🚀 go-pugleaf

On Jan 7, 1:29 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!
>
> Idiot again. The formula E = mc^2 is only true at rest.
>
>
>
> > 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



Watch for Marcel's comeback :-)