Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #450869 > unrolled thread

Blue shift and red shift changing means no conservation of energy

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity

Contents

  Blue shift and red shift changing means no conservation of energy mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-02-26 15:22 -0800
    Re: Blue shift and red shift changing means no conservation of energy The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2018-02-26 16:31 -0800
      Re: Blue shift and red shift changing means no conservation of energy mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-02-26 17:40 -0800
        Re: Blue shift and red shift changing means no conservation of energy The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2018-02-26 22:19 -0800
      Re: Blue shift and red shift changing means no conservation of energy "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2018-03-08 02:06 -0800
        Re: Blue shift and red shift changing means no conservation of energy mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-03-08 10:00 -0800
    Re: Blue shift and red shift changing means no conservation of energy Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2018-02-27 13:51 +1100
      Re: Blue shift and red shift changing means no conservation of energy mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-02-26 19:02 -0800
        Re: Blue shift and red shift changing means no conservation of energy Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2018-02-27 19:11 +1100
          Re: Blue shift and red shift changing means no conservation of energy mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-02-27 10:20 -0800
            Re: Blue shift and red shift changing means no conservation of energy Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2018-02-28 09:01 +1100
              Re: Blue shift and red shift changing means no conservation of energy mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-02-27 16:28 -0800
                Re: Blue shift and red shift changing means no conservation of energy Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2018-02-28 11:35 +1100
                  Re: Blue shift and red shift changing means no conservation of energy mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-02-27 16:51 -0800
                    Re: Blue shift and red shift changing means no conservation of energy Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2018-02-28 12:04 +1100
                      Re: Blue shift and red shift changing means no conservation of energy mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-02-27 18:07 -0800
                Re: Blue shift and red shift changing means no conservation of energy Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-02-27 17:31 -0800
                  Re: Blue shift and red shift changing means no conservation of energy mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-02-27 17:46 -0800

#450869 — Blue shift and red shift changing means no conservation of energy

Blue shifts and red shifts that can change energy differently
together leave energy not conserved. There is new energy quantity
in the universe. Pound Rebka is another example. At a black
hole light energy goes infinite. disproof of black hole gravity
theory...

Mitchell Raemsch

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#450872

mitchrae3323@gmail.com wrote:
> 
> Blue shifts and red shifts that can change energy differently
> together leave energy not conserved. There is new energy quantity
> in the universe. Pound Rebka is another example. At a black
> hole light energy goes infinite. disproof of black hole gravity
> theory...
> 
> Mitchell Raemsch



Okay, if you understand Colors..

Red, Blue and Green...

and you know Blue is first and Red is third, what
role does Green play?

In other words, Red is the first color to make a shift.

And Blue is last to me a shift...

so wat about Green?


It's in the middle between the two shifting..

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#450873

On Monday, February 26, 2018 at 4:31:42 PM UTC-8, The Starmaker wrote:
> mitchrae3323@gmail.com wrote:
> > 
> > Blue shifts and red shifts that can change energy differently
> > together leave energy not conserved. There is new energy quantity
> > in the universe. Pound Rebka is another example. At a black
> > hole light energy goes infinite. disproof of black hole gravity
> > theory...
> > 
> > Mitchell Raemsch
> 
> 
> 
> Okay, if you understand Colors..
> 
> Red, Blue and Green...
> 
> and you know Blue is first and Red is third, what
> role does Green play?
> 
> In other words, Red is the first color to make a shift.
> 
> And Blue is last to me a shift...
> 
> so wat about Green?
> 
> 
> It's in the middle between the two shifting..

You like to play with colors...

