Re: Newton: Photon falling from h meters increase its energy.

On Sat, 11 Jan 2025 20:45:08 +0000, J. J. Lodder wrote:

rhertz <hertz778@gmail.com> wrote:
>

On Sat, 11 Jan 2025 18:43:41 +0000, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
>

W dniu 11.01.2025 o 19:10, rhertz pisze:

On Sat, 11 Jan 2025 17:25:42 +0000, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
>

W dniu 11.01.2025 o 18:16, rhertz pisze:

Under Newton, a photon has gravitational mass m, for which it's affected
by gravity.

>
Under which Newton? Do you mean Newton's
optics? It was abandoned in XVIIIth century.

>
Von Soldner's Newton (since 1801)

>
Newton's optics was abandoned, if not in XVIIIth
century than not very long after 1801.

>
And recovered by Einstein in 1911, with a paper WHERE HE MAKE
AFFIRMATIONS about gravitational mass of energy.
>
Ask yourself WHY 1960 Pound-Rebka paper had the title "Apparent weight
of photons" and later, before his death, Pound wrote his memoirs
"Weighting photons".

>
All entirely correct,
-in the Newtonian approximation to general relativity-.
>
As yet we have not yet encountered circumstances in which
the Newtonian approximation is not good enough
to calculate the relativistic red shift,
>
Jan

Then you accept what Einstein affirmed in his 1911 paper: "Energy has
gravitational mass".
So much gobbledygook in such old paper just to conceal that he was using
Planck to calculate a shift of gh/c^2 and also m=E/c^2.
And 50 years later you had Pound embarrassing himself by using an
eye-catcher title on his paper "Does photons have mass?", just to forget
to expand that title within his 1960 paper! Rebka was only his slave, a
graduate student who depended on Pound to get his PhD in 1961.
Shame, scam, crooks, hoax, fraud, etc. This is what relativism is full
of.