On Jul 31, 1:11 pm, Eric Gisse
gmail.com> wrote:>> On Jul 30, 9:30am, Eric Gisse
gmail.com> wrote:---
>>>
>>> You mean other than you have no idea what you are talking about with a
>>> long proven history of being clueless and ineducable? Pound-Rebka is /
>>> irrelevant/ to Sachs-Wolfe beyond the simple fact that it verified
>>> gravitational redshift.
>>
>> It verified gravitational redshift in the frequency generators
>> ONLY, as well as proving conclusively that the wavelengths of
>> the photons traveling from the tower base to the top, or from
>> the top to the base didn't change at all.
>
> Go read about the Mossbauer effect and how the experiment was actually
> performed, as your perception is totally inaccurate.
Do you still think I'm trying to describe the actual experiment?
>> You are forever asserting that Pound and Rebka confirmed the
>> Sachs-Wolfe effect, _but it was clearly shown to not exist_.
>
> Does that reading disability impact you greatly? I claim no such
> thing.
So you really don't know that the Pound and Rebka experiment and
the Sachs-Wolfe effect are fundamentally linked? Perhaps you
should enlighten yourself with some facts.
This link provided by Sue in a reply to you
http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/9907017 gives a very detailed
explanation why gravitational redshift does not extend to photons
shifting potential within a gravity well. That's the only logical
conclusion that can be drawn from the P+R experiment you know.
If the photons are redshifted as well, according to GM/r/c^2,
which also justifiably applies to the frequency generators, the
total redshift would have been twice that observed. But it wasn't
was was it!
You can't have your cake and eat it too.
>> As my original post demonstrated; the big bang theory has failed
>> and so has the integrated Sachs-Wolfe effect, which is the only
>> thing that could save it. You should try to understand why.
>
> You still have no idea what you are talking about. First, the big bang
> theory does not depend on either of the Sachs-Wolfe effects [there are
> two, same idea different origins].
The Sachs-Wolfe effect relates to photons losing or gaining
energy in the form of a frequency change as they climb from or
fall to a well of gravitational potential.
The integrated Sachs-Wolfe effect is the additional frequency
change resulting if the depth of the potential well changes
while a photon is passing through.
Are those descriptions missing any of the basics?
Whatever the case, they are both fundamentally related to the
Pound and Rebka experiment, _and are both soundly falsified_.
As for the big bang theory; without the support of the
integrated Sachs-Wolfe effect, it fails. The reason for
the failure was detailed in my original post, and here
http://members.optusnet.com.au/maxkeon/sachs-wf.html
> Next, the Sachs-Wolfe effect has
> been observed - I gave you a link to the arXiv preprint explaining it,
> but apparently you didn't read it.
Yes, I read it. The direction that physics has been commanded to
take was a bit of a concern to me though. And it should concern
you as well.
> It sucks that your reading disability prevents you from learning, but
> you shouldn't blame the rest of physics for it.
>
>>> No matter how many times you make your
>>> confused little argument that makes sense to nobody but you,
>>
>> Setting up a self consistent closed loop of logic based around
>> some mammoth explosion is very easy to comprehend and understand.
>> But that is not the case when the argument is based on something
>> which defies comprehension.
>
> Physics does not depend on Max Keon understanding the arguments.
The progress of physics depends on physics understanding an
argument which defies comprehension. And you can't even get the
failing of the Sachs-Wolfe effect straight in your mind.
>> I'm slowly coming to terms with where I fit in this universe,
>> and that has taken more than 30 years so far.
>
> Delusions of grandeur with a major reading disability. Neat!
The zero origin universe doesn't fail any test, and has haunted
me for very many years. If it was proven to not be the universe
in which we exist, theoretical physics could go wherever it likes
and I wouldn't give a damn. But I do give a damn and you're going
to listen.
>>> it will
>>> not change the fact that gravitational redshift is real.
>>
>> As are Space-Ninjas. But perhaps you're referring to the
>> gravitational redshift that has been well proven to exist in
>> any natural frequency generator?
>
> I LOVE people who discredit their own arguments by being incredibly
> silly. This bullshit about "space ninjas" is right up there with Henri
> Wilson's "tick faeries".
There's just as much evidence for the existence of dark matter
and dark energy.
>
> Oh hey there is that observation of the integrated Sachs-Wolfe effect.
> I wonder if you even looked...
Yes I did. But, "observation"????
---
> WMAP has nothing to do with rotation curves, and the fact you don't
> even know *that* makes any explanation a waste of my time.
>
>
> Didya even *look* ?
>
>>> Read it yourself. I'm not going to spoon feed you an education. If you
>>> can not figure out why WMAP is relevant to rotation curves, draw the
>>> appropriate conclusion.
>>
>> The W-MAP snapshot of the early universe is the base on which
>> a new and unified understanding of the universe was to be
>> developed. The picture of the early universe was a still frame
>> and being such, most certainly couldn't indicate an anomaly in
>> galaxy rotation rates, or the increasing expansion rate of the
>> universe. Dark matter and dark energy were thrown in because
>> they were needed to fill a gaping hole in a theory. Certainly
>> not because they were predicted by W-MAP.
>
> WMAP HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH ROTATION CURVES, STUPID.
Maybe not. But the so called evidence for the existence of dark
energy is based entirely on the integrated Sachs-Wolfe effect,
WHICH HAS BEEN SOUNDLY FALSIFIED.
So stop dreaming.
-----
Max Keon
