Pound Rebka
in [Physics]
|
Prev: Magnetron Experiments
Next: [DUMBS]: My Personal Observations and Viewpoints About a Variety of Subjects !
From: mluttgens on 11 Jan 2008 07:11 On Jan 10, 12:00 am, Dono <sa...(a)comcast.net> wrote: > On Jan 9, 2:09 pm, mluttg...(a)wanadoo.fr wrote: > > > On Jan 9, 4:59 pm, Dono <sa...(a)comcast.net> wrote: > > > > On Jan 9, 6:35 am, mluttg...(a)wanadoo.fr wrote: > > > > > Photons have no *rest* mass, but to their energy E = hNu > > > > corresponds a (pseudo if you prefer) mass m = E/c^2. > > > > Says who? The Marcel imbecile. > > > You are the imbecile: > > >http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/light_mass.html > > > What is the meaning of the equation E=mc2? > > "The short answer is NO" > > How stupid are you? Really? No, don't answer that. > > > > > > > > >I said and demonstrated that GR is not needed to explain > > > >the P&R result. > > > > No Marcel, your "prediction" is different from what GR predicts (and > > > Pound Rebka confirms) > > > > The GR prediction is that the frequencies at the top and bottom of the > > > tower will be in the ratio: > > > > f_top/f_bottom=sqrt((1-2G*M/R*c^2)/(1-2G*M/(R+d)c^2)) > > > > Now , Marcel, procve that your simplistic formula predicts the same as > > > the GR correct formula. Since you are an idiotic numerologist this > > > should be right up your alley and should keep you busy for a while :-) > > > When the difference of gravitational potential > > between the top and the bottom of the tower is taken > > into consideration, my formula becomes > > > Shift obtained from a photon mass of h*Nu/c^2 and > > potential energy for a signal emitted from the summit > > of a tower of 100 m: > > Shift = G * Me / c ^ 2 * (1 / Re - 1 / d), where d is the > > Earth's radius Re + 100 m > > Shift = 1.090782E-14 > > Why do you lie, Marcel? Work off the GR formula I gave you, not off > what you PRETEND your formula to be So, according to you, Baez is stupid! Btw, your GR shift sqrt((1-2G*M/R*c^2)/(1-2G*M/(R+d)c^2)) - 1 (don't forget -1 if you want a shift) is the shift observed by an somebody situated at the top of the tower, whereas my GR shift (where d = R + height of the tower) sqrt(1 - 2 G*M / (c ^ 2*d)) / sqrt(1-2G M / (c ^ 2*R)) - 1 is the shift observed at the bottom of the tower (like in the P&R experiment). Iow, your GR shift is the inverse of my GR shift! You are really stupid. Bye, Marcel Luttgens
From: Dono on 11 Jan 2008 10:40 On Jan 11, 4:11 am, mluttg...(a)wanadoo.fr wrote: > > > Why do you lie, Marcel? Work off the GR formula I gave you, not off > > what you PRETEND your formula to be > > So, according to you, Baez is stupid! No, just your idiotic interpretation is. > > Btw, your GR shift > sqrt((1-2G*M/R*c^2)/(1-2G*M/(R+d)c^2)) - 1 > (don't forget -1 if you want a shift) is the shift observed No idiot, you can't even read the wiki page, there is no "-1" The ratio of frequencies is exactly what I gave you,no go prove it is identical to your hacky formula.
