How Einstein’s Mindless Mathematical Laws Fail to Lead to a Rational Explanation of the Pound-Rebka Experiment by James Carter

Dear James

I enjoyed going over your essay but rather quickly - I realized that I agree with you in general - that Einstein was right even though he was wrong ( perfect phrase may I use it in future?) However responding to the many cases you cite met with two difficulties - 1- you describe very specific experiments and results that require lengthy study, and 2- you use concepts such as the photon and I assume you regard it as a particle, not merely a quantum of wave energy an idea I am trying to refute. In my fqxi essay I have tried to show that Einstein, even though he was brillianty right, was simultaneously wrong on many counts and has led us now to a virtual dead end in physics.

Best wishes,

Vladimir

James,

Excellent essay. Nicely written, set out and argued. Vladimir my have missed your comment re 'photons'. I agree it would have benefited from an earlier disclaimer of 'ballistic particles' but that's always a dilemma, and largely semantic.

Most importantly I agree your arguments are substantially correct. If you've followed fqxi for a while you might have seen essays and blog posts where I've explained Pound-Rebka and related physics very similarly (see Discrete Field dynamics in essays from 2011 on). You take it a bit further in some directions which is interesting, but we fundamentally agree;

"Doppler shifts only occur at the emission and absorption of photons" and... "Atoms emit photons that travel an unlimited distance at c until other atoms either absorb or reflect them"

I do point out it would be far more accurate (and I found ultimately more revealing) to use "Fermions" rather than "atoms" (the electron shell' surrounds the nucleus anyway, but the kinetic effects then also applies to free electron{/positron} plasma of refractive index n~1. However that takes nothing from the argument in the essay.

You also importantly identify; "One major problem with general relativity enthusiasts is that they are unable to make up their minds. Either gravity's expanding spacetime shifts a photon's momentum in flight or it does not.

Though I term it, similar to SR, that enthusiasts "make up their minds" TOO often! switching from one adamant position to another giving recursive argument. But I found Einstein DID get it right in '53' with his 'spaces in motion within spaces' without even knowing these 'spaces' were bounded by dense fermion boundaries (fermion fine structures and 'shocks'). Your analysis is importantly consistent with a more coherent fuller model.

I see it's been hit with a 2 (Not Vladimir I'm sure). Perhaps a relativist but maybe just a troll. Mine suffered too (four 1's!). Rest assured mine will be high.

I hope you may read mine. I moved on to QM as a test of "re-emission at local c" logic, and it's revealed a classical derivation. Of course far too much of a shock for anyone to accept, but you seem already half way and not indoctrinated so may see it. I look forward to finding out.

Very best

Peter

Hello Mr Carter,

I didn't know this expermiment and resulst.It is intriguing indeed.I consider this weakest quantum force in the cold.Dark matter not bbaryonic seems the aswer and BHs also.I have inserted quantum BHs also and particles of gravitation encircling this standard model permitting the equilibrium between thermo and cold.Harvard seems wanting ti find this quantum gravity?I found in all humility.Here is my equation E=m(b)c²+m(nb)l² with quant and cosm 3D sphères Inside an universal 3D sphere in spherisation optimisation of matter energy.See that we have a gravitational aether instead of a luminiferous aether from the centralm sphre, the biggest spherical cosmological volume,the biggest BH producing the speedest spherons, particles of gravitation.This gravitation seems the main primoridal chief orchestra.The photons are in fact spherons coded possessing a serie primordial of uniqueness.Probably the same serie that our cosm finite serie.The primes seems relevant for the groups.The paradox is that this weakest force is in the same time the strongest with these quant BHs farer than nuclear gluonic forces.Spherons them are encoded weaker in forces than electrom forces of photons.These photons are just a fuel coded by this gravity.Don't hesistate to ask détails,I will answer with pleasure.We must explain this quant gravity after all :)

ps they turn so they are these 3D sphères....

Regards

Dear James Carter,

Please excuse me for I have no intention of disparaging in any way any part of your essay.

I merely wish to point out that "Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler." Albert Einstein (1879 - 1955) Physicist & Nobel Laureate.

Only nature could produce a reality so simple, a single cell amoeba could deal with it.

The real Universe must consist only of one unified visible infinite physical surface occurring in one infinite dimension, that am always illuminated by infinite non-surface light.

A more detailed explanation of natural reality can be found in my essay, SCORE ONE FOR SIMPLICITY. I do hope that you will read my essay and perhaps comment on its merit.

Joe Fisher, Realist

Nice essay Carter,

Your ideas and thinking are excellent for eg...

