings are so blatantly obvious that it's
hard to imagine how anyone could believe in it, especially the good
folk of the physics community. Peddling this kind of stuff as some
kind of reality can only be detrimental to the good name of physics.
Can you not see that?????

During the first 300,000 years after the big bang event the average
expansion rate of the universe was 31.3 times faster than it was at
the moment when the universe became transparent. That era of ultra
expansion extended the radius of the universe, from everywhere
to the bang, to 9394690 light years. That amazing feat of magic
coincidentally fitted in perfectly so that the universe could then
continue to expand while under scrutiny, and the CMBR would arrive
here at its current temperature. If the expansion had been constant
right from the big bang, the CMBR temperature would now be .087
degrees K.

You don't find all of that just a little speculative?
Here's something else for you to worry about.

At the time when the universe became transparent, the entire matter
of the universe was housed in a 9394690 light year radius about the
big bang, and was necessarily all within a very deep gravity well.

Two atomic clocks which were previously synchronized adjacent, and
then positioned apart at the top and the base of a tower so that
their tick rates can be compared via a numeric display, attached to
each clock and driven by each clock's oscillator, is proof beyond
doubt that time was running much slower in the intense gravity well
of the early universe than it is now. The tick rate shown on the
base clock's display is very positively noted to be slower than the
tick rate shown on the top clock's display. There is clearly no room
for photon energy variation enroute between clocks.

Gravitational redshifting of the characteristic spectral lines of
elements has nothing whatever to do with diminished photon energy
either. They were made that way.

The entire spectrum of the 4000 K radiator which made up the CMBR
would have been created in an **extremely** redshifted state.

In a universe where only the earth and an atomic clock exist, where
the mass of the earth represents the mass of the universe, at the
radius of 9394690 light years (8.888E+19km) when the universe became
transparent, the clock time rate ratio relative to the time rate of
the clock if it was positioned at the center of earth's mass, is
(G * M) / (r * c ^ 2)
t1' = (6.67E-11 * 5.97E+24) / (8.888E+19 * 300000^2) = 4.98E-17 to 1

The clock time rate ratio when the earth(universe) is 13.7E+9
light year (1.296E+23km) radius away is
t2' = (6.67E-11 * 5.97E+24) / (1.296E+23 * 300000^2) = 3.41E-20 to 1

The clock difference ratio between t1' and t2' is
t1' / t2' = 1458 to 1

Now replace the earth with a mass of i.e. 1E+99kg. The 1458 to 1
ratio is still the same. So it really doesn't matter what the mass
of the universe is, does it. Every reaction in the early universe
would have been redshifted **enormously** compared with the same
reaction in the present universe.


My first submission of this post was justifiably rejected. The fault
was corrected. But the next two submission attempts have resulted in
complete silence. I think that's, game, set and match?

-----

Max Keon

My contributions to the astro research newsgroup seem to be no
longer welcome because this post was rejected on what I consider
to be a biased appraisal of its content. I won't elaborate on the
content of an email, but can anybody see a valid reason why this
post should be damned to the rubbish bin?
--------

Bjoern Feuerbacher wrote:

Max Keon wrote:
I'm beginning to see the pointlessness in trying to explain the
zero origin universe to you while your universe still (barely)
survives.

The only reason why a discussion with you is pointless is that you
simply ignore most of the experimental evidence, and misunderstand the
little bits you don't ignore.


Some of its failings are so blatantly obvious that it's
hard to imagine how anyone could believe in it, especially the good
folk of the physics community.

Please give examples for such failings.

The absolute proof that your universe fails was given in the second
part of the post which you replied to. Your response to that proof
was not unexpected.


Peddling this kind of stuff as some
kind of reality can only be detrimental to the good name of physics.
Can you not see that?????

No. Hint: I'm in a much better position than you to judge that.

I don't know how you arrive at that conclusion. You choose to know
absolutely nothing about the zero origin universe. I'm in a far
better position to make a judgment on which universe is the more
realistic.


