Space curvature null geodesic of light and motion curvature of matter
mitc...@hotmail.com
time curvature of which is the null geodesic. There are two kinds of
curvature one for matter varying with speed and one for light.
Mitch Raemsch Twice Nobel Laureate 2008
Justintruth
Space has curvature not matter. Space curvature is determined by the
mass causing the curvature. In the case of non-zero rest mass
particles, the energy is determined by the rest mass and the velocity.
In the case of zero rest mass particles, the energy is not determined
by the velocity as it is, in all cases in vacuum, the speed of light
(c). In that case the frequency of the light is used to determine the
energy of its particles. This is a case where quantum and relativity
are related as the frequency of light determines its energy (quantum
mech) which is its mass (special relativity) which then determines the
curvature of space around it which is gravity (general relativity).
Light travels on null geodesics, geodesics which have zero (null)
length when calculated using the metric of the space. Non zero rest
mass energy, when not disturbed by an external force, travels
"ubperturbed" on non-null geodesics. There are not two kinds of
curvature but there are two kinds of geodesics (null and non-null).
For zero rest mass particles travelling at the speed of light the
geodesic is null - for the others it is non-null. Interestingly, for
curved spaces, null geodesics can be curved. Hence light does not
travel in curved space in a straight line.
Uncle Al
>
> Motion curvature of matter is determined by its speed through space-
> time curvature of which is the null geodesic.
Read "The Story of O"
> Mitch Raemsch Twice Nobel Laureate 2008
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/sapient.jpg
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/lajos.htm#a2
Ken S. Tucker
> mitchg...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> > Motion curvature of matter is determined by its speed through space-
> > time curvature of which is the null geodesic.
>
> [snip utter bullshit]
Bullshit doesn't come from utters,
Google "cow" 1,234,567 hits. The BS
comes from someplace else.
> > Mitch Raemsch Twice Nobel Laureate 2008
Well now he'll be able to afford to let laid.
Ken
Koobee Wublee
> Space has curvature not matter. Space curvature is determined by the
> mass causing the curvature.
How does matter curve space and time exactly? If there is no answer,
don't feel so back. Newtonian gravity cannot explain why matter
manifests gravity either. GR is just no better than Newtonian gravity
law. <shrug>
> In the case of non-zero rest mass
> particles, the energy is determined by the rest mass and the velocity.
Then, how do you account for the potential energy? The best way to
interpret the potential energy is also a mass change. Faster speed
increases the mass; stronger gravity or more curvature in spacetime
decreases the mass. The speed must go higher as one travel into
stronger gravity or more curvature in spacetime. This is the
conservation of energy. However, this concept creates another state
of mass to be considered --- the observed mass, the rest mass, and the
intrinsic mass. With this concept, things become so much easier.
Then, why the physicists do not embrace this? Well, if they do, in a
few logical iterations, GR can only be declared nonsense. <shrug>
> In the case of zero rest mass particles, the energy is not determined
> by the velocity as it is, in all cases in vacuum, the speed of light
> (c). In that case the frequency of the light is used to determine the
> energy of its particles.
This model describing the energy of light is rather too simplistic.
Consider the case of gravitational redshift. After all, the energy
must be conserved. So, why would the photon decreases its frequency
and energy as it propagates out of the gravitational well? You cannot
toss away the conservation of energy.
> This is a case where quantum and relativity
> are related as the frequency of light determines its energy (quantum
> mech) which is its mass (special relativity) which then determines the
> curvature of space around it which is gravity (general relativity).
So, are you suggesting a moving body with high speed is able to
generate as much gravity as planets? In this case, you are allowing
an observer dependent quantity (the speed) to manifest gravity. That
means you can play God by traveling with the moving body at desired
speed to manifest any gravity of your wish.
> Light travels on null geodesics, geodesics which have zero (null)
> length when calculated using the metric of the space.
If I am point my flash light towards the north, the path to allow the
beam of light to travel from my flash light to the north pole is null
geodesic, for it accumulates spacetime of exactly zero. Another path
that takes light to travel to south pole first and then to north pole
also accumulates a total spacetime of zero --- null geodesics. So,
why does the photon favor one null-geodesic path than the others?
> Non zero rest
> mass energy, when not disturbed by an external force, travels
> "ubperturbed" on non-null geodesics. There are not two kinds of
> curvature but there are two kinds of geodesics (null and non-null).