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#450885

mitchrae3323@gmail.com wrote:
> 
> On Monday, February 26, 2018 at 4:31:42 PM UTC-8, The Starmaker wrote:
> > mitchrae3323@gmail.com wrote:
> > >
> > > Blue shifts and red shifts that can change energy differently
> > > together leave energy not conserved. There is new energy quantity
> > > in the universe. Pound Rebka is another example. At a black
> > > hole light energy goes infinite. disproof of black hole gravity
> > > theory...
> > >
> > > Mitchell Raemsch
> >
> >
> >
> > Okay, if you understand Colors..
> >
> > Red, Blue and Green...
> >
> > and you know Blue is first and Red is third, what
> > role does Green play?
> >
> > In other words, Red is the first color to make a shift.
> >
> > And Blue is last to me a shift...
> >
> > so wat about Green?
> >
> >
> > It's in the middle between the two shifting..
> 
> You like to play with colors...


you mentioned red and blue...i was wondering why the green wasn't
mentioned.


it's in the middle always between red and blue.


Green is the last color to shift..

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#451951

On Monday, February 26, 2018 at 4:31:42 PM UTC-8, The Starmaker wrote:
> mitchrae3323@gmail.com wrote:
> > 
> > Blue shifts and red shifts that can change energy differently
> > together leave energy not conserved. There is new energy quantity
> > in the universe. Pound Rebka is another example. At a black
> > hole light energy goes infinite. disproof of black hole gravity
> > theory...
> > 
> > Mitchell Raemsch
> 
> 
> 
> Okay, if you understand Colors..
> 
> Red, Blue and Green...
> 
> and you know Blue is first and Red is third, what
> role does Green play?
> 
> In other words, Red is the first color to make a shift.
> 
> And Blue is last to me a shift...
> 
> so wat about Green?
> 
> 
> It's in the middle between the two shifting..

Redshift and blueshift are still 
totally conservative, just extra-local 
with respect to redshift and blueshift.

That's well where beyond the effect.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#451982

On Thursday, March 8, 2018 at 2:06:45 AM UTC-8, Ross A. Finlayson wrote:
> On Monday, February 26, 2018 at 4:31:42 PM UTC-8, The Starmaker wrote:
> > mitchrae3323@gmail.com wrote:
> > > 
> > > Blue shifts and red shifts that can change energy differently
> > > together leave energy not conserved. There is new energy quantity
> > > in the universe. Pound Rebka is another example. At a black
> > > hole light energy goes infinite. disproof of black hole gravity
> > > theory...
> > > 
> > > Mitchell Raemsch
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > Okay, if you understand Colors..
> > 
> > Red, Blue and Green...
> > 
> > and you know Blue is first and Red is third, what
> > role does Green play?
> > 
> > In other words, Red is the first color to make a shift.
> > 
> > And Blue is last to me a shift...
> > 
> > so wat about Green?
> > 
> > 
> > It's in the middle between the two shifting..
> 
> Redshift and blueshift are still 
> totally conservative, just extra-local 
> with respect to redshift and blueshift.

They are not always balanced.


> 
> That's well where beyond the effect.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#450874

On 27/02/2018 10:22 AM, mitchrae3323@gmail.com wrote:
> Blue shifts and red shifts that can change energy differently
> together leave energy not conserved.

Show a scenario where you think that's true.

Sylvia.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#450875

On Monday, February 26, 2018 at 6:51:45 PM UTC-8, Sylvia Else wrote:
> On 27/02/2018 10:22 AM, mitchrae3323@gmail.com wrote:
> > Blue shifts and red shifts that can change energy differently
> > together leave energy not conserved.
> 
> Show a scenario where you think that's true.
> 
> Sylvia.

You are a Silly girl Sylvia. Show how it isn't...
Move toward or away and energy quantity is no longer the same.
Don't cause more trouble for yourself Sylvia...

Mitchell Raemsch

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#450892

On 27/02/2018 2:02 PM, mitchrae3323@gmail.com wrote:
> On Monday, February 26, 2018 at 6:51:45 PM UTC-8, Sylvia Else wrote:
>> On 27/02/2018 10:22 AM, mitchrae3323@gmail.com wrote:
>>> Blue shifts and red shifts that can change energy differently
>>> together leave energy not conserved.
>>
>> Show a scenario where you think that's true.
>>
>> Sylvia.
> 
> You are a Silly girl Sylvia. Show how it isn't...
> Move toward or away and energy quantity is no longer the same.
> Don't cause more trouble for yourself Sylvia...
> 
> Mitchell Raemsch
> 

You're the one saying that the law of conservation of energy is 
violated, so you get to show that your claim is correct.

