RELATIVITY HYPNOTISTS EXPLAIN THE POUND AND REBKA EXPERIMENT

On May 18, 10:23 pm, Eric Gisse wrote:
On May 18, 9:30 pm, Koobee Wublee wrote:

Energy is conserved. Light cannot lose any energy propagating out of
a gravitational field.

I cannot ****ing BELIEVE you would say something so stupid - but here
you are, saying it.

So, what part of what I said do you not understand?

How about this example?

Which geodesic path does light travel since every possible path has
null geodesics?

To be more specific for example, if we have 4 numbers below.

** 0, 0, 0, 0

Which one of the four numbers above is greater than the others?

Elementary school children should have no problems answering this
one. However, physicists for 100 years seem to have so much trouble
understanding this one. WHY?

The current interpretation of GR is utterly absurd.

The bottom line is that GR cannot explain gravitational redshift
PERIOD

On May 18, 11:24 pm, Koobee Wublee wrote:

[snip stooopidity]

Why should I bother to explain exactly why you are wrong? You won't
understand, and you will run away from the discussion.

http://groups.google.com/group/sci.a...f?dmode=source

Still waiting for the math. Still waiting for the literature
references. Still waiting for the derivations. Still waiting for you
to do something other than talk talk talk talk!

Koobee Wublee wrote:
The bottom line is that GR cannot explain gravitational redshift
PERIOD

Not true. The actual bottom line is that KOOBEE WUBLEE cannot use GR to
explain it. In actual fact, the explanation in GR is elementary:

The frequency of a light pulse P measured by an observer O is just
P.O where P represents the wave 4-vector of the light pulse and O
represents the 4-momentum of the observer. Gravitational redshift
is just the difference between P.O and P'.O', where P' is P
parallel-transported along its null geodesic to the second
observer O', and O' is the 4-momentum of that observer; note
the metric used in the two dot products is evaluated at the
location of the observation.

Note the entire effect is _geometrical_ -- the parallel transport and
the different values of the metric are pure geometry. This should be
obvious, because in GR gravitation is just geometry.


Tom Roberts

On May 19, 6:26 am, Tom Roberts wrote:

The frequency of a light pulse P measured by an observer O is just
P.O where P represents the wave 4-vector of the light pulse and O
represents the 4-momentum of the observer. Gravitational redshift
is just the difference between P.O and P'.O', where P' is P
parallel-transported along its null geodesic to the second
observer O', and O' is the 4-momentum of that observer; note
the metric used in the two dot products is evaluated at the
location of the observation.

Please provide the whole equation and/or derivation.

Note the entire effect is _geometrical_ -- the parallel transport and
the different values of the metric are pure geometry. This should be
obvious, because in GR gravitation is just geometry.

No, it is not obvious.

Einstein's prediction of gravitational red shift is utterly absurd.
He was confusing speed with acceleration. The man was very much a
clown and very shallow in any mental deduction. It is beyond the
absolute amazement that Einstein has so many followers just like the
likes of Jesus Christ, Mohamed, Reverend Moon, our very own great
Reverend Hammond, etc.

The most popular explanation of gravitational red shift involves with
gravitational time dilation in which this explanation is totally
violating the prediction of transverse Doppler shift through the
Lorentz transformation. shrug

Koobee Wublee wrote:
[snip stupidity]


The current interpretation of GR is utterly absurd.

YOUR interpretation of GR is utterly absurd.


The bottom line is that GR cannot explain gravitational redshift
PERIOD

The bottom line is you don't know what the hell you are talking about,
and are continually unwilling to learn anything about the subjects of
which you babble.

Tom Roberts wrote:
Koobee Wublee wrote:
The bottom line is that GR cannot explain gravitational redshift
PERIOD

Not true. The actual bottom line is that KOOBEE WUBLEE cannot use GR to
explain it. In actual fact, the explanation in GR is elementary:

The frequency of a light pulse P measured by an observer O is just
P.O where P represents the wave 4-vector of the light pulse and O
represents the 4-momentum of the observer. Gravitational redshift
is just the difference between P.O and P'.O', where P' is P
parallel-transported along its null geodesic to the second
observer O', and O' is the 4-momentum of that observer; note
the metric used in the two dot products is evaluated at the
location of the observation.

Note the entire effect is _geometrical_ -- the parallel transport and
the different values of the metric are pure geometry. This should be
obvious, because in GR gravitation is just geometry.

