On Apr 5, 1:54 pm, "PD" wrote:
On Apr 5, 5:04 am, wrote:





On Apr 4, 6:52 pm, "Eric Gisse" wrote:

On Apr 4, 4:58 am, wrote:

On Apr 3, 8:55 pm, "EricGisse" wrote:

On Apr 3, 8:37 am, wrote:

[...]

2) The shift difference with the "acceleration"
cases is the gravitational shift squared divided
by 2. Such difference, which is certainly not
negligible in the case of the Sun, reveals the
error in the PoE.

No dumbass, it reveals the error in using an approximation.

The dumbass is you, the exact "accelerating" shift is
-1 + sqrt(1 + 2GM/Rc^2 * h/(R+h)), which is different
from the "gravitational" shift GM/Rc^2 * h/(R+h))!

*sigh*

The Binomial expansion of sqrt(1+x) for x 1 to first order in x is
1 + x/2. That means, to first order, -1 + sqrt(1 + 2GM/Rc^2 * h/(R+h))
= GM/Rc^2 * h/(R+h).

I will never understand why the equivalence principle keeps getting
dragged into this.

And why do you omit the second order? Because it shows
that the PoE is false?

Anyhow, the difference between the "gravitational"
and the "acceleration" shift is
GM/Rc^2 * h/(R+h) - (-1 + sqrt(1 + 2GM/Rc^2 * h/(R+h))),
which, for h = distance Sun's surface - Earth is about
2.25 * 10^-12.

According to the PoE, the difference should be 0 !

No. You are under the impression that, by the principle of
equivalence, two expansions should agree term by term. This is
incorrect. There is no such requirement, and I don't know why you
think there should be.

Let's take a more bonehead example:
pi^2 = 8 * [1/1^2 + 1/3^2 + 1/5^2 + 1/7^2 + ...]
and
pi^2 = 24 * [1/2^2 + 1/4^2 + 1/6^2 + 1/8^2 + ...]
Now, since both of these expansions produce the same number exactly,
are you going to tell me that the two expansions have to agree term by
term? Would you like to demonstrate that agreement?

PD

You are trying to evade the point, i.e. the
validity of the PoE.

See for instance the following excerpt from
Strobel's Astronomy Notes.
(http://www.astronomynotes.com/relativity/s3.htm)

"Part of Einstein's genius was his ability
to look at ordinary things from a whole new
perspective and logically follow through on the
consequence of the insights he gained from
his new perspective.

He proposed an experiment involving
two elevators:

one at rest on the ground on the Earth
and another, far out in space away from
any planet, moon, or star, accelerating
upward with an acceleration equal to that
of one Earth gravity (9.8 meters/second2).
(Modern readers can substitute ``rocket ship''
for Einstein's elevator.)

If a ball is dropped in the elevator
at rest on the Earth, it will accelerate
toward the floor with an acceleration of
9.8 meters/second2.
A ball released in the upward accelerating
elevator far out in space will also accelerate
toward the floor at 9.8 meters/second2.

The two elevator experiments get the same
result!"

I have demonstrated that the two elevator
experiments give different results, meaning
that they falsify the PoE.

Notice that the two shift formulae *don't*
produce the same number exactly!

Marcel Luttgens

On Apr 5, 9:24 pm, "Eric Gisse" wrote:
On Apr 5, 2:04 am, wrote:





On Apr 4, 6:52 pm, "Eric Gisse" wrote:

On Apr 4, 4:58 am, wrote:

On Apr 3, 8:55 pm, "EricGisse" wrote:

On Apr 3, 8:37 am, wrote:

[...]

2) The shift difference with the "acceleration"
cases is the gravitational shift squared divided
by 2. Such difference, which is certainly not
negligible in the case of the Sun, reveals the
error in the PoE.

No dumbass, it reveals the error in using an approximation.

The dumbass is you, the exact "accelerating" shift is
-1 + sqrt(1 + 2GM/Rc^2 * h/(R+h)), which is different
from the "gravitational" shift GM/Rc^2 * h/(R+h))!

*sigh*

The Binomial expansion of sqrt(1+x) for x 1 to first order in x is
1 + x/2. That means, to first order, -1 + sqrt(1 + 2GM/Rc^2 * h/(R+h))
= GM/Rc^2 * h/(R+h).

I will never understand why the equivalence principle keeps getting
dragged into this.

And why do you omit the second order? Because it shows
that the PoE is false?

No, the higher order terms are omitted because it is being compared to
a first order equation.

The PoE only enters in via your delusions.