> For zero rest mass particles travelling at the speed of light the
> geodesic is null - for the others it is non-null. Interestingly, for
> curved spaces, null geodesics can be curved. Hence light does not
> travel in curved space in a straight line.
This is a great conjecture. The experiments that are supposed to
prove the conjecture so are
** Eddington's 1919 expeditions to observer that solar eclipse
** Shapiro's bouncing of radar off Venus
Eddington did not have the accuracy in his experimental setup to
measure the deflected angle. So, the 1919 event cannot be taken as a
scientific proof of your conjecture. Shapiro's experiment requires
one to compare the experimental result with a control reference.
Without an interferometer, the claim is very questionable. So, your
conjecture is still not yet proven valid. <shrug>
PD
> On Mar 26, 10:03 pm, Justintruth wrote:
>
> > Space has curvature not matter. Space curvature is determined by the
> > mass causing the curvature.
>
> How does matter curve space and time exactly? If there is no answer,
> don't feel so back.
Of course, there is no answer to why a static electric charge adds a
field to the surrounding spacetime either. Physics doesn't feel
completely at a loss if it can't answer all "why" questions. It just
tries to characterize the predictable and reliable rules that nature
seems to obey. Along the way, some of the "why" questions get
answered. Not all, but a good number of them.
> Newtonian gravity cannot explain why matter
> manifests gravity either. GR is just no better than Newtonian gravity
> law. <shrug>
Except that GR gets right some numbers that Newtonian gravity gets
wrong.
That's usually enough in science. Not for you, maybe. But then again,
you're looking for excuses to not like GR.
>
> > In the case of non-zero rest mass
> > particles, the energy is determined by the rest mass and the velocity.
>
> Then, how do you account for the potential energy?
Of what? A brick does not have potential energy. The configuration of
the brick-earth system has potential energy.
> The best way to
> interpret the potential energy is also a mass change.
Bullshit. Here is the start of where you start to try to leverage a
dim understanding into confident-sounding assertions that are also
patently wrong. Fools no one.
> Faster speed
> increases the mass; stronger gravity or more curvature in spacetime
> decreases the mass. The speed must go higher as one travel into
> stronger gravity or more curvature in spacetime. This is the
> conservation of energy.
BS again. This has NOTHING to do with conservation of energy. Jiminy
Christmas. So if a brick falls in a gravitational field from higher to
lower potential energy, and from a region of higher gravitational
strength to a region of lower gravitational strength, does the brick
speed up or slow down? Don't be confused by the fact that you are the
brick.
> However, this concept creates another state
> of mass to be considered --- the observed mass, the rest mass, and the
> intrinsic mass. With this concept, things become so much easier.
> Then, why the physicists do not embrace this?
Because it takes five seconds to recognize that it's idiotic. Would
you suggest that we embrace it anyway, just because it took you longer
to think of it?
> Well, if they do, in a
> few logical iterations, GR can only be declared nonsense. <shrug>
>
> > In the case of zero rest mass particles, the energy is not determined
> > by the velocity as it is, in all cases in vacuum, the speed of light
> > (c). In that case the frequency of the light is used to determine the
> > energy of its particles.
>
> This model describing the energy of light is rather too simplistic.
> Consider the case of gravitational redshift. After all, the energy
> must be conserved.
And just a minute ago you mentioned potential energy and seem to have
immediately forgotten it. Geez.
> So, why would the photon decreases its frequency
> and energy as it propagates out of the gravitational well? You cannot
> toss away the conservation of energy.
>
> > This is a case where quantum and relativity
> > are related as the frequency of light determines its energy (quantum
> > mech) which is its mass (special relativity) which then determines the
> > curvature of space around it which is gravity (general relativity).
>
> So, are you suggesting a moving body with high speed is able to
> generate as much gravity as planets?
Yes. Got a problem with that?
> In this case, you are allowing
> an observer dependent quantity (the speed) to manifest gravity. That
> means you can play God by traveling with the moving body at desired
> speed to manifest any gravity of your wish.
Not quite. The curvature of the space remains constant. What the
*components* of the tensors are that appear in the field equations,
those are frame-dependent. Oh, I forgot, you don't know the difference
between a tensor and its components.
>
> > Light travels on null geodesics, geodesics which have zero (null)
> > length when calculated using the metric of the space.
>
> If I am point my flash light towards the north, the path to allow the
> beam of light to travel from my flash light to the north pole is null
> geodesic, for it accumulates spacetime of exactly zero. Another path
> that takes light to travel to south pole first and then to north pole
> also accumulates a total spacetime of zero --- null geodesics. So,
> why does the photon favor one null-geodesic path than the others?
