🚀 go-pugleaf

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. 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.

>
> 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]