It agree. These Corda's papers based on misunderstanding basic notions of GR.

https://www.researchgate.net/post/What_do_you_think_about_famous_Phipps_experiment

Notice that many ears ago GR was disproved by Phipps experiment.

https://www.scribd.com/doc/284791565/phipps-1

Dear Tolga. Now it ok, see pdf.

How about Sagnac, Tolga?

Thanks, Tolga. I'll work.

Corda's papers abnormal and based on misunderstanding basic notions of GR. and SR. The same to edirial board of jornal Ann. Phys.

GR predict standard expression for the relative energy shift and nothing more as pointed out in Moller's handbook

https://archive.org/details/theoryofrelativi029229mbp

Corda,

it seams, that you don't want to improve anything in theory.

Ozan Yarman Added an answer

Dear Eugene, the individual you are trying to reason with is a tyrannical cleric of the "exclusive club" of general relativity fanatics and offshoot spacetime curvature garblings bigots. They give each other "rewards" and "exultate the edifice of Einstein" every which way so that they can bask under and draw from Albert Einstein's overblown fame for personal advancement in the "big vatican of scientism". Anybody who doesn't conform to this club's overweening hubris, snobbery, and overarching propaganda forevermore supporting Einstein's "unfalsifiable metric worldview" through countless journal or media outlets owned and controlled by them are immediately showered with insults such as "cranks!", "crackpots!", "impostors!", "plagiarists!", etc... As we say in Turkish: "Körler ve sağırlar, birbirini ağırlar". Our Russian colleagues and other parties are already quite aware of the despicable situation and unbelievable dirty business though. It is becoming more and more evident that this show cannot and will not go on. Even so, History is on our side. This, we firmly believe

Dear Ozan Yarman !

It agree

It is insults, Corda. They show only your nature, nothing else.

Corda,

If you are not interested in what others, who are highly considered in the literature wrote, said, don't expect the others to be interested in your work or do not feel surprise if your work gets highly criticized.

To insult people does not make things better.

This is more or less also what also Feynman said, he could afford such sentence. The non-negligible difference is that Feynman was a real genius Nobel prize and t'Hoft is a Nobel prize.

On the other side I totally agree that we have to form our own ideas on theories by studying facts, experiments, but also other's opinions and viewpoints for how wrong they can seem, especially trying not to give things for granted.

For how genius the single person can be, can make mistakes , and sometimes these mistakes stay for years due to the credibility he gained during time for other topics and become big hidden mistakes.

As far as I saw in several years there are too many assumptions made in Science, especially after 1905...(assumption is the mothers of all fk-ups).

"reasons to be mad" Genial!

Work, Corda, to reach understanding. Nobody can give it to you.

You can not (or can?) compete with soviet leaders by the number of medals, Corda. And what?

How do you think, why Feynman left your famous Panel?

Christian Corda

I understand you point of view about GR.

On the same footing I did not raise myself at level of anybody else, I've just given an opinion on a behavior.

I did not write anything in particular on Gravitation, although I've studied it for a while. I wrote only a correction on the report of the GP-A experiment (Vessot and Levine) . The correct model (they did not consider a contribution on the Doppler cancelling circuit) appeared in 2001 and 2017 but nobody has pointed out that in the original report it was the case to use the more accurate model. The simpler model used was a source of a wider uncertainty than expected (poorer fit with the data) in the report issued in 1979.

For what my opinion can matter and for what emerged from the discussion in the other thread I don't feel that Kundig et al anomalus shifts can be given either by GR or by YARK.

Although at first I thought that your proposal with GR could be the answer.

[1] Crothers, S.J., On Corda's 'Clarification' of Schwarzschild's Solution, Hadronic Journal, Vol. 39, 2016, http://vixra.org/pdf/1602.0221v4.pdf

[2] Crothers, S.J., The Schwarzschild Solution: A Reply to C. Corda's Rebuttal, http://vixra.org/pdf/1603.0261v1.pdf

C. Corda became unfortunate a victim of an insane faith in GR from Albert Einstein.Thanks to Einstein, we now have many crazy followers of his theory

Annals of Physics Volume 355, April 2015, Pages 360-366

Interpretation of Mössbauer experiment in a rotating system: A new proof for general relativity. By Christian Corda

But true name of this paper:

Abnormal interpretation of Mössbauer experiment in a rotating system

by stupid clock synchronization from Christian Corda: A new completely abnormal "proof" for general relativity.

