Pound Rebka
in [Physics]
|
Prev: Magnetron Experiments
Next: [DUMBS]: My Personal Observations and Viewpoints About a Variety of Subjects !
From: Eric Gisse on 7 Jan 2008 16:29 On Jan 7, 6:18 am, mluttg...(a)wanadoo.fr wrote: > On Jan 7, 10:36 am, Eric Gisse <jowr...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Jan 7, 12:02 am, mluttg...(a)wanadoo.fr wrote: > > > > On Jan 6, 10:50 pm, "Ken S. Tucker" <dynam...(a)vianet.on.ca> wrote: > > > > > On Jan 6, 2:00 am, mluttg...(a)wanadoo.fr wrote: > > > > > > On Jan 6, 12:01 am, Dono <sa...(a)comcast.net> wrote: > > > > > > > On Jan 5, 1:26 pm, mluttg...(a)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
From: Dono on 7 Jan 2008 16:53 On Jan 7, 1:29 pm, Eric Gisse <jowr...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jan 7, 6:18 am, mluttg...(a)wanadoo.fr wrote: > > > > > On Jan 7, 10:36 am, Eric Gisse <jowr...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Jan 7, 12:02 am, mluttg...(a)wanadoo.fr wrote: > > > > > On Jan 6, 10:50 pm, "Ken S. Tucker" <dynam...(a)vianet.on.ca> wrote: > > > > > > On Jan 6, 2:00 am, mluttg...(a)wanadoo.fr wrote: > > > > > > > On Jan 6, 12:01 am, Dono <sa...(a)comcast.net> wrote: > > > > > > > > On Jan 5, 1:26 pm, mluttg...(a)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 :-)
From: mluttgens on 8 Jan 2008 04:33 On Jan 7, 10:29 pm, Eric Gisse <jowr...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jan 7, 6:18 am, mluttg...(a)wanadoo.fr wrote: > > > > > > > On Jan 7, 10:36 am, Eric Gisse <jowr...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Jan 7, 12:02 am, mluttg...(a)wanadoo.fr wrote: > > > > > On Jan 6, 10:50 pm, "Ken S. Tucker" <dynam...(a)vianet.on.ca> wrote: > > > > > > On Jan 6, 2:00 am, mluttg...(a)wanadoo.fr wrote: > > > > > > > On Jan 6, 12:01 am, Dono <sa...(a)comcast.net> wrote: > > > > > > > > On Jan 5, 1:26 pm, mluttg...(a)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! 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! 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. Gisse, you are acting like a true crackpot. 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)
From: Eric Gisse on 8 Jan 2008 05:13 On Jan 8, 12:33 am, mluttg...(a)wanadoo.fr wrote: > On Jan 7, 10:29 pm, Eric Gisse <jowr...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Jan 7, 6:18 am, mluttg...(a)wanadoo.fr wrote: > > > > On Jan 7, 10:36 am, Eric Gisse <jowr...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Jan 7, 12:02 am, mluttg...(a)wanadoo.fr wrote: > > > > > > On Jan 6, 10:50 pm, "Ken S. Tucker" <dynam...(a)vianet.on.ca> wrote: > > > > > > > On Jan 6, 2:00 am, mluttg...(a)wanadoo.fr wrote: > > > > > > > > On Jan 6, 12:01 am, Dono <sa...(a)comcast.net> wrote: > > > > > > > > > On Jan 5, 1:26 pm, mluttg...(a)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)
From: mluttgens on 8 Jan 2008 09:08
On Jan 8, 11:13 am, Eric Gisse <jowr...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jan 8, 12:33 am, mluttg...(a)wanadoo.fr wrote: > > > > > > > On Jan 7, 10:29 pm, Eric Gisse <jowr...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Jan 7, 6:18 am, mluttg...(a)wanadoo.fr wrote: > > > > > On Jan 7, 10:36 am, Eric Gisse <jowr...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Jan 7, 12:02 am, mluttg...(a)wanadoo.fr wrote: > > > > > > > On Jan 6, 10:50 pm, "Ken S. Tucker" <dynam...(a)vianet.on.ca> wrote: > > > > > > > > On Jan 6, 2:00 am, mluttg...(a)wanadoo.fr wrote: > > > > > > > > > On Jan 6, 12:01 am, Dono <sa...(a)comcast.net> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > On Jan 5, 1:26 pm, mluttg...(a)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. > > > 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. 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 = 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. 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] |