Sylvia.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#450925

On Tuesday, February 27, 2018 at 12:11:51 AM UTC-8, Sylvia Else wrote:
> On 27/02/2018 2:02 PM, mitchrae3323@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Monday, February 26, 2018 at 6:51:45 PM UTC-8, Sylvia Else wrote:
> >> On 27/02/2018 10:22 AM, mitchrae3323@gmail.com wrote:
> >>> Blue shifts and red shifts that can change energy differently
> >>> together leave energy not conserved.
> >>
> >> Show a scenario where you think that's true.
> >>
> >> Sylvia.
> > 
> > You are a Silly girl Sylvia. Show how it isn't...
> > Move toward or away and energy quantity is no longer the same.
> > Don't cause more trouble for yourself Sylvia...
> > 
> > Mitchell Raemsch
> > 
> 
> You're the one saying that the law of conservation of energy is 
> violated, so you get to show that your claim is correct.
> 
> Sylvia.

If energy changes it is not conserved...

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#450934

On 28/02/2018 5:20 AM, mitchrae3323@gmail.com wrote:
> On Tuesday, February 27, 2018 at 12:11:51 AM UTC-8, Sylvia Else wrote:
>> On 27/02/2018 2:02 PM, mitchrae3323@gmail.com wrote:
>>> On Monday, February 26, 2018 at 6:51:45 PM UTC-8, Sylvia Else wrote:
>>>> On 27/02/2018 10:22 AM, mitchrae3323@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>> Blue shifts and red shifts that can change energy differently
>>>>> together leave energy not conserved.
>>>>
>>>> Show a scenario where you think that's true.
>>>>
>>>> Sylvia.
>>>
>>> You are a Silly girl Sylvia. Show how it isn't...
>>> Move toward or away and energy quantity is no longer the same.
>>> Don't cause more trouble for yourself Sylvia...
>>>
>>> Mitchell Raemsch
>>>
>>
>> You're the one saying that the law of conservation of energy is
>> violated, so you get to show that your claim is correct.
>>
>> Sylvia.
> 
> If energy changes it is not conserved...
> 

When I get into my car and press the accelerator, the vehicle's kinetic 
energy changes. Yet that is not a proof that energy is not conserved. 
Your argument is flawed.

Sylvia.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#450955

On Tuesday, February 27, 2018 at 2:01:32 PM UTC-8, Sylvia Else wrote:
> On 28/02/2018 5:20 AM, mitchrae3323@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Tuesday, February 27, 2018 at 12:11:51 AM UTC-8, Sylvia Else wrote:
> >> On 27/02/2018 2:02 PM, mitchrae3323@gmail.com wrote:
> >>> On Monday, February 26, 2018 at 6:51:45 PM UTC-8, Sylvia Else wrote:
> >>>> On 27/02/2018 10:22 AM, mitchrae3323@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>>> Blue shifts and red shifts that can change energy differently
> >>>>> together leave energy not conserved.
> >>>>
> >>>> Show a scenario where you think that's true.
> >>>>
> >>>> Sylvia.
> >>>
> >>> You are a Silly girl Sylvia. Show how it isn't...
> >>> Move toward or away and energy quantity is no longer the same.
> >>> Don't cause more trouble for yourself Sylvia...
> >>>
> >>> Mitchell Raemsch
> >>>
> >>
> >> You're the one saying that the law of conservation of energy is
> >> violated, so you get to show that your claim is correct.
> >>
> >> Sylvia.
> > 
> > If energy changes it is not conserved...
> > 
> 
> When I get into my car and press the accelerator, the vehicle's kinetic 
> energy changes. Yet that is not a proof that energy is not conserved. 

Demonstrate how its conserved. Put your money where you mouth is Sylvia.
Oh and yeah. Do it of yourself...