During the first 300,000 years after the big bang event the average
expansion rate of the universe was 31.3 times faster than it was at
the moment when the universe became transparent.

Where on earth did you get that from?


That era of ultra
expansion extended the radius of the universe, from everywhere
to the bang, to 9394690 light years.

Where on earth did you get that from?


That amazing feat of magic

Which you just invented yourself.

Exactly. I was expecting to have difficulty getting my post accepted
because it contained absolute proof that the big bang never happened.
I invented something that could be easily attacked. The original post
was written in an excessively careless manner and was rejected. I
corrected the basic errors and also clarified my real intention in
the second part of the post. I expected to have even greater problems
getting that version posted. In hindsight, I think I was over
reacting. My apologies.
------
------

At the time when the universe became transparent, the entire matter
of the universe was housed in a 9394690 light year radius about the
big bang,

Wrong. Where on earth did you get that from?

It was part of the charade. The size doesn't matter a damn. Even
if it happened just down the road, the big bang is falsified.


and was necessarily all within a very deep gravity well.

Wrong. Try to understand the difference between a Schwarzschild
and a Robertson-Walker metric.


Two atomic clocks which were previously synchronized adjacent, and
then positioned apart at the top and the base of a tower so that
their tick rates can be compared via a numeric display attached to
each clock and driven by each clock's oscillator is proof beyond
doubt that time was running much slower in the intense gravity well
of the early universe than it is now.

The two situations are by no means comparable. There *was* no gravity
well.

But a relatively *enormous* gravitational potential existed back
then, didn't it? And that's all that's needed to falsify the big
bang theory.


The tick rate shown on the
base clock's display is very positively noted to be slower than the
tick rate shown on the top clock's display. There is clearly no room
for photon energy variation enroute between clocks.

Non sequitur.

Huh!


Gravitational redshifting of the characteristic spectral lines of
elements has nothing whatever to do with diminished photon energy
either.

Explain why gamma radiation emitted by an iron sample at the bottom
can't be absorbed by an iron sample at the top, while there is no
problem with absorption as long as they are on the same height.

When they are at different heights, of course their frequencies
are not the same any more. Exactly as the atomic clock scenario
demonstrated. But that has absolutely nothing to do with photons
gaining or losing energy, has it. The atomic clock scenario proved
that not to be so, beyond any doubt. I'll go through it all again.

Two atomic clocks which were previously synchronized adjacent, and
then positioned apart at the top and the base of a tower so that
their tick rates can be compared via a numeric display attached to
each clock and driven by each clock's oscillator is proof beyond
doubt that the frequency generated in the Caesium atom configuration
that drives each display, slows in the deeper potential well at the
tower base. That slowing all happens within the clock mechanism,
simply because it's running in a deeper potential well, and that's
the only reason.

An atomic clock's tick rate would be slowed enormously in the
densely populated environment of the early universe, and so too
would every frequency generated in that environment which made up
the spectrum of the CMBR. Then the expansion takes over. The CMBR
would be well and truly undetectable by the time it reaches us.

-----

Max Keon

"Max Keon" wrote in message
...
My contributions to the astro research newsgroup seem to be no
longer welcome because this post was rejected on what I consider
to be a biased appraisal of its content. I won't elaborate on the
content of an email, but can anybody see a valid reason why this
post should be damned to the rubbish bin?


Don't worry about it, Max. SAR has a long history of rejecting any post
with which the "moderators" disagree.

Just be happy if they bother to notify you that they're not going to allow
your post. When they do, simply enjoy the farcial reasoning that they often
employ.

The simplest recourse on your part is simply to do what you have done. Post
the 'rejected' submission to sci.astro. At least the discussion can
continue.

--
greywolf42
ubi dubium ibi libertas
{remove planet for e-mail}

greywolf42 wrote:
"Max Keon" wrote in message
...

My contributions to the astro research newsgroup seem to be no
longer welcome because this post was rejected on what I consider
to be a biased appraisal of its content. I won't elaborate on the
content of an email, but can anybody see a valid reason why this
post should be damned to the rubbish bin?



