🚀 go-pugleaf

On Jan 9, 4:59 pm, Dono <sa...@comcast.net> wrote:
> On Jan 9, 6:35 am, mluttg...@wanadoo.fr wrote:
>
> > Photons have no *rest* mass, but to their energy E = hNu
> > corresponds a (pseudo if you prefer) mass m = E/c^2.
>
> Says who? The Marcel imbecile.

You are the imbecile:

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/light_mass.html

What is the meaning of the equation E=mc2?
You can interpret it to mean that energy is the same
thing as mass except for a conversion factor equal
to the square of the speed of light.  Then wherever there
is mass there is energy and wherever there is energy
there is mass. In that case photons have mass,
but we call it relativistic mass.

http://www.bio.net/bionet/mm/photosyn/1994-September/000439.html
Photon Mass?
Wei-Zhong He wzh at rio2.Berkeley.EDU
Sat Sep 10 23:31:03 EST 1994

Let's start with Einstein's equation:
	E = mc^2
This implies that anything with energy should
have mass, too.
For a photon, E=hv, where v is the frequency
of light. Therefore, we have
	m = hv/c^2
To clear a bit of confusion, m is the relativity
mass here.


>
> >I said and demonstrated that GR is not needed to explain
> >the P&R result.
>
> No Marcel, your "prediction" is different from what GR predicts (and
> Pound Rebka confirms)
>
> The GR prediction is that the frequencies at the top and bottom of the
> tower will be in the ratio:
>
> f_top/f_bottom=sqrt((1-2G*M/R*c^2)/(1-2G*M/(R+d)c^2))
>
> Now , Marcel, procve that your simplistic formula predicts the same as
> the GR correct formula. Since you are an idiotic numerologist this
> should be right up your alley and should keep you busy for a while :-)

When the difference of gravitational potential
between the top and the bottom of the tower is taken
into consideration, my formula becomes

Shift obtained from a photon mass of h*Nu/c^2 and
potential energy for a signal emitted from the summit
of a tower of 100 m:
Shift = G * Me / c ^ 2 * (1 / Re - 1 / d), where d is the
Earth's radius Re + 100 m
Shift = 1.090782E-14

The corresponding shift, obtained from the GR
formula (week field approximation, and ignoring the
Earth's rotation), would be given by
Shift = SQR(1 - 2 * G * Me / (c ^ 2 * d)) / SQR(1 - 2 * G * Me / (c ^
2 * Re)) - 1
Shift = 1.090783E-14

I bring now this fruitless discussion with
stupid crackpots to an end.

Marcel Luttgens