Any "theory" of gravity must present metaphysical assumptions to show the physical measurements of upward gravitational motion and force to be false. Gravitational expansion is a principle of measurement that details how we feel the force of gravity with our bodies and what gravity does and looks like when we measure it.

A Good idea, I fully agree with you for a change, I want you to ask you to please have a look at my essay, where ...............reproduction of Galaxies in the Universe is described. Dynamic Universe Model is another mathematical model for Universe. Its mathematics show that the movement of masses will be having a purpose or goal, Different Galaxies will be born and die (quench) etc...just have a look at my essay... "Distances, Locations, Ages and Reproduction of Galaxies in our Dynamic Universe" where UGF (Universal Gravitational force) acting on each and every mass, will create a direction and purpose of movement.....

I think intension is inherited from Universe itself to all Biological systems

For your information Dynamic Universe model is totally based on experimental results. Here in Dynamic Universe Model Space is Space and time is time in cosmology level or in any level. In the classical general relativity, space and time are convertible in to each other.

Many papers and books on Dynamic Universe Model were published by the author on unsolved problems of present day Physics, for example 'Absolute Rest frame of reference is not necessary' (1994) , 'Multiple bending of light ray can create many images for one Galaxy: in our dynamic universe', About "SITA" simulations, 'Missing mass in Galaxy is NOT required', "New mathematics tensors without Differential and Integral equations", "Information, Reality and Relics of Cosmic Microwave Background", "Dynamic Universe Model explains the Discrepancies of Very-Long-Baseline Interferometry Observations.", in 2015 'Explaining Formation of Astronomical Jets Using Dynamic Universe Model, 'Explaining Pioneer anomaly', 'Explaining Near luminal velocities in Astronomical jets', 'Observation of super luminal neutrinos', 'Process of quenching in Galaxies due to formation of hole at the center of Galaxy, as its central densemass dries up', "Dynamic Universe Model Predicts the Trajectory of New Horizons Satellite Going to Pluto" etc., are some more papers from the Dynamic Universe model. Four Books also were published. Book1 shows Dynamic Universe Model is singularity free and body to collision free, Book 2, and Book 3 are explanation of equations of Dynamic Universe model. Book 4 deals about prediction and finding of Blue shifted Galaxies in the universe.

With axioms like... No Isotropy; No Homogeneity; No Space-time continuum; Non-uniform density of matter(Universe is lumpy); No singularities; No collisions between bodies; No Blackholes; No warm holes; No Bigbang; No repulsion between distant Galaxies; Non-empty Universe; No imaginary or negative time axis; No imaginary X, Y, Z axes; No differential and Integral Equations mathematically; No General Relativity and Model does not reduce to General Relativity on any condition; No Creation of matter like Bigbang or steady-state models; No many mini Bigbangs; No Missing Mass; No Dark matter; No Dark energy; No Bigbang generated CMB detected; No Multi-verses etc.

Many predictions of Dynamic Universe Model came true, like Blue shifted Galaxies and no dark matter. Dynamic Universe Model gave many results otherwise difficult to explain

Have a look at my essay on Dynamic Universe Model and its blog also where all my books and papers are available for free downloading...

http://vaksdynamicuniversemodel.blogspot.in/

Best wishes to your essay.

For your blessings please................

=snp. gupta

Hi James,

You have my admiration. To say that the emperor (standard physics) has no clothes (is not quite right) takes a lot of courage. This keeps physics alive and kicking in spite of the Mad Max's of this world. The second ref below shows a way for attractive gravity can imitate repulsive gravity.

Check out my website:

1. http://www.digitalwavetheory.com/21_Nitpicking_General_Relativity.html

2. http://www.digitalwavetheory.com/19_Dark_Energy-Curved_SpaceTime.html

Thanks for your essay.

Don Limuti

Dear Sirs!

Physics of Descartes, which existed prior to the physics of Newton returned as the New Cartesian Physic and promises to be a theory of everything. To tell you this good news I use spam.

New Cartesian Physic based on the identity of space and matter. It showed that the formula of mass-energy equivalence comes from the pressure of the Universe, the flow of force which on the corpuscle is equal to the product of Planck's constant to the speed of light.

New Cartesian Physic has great potential for understanding the world. To show it, I ventured to give "materialistic explanations of the paranormal and supernatural" is the title of my essay.

Visit my essay, you will find there the New Cartesian Physic and make a short entry: "I believe that space is a matter" I will answer you in return. Can put me 1.

Sincerely,

Dizhechko Boris