sci.physics.relativity

On 27 ago, 03:53, "harry" < ...@ > wrote:
> wrote in message
>
> news: @ ...
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 24 ago, 10:53, "harry" < ...@ > wrote:
> >> wrote in message
>
> >>news: @ ...> On 24 ago,
> >> 00:21, Eric Gisse wrote:
> >> >> On Aug 23, 4:42 am, va...@ wrote:
>
> >> [...]
>
Just to save time, let's go to the essential.
[...]
> "For a body
> modelled by a material point of mass m under the gravitational
> influence of the mass M, its Total Energy remains constant (Kinetic
> Energy transforming in Potential Energy and vice versa), what implies
> that the mass m that measures the Total Energy remains also constant.
> For a constant m, the Newton's mechanical laws continue being valid,
> existing then a gravitational potential (PE per unit of rest mass)
> known to be -GM/r (mass m at distance r from mass M) with value cero
> at infinite r. If we change now the potential energy cero at infinite
> to its absolute value m_0m c^2 discovered by Einstein (m_0m is the
> maximal value of m_0 at infinite) we obtain PE=m_0m c^2-(GM/
> r)m_0=m_0c^2 and finally m_0=m_0m/(1+GM/rc^2). "
>
> That does NOT apply to the above example in which both potential and kinetic
> energy happen to increase equally. It is even erroneous in view of GPS
> satellite clock corrections. Nevertheless, perhaps it CAN be made to work.
> You seem to be stepping in the footsteps of Paul Marmet, and even be making
> the same frame confusion error (both of you are in good company: also
> Michelson and Poincare made that error at times). :-)
>
I derived from 1905 Relativity the variation law with position for the
rest mass of any body in the gravity field of a material point with
mass M. In an atomic clock, the frequency f(r) of the photon emitted
by the electron is proportional to its rest mass m_0. Putting f_m the
maximal frequency at r infinite (there m_0=m_0m) we have then
f(r)=f_m/(1+GM/rc^2)
This formula is in total agreement with all GPS behaviour (up to the
material point with mass M modelling the Earth, of course). I don't
know what example are you talking about saying that my formula doesn't
apply. The clock at the equator has an r a little greater than the
clock at the pole, with a little increasing in frequency that is
compensated by the little decreasing in frequency owed to its
velocity. Both effects are explained by 1905 Relativity, the velocity
one as predicted by Einstein CORRECTLY in his 1905 paper, and the
gravitational one explained by me also CORRECTLY (I think so) a
century after, without any correction at all in the 1905 Relativity.
About Paul Marmet, he took from Relativity the universal mass-energy
relationship, but rejecting afterward Relativity! I don't know how you
compare me with him, I remain supporting 1905 Relativity and deriving
new things from it. What frame confusion error are you talking about?
> Thanks for reminding me of that topic, it had slipped of my mind.
>
> Regards,
> Harald
Best regards
RVHG (Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato)
> - Ocultar texto de la cita -
>
> - Mostrar texto de la cita -- Ocultar texto de la cita -
>
> - Mostrar texto de la cita -- Ocultar texto de la cita -
>
> - Mostrar texto de la cita -