Don't worry about it, Max. SAR has a long history of rejecting any post
with which the "moderators" disagree.

Just be happy if they bother to notify you that they're not going to allow
your post. When they do, simply enjoy the farcial reasoning that they often
employ.

The simplest recourse on your part is simply to do what you have done. Post
the 'rejected' submission to sci.astro. At least the discussion can
continue.

I have answered his post one week ago. He entirely ignored my
arguments (as he already did in s.a.r, BTW). Doesn't look like as if
he is actually interested in discussion...

BTW: I notice that you have also fled the thread in sci.physics where
we two discussed French's paper (and others), after proclaiming
victory. You simply ignored all my counterarguments.


Bye,
Bjoern

Bjoern Feuerbacher wrote:

greywolf42 wrote:
"Max Keon" wrote in message
...
My contributions to the astro research newsgroup seem to be no
longer welcome because this post was rejected on what I consider
to be a biased appraisal of its content. I won't elaborate on the
content of an email, but can anybody see a valid reason why this
post should be damned to the rubbish bin?


Don't worry about it, Max. SAR has a long history of rejecting any post
with which the "moderators" disagree.

Just be happy if they bother to notify you that they're not going to allow
your post. When they do, simply enjoy the farcial reasoning that they often
employ.

The simplest recourse on your part is simply to do what you have done. Post
the 'rejected' submission to sci.astro. At least the discussion can
continue.

I have answered his post one week ago. He entirely ignored my
arguments (as he already did in s.a.r, BTW). Doesn't look like as if
he is actually interested in discussion...

I too am having some trouble believing that you are interested in
that part of the discussion you are referring to because when I
seek clarification on some of the terminology you use, I get nothing
more than a smoke screen in reply. As I've said before, how could I
possibly keep in touch with the evolving terminology in your world
when I don't live there?

You employ very strange methods to defend your theory. And the
way I see it, defending your theory is exactly what you should be
doing because it seem to be rapidly falling apart. You have so far
failed to address the two clock and the tower scenario that I
continue to put to you. So here it is again;

-Two atomic clocks which were previously synchronized adjacent, and
-then positioned apart at the top and the base of a tower so that
-their tick rates can be compared via a numeric display attached to
-each clock and driven by each clock's oscillator is proof beyond
-doubt that the frequency generated in the Caesium atom configuration
-that drives each display, slows in the deeper potential well at the
-tower base. That slowing all happens within the clock mechanism,
-simply because it's running in a deeper potential well, and that's
-the only reason.

I'm still waiting for your in depth explanation that proves me
wrong.

Now take your atomic clock back to the early universe, to the time
when the universe became transparent. Have you any idea how slow
that clock would be running in that environment? The ratio between
the radius of the universe relative to the big bang at the time of
transparency and the current radius should give you some idea of
the difference in the average gravitational potential then and the
average potential now. Hence the re-run of this next paragraph.

-An atomic clock's tick rate would be slowed enormously in the
-densely populated environment of the early universe, and so too
-would every frequency generated in that environment which made up
-the spectrum of the CMBR. Then the expansion takes over. The CMBR
-would be well and truly undetectable by the time it reaches us.

The obvious conclusion is that the big bang theory is nothing
more than a fantasy. Which I would be only too happy to go along
with if there was no alternative universe to take its place. But
even then, I could never accept it as reality. I honestly don't
think anyone could.

-----

Max Keon

Max Keon wrote:
Bjoern Feuerbacher wrote:

greywolf42 wrote:

"Max Keon" wrote in message
...

My contributions to the astro research newsgroup seem to be no
longer welcome because this post was rejected on what I consider
to be a biased appraisal of its content. I won't elaborate on the
content of an email, but can anybody see a valid reason why this
post should be damned to the rubbish bin?


Don't worry about it, Max. SAR has a long history of rejecting
any post
with which the "moderators" disagree.

Just be happy if they bother to notify you that they're not going
to allow
your post. When they do, simply enjoy the farcial reasoning that
they often
employ.

