🚀 go-pugleaf

On Jan 8, 2:13 am, Eric Gisse <jowr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jan 8, 12:33 am, mluttg...@wanadoo.fr wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Jan 7, 10:29 pm, Eric Gisse <jowr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Jan 7, 6:18 am, mluttg...@wanadoo.fr wrote:
>
> > > > On Jan 7, 10:36 am, Eric Gisse <jowr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > On Jan 7, 12:02 am, mluttg...@wanadoo.fr wrote:
>
> > > > > > On Jan 6, 10:50 pm, "Ken S. Tucker" <dynam...@vianet.on.ca> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > On Jan 6, 2:00 am, mluttg...@wanadoo.fr wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > On Jan 6, 12:01 am, Dono <sa...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > On Jan 5, 1:26 pm, mluttg...@wanadoo.fr wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > > Let Nu0 the observed frequency at the bottom.
> > > > > > > > > > Assuming that m = hNu / c^2 represents the
> > > > > > > > > > photon's mass corresponding to the frequency Nu,
>
> > > > > > > > > Bad assumption, Marcel. Doesn't apply to the photon.
> > > > > > > > > It is nice seeing trying mainstream physics instead of your standard
> > > > > > > > > fare of pure crackpottery.
>
> > > > > > > > The proof of the pudding is in the eating:
> > > > > > > > With that assumption, one straightforwardly gets
>
> > > > > > > > E0 = E + mgd
> > > > > > > >      = hNu +  (hNu / c^2) * gd
> > > > > > > >      = hNu (1 + gd/c^2)
> > > > > > > >      = E (1 + gd/c^2)
>
> > > > > > > > This cannot be a mere coincidence.
>
> > > > > > > It's not coincidence, light energy,
> > > > > > > like all energy is subject to the
> > > > > > > Conservation of Energy, and is a
> > > > > > > cornerstone of General Relativity.
>
> > > > > > > > Marcel Luttgens
>
> > > > > > > Good work, regards
> > > > > > > Ken S. Tucker
>
> > > > > > Thank you.
>
> > > > > > I have added to my demonstration a justification of
> > > > > > the assumption that the mass m of a photon can be
> > > > > > expressed by the relation m = E / c^2 = hNu / c^2:
>
> > > > > Wrong by many orders of magnitude.
>
> > > > The mass E/c^2 has nothing to do with the photon
> > > > rest mass!
>
> > Of course, I mean the *hypothetical* photon rest mass!
>
> Do I have to post the particle data group link again? The hypothesis
> is wrong.
>
> > This precision is for Dono the Pencil.
>
> > > Idiot again. The formula E = mc^2 is only true at rest.
>
> > Now, according to Gisse, c is not a velocity!
>
> Idiot n+1 for some staggeringly huge n.
>
> The formula E = mc^2 is only true at rest since it is a special case
> of the general formula E^2 = [mc^2]^2 + [pc]^2.
>
> Since your [latest] amazingly stupid vocalized thought shows you have
> no idea where E = mc^2 comes from, I'll derive it for you.
>
> The four momentum of a massive particle is p^u = mU^u = (E, p) where p
> is the typical 3-momentum and U^u is the particle's four velocity. A
> massive particle has a squared four-velocity of -1.
>
> Form the scalar product of p^u.
>
> |p|^2 = g_uv p^u p^v = -E^2 + p^2 = - m^2 g_uv U^u U^v = - m^2

Gisse, listen to Roberts, you're screwed
up, you've parroted the metric with NO
KNOWLEDGE, "monkey see monkey do" Roberts
will teach you that.
Define your metrics AND WHY!
...
Ken S.Tucker