It doesn't. It is a null-geodesic in SPACETIME, not in space. Geez.
>
> > Non zero rest
> > mass energy, when not disturbed by an external force, travels
> > "ubperturbed" on non-null geodesics. There are not two kinds of
> > curvature but there are two kinds of geodesics (null and non-null).
> > For zero rest mass particles travelling at the speed of light the
> > geodesic is null - for the others it is non-null. Interestingly, for
> > curved spaces, null geodesics can be curved. Hence light does not
> > travel in curved space in a straight line.
>
> This is a great conjecture. The experiments that are supposed to
> prove the conjecture so are
>
> ** Eddington's 1919 expeditions to observer that solar eclipse
>
> ** Shapiro's bouncing of radar off Venus
>
> Eddington did not have the accuracy in his experimental setup to
> measure the deflected angle. So, the 1919 event cannot be taken as a
> scientific proof of your conjecture.
That's OK. It's been repeated since 1919. Does the fact that the 1919
experiment has a sensitivity issue (and it doesn't actually) have
anything to do with the results of the subsequent measurements which
demonstrated to *higher* precision that relativity is correct?
> Shapiro's experiment requires
> one to compare the experimental result with a control reference.
> Without an interferometer, the claim is very questionable. So, your
> conjecture is still not yet proven valid. <shrug>
Once again, you don't know what you're talking about. But this is just
another in a long string of goofball statements that you pull out of
your ass with impunity and add <shrugs> as though that adds
credibility. <Shrug> away. It's still wrong.
PD
Koobee Wublee
> On Mar 27, 2:14 pm, Koobee Wublee wrote:
> > How does matter curve space and time exactly? If there is no answer,
> > don't feel so back.
>
> Of course, there is no answer to why a static electric charge adds a
> field to the surrounding spacetime either. Physics doesn't feel
> completely at a loss if it can't answer all "why" questions. It just
> tries to characterize the predictable and reliable rules that nature
> seems to obey. Along the way, some of the "why" questions get
> answered. Not all, but a good number of them.
>
> > Newtonian gravity cannot explain why matter
> > manifests gravity either. GR is just no better than Newtonian gravity
> > law. <shrug>
>
> Except that GR gets right some numbers that Newtonian gravity gets
> wrong.
Well, Newtonian gravity works for launching spacecrafts. Now, how can
you call that wrong?
> That's usually enough in science. Not for you, maybe. But then again,
> you're looking for excuses to not like GR.
GR is based on misapplication of mathematics. It is enough to make
any sensible engineer puke, but of course not physicists. <shrug>
> > > In the case of non-zero rest mass
> > > particles, the energy is determined by the rest mass and the velocity.
>
> > Then, how do you account for the potential energy?
>
> Of what? A brick does not have potential energy. The configuration of
> the brick-earth system has potential energy.
Well, how do you account for the potential energy in the configuration
of the brick-earth system based on the brick's point of view?
> > The best way to
> > interpret the potential energy is also a mass change.
>
> Bullshit. Here is the start of where you start to try to leverage a
> dim understanding into confident-sounding assertions that are also
> patently wrong. Fools no one.
Well again, you can interpret nonsense whatever you want, but at the
end of the day you still cannot account for the potential energy in
GR. <shrug>
> > Faster speed
> > increases the mass; stronger gravity or more curvature in spacetime
> > decreases the mass. The speed must go higher as one travel into
> > stronger gravity or more curvature in spacetime. This is the
> > conservation of energy.
>
> BS again. This has NOTHING to do with conservation of energy.
It helps if you understand what the conservation of energy means.
<shrug>
> Jiminy Christmas.
Christmas is still 9 months away. <shrug>
> So if a brick falls in a gravitational field from higher to
> lower potential energy, and from a region of higher gravitational
> strength to a region of lower gravitational strength, does the brick
> speed up or slow down? Don't be confused by the fact that you are the
> brick.
What does the conservation of energy tell you?
> > However, this concept creates another state
> > of mass to be considered --- the observed mass, the rest mass, and the
> > intrinsic mass. With this concept, things become so much easier.
> > Then, why the physicists do not embrace this?
>
> Because it takes five seconds to recognize that it's idiotic. Would
> you suggest that we embrace it anyway, just because it took you longer
> to think of it?