From: Eric Gisse on 25 Jan 2008 18:13 On Jan 25, 1:53 pm, "Max Keon" <maxk...(a)optusnet.com.au> wrote: [snip junk] There is no point in discussing equations that you have simply MADE UP. So what if observation disagrees with your made up equations? It wouldn't be the first time. > > This is how the CMBR compares with big bang's prediction. Error > bars won't help much here, will they. > > . > . . > . . Actual CMBR > . . > . . > . . > > .......................... CMBR as predicted by > the big bang theory. Both of these are wrong. The background radiation is blackbody. > > ----- > > Max Keon
From: foolsrushin. on 25 Jan 2008 19:28 On 24 Jan, 06:15, "Max Keon" <maxk...(a)optusnet.com.au> wrote: > "Eric Gisse" <jowr...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > news:84c8c8de-d68c-4319-998a-475f9783b160(a)q39g2000hsf.googlegroups.com... > > Max Keon wrote: > >> Eric Gisse wrote: > >>> Max Keon wrote: > >>>> Eric Gisse wrote: > >>>>> The CMBR has been detected many times over the past 40 years. > >>>> Yes, it has. But what is detected today requires that spectral > >>>> line frequencies generated when the CMBR was first transmitted > >>>> be exactly what they are when generated in today's environment. > >>>> That's hardly likely when the mass of the entire universe was > >>>> within, at most, 10000000 * 2 light years of everything. > >>>> Can't you see that? > >>> Your argument would be more meaningful if you had a calculation > >>> supporting it. Especially if the argument wasn't that we cannot > >>> possibly be observing what has been routinely observed. > --- > >> Every natural oscillator is affected by every bit of matter in > >> the universe. If the mass of the currently visible universe is > >> i.e. 5e+56 kilograms ..... . [etc., ....] ..... . All he is talking about is his 'universe' - true by definiton unless not self-cotradictory. > >> Max Keon -- 'foolsrushin.' http://www.chicagotribune.com/classified/automotive/columnists/chi-0701010141jan01,0,5874175.column And ..... ?
From: Max Keon on 28 Jan 2008 21:52
"Eric Gisse" <jowr.pi(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:a7476325-ebe0-458d-8e95-308d9602ce70(a)e4g2000hsg.googlegroups.com... > On Jan 25, 1:53 pm, "Max Keon" <maxk...(a)optusnet.com.au> wrote: > [snip junk] You have my sympathy, but physics is the medium of truth and truth will always prevail in the end. > There is no point in discussing equations that you have simply MADE > UP. So what if observation disagrees with your made up equations? It > wouldn't be the first time. Clock oscillators and the natural oscillators that generate characteristic spectral lines have been proven to become redshifted in a gravity well. Trying to explain the redshift as lost energy due to a "photon's" climb from the well is absolutely ridiculous. The clocks of the GPS prove beyond doubt that they _physically_ run slower on the Earth's surface, and because clock and spectral line oscillators behave in the same manner, it's not illogical to assume that every other charge interaction will behave likewise. That is, so long as it takes place outside a proton or neutron. The oscillation rate in that case is blueshifted in a gravity well, as demonstrated by Pound and Rebka. The redshift rate in every interaction is fairly obviously exactly the same as that in the interaction that provides the tick rate for an atomic clock. They are all based on exactly the same principle. The change rate is according to t' = t+t*(G*M/r)/c^2 where t is the time unit (= 1). For an Earth surface radius, 6380000 meters, the redshifted 1 second for a clock that was previously unaffected by Earth's gravity is 1.0000000006935 seconds. For a GPS satellite radius, 26570000 meters, the redshifted 1 second is 1.0000000001665 seconds. If an atomic clock tick rate is 9192631770 hz on the surface, it will be 1.0000000006935 / 1.0000000001665 = 1.000000000527, * 9192631770 = 9192631774.84 hz at the GPS radius. Spectral lines and every other electronic interaction taken from the surface to the GPS radius will be blueshifted by that same ratio. Now take your electronic interactions within a black body radiator environment back the gravity well of the early universe. How redshifted do you think they would be? Does, by nothing, seem logical to you? >> This is how the CMBR compares with big bang's prediction. Error >> bars won't help much here, will they. >> >> . >> . . >> . . Actual CMBR >> . . >> . . >> . . >> >> .......................... CMBR as predicted by >> the big bang theory. > Both of these are wrong. > > The background radiation is blackbody. Accurate ASCII black body radiator graphs are not all that easy to draw you know. This one was generated according to Planck's formula, # = (8*pi*h*f^3)/(c^2*(EXP((h*f)/(k*t))-1)) http://members.optusnet.com.au/maxkeon/bbcmbr.jpg It demonstrates very clearly that the CMBR had to be generated in the same environment as a 4000 K radiator today. And that is just not possible. Take note of what the big bang theory really predicts. ----- Max Keon |