Pound Rebka
in [Physics]
|
Prev: Magnetron Experiments
Next: [DUMBS]: My Personal Observations and Viewpoints About a Variety of Subjects !
From: Dono on 8 Jan 2008 09:31 On Jan 8, 6:08 am, mluttg...(a)wanadoo.fr wrote: > > Assuming that m = hNu / c^2 represents the > photon's mass corresponding to the frequency Nu, etc. > But this is exactly the problem, Marcel, dear imbecile: m=E/c^2 is valid only 1. FOR MASSIVE PARTICLES 2. AT REST The photon is NOT: 1. a massive particle 2. cannot exist at rest To make matters worse, by using E=mc^2, you are ALREADY using relativity. Now, to compound your imbecility, you are mixing relativity with Newtonian mechanics when you write: 3. E0=E+mgd Get it, persistent imbecile?
From: Ken S. Tucker on 8 Jan 2008 15:15 On Jan 8, 2:13 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 Gisse, listen to Roberts, you're screwed up, you've parroted the metric with NO KNOWLEDGE, "monkey see monkey do" Roberts will teach you that. Define your metrics AND WHY! .... Ken S.Tucker
From: Max Keon on 8 Jan 2008 21:25 "Eric Gisse" <jowr.pi(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:34c68db5-b7b4-4d60-9c7e-c0b926b11e20(a)u10g2000prn.googlegroups.com... > I'm not going to teach you what you should already know. > Max Keon wrote: >> The difference is now 3502216 added cycles in 1.4e+21 cycles, >> which is near enough to what is observed. > Imagine that. That result was generated assuming the gamma ray from the radioactive iron frequency generator used in the Pound and Rebka experiment was 1.4e21 hz. The choice of frequency was made to suit my original requirement to generate 1 extra cycle according to my erroneous equation. Doubling the gamma ray frequency doubles the result. It could be just pure luck that the ray I chose is close to the correct frequency, but maybe not. Is 1.4e21 hz the gamma ray frequency generated by radioactive iron? But I see you are still having problems comprehending that the conclusions drawn from the Pound and Rebka experiment are fatally flawed. Get your head out of your bucket of numbers for a while and think about it logically. As BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> initially wrote: >>>>> Light is blueshifted on its way into gravity. >>>>> Light is redshifted on its way out. A simple test of i.e. the latter statement is to set up an atomic clock with a digital readout that can easily be read with a telescope mounted at the Pound-Rebka tower top when the clock is placed at the tower base. Every clock tick sends a signal to an antenna and that is transmitted to the tower top, where every passing cycle is recorded. The tower base cycle count is of course monitored through the telescope. The following set of figures still apply in determining V for f'= f(1+V/c^2) V(a) and V(b) for the tower base and tower top is: G = 6.67E-11 M = 5.97E+24 ra = 6378000 Tower base radii rb = 6378023 Tower top radii (+23 meters (74 feet) high) Va = G * M / ra = 62433207.902 Vb = G * M / rb = 62432982.7597 Using 9192631763.6231 hz as the basic clock frequency "f", f'=f*(1+Va/c^2) = 9192631770.00004989 and f'=f*(1+Vb/c^2) = 9192631770.00002689 The difference is 2.3e-5 cycles per second. After just 1 day, 2 less ticks have passed by the tower top than were generated at the base. Where are they. The wavelength is c/f =.032 meters, * 2 = .064 meters per day. Could the universe have expanded 64mm over the tower height in just 1 day? Apparently not. Even if the universe was expanding locally, over the tower length, the expansion is 4.9e-12 meters per day. So there's really no way to accommodate the stretching wavelengths. Even a change in the speed of light isn't going to help because that changes, only once, the number of waves that can fit over the tower height. From there on, whatever is the frequency generated at the tower base, is going to be _exactly_ the same frequency as that passing by the tower top. That experiment would demolish the integrated Sach-Wolfe effect, along with the accursed big bang theory. If I had an atomic clock I would do the experiment myself. It's so damn simple. And the result is so damn obvious. http://members.optusnet.com.au/maxkeon/the1-1a.html is the universe in which we all exist. The sooner you all accept that fact the sooner we can get on with the job, whatever it is. ----- Max Keon