Many thanks to Editor-in-Chief Brian Greene who has published this funny nonsense from Christian Corda in Annals of Physics!

Dear Tolga,

you are certainly right on this, he manipulated the results to make them compliant with SR.

Stefano Quattrini Added an answer: Dear Tolga, you are certainly right on this, he manipulated the results to make them compliant with SR.

https://www.researchgate.net/deref/http%3A%2F%2Fiopscience.iop.org%2Farticle%2F10.1088%2F0031-8949%2F77%2F03%2F035302%2Fmeta

Dear Stefano. It clear why Kündig did it as mentioned above. In contrast with stupid and crazy fanats as C.Corda, this Kündig obviously is an educated fanat of canonical GR.

Mössbauer experiment explanation by C. Corda looks quite plausible. But there is hardly sufficient reason to assert the equivalence principle , which states the equivalence between the gravitational "force" and the pseudo-force , if only because there is no inertial coordinate system in which redshift would be the same at the same forces.

>Mössbauer experiment explanation by C. Corda looks quite plausible.

Dear Wladimir Belayev. What do you meant under this "looks quite plausible"???

Show me, please, inertial coordinate system, Wladimir.

Dear Tolga,

Experiment of Phipps does not refute Corda's article, since it considers the dependence of the course of time on distance, rather than the change in distance.

Dear Jakov,

On the one hand, the result does not contradict the experiment, on the other, additional redshift follows from the Langevin metric.

And what does it mean to be in inertial system? Inertial relative to what?

To be in system sounds like to be in prison.

Eugene, as an inertial reference frame, one can take a system with a center at a sufficient distance from the source of gravity. However, inertiality here is not a necessary condition, since there is no reference frame in which redshift would be the same at the same forces.

Excuse, Wladimir, what redshift are you discussing?

Eugene, read the article proposed for discussion, see https://arxiv.org/pdf/1805.06228.pdf .

Dear Jakov,

It is objectively recognized and the group of Yarman gave a significative contribution to discover the 2/3 effect by repeating Kundig-type experiments.

Although I don't subscribe personally the model they found to explain the data since the acceleration by itself does not increase time dilation as seen in the muon type experiment with 54g acceleration.

At the same time I am not satisfied at all on how time dilation is conceived and treated in SR (speed) and GR (metric origin), first because the origin of the effect is different, but we talk about the same effect on atomic clocks.

On the other hand I consider interesting the model found by Corda although I've seen many who disputed that it can be part of GR.

I noticed a diatribe on the Equivalence Principle on the topic, but I'm not surprised about it, since there are more unclear than clear statements about it.

I did not see any attempts to explain the 2/3 effect in other ways. Nobody for example considered the possible influence of neutron emission from the piezoelectric crystals due to the stress, neutron emission clearly found in several experiments with piezoelectric crystal who were close to cracking (explanation not possible with the standard model).

Christian Corda

I would like to understand better this passage. I wonder if -1/6 is a term emerging from the Schwartzchild solution or not, it should be taken in account by Ashby.

> Wladimir Belayev Added an answer Eugene, read the article proposed for discussion, see https://arxiv.org/pdf/1805.06228.pdf

Dear Wladimir. What about Eq.8 in this paper?

Dear Jakov, there's a link to Ashby's article. There is a similar formula in which the angle interval is replaced by the time interval, which is quite acceptable for a rotating disk. Perhaps Corda will give a more detailed comment.

>Tolga Yarman Added an answer

Dear Wladimir: To my understanding, Phipps' results, already falsify GTR, and I not see really how Corda can catch up, with that. I like to invite Jaykov Foukzon to intervene, at this stage...

Dear Tolga Yarman.

Of course Phipps' results has disproved canonical mysterious metric (from A.Einstein) of the rotating frame,

see Eq. (4) in Corda's paper

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1805.06228.pdf

As we know, this metric is paradoxical and gives a contradictions.

Nevertheless fans of GR, dealing with this nonsense during one century doesn't understand that Einstein was wrong in this case.

There exists a lot abnormal papers from crazy fans of GR about this abnormal metric. These Corda's papers only small part of them.