The simplest recourse on your part is simply to do what you have
done. Post
the 'rejected' submission to sci.astro. At least the discussion can
continue.


I have answered his post one week ago. He entirely ignored my
arguments (as he already did in s.a.r, BTW). Doesn't look like as if
he is actually interested in discussion...


I too am having some trouble believing that you are interested in
that part of the discussion you are referring to because when I
seek clarification on some of the terminology you use, I get nothing
more than a smoke screen in reply.

Pardon??? The only time you asked for clarification of terminology
was, IIRC, when you asked about the meaning of z. I answered that clearly.

The only smoke screens in our discussion came from *you* when *I*
asked for clarification.


As I've said before, how could I
possibly keep in touch with the evolving terminology in your world
when I don't live there?

The terminology in my world is not "evolving". z has meant the same
thing for about 80 years now.


You employ very strange methods to defend your theory.

There is a saying about a pot and a kettle...


And the
way I see it, defending your theory is exactly what you should be
doing because it seem to be rapidly falling apart.

Again that saying...


You have so far
failed to address the two clock and the tower scenario that I
continue to put to you. So here it is again;

-Two atomic clocks which were previously synchronized adjacent, and
-then positioned apart at the top and the base of a tower so that
-their tick rates can be compared via a numeric display attached to
-each clock and driven by each clock's oscillator is proof beyond
-doubt that the frequency generated in the Caesium atom configuration
-that drives each display, slows in the deeper potential well at the
-tower base. That slowing all happens within the clock mechanism,
-simply because it's running in a deeper potential well, and that's
-the only reason.

I'm still waiting for your in depth explanation that proves me
wrong.

The above is an entirely *hypothetical* scenario. The experiment
has never been done in that way. So why do you keep asserting so
confidently what the results would be?

And why do you keep ignoring the *actual* experiment which *has*
been done?


Now take your atomic clock back to the early universe, to the time
when the universe became transparent. Have you any idea how slow
that clock would be running in that environment?

Why on earth should it run slower???


The ratio between
the radius of the universe relative to the big bang at the time of
transparency and the current radius should give you some idea of
the difference in the average gravitational potential then and the
average potential now.

The potential is (on average) zero, and always was. If you think
otherwise, you show nicely that you don't understand gravity.


Hence the re-run of this next paragraph.

-An atomic clock's tick rate would be slowed enormously in the
-densely populated environment of the early universe,

No, it wouldn't. It would tick at the same rate as today.

And, BTW: it's not the first time that I tell you that.


[snip more based on this wrong premise]


Bye,
Bjoern

Bjoern Feuerbacher wrote:

Max Keon wrote:
Bjoern Feuerbacher wrote:
greywolf42 wrote:
The simplest recourse on your part is simply to do what you have
done. Post the 'rejected' submission to sci.astro. At least the
discussion can continue.


I have answered his post one week ago. He entirely ignored my
arguments (as he already did in s.a.r, BTW). Doesn't look like as if
he is actually interested in discussion...


I too am having some trouble believing that you are interested in
that part of the discussion you are referring to because when I
seek clarification on some of the terminology you use, I get nothing
more than a smoke screen in reply.

Pardon??? The only time you asked for clarification of terminology
was, IIRC, when you asked about the meaning of z. I answered that
clearly.

I have already found the meaning of z in the Penguin dictionary of
science, without your "help". This is what I was referring to though;
I wrote:
Redshift 2.34 I assume means that the characteristic spectral line
wavelengths are 2.34 times longer than they are currently. Is that
correct?
You replied:
No. That would be the case for redshift 1.34, not for redshift 2.34.
Could you *please* try to get at least the most basic things right?
-----
-----

You have so far
failed to address the two clock and the tower scenario that I
continue to put to you. So here it is again;

-Two atomic clocks which were previously synchronized adjacent, and
-then positioned apart at the top and the base of a tower so that
-their tick rates can be compared via a numeric display attached to
-each clock and driven by each clock's oscillator is proof beyond
-doubt that the frequency generated in the Caesium atom configuration
-that drives each display, slows in the deeper potential well at the
-tower base. That slowing all happens within the clock mechanism,
-simply because it's running in a deeper potential well, and that's
-the only reason.