From: Eric Gisse on 9 Jan 2008 00:57 On Jan 8, 5:25 pm, "Max Keon" <maxk...(a)optusnet.com.au> wrote: > "Eric Gisse" <jowr...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > > news:34c68db5-b7b4-4d60-9c7e-c0b926b11e20(a)u10g2000prn.googlegroups.com... > > > I'm not going to teach you what you should already know. > > Max Keon wrote: > >> The difference is now 3502216 added cycles in 1.4e+21 cycles, > >> which is near enough to what is observed. > > Imagine that. > > That result was generated assuming the gamma ray from the > radioactive iron frequency generator used in the Pound and Rebka > experiment was 1.4e21 hz. The choice of frequency was made to > suit my original requirement to generate 1 extra cycle according > to my erroneous equation. Doubling the gamma ray frequency > doubles the result. It could be just pure luck that the ray I > chose is close to the correct frequency, but maybe not. Is 1.4e21 > hz the gamma ray frequency generated by radioactive iron? > > But I see you are still having problems comprehending that the > conclusions drawn from the Pound and Rebka experiment are fatally > flawed. Get your head out of your bucket of numbers for a while > and think about it logically. > > As BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> initially wrote: > > >>>>> Light is blueshifted on its way into gravity. > >>>>> Light is redshifted on its way out. > > A simple test of i.e. the latter statement is to set up an atomic > clock with a digital readout that can easily be read with a > telescope mounted at the Pound-Rebka tower top when the clock is > placed at the tower base. Every clock tick sends a signal to an > antenna and that is transmitted to the tower top, where every > passing cycle is recorded. The tower base cycle count is of > course monitored through the telescope. > > The following set of figures still apply in determining > V for f'= f(1+V/c^2) > > V(a) and V(b) for the tower base and tower top is: > G = 6.67E-11 > M = 5.97E+24 > ra = 6378000 Tower base radii > rb = 6378023 Tower top radii (+23 meters (74 feet) high) > Va = G * M / ra = 62433207.902 > Vb = G * M / rb = 62432982.7597 > > Using 9192631763.6231 hz as the basic clock frequency "f", > f'=f*(1+Va/c^2) = 9192631770.00004989 > and > f'=f*(1+Vb/c^2) = 9192631770.00002689 > The difference is 2.3e-5 cycles per second. > > After just 1 day, 2 less ticks have passed by the tower top > than were generated at the base. Where are they. The wavelength > is c/f =.032 meters, * 2 = .064 meters per day. Could the > universe have expanded 64mm over the tower height in just 1 day? > > Apparently not. Even if the universe was expanding locally, over > the tower length, the expansion is 4.9e-12 meters per day. > > So there's really no way to accommodate the stretching > wavelengths. Even a change in the speed of light isn't going to > help because that changes, only once, the number of waves that > can fit over the tower height. From there on, whatever is the > frequency generated at the tower base, is going to be _exactly_ > the same frequency as that passing by the tower top. > > That experiment would demolish the integrated Sach-Wolfe effect, > along with the accursed big bang theory. It is just gravitational redshift. Jeeeezee... > > If I had an atomic clock I would do the experiment myself. It's > so damn simple. And the result is so damn obvious. > > http://members.optusnet.com.au/maxkeon/the1-1a.html > is the universe in which we all exist. The sooner you all accept > that fact the sooner we can get on with the job, whatever it is. > > ----- > > Max Keon
From: Eric Gisse on 9 Jan 2008 00:57
On Jan 8, 11:15 am, "Ken S. Tucker" <dynam...(a)vianet.on.ca> wrote: > On Jan 8, 2:13 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 > > Gisse, listen to Roberts, you're screwed > up, you've parroted the metric with NO > KNOWLEDGE, "monkey see monkey do" Roberts > will teach you that. > Define your metrics AND WHY! Its' Minkowski space, dipshit. Do you have trouble understanding what metric someone would possibly use if they were discussing SR? > ... > Ken S.Tucker |