Gravitational redshift misunderstood again

Blog 20150930 Gravitational redshift misunderstood again

Bill Westmiller writes:

Since I agree with 95+% of what you write, I  won't dispute 78 of your 84 "possibilities", but thought I'd challenge a few of  them:

"7. Discovery of the gravitational redshift proved that light velocity increases with distance from Earth."

Gravitational redshift is a component of Einstein's "time dilation", which you oppose, but it has nothing to  do with "distance from Earth", only the emission of light from a higher  gravitational field than the  observer: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_redshift

[GB: Bill, reread our paper on the neomechanical explanation of the so-called and misnamed “gravitational redshift”:

Borchardt, Glenn, and Puetz, Stephen J., 2012, Neomechanical gravitation theory, in Volk, G., Proceedings of the Natural Philosophy Alliance, 19th Conference of the NPA, 25-28 July http://www.worldsci.org/pdf/abstracts/abstracts_6529.pdf : Albuquerque, NM, Natural Philosophy Alliance, Mt. Airy, MD, v. 9, p. 53-58.

Pound and Rebka (1960) assumed that c (velocity of light) was constant, which it is not—it depends on the density of aether medium. In particular, aether pressure and density increases with distance from baryonic matter. They therefore assumed that it was light frequency that changed and not wave length. The velocity of light in water is 225,000 km/s and 300,000 km/s in air without any change in frequency (color). The wave length changes proportionally. Light is motion and cannot dilate, but Einstein and Pound assumed that it could. Aether pressure and light velocity increases with distance from all massive bodies and has been noted for all masses in the universe.]   

The  redshift of distant stellar light (relative to Earth observers) is a standard Newtonian application of the Doppler shift, indicating that the remote source is  moving away faster than a proximate source.

[GB: All Doppler shifts occur in a medium. The cosmic redshift of which you write is simply a result of “tired light.” Read my Blog on the indeterminist’s “untiring light theory.”] 

"30. Light does not have mass; it is motion."

Contradicts your Inseparability Axiom, asserting there is no motion without matter. If (#31) light is the motion of particles, then the particles have mass, as does light.

[GB: Duh? I have explained this a dozen times before. The analogy is sound. Sound is wave motion in the atmosphere, just as light is wave motion in aether. The aether medium, like the atmosphere, consists of particles in motion. Aether particles, like the nitrogen molecules in the atmosphere have mass, but neither light nor sound have mass. Bill, it is time that you finally get this. It isn’t that hard.]

"54. The Higgs boson does  not give mass to matter."

It IS strange that "modern physicists" make this assertion, since the Higgs claim is that mass is not acquired from an object, but from a "field" that permeates space ... a slight variation of the "aether medium".

[GB: You are correct that this is one way for regressive physicists to get out of the aether denial box. Even Einstein was way ahead of them (Einstein, Albert, 1920, Sidelights on relativity: 1. Ether and relativity. 2. Geometry and experience: London, Methuen, 56 p. In which he stated: “Careful reflection teaches us that special relativity does not compel us to deny ether. We may assume its existence but not ascribe a definite state of motion to it ..." "There is a weighty reason in favour of ether. To deny ether is to ultimately assume that empty space has no physical qualities whatever.”]

"66. The unobserved quantum particle exists."

Planck never claimed that there was any quantum "particle" and didn’t even invent the word. His research merely showed a direct relationship between light frequency and it's energy (mass in motion).

[GB: Yes, and that “mass in motion” really was aether. Being smaller than any baryonic matter, aethereal collisions are the “smallest unit of motion.” According to the Eighth Assumption of Science, infinity (The universe is infinite, both in the microcosmic and macrocosmic directions), there must be microcosms smaller than any baryonic matter—in neomechanics we call them aether or aether_-1 particles.]  

"72. There is no free will."

Depends on how you define "free" and "will".
That's all. I'm working on an article explaining why GPS has nothing to do with  relativity (#80). Let me know if you're interested.

[GB: In  neomechanics, we deny free will based on our assumption that there are “material causes for all effects.” I agree that relativity is worthless and has nothing to do with GPS, as shown by Ron Hatch and others:  Hatch, Ronald R., 1995, Relativity and GPS - I ( http://ivanik3.narod.ru/GPS/Hatch/relGPS.pdf ).

Hatch, Ronald R., 1995, RELATIVITY AND GPS: Section I: Special Relativity, 3rd Natural Philosophy Alliance Conference: Northern Arizona University, Flagstaff, AZ, p. 26.

Springer, Barry, 2012, Does the GPS system rely upon Einstein's relativity ( http://www.worldsci.org/pdf/abstracts/abstracts_6813.pdf ).]

Pound, R.V., and Rebka, G.A., 1960, Apparent Weight of Photons: Physical Review Letters, v. 4, no. 7, p. 337-341.