I'm still waiting for your in depth explanation that proves me
wrong.

The above is an entirely *hypothetical* scenario. The experiment
has never been done in that way. So why do you keep asserting so
confidently what the results would be?

The experiment is done every second of every minute of every day.
A clock at GPS altitude is noted to be running 5.288E-10 seconds
faster per second than a ground based clock fixed with the ECI
frame. The reason according to general relativity is that, although
the tick rates are the same in each clock, the tick frequency from
the ground based clock arriving at the GPS altitude clock has been
slowed by its climb from the gravity well, while the frequency from
the GPS altitude clock has increased because it's falling into the
gravity well. That's what I gather from your interpretation of the
Pound and Rebka experiment. And the Sachs-Wolfe effect of course.

But the tick shortfall per second between the two would just keep
on adding up if they were in fact created. And that can go on for
years. After only one hour the tick shortfall is 17,500 . If they
were created, where the hell are they? The obvious answer is of
course that they were never made. The oscillator which drives the
atomic clock is slowed in the deeper gravity well, and that's
obviously all that happens.

It would seem that the GR (and yours) interpretation of the Pound
and Rebka result is nonsense.

Bring one of the GPS clocks back to ground and see if the missing
ticks held in limbo between the previously separated clocks suddenly
appear. What you are peddling is so obviously wrong that it can only
be an embarrassment for the physics community.

And why do you keep ignoring the *actual* experiment which *has*
been done?


Now take your atomic clock back to the early universe, to the time
when the universe became transparent. Have you any idea how slow
that clock would be running in that environment?

Why on earth should it run slower???

That should now be *very* obvious.


The ratio between
the radius of the universe relative to the big bang at the time of
transparency and the current radius should give you some idea of
the difference in the average gravitational potential then and the
average potential now.

The potential is (on average) zero, and always was. If you think
otherwise, you show nicely that you don't understand gravity.

There was an enormous concentration of matter then relative to now,
so there was an enormous gravitational potential then relative to
now. To bring that all into perspective, the mass of the earth, or
any other constant mass, of any size (it matters not), can be used
to compare how a clock would behave at different stages in the
evolution of the universe from the big bang. The expansion of space
between two points is going to be reasonably uniform throughout the
universe. So by comparing the tick rate of an atomic clock at
different radii from the earth with the tick rate of that clock if
it was fixed at the center of earth's mass, I would get a reasonable
indication of how the clock would behave, on average, anywhere
across the entire universe at any stage of evolution. The changing
relationship between the clock and the earth would be exactly
proportionally to the clock's changing relationship with all of the
matter in the universe.

And so; For the clock at a 13E+9 light year radius (1.23E+20km)
from the earth, (G*M)/(r*c^2)
(6.67E-11*1E+38)/(1.23E+20*300000^2)= 3.6E-20 to 1 per earth clock.
For the clock at, allowing for a very rapid initial expansion, a
whopping 10,000,000 light year radius (9.46E+19km) from the earth
in the environment of the big bang universe at the time when the
universe became transparent,
(6.67E-11*1E+38)/(9.46E+19*300000^2)= 4.7E-17 to 1.
The clock tick ratio between the two stages is
4.7E-17 / 3.6E-20 = 1300 to 1.
The clock was ticking 1300 times slower than it is now, so every
frequency generated in that environment was necessarily 1300 times
slower. The spectrum generated at that time would be that of a 5.5 K
radiator, relative to now. That's before the expansion is even
thought about.

Even if you don't agree with the logic, the effect is certainly
present in rather enormous proportions. The spectrum of the CMBR
was that of a 4000 K blackbody relative to the time rate in the
environment in which it began its journey, but it was nothing like
that of a present day 4000 K blackbody.


Hence the re-run of this next paragraph.

-An atomic clock's tick rate would be slowed enormously in the
-densely populated environment of the early universe,

No, it wouldn't. It would tick at the same rate as today.

