Pound Rebka
in [Physics]
|
Prev: Magnetron Experiments
Next: [DUMBS]: My Personal Observations and Viewpoints About a Variety of Subjects !
From: Koobee Wublee on 9 Jan 2008 15:20 On Jan 9, 11:35 am, Randy Poe <poespam-t...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > On Jan 9, 2:13 pm, Koobee Wublee <koobee.wub...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > 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? Since (E = m' c^2), by observing the energy, you can get the observed mass. <shrug> Please ask more intelligent questions next time.
From: Randy Poe on 9 Jan 2008 16:04 On Jan 9, 3:20 pm, Koobee Wublee <koobee.wub...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jan 9, 11:35 am, Randy Poe <poespam-t...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > On Jan 9, 2:13 pm, Koobee Wublee <koobee.wub...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > 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? > > Since (E = m' c^2), by observing the energy, you can get the observed > mass. <shrug> So what you mean by "observed mass" is "the observed mass is defined to be" E/c^2. It's a little vacuous to state that E = m'c^2 is valid at all conditions since you are using it to define m'. As it turns out, for particles with rest mass your m' is equal to gamma*m, and for photons it is equal to p*c. One problem with this m', formerly called "relativistic mass", is that it does not correspond to the gravitational mass. Now, how are you saying that your equation E = m'c^2 is right all the time, and m' = gamma*m, but E = gamma*mc^2 is wrong? - Randy
From: mluttgens on 9 Jan 2008 17:09 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? You can interpret it to mean that energy is the same thing as mass except for a conversion factor equal to the square of the speed of light. Then wherever there is mass there is energy and wherever there is energy there is mass. In that case photons have mass, but we call it relativistic mass. http://www.bio.net/bionet/mm/photosyn/1994-September/000439.html Photon Mass? Wei-Zhong He wzh at rio2.Berkeley.EDU Sat Sep 10 23:31:03 EST 1994 Let's start with Einstein's equation: E = mc^2 This implies that anything with energy should have mass, too. For a photon, E=hv, where v is the frequency of light. Therefore, we have m = hv/c^2 To clear a bit of confusion, m is the relativity mass here. > > >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 The corresponding shift, obtained from the GR formula (week field approximation, and ignoring the Earth's rotation), would be given by Shift = SQR(1 - 2 * G * Me / (c ^ 2 * d)) / SQR(1 - 2 * G * Me / (c ^ 2 * Re)) - 1 Shift = 1.090783E-14 I bring now this fruitless discussion with stupid crackpots to an end. Marcel Luttgens
From: Dono on 9 Jan 2008 18:00 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.
From: Max Keon on 11 Jan 2008 06:45
"Eric Gisse" <jowr.pi(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:3d00832e-aaab-4322-b3d2-bbbbbe9ef0ee(a)s8g2000prg.googlegroups.com... > On Jan 8, 5:25 pm, "Max Keon" <maxk...(a)optusnet.com.au> wrote: --- >> 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... The Integrated Sach-Wolfe Effect is entirely dependent on how the results from the Pound and Rebka experiment are interpreted, but that interpretation can't be right. The GPS system proves beyond doubt that an atomic clock driven by a Caesium atom oscillator runs slower nearer the Earth, yet the Pound-Rebka experiment proves that an atomic clock driven by the gamma ray generated by radioactive iron would run faster. In either case the frequency generated at the source is all that's changing. Neither of those options can prove anything because, from a fixed source, if there is a change in frequency with altitude, that wave pattern will be set in the very first transmission to the receiver. The same number of waves as were generated must pass by the receiver in each second. So the Integrated Sach-Wolfe Effect is entirely hypothetical. There is no evidence whatever to support it. Then take both clocks back to the enormous concentration of matter in the early universe. The Caesium clock would all but stop, while the iron clock would run very fast. But neither clock supports the big bang theory. Spectral lines are generated on the same principle as the Caesium driven atomic clock, displaying gravitational redshift, so the early universe would be redshifted enormously. And that would not be an illusion. Now get this part clear in your head. When we look back 13 billion years in time we are looking at an expanded early universe that was already enormously redshifted at the time. So what would the CMBR look like now? It would be virtually impossible to detect, wouldn't it! >> 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 |