On Sunday, February 5, 2023 at 1:50:01 AM UTC+7, Johni Luzzatto wrote:cannot be just an error, but only one of many fakeries. Do you NOT recognize the simple act of integrating g over the distance in question to obtain an averaged value of g? I see nobody who pretends to understand Einstein and is yet so adept at juggling
Richard Hertz wrote:
Why bother with photons? You're right, there is no mass and no photons, only hv. Einstein wasn't an imbecile, he was a clever fake. As for the difference in g between two heights, Einstein's phony relativity formula that claims to have adjusted for itI reproduce here my reply to prokariotic, because I think it deserves to have a dedicated thread. It's related to the title of the P&R 1960 paper,
I reproduce here my reply to prokariotic, because I think it deserves to haveA massless photon obviously would not be affected by gravity at all. I suspect that to be the case. Is it possible for energy to exist without mass?
a dedicated thread. It's related to the title of the P&R 1960 paper, and contain
a "derivation" of the gravitational frequency shift that is believed to be real.
******************************************************************
On Friday, February 3, 2023 at 6:19:17 PM UTC-3, prokaryotic.c...@gmail.com wrote:
<snip>
Let me just get something clear. As I have written elsewhere, "...the theoretical arguments predicting gravitational time dilation do not
depend on the details of general relativity at all. Any theory of gravity will predict gravitational time dilation if it respects the principle of equivalence. This includes Newtonian gravitation." Are we agreed
on that? You do not dispute that gravitational time dilation is a real phenomenon. You just claim that Pound and Rebka never actually
measured it, correct?
I don't believe that gravitational time dilation is REAL. I did post, weeks ago and in a trolling way, how could Einstein
have had such heuristic insight between 1907 and 1911. I can't find the thread now, as I'm kind of lazy, but let me to
state the WRONG basis of such heuristic/hallucinogenic proposal.
1) KEY BELIEF: Rest energy E₀ = m₀c² is REAL (I don't agree with this STUPID ASSERTION, which has no physical meaning).
2) If m₀ is put on inertial motion at v speed, then m₀ gains kinetic energy KE = 1/2 m₀v² (FORGET relativity for a while), and
the TOTAL ENERGY of m₀ is now E = E₀ (1 + 1/2 v²/c²).
3) THEREFORE, if I slowly rise m₀ to a tiny height d (so the gravitational acceleration g is almost CONSTANT), the WORK
performed with such action IS NOT LOST, but stored in m₀ as POTENTIAL ENERGY U = m₀gd. Hence, m₀ has now a
TOTAL ENERGY E = E₀ (1 + gd/c²).
4) NOW THE TRICKY INSIGHT (remember the IRONIC title of the P&R paper: "APPARENT WEIGHT OF PHOTONS"):
IF I have a photon with mass m₀ = hf₀/c² (Planck), and I do with it what's described in 3), THEN THE TOTAL ENERGY OF THE PHOTON IS:
E = E₀ + ∆E = hf₀ (1 + gd/c²) = hf₁
THEN, IT HAPPENED THAT THE PHOTON HAS A NEW FREQUENCY f₁, AND
f₁ = f₀ (1 + gd/c²)
HOW DID THAT HAPPEN? NO RELATIVITY AND THE SAME EINSTEIN'S 1911 FORMULA? IT CAN'T BE RIGHT, CAN BE?
BECAUSE IT'S A FAILED HEURISTIC PROPOSITION. A FAIRY TALE. SOMETHING THAT EINSTEIN THOUGHT THAT WAS A BREAKTHROUGH.
But it's WRONG, through and through. BECAUSE PHOTONS DON'T HAVE MASS!!
Then, saving the relativity GOBBLEDYGOOK, and trying to derive it from TWO KNOWN AND VALID THEORIES (Newton and Planck) PLUS
using a 1:1 relationship mass-energy (Hassenhorl was close to it by 1905, as Poincaré by 1900, and MANY OTHERS), you can derive
such STUPID FALLACY about GRAVITY affecting TIME.
BUT such assertion IS FALSE, because ELECTROMAGNETIC ENERGY HAS NO MASS INVOLVED. Einstein thought that it had, but it was
a FAULTY, WRONG proposition.
Yet, here we are 112 years after that 1911 paper, arguing IF EINSTEIN WAS THE MESSIAH OR JUST AN IMBECILE.
A messiah for you.
An imbecile for me.
********************************************************************
On 2/22/23 3:54 AM, Foos Research wrote:That's all relativity does.
[... complete nonsense]
Why bother to make stuff up and pretend it is true? What's the point?
Tom Roberts
A massless photon obviously would not be affected by gravity at all.
On 9/2/23 1:29 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:Relativity is nothing but making things up ad hoc, pure fiction.
A massless photon obviously would not be affected by gravity at all.You really should learn some basic physics before attempting to write
about it. Your unsupported opinions are worthless. Why bother to make
stuff up and pretend it is true? What's the point?