Well, if they do, in a few logical iterations, GR can only be declared
nonsense. <shrug>
> > This model describing the energy of light is rather too simplistic.
> > Consider the case of gravitational redshift. After all, the energy
> > must be conserved.
>
> And just a minute ago you mentioned potential energy and seem to have
> immediately forgotten it. Geez.
Yes, I have mentioned the potential energy, and no, I have not
forgotten about it. <shrug>
So, why would the photon decreases its frequency and energy as it
propagates out of the gravitational well? You cannot toss away the
conservation of energy.
> > So, are you suggesting a moving body with high speed is able to
> > generate as much gravity as planets?
>
> Yes. Got a problem with that?
Absolutely. In this case, you are allowing an observer dependent
quantity (the speed) to manifest gravity. That means you can play God
by traveling with the moving body at desired speed to manifest any
gravity of your wish. <shrug>
> Not quite. The curvature of the space remains constant. What the
> *components* of the tensors are that appear in the field equations,
> those are frame-dependent. Oh, I forgot, you don't know the difference
> between a tensor and its components.
It is utterly bullsh*t to call a metric as a tensor which implies
invariance under any observation but having its elements observer-
dependent. <shrug>
> > If I am point my flash light towards the north, the path to allow the
> > beam of light to travel from my flash light to the north pole is null
> > geodesic, for it accumulates spacetime of exactly zero. Another path
> > that takes light to travel to south pole first and then to north pole
> > also accumulates a total spacetime of zero --- null geodesics. So,
> > why does the photon favor one null-geodesic path than the others?
>
> It doesn't. It is a null-geodesic in SPACETIME, not in space. Geez.
Geez. I said spacetime.
If I point my flash light towards the north, the path to allow the
beam of light to travel from my flash light to the north pole is null
geodesic, for it accumulates spacetime of exactly zero. Another path
that takes light to travel to south pole first and then to north pole
also accumulates a total spacetime of zero --- null geodesics. So,
why does the photon favor one null-geodesic path than the others?
> > This is a great conjecture. The experiments that are supposed to
> > prove the conjecture so are
>
> > ** Eddington's 1919 expeditions to observer that solar eclipse
>
> > ** Shapiro's bouncing of radar off Venus
>
> > Eddington did not have the accuracy in his experimental setup to
> > measure the deflected angle. So, the 1919 event cannot be taken as a
> > scientific proof of your conjecture.
>
> That's OK. It's been repeated since 1919.
Which experiment showed photon deflection besides the 1919
expeditions?
> Does the fact that the 1919
> experiment has a sensitivity issue (and it doesn't actually) have
> anything to do with the results of the subsequent measurements which
> demonstrated to *higher* precision that relativity is correct?
There are no experiments that have successfully repeated the 1919
expeditions. <shrug>
> > Shapiro's experiment requires
> > one to compare the experimental result with a control reference.
> > Without an interferometer, the claim is very questionable. So, your
> > conjecture is still not yet proven valid. <shrug>
>
> Once again, you don't know what you're talking about. But this is just
> another in a long string of goofball statements that you pull out of
> your ass with impunity and add <shrugs> as though that adds
> credibility. <Shrug> away. It's still wrong.
After ranting your anger at your own ignorance, Shapiro's experiment
Eric Gisse
[snip arrogant stupidity]
Why even post?
Y.Porat
> On Mar 27, 2:14 pm, Koobee Wublee < > > > Non zero rest
> > > mass energy, when not disturbed by an external force, travels
> your ass with impunity and add <shrugs> as though that adds
> credibility. <Shrug> away. It's still wrong.
>
>
> - Show quoted text -
--------------------
people like PD are walking disasters for the advance of science!
not only that they are list little parrot mathematicians
they have not a basic physics touch!!
and the worst thing
those little pompous crooks
PRETENT TO SPEAK IN BEHALF OF SCINCE !!
who ar eyou little crook to speak in behalf of science !!
who are you in spaeaking in behalf of pioneering science !!
what have you little parrot innovated in physics
who nominated you to teach what you don't know
ie
who nominated you to teach your ignorance ??!!
space is nothing
and has no properties except hosting science
anyone out time who has a basic logic
realizes that gravitation is property of MASS
got it idiot ??
if there is no mass there is no gravitation
toeven a little chield who was not stuffed with biased prejudices will
understand it .
at the beginning of the 20th century it was nice
from Einstein to make a trial idea
but 100 years later ??