> Your argument is flawed.

If energy can change and isn't always
equally balanced the first principle of energy
or conservation is out. There is nothing wrong in
accepting that energy can change
and you can accept conservation is part of an ancient
principle of the past... instead of conservation
there is new quantities of energy by gravity
and motion. Show where at least one example
of energy conservation that doesn't give way
to change Sylvia...

> Sylvia.

I know you are not prepared to accept
anything else but...
What about the gravity energy shifts?
What about Pound Rebka?
Energy changes by gravity.
No conservation there.
And at a black hole new light energy quantities
are at their most extreme differences...
If you believe they are always balanced
then you are incorrect.

Mitchell Raemsch

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#450956

On 28/02/2018 11:28 AM, mitchrae3323@gmail.com wrote:
> On Tuesday, February 27, 2018 at 2:01:32 PM UTC-8, Sylvia Else wrote:
>> On 28/02/2018 5:20 AM, mitchrae3323@gmail.com wrote:
>>> On Tuesday, February 27, 2018 at 12:11:51 AM UTC-8, Sylvia Else wrote:
>>>> On 27/02/2018 2:02 PM, mitchrae3323@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>> On Monday, February 26, 2018 at 6:51:45 PM UTC-8, Sylvia Else wrote:
>>>>>> On 27/02/2018 10:22 AM, mitchrae3323@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>> Blue shifts and red shifts that can change energy differently
>>>>>>> together leave energy not conserved.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Show a scenario where you think that's true.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Sylvia.
>>>>>
>>>>> You are a Silly girl Sylvia. Show how it isn't...
>>>>> Move toward or away and energy quantity is no longer the same.
>>>>> Don't cause more trouble for yourself Sylvia...
>>>>>
>>>>> Mitchell Raemsch
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> You're the one saying that the law of conservation of energy is
>>>> violated, so you get to show that your claim is correct.
>>>>
>>>> Sylvia.
>>>
>>> If energy changes it is not conserved...
>>>
>>
>> When I get into my car and press the accelerator, the vehicle's kinetic
>> energy changes. Yet that is not a proof that energy is not conserved.
> 
> Demonstrate how its conserved. Put your money where you mouth is Sylvia.
> Oh and yeah. Do it of yourself...
> 
>> Your argument is flawed.
> 
> If energy can change and isn't always
> equally balanced the first principle of energy
> or conservation is out. There is nothing wrong in
> accepting that energy can change
> and you can accept conservation is part of an ancient
> principle of the past... instead of conservation
> there is new quantities of energy by gravity
> and motion. Show where at least one example
> of energy conservation that doesn't give way
> to change Sylvia...
> 
>> Sylvia.
> 
> I know you are not prepared to accept
> anything else but...
> What about the gravity energy shifts?
> What about Pound Rebka?
> Energy changes by gravity.
> No conservation there.
> And at a black hole new light energy quantities
> are at their most extreme differences...
> If you believe they are always balanced
> then you are incorrect.
> 
> Mitchell Raemsch
> 


The point is that you have to consider the entire system, not just parts 
of it. In the case of the car you have look at the kinetic energy of the 
car, the slight change in the energy of the Earth (the car is pushing 
against it), the change of the energy in the fuel, the energy dissipated 
as heat, the energy in the exhaust, the work done against the air, and 
so on. When all are taken into account, the change is zero.

No counter-example has ever been discovered.