Notice that nonsense from Neil Ashby is based on the same metric,

Relativity in the Global Positioning System

Neil Ashby

Dept. of Physics, University of Colorado

https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.12942%2Flrr-2003-1.pdf

to Christian Corda

>

I think you better follow what people say!!!! I did not say that their theory is able to predict that value, but the group made the experiments which made emerge the "mistake of Kunding" showing the experimental value 2/3 value of the frequency shift. A totally different matter is to find a model which explains such value and I also said I can't agree with YARK for several reasons in the other thread..

is it possible to have the reference of Ashby, you are referring to? because the one I have in mind to estimate the time dilation between sats, uses the Schw. solution.

To Christian Corda

thanks for providing the link, it is the same I've read a couple of years ago. I have to have a look again because i was convinced of the Schw. solution he used.

Note that Eq. (8) in Corda's paper

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1805.06228.pdf

in a very good contradiction with SR.

This remarcable abnormal formula, Corda took from

Neil Ashby paper

https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.12942%2Flrr-2003-1.pdf

Many thanks Ashby from Corda.

In additional note that "synchronization of clocks" on non inertial frame, that is complete conventional unphysical procedure,

because such procedure based on complete conventional definition of

"simultaneous" events occurring at different points in space.

Yes, it is impossible to synchronize clocks in rotating frame.

Dear Eugene F Kislyakov ,

I can agree that it is for sure impossible to synchronize clocks in a rotating frame by means of the Einstein Poincarè procedure.

Infact in such configuration you will have an additional effect which prevents the use of a standard sync proc.

But this does not mean that it is impossible to set in sync objects which are in rotational motion around an axis in general, otherwise it would not be possible to set GPS in sync, basically you have to use a master clock "at rest".

What is instead virtually impossible is to put rotating clocks in sync by exchanging signals with eachoter.

Dear C.Corda. You are delirious.

see Moller's book, pp.225 Eq.9

https://ia800302.us.archive.org/4/items/theoryofrelativi029229mbp/theoryofrelativi029229mbp.pdf

Notice that there is no any rotating frame in considered problem. This nonsense was tied here by Corda forcibly holding him ears

Thus New "proof" of general relativity by Corda was forcibly holdings ears by rotating frame.

Nonsense. Physically there exist only sours of quanta and rotating absorber, see Fig.8 in this paper

Article Novel Mössbauer experiment in a rotating system and the extr...

in considered problem.

Of course there exist a lot of rotatin metal in Mössbauer experiment,

but this metal do nothing in order to calculate Doppler effect in a rotating system.

Dear Ozan Yarman.

In additional note that.

In C.Corda papers photon mistakenly considered as classical point particle. However any quanta is a wave. Thus we do not know in which point of absorber it collapses. In GR one deals with point particles and point clokcs with well defined coordinates which is mathematical abstraction only and such abstraction of course breaks down in considered problem.

Dear Christian Corda

We are discussing here if your explanation of the GRT with respect to a rotating system experiment is correct. K=1/2 was one of the pillars for the proof that GRT is correct. You found another part with value 1/6 that would make it K=2/3. This you find in a clock correction for a detector that can't detect timing but only does register events while the counting of these events is outside of the rotating system. You then state that with the YARK theory predicted K=3/2 the total value should be K=5/6. So in the case the detector would be time sensitive the experiment should come up with that value but since it is not time sensitive you are left with the 1/6 not detected in this experiment and yet a measured value of K=2/3.

For a theory to be correct it has to withstand all attacks. For a theory to attack another theory the attacking theory doesn't need to be perfect. Once it has shown that in one condition the standing theory fails it has the right to propose an alternative. So if YARK fails it predictions at some places then it merely fails to become the accepted replacement of the vacancy. But its failure doesn't restore the position of the initial theory, here the GRT.

May I remind you that you have been so kind to answer my question about the interaction speed of gravity with the confirmation that you could se nothing incorrect in my interpretation of the interaction speed of gravity as predicted by GRT. Based on exactly this confirmation I have shown that for the case that we have a homogeneous and isotropic energy density distribution there is absolute no need to invoke a LAMBDA to keep the universe stable because space is insensitive with its expansion to the above mentioned content of space.