Absolutely correct, Roberts Roberts. You used to say Einstein's 1911
equation c'=c(1+V/c^2) was wrong and initially only Dirk Moortel and
Paul Andersen believed it but now Gisse, jeckyl and karandash, your
bright new students, also believe it. The equation says the speed of
light varies with the gravitational potential but Master Tom Roberts
says gravitation is just geometry so how can the speed of light vary
with something that does not exist, Gisse asks. Absurd, declare jeckyl
and karandash. Does the speed of light vary at all, Gisse asks again.
Who cares, reply enthusiastically Moortel, Andersen, jeckyl and
karandash. (Gisse is so active because he is going to become, as he
puts it, "Master Tom Roberts' PhD student").

Joseph Stalin had a principle:

There is a man, there is a problem. No man, no problem.

Einstein's criminal cult:

There is gravitation, there is a problem. No gravitation, no problem.

Pentcho Valev

On May 19, 10:18 pm, Koobee Wublee wrote:
On May 19, 6:26 am, Tom Roberts wrote:

The frequency of a light pulse P measured by an observer O is just
P.O where P represents the wave 4-vector of the light pulse and O
represents the 4-momentum of the observer. Gravitational redshift
is just the difference between P.O and P'.O', where P' is P
parallel-transported along its null geodesic to the second
observer O', and O' is the 4-momentum of that observer; note
the metric used in the two dot products is evaluated at the
location of the observation.

Please provide the whole equation and/or derivation.

Name one time you have produced a derivation of anything upon request.


Note the entire effect is _geometrical_ -- the parallel transport and
the different values of the metric are pure geometry. This should be
obvious, because in GR gravitation is just geometry.

No, it is not obvious.

That is because you don't know what you are talking about.


Einstein's prediction of gravitational red shift is utterly absurd.

Yet it has been observed. In terrestrial and astrophysical situations.
Isn't that curious?

He was confusing speed with acceleration. The man was very much a
clown and very shallow in any mental deduction. It is beyond the
absolute amazement that Einstein has so many followers just like the
likes of Jesus Christ, Mohamed, Reverend Moon, our very own great
Reverend Hammond, etc.

Only an IDIOT would confuse speed and acceleration. You are the same
malicious idiot who thinks Einstein had difficulties with simple
algebra.


The most popular explanation of gravitational red shift involves with
gravitational time dilation in which this explanation is totally
violating the prediction of transverse Doppler shift through the
Lorentz transformation. shrug

IDIOT. Lorentz transformations do not apply in general relativity.

On May 19, 10:51 pm, Eric Gisse wrote:
On May 19, 10:18 pm, Koobee Wublee wrote:

Name one time you have produced a derivation of anything upon request.

Every single time. If done in the past, it is done. shrug

Note the entire effect is _geometrical_ -- the parallel transport and
the different values of the metric are pure geometry. This should be
obvious, because in GR gravitation is just geometry.

No, it is not obvious.

That is because you don't know what you are talking about.

Hello!!! I am not the one doing the claim. shrug

Einstein's prediction of gravitational red shift is utterly absurd.

Yet it has been observed. In terrestrial and astrophysical situations.
Isn't that curious?

Einstein's method of predicting gravitational red shift is utterly
absurd.

Only an IDIOT would confuse speed and acceleration.

So, you are calling Einstein an IDIOT.

You are the same
malicious idiot who thinks Einstein had difficulties with simple
algebra.

No, I am no malicious idiot. You are the malicious Einstein
Dingleberry who tried to alter the history. Einstein had so much
trouble with simple mathematics. It showed in his 1905 papers as well
as his 1920 book. shrug

The most popular explanation of gravitational red shift involves with
gravitational time dilation in which this explanation is totally
violating the prediction of transverse Doppler shift through the
Lorentz transformation. shrug

IDIOT. Lorentz transformations do not apply in general relativity.

Yes, it does since SR is a special case of GR. shrug

On May 19, 11:15 pm, Koobee Wublee wrote:
On May 19, 10:51 pm, Eric Gisse wrote:

On May 19, 10:18 pm, Koobee Wublee wrote:
Name one time you have produced a derivation of anything upon request.

Every single time. If done in the past, it is done. shrug

hahahahah liar


Note the entire effect is _geometrical_ -- the parallel transport and
the different values of the metric are pure geometry. This should be
obvious, because in GR gravitation is just geometry.

No, it is not obvious.

That is because you don't know what you are talking about.

