Reflecting on the physics of Gravitational metric

Right. I reference Wiki a great deal of the time. I do so when it appears right. That way I save myself a lot of typing. Many of those who write those things are much better writers than I am anyway. In cases like this, if it makes snes then I think it's worth asking around about. But you're right. .For the most part we have no idea who wrote them. Wait for the day when Wiki disagrees with Trapped. Lol!

We need to know who's making these statements to know if they're trust worthy. That's why I PM'd you who the source is and his credentials via his homepage.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

...

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Before Tach even showed us the Wiki article, I had read other various sources which seemed to agree with the original sources conclusions.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

If you follow the quotes given, it appears this knowledge is from a NASA page

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1930JRASC..24..390C

 

It's painfully obvious to everyone who’s reading this thread that if you actually could post a reference to “other various sources” then you would have done so a very long time ago.

Folks - You’ll notice here that Trapper just screwed up big time. He metaphorically just shot himself in the foot. All he had to do was remain silent and he’d have appeared less sad. I.e. he will have simply made a mistake like we all do. We can let that slide. Not here though. He has to hide his mistake by propagating this falsehood. He made his mistake and then tried to cover it up with what appears to be an even worse lie. I.e. he just made thing worse for himself by claiming to had read other various sources. Had that actually been true then how can he have seen so many and not be able to recall and post one? So in his boasting he just shot himself in the foot. Lol!!!!

Give it a rest and quit while you're behind, Trapped. Every single person in any science forum that has ever existed on the Internet knows all to well the kind of BS you just tried to pass off on us. I.e. claiming something exists or claiming to see it and then absolutely refusing, day after day after day, to post it. You look sillier now that you ever have before.

 

Both you and Bruce are wrong, it is kind of ironic that no other but reiku proved to be right on this issue while the two of you repeated your mistakes.

This is cut and dry, did you read the wiki page I linked in for you?

That is rather comical, the wiki page is correct, you and brucep are wrong.

Well, you are wrong, the wiki page is right. The derivation is quite trivial, it falls straight out of the metric.

 

Ahead, I am sure you mean ahead.

 

Tach is the most intellectually dishonest poster I've come across in many moons. He'll just troll you. That was a nice reference. It has to be that way. The cosmological redshift includes 2 components: The first component [ 1 ] which is obvious [LOL] + a second component [ z ] which is also obvious [LOL]. They sum [LOL]. There isn't 2 components associated with the relativistic doppler or gravitational redshift. Only one component for each [LOL].

 

You really do like to act dumb.

The evidence has been presented to you and you are still clinging on to the idea that I am wrong and everyone else who agrees with me is wrong.

It would have been much bigger if you just had left this where it was now and let the dust settle.

Oh no, not you. Hit out with the insults and converse with people who you think actually cares about what you say.

 

No one claimed such nonsense. What was explained to you (repeatedly) is that the formula cited by Trapped, contrary to your repeated erroneous claims, is the formula for gravitational redshift and not, as you claim, for cosmological redshift. You are mixing up the two different concepts. To make it easier for you to understand, \(\sqrt{\frac{g_{tt}(receiver)}{g_{tt}(source)}}\)
represents gravitational redshift, not cosmological redshift.

I simply corrected your errors, instead of getting personal you should make the effort to correct your misconceptions.

 

Thanks. I put him in my ignore list as soon as I realized that.

 

In the case of gravitational redshift also being parameterized by z, it seems that his reference, i.e. Wiki, is correct. A friend of mine is an astrophysicist at MIT and confirmed this for me and I fully trust him myself. Of course this can't be taken as proof so I'm not saying that anyone should accept that as me giving proof of it. It was just something that swayed me, that's all. All of this was confusing because I asked a GR expert I know and go the opposite answer. However I'll take the astrophysicist over the GR expert on this point.

The main point in this is being man enough to admit being wrong.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Looks like you are admitting to be wrong on the issue, right, Peter?
How about you, Bruce?