🚀 go-pugleaf

On Jan 8, 4:08 pm, Eric Gisse <jowr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jan 8, 5:08 am, mluttg...@wanadoo.fr wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jan 8, 11:13 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
>
> > > E^2 = m^2 + p^2
>
> > > I purposefully worked in geometric units just to give you something to
> > > complain about.
>
> > > Now, Marcel, even you should know this one - what is the momentum of a
> > > particle that is not moving? What does E^2 = m^2 + p^2 reduce to for p
> > > = 0?
>
> > You are a physical ignoramus.
> > A photon is not a massive particle.
>
> Then m = 0.
>
> Gosh, that was hard.
>
> Do you need me to plug m = 0 into the formula for you, or can you
> figure it out yourself this time?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > > > Instead of uttering stupidities, you should better
> > > > recognize that the combination of E = mc^2 with E = hNu
> > > > straightforwardly expains the result of the Pound
> > > > & Rebka experiment.
>
> > > Idiot n+2. Special relativity can not and does not describe
> > > gravitation.
>
> > > I will, however, entertain your delusion and request a derivation of
> > > gravitational redshift using only E = mc^2 and E = h\nu.
>
> > > > Gisse, you are acting like a true crackpot.
>
> > > No, I'm only acting like I know more about this subject than you.
> > > Which has the virtue of being true.
>
> > You are suffering from delusions.
>
> > Assuming that m = hNu / c^2 represents the
> > photon's mass corresponding to the frequency Nu, etc.
>
> Didn't you JUST SAY the photon is not a massive particle?
>
>
>
> > Such assumption is amply justified by the experimental
> > fact that "The energy of a system that emits a photon is
> > decreased by the energy E of the photon as measured
> > in the rest frame of the emitting system, which may result
> > in a reduction in mass in the amount E / c2. Similarly,
> > the mass of a system that absorbs a photon is increased
> > by a corresponding amount."
> > (cf.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photon#Physical_properties)
>
> > And realize that with such assumption,
>
> > E0 = E + mgd
>
> You are using Newtonian gravity with a quantum mechanical particle.
> Delightful.
>
> Newtonian gravity has been proven to be wrong - repeatedly.
> Furthermore, PHOTONS ARE MASSLESS. They can not be treated as if they
> were massive.
>
> >      = hNu +  (hNu / c^2) * gd
> >      = hNu (1 + gd/c^2)
> >      = E (1 + gd/c^2) , or
> > Nu0 = Nu (1 + gd/c^2)
>
> > Note that
> > gd/c^2 = 9.81 * 22.5 / 9E16
> >            =~ 2.5E-15,
> > which is the result of the Pound & Rebka experiment.
>
> > GR is not needed. And no clock rate is modified
> > (unless you consider a light emitter as a clock).
> > Only the frequency changes as a function of the height.
>
> > But, as a true crackpot, you are unable to understand this.
>
> No, as someone who actually has studied physics, it is crap. You just
> whined that photons have no mass, then you assume they do anyway.

Photons have no *rest* mass, but to their energy E = hNu
corresponds a (pseudo if you prefer) mass m = E/c^2.

> You
> want to mix SR and Newtonian gravitation, despite it being completely
> stupid. You then conclude, because in one instance Newton and GR
> agree, that "GR is not needed" despite a litany of evidence that
> disagrees with Newton.

I said and demonstrated that GR is not needed to explain
the P&R result.

Btw, the formula E = mc^2 was known before Einstein,
so I don't mix SR and Newton.

Marcel Luttgens

> > Marcel Luttgens
>
> > > > Marcel Luttgens
>
> > > > > > Marcel Luttgens
>
> > > > > > >http://pdg.lbl.gov/2007/listings/s000.pdf
>
> > > > > > > [snip]
>
> > > > > > > > Clearly, the above interpretation of the result of the
> > > > > > > > Pound & Rebka experiment doesn't vindicate
> > > > > > > > the general relativity prediction that clocks should run
> > > > > > > > at different rates at different places in a gravitational field.
>
> > > > > > > Idiot. You have no idea what you are talking about.
>
> > > > > > > [snip remaining)