Pound Rebka
in [Physics]
|
Prev: Magnetron Experiments
Next: [DUMBS]: My Personal Observations and Viewpoints About a Variety of Subjects !
From: Dono on 9 Jan 2008 02:10 On Jan 8, 6:25 pm, "Max Keon" <maxk...(a)optusnet.com.au> wrote: > > 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. > > > Max Keon http://i37.photobucket.com/albums/e94/beckerjmb/homeless-box.jpg
From: Ken S. Tucker on 9 Jan 2008 02:29 On Jan 8, 9:57 pm, Eric Gisse <jowr...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jan 8, 11:15 am, "Ken S. Tucker" <dynam...(a)vianet.on.ca> wrote: >>Gisse .... > > > 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. Gisse says, |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? Dork, spec your metric. Ken
From: Dono on 9 Jan 2008 10:59 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. >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 :-)
From: Dono on 9 Jan 2008 13:42 On Jan 9, 7:59 am, 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. > > >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 :-) Edit: f_bottom/f_top=sqrt((1-2G*M/R*c^2)/(1-2G*M/(R+d)c^2))
From: Randy Poe on 9 Jan 2008 14:35
On Jan 9, 2:13 pm, Koobee Wublee <koobee.wub...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jan 9, 9:42 am, Eric Gisse <jowr...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > No, again. The formula E = mc^2 is _only true at rest_ or in a co- > > moving frame. > > > I repeat, since you aren't getting it: > > > E=mc^2 is only true if the particle is not moving. > > You can repeat to yourself whatever amount of time you want, but the > end of the day the equation (E = m c^2) is valid at all conditions if > m is interpreted as the observed mass. How do you observe this mass? - Randy |