Anyhow, the difference between the "gravitational"
and the "acceleration" shift is
GM/Rc^2 * h/(R+h) - (-1 + sqrt(1 + 2GM/Rc^2 * h/(R+h))),
which, for h = distance Sun's surface - Earth is about
2.25 * 10^-12.

According to the PoE, the difference should be 0 !

Dude, do you even know what the equivalence principle _is_ ?

You are trying to evade the point, i.e. the
validity of the PoE.

See for instance the following excerpt from
Strobel's Astronomy Notes.
(http://www.astronomynotes.com/relativity/s3.htm)

"Part of Einstein's genius was his ability
to look at ordinary things from a whole new
perspective and logically follow through on the
consequence of the insights he gained from
his new perspective.

He proposed an experiment involving
two elevators:

one at rest on the ground on the Earth
and another, far out in space away from
any planet, moon, or star, accelerating
upward with an acceleration equal to that
of one Earth gravity (9.8 meters/second2).
(Modern readers can substitute ``rocket ship''
for Einstein's elevator.)

If a ball is dropped in the elevator
at rest on the Earth, it will accelerate
toward the floor with an acceleration of
9.8 meters/second2.
A ball released in the upward accelerating
elevator far out in space will also accelerate
toward the floor at 9.8 meters/second2.

The two elevator experiments get the same
result!"

I have demonstrated that the two elevator
experiments give different results, meaning
that they falsify the PoE.

Marcel Luttgens

On Apr 5, 9:24 pm, "Eric Gisse" wrote:
On Apr 5, 2:04 am, wrote:





On Apr 4, 6:52 pm, "Eric Gisse" wrote:

On Apr 4, 4:58 am, wrote:

On Apr 3, 8:55 pm, "EricGisse" wrote:

On Apr 3, 8:37 am, wrote:

[...]

2) The shift difference with the "acceleration"
cases is the gravitational shift squared divided
by 2. Such difference, which is certainly not
negligible in the case of the Sun, reveals the
error in the PoE.

No dumbass, it reveals the error in using an approximation.

The dumbass is you, the exact "accelerating" shift is
-1 + sqrt(1 + 2GM/Rc^2 * h/(R+h)), which is different
from the "gravitational" shift GM/Rc^2 * h/(R+h))!

*sigh*

The Binomial expansion of sqrt(1+x) for x 1 to first order in x is
1 + x/2. That means, to first order, -1 + sqrt(1 + 2GM/Rc^2 * h/(R+h))
= GM/Rc^2 * h/(R+h).

I will never understand why the equivalence principle keeps getting
dragged into this.

And why do you omit the second order? Because it shows
that the PoE is false?

No, the higher order terms are omitted because it is being compared to
a first order equation.

The PoE only enters in via your delusions.



Anyhow, the difference between the "gravitational"
and the "acceleration" shift is
GM/Rc^2 * h/(R+h) - (-1 + sqrt(1 + 2GM/Rc^2 * h/(R+h))),
which, for h = distance Sun's surface - Earth is about
2.25 * 10^-12.

According to the PoE, the difference should be 0 !

Dude, do you even know what the equivalence principle _is_ ?

Excerpts from Wikipedia
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_equivalence
#Tests_of_the_Einstein_equivalence_principle):

"In the physics of relativity, the equivalence principle
is applied to several related concepts dealing with
gravitation and the uniformity of physical measurements
in different frames of reference. They are related
to the Copernican idea that the laws of physics
should be the same everywhere in the universe, to the
equivalence of gravitational and inertial mass,
and also to Albert Einstein's assertion that the
gravitational "force" as experienced locally while
standing on a massive body (such as the Earth)
is actually the same as the pseudo-force experienced
by an observer in a non-inertial (accelerated) frame
of reference."

According to Einstein,

"An observer in a windowless room cannot distinguish
between being on the surface of the Earth, and being
in a spaceship in deep space accelerating at 1g."

This is false, as I have demonstrated using photons.

Marcel Luttgens

On Apr 6, 5:18 am, wrote:


I have demonstrated that the two elevator
experiments give different results, meaning
that they falsify the PoE.

Notice that the two shift formulae *don't*
produce the same number exactly!

Marcel Luttgens

Umm, no, you only demonstrated that you are an imbecile and a liar.
I showed you, step by step that the difference between the PoundRebka
experiment and the case of an accellerated elevator of about 22.5 m
(the height of the tower in the Pound Rebka experiment is 10^-30.

In return, I challenged you as follows:

Marcel le Cornu

Write down two things side by side:

1. The gravitational redshift expanded to the second Taylor term for
light originating in the Sun and observed on the Earth

2. The Doppler redshift expanded to the second term for an elevator
150*10^9m long.

3. You will notice that the first order terms are identical. Only the
second order terms differ (unless you attempt another one of your
stupid cheats, you's better not because you have seen how quickly I
catch you)

4. Subtract the second order terms. What numerical value do you get?

You never answered, come on imbecile, do the step by step
calculations, what is the result?