Your handwaving is far from convincing.

The zero origin universe is looking good.

-----

Max Keon

Max Keon wrote:
Bjoern Feuerbacher wrote:

Max Keon wrote:

Bjoern Feuerbacher wrote:


[snip]


You have so far
failed to address the two clock and the tower scenario that I
continue to put to you. So here it is again;

-Two atomic clocks which were previously synchronized adjacent, and
-then positioned apart at the top and the base of a tower so that
-their tick rates can be compared via a numeric display attached to
-each clock and driven by each clock's oscillator is proof beyond
-doubt that the frequency generated in the Caesium atom configuration
-that drives each display, slows in the deeper potential well at the
-tower base. That slowing all happens within the clock mechanism,
-simply because it's running in a deeper potential well, and that's
-the only reason.

I'm still waiting for your in depth explanation that proves me
wrong.


The above is an entirely *hypothetical* scenario. The experiment
has never been done in that way. So why do you keep asserting so
confidently what the results would be?


The experiment is done every second of every minute of every day.
A clock at GPS altitude is noted to be running 5.288E-10 seconds
faster per second than a ground based clock fixed with the ECI
frame. The reason according to general relativity is that, although
the tick rates are the same in each clock, the tick frequency from
the ground based clock arriving at the GPS altitude clock has been
slowed by its climb from the gravity well, while the frequency from
the GPS altitude clock has increased because it's falling into the
gravity well. That's what I gather from your interpretation of the
Pound and Rebka experiment. And the Sachs-Wolfe effect of course.

But the tick shortfall per second between the two would just keep
on adding up if they were in fact created. And that can go on for
years. After only one hour the tick shortfall is 17,500 . If they
were created, where the hell are they? The obvious answer is of
course that they were never made. The oscillator which drives the
atomic clock is slowed in the deeper gravity well, and that's
obviously all that happens.

It would seem that the GR (and yours) interpretation of the Pound
and Rebka result is nonsense.

Bring one of the GPS clocks back to ground and see if the missing
ticks held in limbo between the previously separated clocks suddenly
appear. What you are peddling is so obviously wrong that it can only
be an embarrassment for the physics community.


And why do you keep ignoring the *actual* experiment which *has*
been done?

I'll address the above as soon as you show me that you have actually
looked up and understood what was done in the Pound-Rebka experiment,
and explain its *actual* results, instead of the straw men you keep
bringing up.


[snip]


The ratio between
the radius of the universe relative to the big bang at the time of
transparency and the current radius should give you some idea of
the difference in the average gravitational potential then and the
average potential now.


The potential is (on average) zero, and always was. If you think
otherwise, you show nicely that you don't understand gravity.


There was an enormous concentration of matter then relative to now,

Right.


so there was an enormous gravitational potential then relative to
now.

Wrong. Non sequitur.

The matter was almost homogeneously distributed. In a homogenous
matter distribution, the gravitational potential is *zero*.


[snip a lot based on a false premise]


Hence the re-run of this next paragraph.

-An atomic clock's tick rate would be slowed enormously in the
-densely populated environment of the early universe,


No, it wouldn't. It would tick at the same rate as today.


Your handwaving is far from convincing.

Your assertions about the gravitational potential in the early
universe are even less.


The zero origin universe is looking good.

Only to you.



Bye,
Bjoern

Bjoern Feuerbacher wrote:

Max Keon wrote:
Bjoern Feuerbacher wrote:
Max Keon wrote:
-----
-----

It would seem that the GR (and yours) interpretation of the Pound
and Rebka result is nonsense.

Bring one of the GPS clocks back to ground and see if the missing
ticks held in limbo between the previously separated clocks suddenly
appear. What you are peddling is so obviously wrong that it can only
be an embarrassment for the physics community.


And why do you keep ignoring the *actual* experiment which *has*
been done?

I'll address the above as soon as you show me that you have actually
looked up and understood what was done in the Pound-Rebka experiment,
and explain its *actual* results, instead of the straw men you keep
bringing up.