Sylvia.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#450958

On Tuesday, February 27, 2018 at 4:35:06 PM UTC-8, Sylvia Else wrote:
> On 28/02/2018 11:28 AM, mitchrae3323@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Tuesday, February 27, 2018 at 2:01:32 PM UTC-8, Sylvia Else wrote:
> >> On 28/02/2018 5:20 AM, mitchrae3323@gmail.com wrote:
> >>> On Tuesday, February 27, 2018 at 12:11:51 AM UTC-8, Sylvia Else wrote:
> >>>> On 27/02/2018 2:02 PM, mitchrae3323@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>>> On Monday, February 26, 2018 at 6:51:45 PM UTC-8, Sylvia Else wrote:
> >>>>>> On 27/02/2018 10:22 AM, mitchrae3323@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>>>>> Blue shifts and red shifts that can change energy differently
> >>>>>>> together leave energy not conserved.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Show a scenario where you think that's true.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Sylvia.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> You are a Silly girl Sylvia. Show how it isn't...
> >>>>> Move toward or away and energy quantity is no longer the same.
> >>>>> Don't cause more trouble for yourself Sylvia...
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Mitchell Raemsch
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> You're the one saying that the law of conservation of energy is
> >>>> violated, so you get to show that your claim is correct.
> >>>>
> >>>> Sylvia.
> >>>
> >>> If energy changes it is not conserved...
> >>>
> >>
> >> When I get into my car and press the accelerator, the vehicle's kinetic
> >> energy changes. Yet that is not a proof that energy is not conserved.
> > 
> > Demonstrate how its conserved. Put your money where you mouth is Sylvia.
> > Oh and yeah. Do it of yourself...
> > 
> >> Your argument is flawed.
> > 
> > If energy can change and isn't always
> > equally balanced the first principle of energy
> > or conservation is out. There is nothing wrong in
> > accepting that energy can change
> > and you can accept conservation is part of an ancient
> > principle of the past... instead of conservation
> > there is new quantities of energy by gravity
> > and motion. Show where at least one example
> > of energy conservation that doesn't give way
> > to change Sylvia...
> > 
> >> Sylvia.
> > 
> > I know you are not prepared to accept
> > anything else but...
> > What about the gravity energy shifts?
> > What about Pound Rebka?
> > Energy changes by gravity.
> > No conservation there.
> > And at a black hole new light energy quantities
> > are at their most extreme differences...
> > If you believe they are always balanced
> > then you are incorrect.
> > 
> > Mitchell Raemsch
> > 
> 
> 
> The point is that you have to consider the entire system, not just parts 
> of it. In the case of the car you have look at the kinetic energy of the 
> car, the slight change in the energy of the Earth (the car is pushing 
> against it), the change of the energy in the fuel, the energy dissipated 
> as heat, the energy in the exhaust, the work done against the air, and 
> so on. When all are taken into account, the change is zero.
> 
> No counter-example has ever been discovered.

So you choose to believe...
What about gravity energy change shift?
Show me where I am wrong...
New energy quantity means no conservation...
New energy order is the more objective
energy principle. 

> 
> Sylvia.

Show how your example goes exact...
can you prove it solves exact?
And do you have to have it your way
always? I believe we can go on
beyond what you choose to believe 
will never change Sylvia... and
it can. Energy can be new in quantity.

Mitchell Raemsch

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#450959

On 28/02/2018 11:51 AM, mitchrae3323@gmail.com wrote:

> What about gravity energy change shift?

Potential energy converted to kinetic energy. Energy is conserved. In a 
non-circular orbit, this process takes place for half the orbit, and 
then operates in reverse for the other half.

> Show me where I am wrong...
> New energy quantity means no conservation...
> New energy order is the more objective
> energy principle.
> 
>>
>> Sylvia.
> 
> Show how your example goes exact...
> can you prove it solves exact?

Theories in physics are never proofs. However, no one has ever managed 
to do an experiment in which there is a demonstrable gain or loss of 
total energy.

Absent such an experiment, the conservation law stands.

Sylvia.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#450963

On Tuesday, February 27, 2018 at 5:04:45 PM UTC-8, Sylvia Else wrote:
> On 28/02/2018 11:51 AM, mitchrae3323@gmail.com wrote:
> 
> > What about gravity energy change shift?
> 
> Potential energy converted to kinetic energy. Energy is conserved. In a 
> non-circular orbit, this process takes place for half the orbit, and 
> then operates in reverse for the other half.
> 
> > Show me where I am wrong...
> > New energy quantity means no conservation...
> > New energy order is the more objective
> > energy principle.
> > 
> >>
> >> Sylvia.
> > 
> > Show how your example goes exact...
> > can you prove it solves exact?
> 
> Theories in physics are never proofs. However, no one has ever managed 
> to do an experiment in which there is a demonstrable gain or loss of 
> total energy.
> 
> Absent such an experiment, the conservation law stands.
> 
> Sylvia.

