> 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.
YAAAAAWN.
>
> 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.
No, all the link sue picked up from random google searching says is
what is already known: trying to derive the observed redshift by
assuming massive photons ends in failure. Which is already known and
COMPLETELY irrelevant to the discussion, as is typical for anything
from sue.
>
> 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!
Babbling nonsense. What was _observed_ was that redshift according to
Schwarzschild - and the weak field limit - conforms to observation.
>
> 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.
...due to anisotropies in the background radiation. Which is the point
that you have completely failed to understand so far.
>
> 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_.
"I do not understand" is not an argument.
Gravitational redshift is very well verified and not just by Pound &
Rebka - that just happened to be the first conclusive observation.
Stupid then stupid now. The Big Bang theory does not rest on either of
the Sachs-Wolfe effects, and the integrated Sachs-Wolfe effect has
been observed. I'm not pasting the link a third time.
>
>> 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.
Thus proving you have no interest in science.
Argument over. Enjoy babbling to silence.
[snip rest, unread]