Tom Roberts
On 9/2/23 1:29 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
A massless photon obviously would not be affected by gravity at all.You really should learn
On 9/2/23 1:29 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:Why would a massless photon become affected by gravity? Of course, you couldn't say. Perhaps you think the mass-velocity relation multiplies zero mass?
A massless photon obviously would not be affected by gravity at all.You really should learn some basic physics before attempting to write
about it. Your unsupported opinions are worthless. Why bother to make
stuff up and pretend it is true? What's the point?
Tom Roberts
Why would a massless photon become affected by gravity?
On 9/3/2023 4:56 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:Not if it's massless.
Why would a massless photon become affected by gravity?Don't forget Newtonian gravity also predicts light is curved by gravity.
On Sunday, September 3, 2023 at 2:05:27 PM UTC-7, Volney wrote:
On 9/3/2023 4:56 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
Why would a massless photon become affected by gravity?
Don't forget Newtonian gravity also predicts light is curved by gravity.
Not if it's massless.
On Sunday, September 3, 2023 at 2:05:27 PM UTC-7, Volney wrote:
On 9/3/2023 4:56 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
Why would a massless photon become affected by gravity?Don't forget Newtonian gravity also predicts light is curved by gravity.
Not if it's massless.
On 9/3/2023 5:10 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:refraction.
On Sunday, September 3, 2023 at 2:05:27 PM UTC-7, Volney wrote:
On 9/3/2023 4:56 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
Why would a massless photon become affected by gravity?Don't forget Newtonian gravity also predicts light is curved by gravity.
Not if it's massless.Oh yes it does. Remember the 1919 eclipse observation? The question is whether Newton's deflection amount was correct or Einstein's deflection amount (which was double Newton's prediction) was correct. As we all
know, Einstein's prediction was correct.
On 9/3/2023 5:10 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
On Sunday, September 3, 2023 at 2:05:27 PM UTC-7, Volney wrote:
On 9/3/2023 4:56 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
Why would a massless photon become affected by gravity?Don't forget Newtonian gravity also predicts light is curved by gravity.
Not if it's massless.
Oh yes it does. Remember the 1919 eclipse observation? The question is whether Newton's deflection amount was correct or Einstein's deflection amount (which was double Newton's prediction) was correct. As we all
know, Einstein's prediction was correct.
Le 03/09/2023 à 23:50, Volney a écrit :If the results are not Newtonian they must be due to refraction making the photon massless. Curved space doesn't explain anything.
On 9/3/2023 5:10 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
On Sunday, September 3, 2023 at 2:05:27 PM UTC-7, Volney wrote:
On 9/3/2023 4:56 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
Why would a massless photon become affected by gravity?Don't forget Newtonian gravity also predicts light is curved by gravity.
Not if it's massless.
Oh yes it does. Remember the 1919 eclipse observation? The question is whether Newton's deflection amount was correct or Einstein's deflection amount (which was double Newton's prediction) was correct. As we allNo.
know, Einstein's prediction was correct.
Einstein had predicted a deflection half the size.
When the scientists realized this, they asked that the results not be published, and asked that the weather be too cloudy as an excuse to carry out the measurements.
We therefore waited for the next eclipse, and there, the work was
confirmed.
But with this terrible reality: it was after the fact.
Einstein had revised his copy with the results that he “had to” find.
In short, we had mended things in the meantime.
R.H.
On Saturday, September 2, 2023 at 1:13:49 PM UTC-7, Tom Roberts wrote:
On 9/2/23 1:29 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:Why would a massless photon become affected by gravity?
A massless photon obviously would not be affected by gravity at all.You really should learn some basic physics before attempting to write
about it. Your unsupported opinions are worthless. Why bother to make
stuff up and pretend it is true? What's the point?
Tom Roberts
On 9/3/2023 5:10 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
On Sunday, September 3, 2023 at 2:05:27 PM UTC-7, Volney wrote:
On 9/3/2023 4:56 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
Why would a massless photon become affected by gravity?Don't forget Newtonian gravity also predicts light is curved by gravity.
Not if it's massless.Oh yes it does. Remember the 1919 eclipse observation? The question is whether Newton's deflection amount was correct or Einstein's deflection
it isn't, affected. Fucking stupid. It's the space/spacetime the photon flies through. If curved, then it has no choice. Fucking stupid.
it isn't, affected. Fucking stupid. It's the space/spacetime the photon flies through. If curved, then it has no choice. Fucking stupid.
On 9/3/23 3:56 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:Thank you. I would like to know if there can be a mass-energy equivalence where there can be energy without mass.
On Saturday, September 2, 2023 at 1:13:49 PM UTC-7, Tom Roberts wrote:Because gravity affects all forms of energy and momentum, not just mass.
On 9/2/23 1:29 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:Why would a massless photon become affected by gravity?
A massless photon obviously would not be affected by gravity at all.You really should learn some basic physics before attempting to write
about it. Your unsupported opinions are worthless. Why bother to make
stuff up and pretend it is true? What's the point?
Tom Roberts
Tom Roberts
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 300 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 19:02:30 |
| Calls: | 6,707 |
| Calls today: | 1 |
| Files: | 12,239 |
| Messages: | 5,351,552 |