Atomic clock behaviour in a gravitational field explained with 1905 Relativity
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: As pepper sprinkled over rotten, stinking eggs - such are corrupt einsteinians; no balls, no legs
Next: Quantum History
From: valls on 23 Jun 2010 06:56 On 22 jun, 16:51, "Dono." <sa...(a)comcast.net> wrote: > On Jun 22, 2:34 pm, va...(a)icmf.inf.cu wrote: > > > > > > > On 22 jun, 08:53, "Dono." <sa...(a)comcast.net> wrote: > > > > On Jun 22, 4:43 am, va...(a)icmf.inf.cu wrote: > > > > > Let be two material points M and m (one with a great mass M, and the > > > > other with a small mass m<<M). We can consider then M practically the > > > > Centre of Mass (CM) of the 2-point system (for example, M and m can > > > > model Earth and an electron). In the corresponding CM inertial system, > > > > let be r the distance between M and m. > > > > From the 27Sep1905 Einsteins paper we know that The mass of a body > > > > is a measure of its energy-content. In 1905, a body Total Energy E=K > > > > +U, where K is the Kinetic Energy and U the Potential Energy. About > > > > the presence of Potential Energy in 1905 Relativity see the following > > > > link:http://groups.google.com.cu/group/sci.physics.relativity/browse_frm/t... > > > > If the body is at rest, K=0, being then U measured by the rest mass. > > > > In the case we are addressing, for the body m we have then U(r)=m_0(r) > > > > c^2, where m_0(r) is the body m rest mass and c the constant vacuum > > > > light speed. We know that the gravitational potential energy increases > > > > when r increases. Its limit maximal value when r tends to infinite is > > > > then m_0m c^2, where m_0m is the corresponding limit maximal value of > > > > the rest mass m_0. We have then > > > > > U(r)= m_0(r) c^2=m_0m c^2 (GM/r)m_0(r) > > > > > Here G is the Newtonian gravitational constant, and (GM/r) is the > > > > gravitational potential owed to M with a supposed arbitrary value 0 at > > > > r infinite. U(r) takes the very definite maximal value m_0m c^2 at r > > > > infinite. With some simple algebraic handling we obtain > > > > > m_0(r)=m_0m/(1+GM/rc^2) > > > > No, imbecile. > > > According to your numerology (it isn't physics), you'd have: > > > > m(r)=m_0(1-GM/(rc^2)) > > > With all respect, I think you have done a wrong algebraic > > manipulation. Any way, thanks a lot for your attention revising the > > derivation. I will repeat here what I consider the right algebraic > > manipulation. From the previous U(r) expression we have > > > m_0(r) c^2=m_0m c^2 (GM/r)m_0(r) (1) > > There is no physical reason for this formula, it is all numerology. > Everything derived from it is pure idiocy.- Ocultar texto de la cita - > Formula (1) is a simple derivation from the following: a) 1905 Einstein Principle of Relativity. b) Conservation Principle of Energy. c) Newtonian gravitational formulas. Specify what are you rejecting and why. RVHG (Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato)
From: valls on 23 Jun 2010 06:59 On 22 jun, 16:53, "Dono." <sa...(a)comcast.net> wrote: > On Jun 22, 2:34 pm, va...(a)icmf.inf.cu wrote: > > > > > Sure? Is it not sufficient to you the Pound&Rebka experiment and all > > the continuous successful function of today GPS? > > Old fart, > > Pound-Rebka is about chage in FREQUENCY. Has nothing to do with your > idiotic formula about mass change. The experimental frequency change in P&R is explained by the change of mass predicted by 1905R. P&R supports 1905R by the same reason it supports GR. RVHG (Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato)
From: Dono. on 23 Jun 2010 17:52 On Jun 23, 3:59 am, va...(a)icmf.inf.cu wrote: > On 22 jun, 16:53, "Dono." <sa...(a)comcast.net> wrote:> On Jun 22, 2:34 pm, va...(a)icmf.inf.cu wrote: > > > > Sure? Is it not sufficient to you the Pound&Rebka experiment and all > > > the continuous successful function of today GPS? > > > Old fart, > > > Pound-Rebka is about chage in FREQUENCY. Has nothing to do with your > > idiotic formula about mass change. > > The experimental frequency change in P&R is explained by the change of mass predicted by 1905R. ....only in your demented mind.
From: valls on 23 Jun 2010 18:20 On 23 jun, 16:52, "Dono." <sa...(a)comcast.net> wrote: > On Jun 23, 3:59 am, va...(a)icmf.inf.cu wrote: > > > On 22 jun, 16:53, "Dono." <sa...(a)comcast.net> wrote:> On Jun 22, 2:34 pm, va...(a)icmf.inf.cu wrote: > > > > > Sure? Is it not sufficient to you the Pound&Rebka experiment and all > > > > the continuous successful function of today GPS? > > > > Old fart, > > > > Pound-Rebka is about chage in FREQUENCY. Has nothing to do with your > > > idiotic formula about mass change. > > > The experimental frequency change in P&R is explained by the change of mass predicted by 1905R. > > ...only in your demented mind. I showed you already the relevant formulas in all detail, derived from the following: a) 1905 Einstein Principle of Relativity. b) Conservation Principle of Energy. c) Newtonian gravitational formulas. Specify what are you rejecting and why. RVHG (Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato)
From: Androcles on 23 Jun 2010 18:24
<valls(a)icmf.inf.cu> wrote in message news:53aa1a16-ebc8-4368-a875-bc542e8b2946(a)d37g2000yqm.googlegroups.com... On 23 jun, 16:52, "Dono." <sa...(a)comcast.net> wrote: > On Jun 23, 3:59 am, va...(a)icmf.inf.cu wrote: > > > On 22 jun, 16:53, "Dono." <sa...(a)comcast.net> wrote:> On Jun 22, 2:34 > > pm, va...(a)icmf.inf.cu wrote: > > > > > Sure? Is it not sufficient to you the Pound&Rebka experiment and all > > > > the continuous successful function of today GPS? > > > > Old fart, > > > > Pound-Rebka is about chage in FREQUENCY. Has nothing to do with your > > > idiotic formula about mass change. > > > The experimental frequency change in P&R is explained by the change of > > mass predicted by 1905R. > > ...only in your demented mind. I showed you already the relevant formulas in all detail, derived from the following: a) 1905 Einstein Principle of Relativity. b) Conservation Principle of Energy. c) Newtonian gravitational formulas. Specify what are you rejecting and why. RVHG (Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato) ===================================== What's the formula for a) 1905 Einstein Principle of Relativity? |