I know that you have responded to me about my article that you didn't agree with me but that you rendered my article scientific enough to be published in your journal of high energy physics gravitation and cosmology (subsequent attempts to get it posted in arXiv were supported by you but rejected because the reputation of your journal is not good enough to justify acceptance in arXiv). However I have never received any explanation why you disagree. Other people who also are the opinion that the GRT is correct have done their best and failed to show that I am wrong with my deduction. I have no perfect alternative theory to replace GRT on the throne of currently not falsified theory. But with my deduction I have falsified the predictions of the GRT in yet another place.

With this I want to remind you that even in the case that YARK is complete nonsense we still are in the situation that you try to prove incorrectness of YARK based on a theory, GRT, that itself already has failed elsewhere.

Being in the situation that you defend a theory that failed even more is not a good position to justify the type of emotional basic school level of accusations and classifications of people. You state that you are a professor with hundreds of papers and many Honourable Mentioned Awards. Noblesse Oblige. I would expect to see your response in accordance with your scientific level irrespectively of whatever accusation is thrown at you. You should earn your respect not only by the papers but also by your tone. If you are attacked by a group then there is a big chance that you have attacked that group. You can not stop wrongdoing by adding your own.

In your eyes I might be a nothing with respect to the GRT, but GRT is not he whole world and it happens that in age I am your senior. I happen to know both Tolga and Ozan Yarman in person. The fact that I disagree with their theory and don't share their religion did not stop them to treat me in the most kind humane and hospital way. As a young boy I once had a big clash with one of my classmates. The teacher asked the other boy if I had been angry and if I had lost my temper. The boy admitted that this happened. The conclusion of the teacher was that then this boy obviously had managed to be so extreme far over the limit of acceptable behaviour that he even managed to make me lose my temper. He ordered the boy to sit down and be ashamed. To me the teacher said: "Paul next time more patience". I have seen the patience, the friendliness, and generosity of both mentioned persons. I see here a lot of hostility and even the youngest of the two lose his temper. It reminds me of this lesson of life for me.

Regards,

Paul Gradenwitz

>Q. Which theory correctly explains the results of Mössbauer rotor experiments?

Dear Ozan Yarman.

C. Corda papers explains nothing because based on abnormal metric from

A. Einstein + a lot of mistakes mentioned above. Any peoples from Einstain club mast be advocate him mistakes. Otherwise they will be driven out to the street and damned forever.

Members of this craizy club always are very strongly irritated when somebody point out by it to their amusing school mistakes.

Dear Christian Corda

Thank you for your answer. In your response you said:

C Corda>: You are correct that the detector only does register events while the counting of these events is outside of the rotating system, but the observer in the detector counts a number of events in time which is DIFFERENT from the number of events in time which is counted by the observer outside of the rotating system and he is this later observer which makes the the final measure, because I do not think that the YARK club attach themself to the rotating detector in order to make the final measure!

Here you talk about two detectors. On detector outside of the rotating system and one detector co-rotating with the system. To my understanding In the centre of the setup there is a gamma source, then at the rim is the Mössbauer resonant filter and outside of that there is nothing. The counting is done by counting the number of quanta that happen to transfer the filter at the moment where the setup is in line with the external counter at rest in the ab. I think I miss the co-rotating counter in this setup. Could you please explain me where in this setup I should envision that co-rotating counter?

Regards and thanks for your patience with me,

Paul Gradenwitz

Mohamed Hassani Added an answer

Hello everyone! I noticed that some persons transformed RG into battlefield!

Dear Mohamed Hassani. Everising is ok.

Dear C.Corda has disproved GR by using formal imbedding of the rotating point (absorber) into fictive rotating frame. Many thanks C.Corda.

Nevertheless C.Corda mistakenly argue that he has obtained new proof of general relativity through the correct physical interpretation of the Mossbauer rotor experiment.

However this is only C.Corda's problem and staff of journal Ann. Phys.which pablished this funny paper:

C. Corda, Ann. Phys. 355 (2015) 360. New proof of general relativity through the correct physical interpretation of the Mossbauer rotor experiment.

Of course this papaer mast be renamed:

New disproof of general relativity through the ubnormal physical interpretation of the Mossbauer rotor experiment.

Dear Christian Corda,

your ideas of measurement of time (as events) are hard to understand:

"but the observer in the detector counts a number of events in time which is DIFFERENT from the number of events in time which is counted by the observer outside of the rotating system and he is this later observer which makes the the final measure"

Truly sad to see religion and politics enter a science discussion.