If the radioactive iron frequency generator used in the Pound and
Rebka experiment is placed at the tower base, it would naturally
generate photons that were already redshifted compared with the
photons generated from a similar frequency generator located at
the tower top. Neither one will absorb the frequency from the other.
That's what Pound and Rebka found, and that's what GR predicts. But
GR also predicts that the frequency generated at the tower base will
be further redshifted enroute to the tower top because the photons
all lose energy through the climb from the gravity well. That's
the part that can't happen because every oscillation cycle of a
continuous frequency generated at the tower base will relentlessly
pile up between the tower base and tower top because they are
passing by the tower top at a slower rate than they are being
produced (whatever way you want to measure time). And that can go
on indefinitely.

You may be interested in this little excerpt from Britannica.
--
Two-way, round-the-world flights of atomic clocks in 1971 produced
changes in clock epochs that agreed well with the predictions of
special and general relativity. The results have been cited as proof
that the gravitational red shift in the frequency of a photon is
produced when the photon is formed, as predicted by Einstein, and
not later, as the photon moves in a gravitational field. In effect,
gravitational potential is a perturbation that lowers the energy of
a quantum state.
--

I'm sure you would like to know how this all works in the zero
origin universe.

This wavetrain traveling between the tower ends

Tower wave Tower base
top crests -- constant space -- with earth
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I not present

changes to this when the gravity well set by the earth is included.

Tower wave Tower base
top crests stretching space -- on earth's
I I I I I I I I I surface

At first glance, the wavetrain probably appears redshifted as it
dives into the gravity well, but nothing really changes because the
speed of light has increased along with the stretching space. With
time measured from a fixed point, the wave crests produced per
second in a precision frequency generator placed at each end, will
pass by the other end at exactly the same number of wave crests per
second as they were created. But the frequency generated in the
*stretched space* at the tower base is slower than at the top
because everything to do with generating the frequency is further
apart. Each oscillation cycle now takes longer.

Quite simple isn't it?

[snip]

The ratio between
the radius of the universe relative to the big bang at the time of
transparency and the current radius should give you some idea of
the difference in the average gravitational potential then and the
average potential now.


The potential is (on average) zero, and always was. If you think
otherwise, you show nicely that you don't understand gravity.


There was an enormous concentration of matter then relative to now,

Right.


so there was an enormous gravitational potential then relative to
now.

Wrong. Non sequitur.

The matter was almost homogeneously distributed. In a homogenous
matter distribution, the gravitational potential is *zero*.

But the gravitational potential between then and now is not zero.
Every potential well is separated through time, so why can't I
compare now with the era when the universe became transparent?
But it really makes no difference whether it's a gravitational
potential well or not because the only thing that matters is that
there was an *enormous* concentration of matter everywhere in the
early big bang universe. A clock tick rate would be slowed
enormously in that environment compared to now.

The magnitude of the effect is summed up in
this extract from my previous post: -------
To bring that all into perspective, the mass of the earth, or
any other constant mass, of any size (it matters not), can be used
to compare how a clock would behave at different stages in the
evolution of the universe from the big bang. The expansion of space
between two points is going to be reasonably uniform throughout the
universe. So by comparing the tick rate of an atomic clock at
different radii from the earth with the tick rate of that clock if
it was fixed at the center of earth's mass, I would get a reasonable
indication of how the clock would behave, on average, anywhere
across the entire universe at any stage of evolution. The changing
relationship between the clock and the earth would be exactly
proportionally to the clock's changing relationship with all of the
matter in the universe.

And so; For the clock at a 13E+9 light year radius (1.23E+20km)
from the earth, (G*M)/(r*c^2)
(6.67E-11*1E+38)/(1.23E+20*300000^2)= 3.6E-20 to 1 per earth clock.
For the clock at, allowing for a very rapid initial expansion, a
whopping 10,000,000 light year radius (9.46E+19km) from the earth
in the environment of the big bang universe at the time when the
universe became transparent,
(6.67E-11*1E+38)/(9.46E+19*300000^2)= 4.7E-17 to 1.
The clock tick ratio between the two stages is
4.7E-17 / 3.6E-20 = 1300 to 1.
The clock was ticking 1300 times slower than it is now, so every
frequency generated in that environment was necessarily 1300 times
slower. The spectrum generated at that time would be that of a 5.5 K
radiator, relative to now. That's before the expansion is even
thought about.

