🚀 go-pugleaf

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?

> 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.

>
> 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)