On Apr 6, 7:18 am, wrote:
On Apr 5, 1:54 pm, "PD" wrote:
[snip]

Let's take a more bonehead example:
pi^2 = 8 * [1/1^2 + 1/3^2 + 1/5^2 + 1/7^2 + ...]
and
pi^2 = 24 * [1/2^2 + 1/4^2 + 1/6^2 + 1/8^2 + ...]
Now, since both of these expansions produce the same number exactly,
are you going to tell me that the two expansions have to agree term by
term? Would you like to demonstrate that agreement?

PD

You are trying to evade the point, i.e. the
validity of the PoE.

See for instance the following excerpt from
Strobel's Astronomy Notes.
(http://www.astronomynotes.com/relativity/s3.htm)

"Part of Einstein's genius was his ability
to look at ordinary things from a whole new
perspective and logically follow through on the
consequence of the insights he gained from
his new perspective.

He proposed an experiment involving
two elevators:

one at rest on the ground on the Earth
and another, far out in space away from
any planet, moon, or star, accelerating
upward with an acceleration equal to that
of one Earth gravity (9.8 meters/second2).
(Modern readers can substitute ``rocket ship''
for Einstein's elevator.)

If a ball is dropped in the elevator
at rest on the Earth, it will accelerate
toward the floor with an acceleration of
9.8 meters/second2.
A ball released in the upward accelerating
elevator far out in space will also accelerate
toward the floor at 9.8 meters/second2.

The two elevator experiments get the same
result!"

I have demonstrated that the two elevator
experiments give different results, meaning
that they falsify the PoE.

Notice that the two shift formulae *don't*
produce the same number exactly!


And you'll notice that if you take any finite order of the two
expansions of pi^2 that I gave you, the two finite sums do *not* add
up to the same number, though the whole expansions do *exactly* add up
to the same number.

The PoE says that the *exact* calculation of the two elevator
experiments will give the *exactly same* answer. This does NOT mean,
and this is what people have been trying to tell you, that if you do
an expansion of the calculation and keep only first-order terms, or
keep only terms up to second-order, or keep only terms up to ninth-
order, that the finite sums up to that order need to agree. In the
bonehead example I gave you, they clearly don't. And they don't in
your *approximations* to the two elevator cases, either. The PoE does
not require that and should not be thought of as needing to require
it.

PD

On Apr 6, 4:48 am, wrote:

[...]


This is false, as I have demonstrated using photons.

The only thing you have demonstrated is your inability to understand
the concept of the "approximation" or even the equivalence principle.

You stupidly compare the results obtained from a first order then a
second order equation, then come to the even stupider conclusion that
the equivalence principle is invalidated.

It really doesn't matter if you continue bleating - I am right and you
are wrong, and nothing you say or do will ever change that. Your
incessant whining will always be confined to USENET - you are too much
of a coward to actually do anything in real life about stuff you are
confident enough to whine about for years on end in the internet. Have
a nice life, idiot.


Marcel Luttgens

On Apr 7, 10:21 am, "Eric Gisse" wrote:
On Apr 6, 4:48 am, wrote:

[...]



This is false, as I have demonstrated using photons.

The only thing you have demonstrated is your inability to understand
the concept of the "approximation" or even the equivalence principle.

You stupidly compare the results obtained from a first order then a
second order equation, then come to the even stupider conclusion that
the equivalence principle is invalidated.

Either you have no idea about the scientific method, or you
are a crackpot.

Bye,

Marcel Luttgens


It really doesn't matter if you continue bleating - I am right and you
are wrong, and nothing you say or do will ever change that. Your
incessant whining will always be confined to USENET - you are too much
of a coward to actually do anything in real life about stuff you are
confident enough to whine about for years on end in the internet. Have
a nice life, idiot.

On Apr 7, 5:16 am, wrote:
Marcel's weaseling snipped

Marcel le Cornu


Write down two things side by side:


1. The gravitational redshift expanded to the second Taylor term for
light originating in the Sun and observed on the Earth


2. The Doppler redshift expanded to the second term for an elevator
150*10^9m long.


3. You will notice that the first order terms are identical. Only the
second order terms differ (unless you attempt another one of your
stupid cheats, you's better not because you have seen how quickly I
catch you)


4. Subtract the second order terms. What numerical value do you get?


You never answered, come on imbecile, do the step by step
calculations, what is the result?