Hello!!! I am not the one doing the claim. shrug

duh.

who cares if it is obvious to you?


Einstein's prediction of gravitational red shift is utterly absurd.

Yet it has been observed. In terrestrial and astrophysical situations.
Isn't that curious?

Einstein's method of predicting gravitational red shift is utterly
absurd.

maybe to you, yet it is oddly consistent with experiment. how come
there is no empirical falsification of general relativity, malicious
crank?


Only an IDIOT would confuse speed and acceleration.

So, you are calling Einstein an IDIOT.

no, i am calling you an idiot. einstein made no such confusion.


You are the same
malicious idiot who thinks Einstein had difficulties with simple
algebra.

No, I am no malicious idiot. You are the malicious Einstein
Dingleberry who tried to alter the history. Einstein had so much
trouble with simple mathematics. It showed in his 1905 papers as well
as his 1920 book. shrug

yea, so much trouble that he managed to get a nobel in physics and
revolutionized physics through the following subjects unrelated to
relativity:

statistical mechanics via explaining brownian motion of particles, and
the bose einstein condensate.

quantum mechanics via :

photoelectric effect which spawned the goddamn field and got a nobel
for
his derivation of the heat capacity of a quantum solid, which matched
experiment much better than the classical models as well as helped
solidify quantum mechanics as an accepted field

he also made notable predictions unrelated to relativity:

the bose-einstein condensate, which have become supremely important in
the last decade. let us not forget the einstein A-B coefficients, the
theoretical basis for the laser.

your complete inability to understand einstein's works is not a valid
critique against einstein, especially since so many others [including
myself] manage _just fine_.


The most popular explanation of gravitational red shift involves with
gravitational time dilation in which this explanation is totally
violating the prediction of transverse Doppler shift through the
Lorentz transformation. shrug

IDIOT. Lorentz transformations do not apply in general relativity.

Yes, it does since SR is a special case of GR. shrug

special relativity is only true on curved manifolds in sufficiently
local regimes. lorentz transforms do _not_ apply. all these years of
arguing about relativity and you still don't know the most basic of
stuff? ****in' unbelievable

Eric Gisse wrote:
On May 19, 11:15 pm, Koobee Wublee wrote:
On May 19, 10:51 pm, Eric Gisse wrote:

On May 19, 10:18 pm, Koobee Wublee wrote:
Name one time you have produced a derivation of anything upon request.

Every single time. If done in the past, it is done. shrug

hahahahah liar


Note the entire effect is _geometrical_ -- the parallel transport and
the different values of the metric are pure geometry. This should be
obvious, because in GR gravitation is just geometry.

No, it is not obvious.

That is because you don't know what you are talking about.

Hello!!! I am not the one doing the claim. shrug

duh.

who cares if it is obvious to you?


Einstein's prediction of gravitational red shift is utterly absurd.

Yet it has been observed. In terrestrial and astrophysical situations.
Isn't that curious?

Einstein's method of predicting gravitational red shift is utterly
absurd.

maybe to you, yet it is oddly consistent with experiment. how come
there is no empirical falsification of general relativity, malicious
crank?


Only an IDIOT would confuse speed and acceleration.

So, you are calling Einstein an IDIOT.

no, i am calling you an idiot. einstein made no such confusion.


You are the same
malicious idiot who thinks Einstein had difficulties with simple
algebra.

No, I am no malicious idiot. You are the malicious Einstein
Dingleberry who tried to alter the history. Einstein had so much
trouble with simple mathematics. It showed in his 1905 papers as well
as his 1920 book. shrug

yea, so much trouble that he managed to get a nobel in physics and
revolutionized physics through the following subjects unrelated to
relativity:

statistical mechanics via explaining brownian motion of particles, and
the bose einstein condensate.

quantum mechanics via :

photoelectric effect which spawned the goddamn field and got a nobel
for
his derivation of the heat capacity of a quantum solid, which matched
experiment much better than the classical models as well as helped
solidify quantum mechanics as an accepted field

he also made notable predictions unrelated to relativity:

the bose-einstein condensate, which have become supremely important in
the last decade. let us not forget the einstein A-B coefficients, the
theoretical basis for the laser.

You forget Einstein's 1911 equation c'=c(1+V/c^2), Gisse. Perhaps
because you want to become Master Tom Roberts' PhD student and you
know Master Tom Roberts does not like this equation. Is that the
reason?

Pentcho Valev