Even if you don't agree with the logic, the effect is certainly
present in rather enormous proportions. The spectrum of the CMBR
was that of a 4000 K blackbody relative to the time rate in the
environment in which it began its journey, but it was nothing like
that of a present day 4000 K blackbody.
-------

-----

Max Keon

Max Keon wrote:
Bjoern Feuerbacher wrote:

Max Keon wrote:

Bjoern Feuerbacher wrote:

Max Keon wrote:

-----
-----


It would seem that the GR (and yours) interpretation of the Pound
and Rebka result is nonsense.

Bring one of the GPS clocks back to ground and see if the missing
ticks held in limbo between the previously separated clocks suddenly
appear. What you are peddling is so obviously wrong that it can only
be an embarrassment for the physics community.


And why do you keep ignoring the *actual* experiment which *has*
been done?


I'll address the above as soon as you show me that you have actually
looked up and understood what was done in the Pound-Rebka experiment,
and explain its *actual* results, instead of the straw men you keep
bringing up.


If the radioactive iron frequency generator used in the Pound and
Rebka experiment is placed at the tower base, it would naturally
generate photons that were already redshifted compared with the
photons generated from a similar frequency generator located at
the tower top.

Why would they be "naturally" "already redshifted"? Are you talking
about gravitational time dilation, or what?


Neither one will absorb the frequency from the other.
That's what Pound and Rebka found, and that's what GR predicts. But
GR also predicts that the frequency generated at the tower base will
be further redshifted enroute to the tower top because the photons
all lose energy through the climb from the gravity well.

Wrong. GR does *not* predict that there is a "further" redshift.
The gravitational time dilation and the redshift are simply two
different ways to see the same effect.

Thanks for showing that you don't understand GR.



That's
the part that can't happen because every oscillation cycle of a
continuous frequency generated at the tower base will relentlessly
pile up between the tower base and tower top because they are
passing by the tower top at a slower rate than they are being
produced (whatever way you want to measure time). And that can go
on indefinitely.

Plain nonsense, as already explained before.



You may be interested in this little excerpt from Britannica.
--
Two-way, round-the-world flights of atomic clocks in 1971 produced
changes in clock epochs that agreed well with the predictions of
special and general relativity. The results have been cited as proof
that the gravitational red shift in the frequency of a photon is
produced when the photon is formed, as predicted by Einstein, and
not later, as the photon moves in a gravitational field. In effect,
gravitational potential is a perturbation that lowers the energy of
a quantum state.
--

Why should I care about what a dictionary says, which was very probably
*not* written by physicists who understand GR?



I'm sure you would like to know how this all works in the zero
origin universe.

No. I'm only interested in the *real* universe.




[snip]


The potential is (on average) zero, and always was. If you think
otherwise, you show nicely that you don't understand gravity.


There was an enormous concentration of matter then relative to now,


Right.


so there was an enormous gravitational potential then relative to
now.


Wrong. Non sequitur.

The matter was almost homogeneously distributed. In a homogenous
matter distribution, the gravitational potential is *zero*.


But the gravitational potential between then and now is not zero.

What on earth is "gravitational potential between then and now"
supposed to mean???


Every potential well is separated through time,

What on earth is this supposed to mean???


so why can't I
compare now with the era when the universe became transparent?

You can. But you do the comparison in a wrong way.


But it really makes no difference whether it's a gravitational
potential well or not because the only thing that matters is that
there was an *enormous* concentration of matter everywhere in the
early big bang universe. A clock tick rate would be slowed
enormously in that environment compared to now.

No, it wouldn't, since the average gravitational potential was zero
then and is still zero now. You conveniently ignore that argument.


[snip calculation based on false premise]

Bye,
Bjoern