If energy can change up or down and they are
not equally balanced conservation has lost out.
New energy principle stands for the better
of science.

The first energy principle is outdated
and I predict many people will want to
remain dinosaurs of the past in science.
New energy comes from gravity and motion.
We can celebrate new energy principle
in advancement... we are free to go forward.
since we are really at a so called modern 
beginning...

Mitchell Raemsch

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#450961

On Tuesday, February 27, 2018 at 6:28:56 PM UTC-6, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Tuesday, February 27, 2018 at 2:01:32 PM UTC-8, Sylvia Else wrote:

> > When I get into my car and press the accelerator, the vehicle's kinetic 
> > energy changes. Yet that is not a proof that energy is not conserved. 
> 
> Demonstrate how its conserved. Put your money where you mouth is Sylvia.
> Oh and yeah. Do it of yourself...
> 
> > Your argument is flawed.
> 
> If energy can change and isn't always
> equally balanced the first principle of energy
> or conservation is out. There is nothing wrong in
> accepting that energy can change
> and you can accept conservation is part of an ancient
> principle of the past... instead of conservation
> there is new quantities of energy by gravity
> and motion. Show where at least one example
> of energy conservation that doesn't give way
> to change Sylvia...
> 
> > Sylvia.
> 
> I know you are not prepared to accept
> anything else but...
> What about the gravity energy shifts?
> What about Pound Rebka?
> Energy changes by gravity.
> No conservation there.
> And at a black hole new light energy quantities
> are at their most extreme differences...
> If you believe they are always balanced
> then you are incorrect.
> 
> Mitchell Raemsch

You haven't the foggiest idea what conservation of energy means.

It would be a complete waste of effort for her to spend the time explaining
things to you. 

You, after all, are the delusional fool who for several years had been convinced
that you had won the Nobel Prize...
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.physics.relativity/olOziYw_bD4/VtOIRaT268oJ

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#450962

On Tuesday, February 27, 2018 at 5:31:26 PM UTC-8, Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote:
> On Tuesday, February 27, 2018 at 6:28:56 PM UTC-6, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Tuesday, February 27, 2018 at 2:01:32 PM UTC-8, Sylvia Else wrote:
> 
> > > When I get into my car and press the accelerator, the vehicle's kinetic 
> > > energy changes. Yet that is not a proof that energy is not conserved. 
> > 
> > Demonstrate how its conserved. Put your money where you mouth is Sylvia.
> > Oh and yeah. Do it of yourself...
> > 
> > > Your argument is flawed.
> > 
> > If energy can change and isn't always
> > equally balanced the first principle of energy
> > or conservation is out. There is nothing wrong in
> > accepting that energy can change
> > and you can accept conservation is part of an ancient
> > principle of the past... instead of conservation
> > there is new quantities of energy by gravity
> > and motion. Show where at least one example
> > of energy conservation that doesn't give way
> > to change Sylvia...
> > 
> > > Sylvia.
> > 
> > I know you are not prepared to accept
> > anything else but...
> > What about the gravity energy shifts?
> > What about Pound Rebka?
> > Energy changes by gravity.
> > No conservation there.
> > And at a black hole new light energy quantities
> > are at their most extreme differences...
> > If you believe they are always balanced
> > then you are incorrect.
> > 
> > Mitchell Raemsch
> 
> You haven't the foggiest idea what conservation of energy means.
> 
> It would be a complete waste of effort for her to spend the time explaining
> things to you. 
> 
> You, after all, are the delusional fool who for several years had been convinced
> that you had won the Nobel Prize...

Oh really Roy Masters?

> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.physics.relativity/olOziYw_bD4/VtOIRaT268oJ

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity

csiph-web