i am sire he himself would realise it was a false assumption
now to your crooks claim that
GR explains Nice;y' gravity
1
it does not explain the connection between gravity
and other attraction force s
2
you say sort of :
'if we dont know something to scratch 'physics does not get excited
about it '
may be idiots crooks like you do not get excited
so dont you crook
TURN YOUR MISUNDERSTANDING
TO A LEGITIAMTE AND EVEN ADVANTAGOUS SITUATION!!
if you dont know and understand
tan say it loud and clear that that is A DISADVANTAGE
A A LOKOON in the existing situation
and if idiot like you are happy with the existing situation
DONT ISPIRE THAT IDIOTIC
SMUGG MOOD ON OTHER PEOPLE
with the crooks pose of 'every thing is controlled
by me and other GREAT PHYSICISTS !!
because you are not a great physicist
you are a very little one
(may be a great lawyer not a great physicist)
may be at most a true believer good parrot
and the op is right !!
gravitation is dome by some property of mass!!
NO MASS NO REAL PHYSICS !!
3
dont you speak about potential energy
and energy at all
because you are an pompous crook ignorant about it !!
4
one of the great lies is
that GR calculated gravity proprly
just by the bet theiry of GR
all those calculations that look so nice
were fiddleling experimental data
to look as done by bet theory
the fact the Newtons theory cannot calculate gravity
is the same reason that GR cant to it
without fiddlings
IT IS BECAUSE GRAVITAION IS A SPECIAL CASE
NOT UNDERSTOOD PROPERLY UNTILL THIS VERY DAY !!
and the sooner people understnad it
the better !!!
Y.Porat
-------------------------------------------
Eric Gisse
[snip whatever]
Your stupidity would be far more entertaining if you would be bothered
to make the effort of writing a complete sentence to express a
thought.
PD
> On Mar 27, 1:57 pm, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Mar 27, 2:14 pm, Koobee Wublee wrote:
> > > How does matter curve space and time exactly? If there is no answer,
> > > don't feel so back.
>
> > Of course, there is no answer to why a static electric charge adds a
> > field to the surrounding spacetime either. Physics doesn't feel
> > completely at a loss if it can't answer all "why" questions. It just
> > tries to characterize the predictable and reliable rules that nature
> > seems to obey. Along the way, some of the "why" questions get
> > answered. Not all, but a good number of them.
>
> > > Newtonian gravity cannot explain why matter
> > > manifests gravity either. GR is just no better than Newtonian gravity
> > > law. <shrug>
>
> > Except that GR gets right some numbers that Newtonian gravity gets
> > wrong.
>
> Well, Newtonian gravity works for launching spacecrafts. Now, how can
> you call that wrong?
Because for launching spacecrafts, it's close enough.
For playing billiards, using mv for momentum is close enough.
For roller coasters, using (1/2)mv^2 for kinetic energy is close
enough.
But none of them are correct. They are just useful approximations that
are close enough in many cases.
>
> > That's usually enough in science. Not for you, maybe. But then again,
> > you're looking for excuses to not like GR.
>
> GR is based on misapplication of mathematics.
Certainly not. No physics is *based* in mathematics. On purpose.
Physical theories are based on *physical* premises. Mathematics is
used in the development of those premises to make useful predictions.
> It is enough to make
> any sensible engineer puke, but of course not physicists. <shrug>
If it makes some engineers nauseous and disoriented, then perhaps
those engineers should refrain from attempting physics, no?
>
> > > > In the case of non-zero rest mass
> > > > particles, the energy is determined by the rest mass and the velocity.
>
> > > Then, how do you account for the potential energy?
>
> > Of what? A brick does not have potential energy. The configuration of
> > the brick-earth system has potential energy.
>
> Well, how do you account for the potential energy in the configuration
> of the brick-earth system based on the brick's point of view?
The brick doesn't have a "point of view" with regard to potential
energy. The configuration of the system has potential energy. The
objects in that configuration do not contain the potential energy. If
you were not taught this in your basic physics classes as a
prerequisite to your engineering studies, it's likely you would later
become nauseous and disoriented.
Oh, wait....
>
> > > The best way to
> > > interpret the potential energy is also a mass change.
>
> > Bullshit. Here is the start of where you start to try to leverage a
> > dim understanding into confident-sounding assertions that are also
> > patently wrong. Fools no one.
>
> Well again, you can interpret nonsense whatever you want, but at the
> end of the day you still cannot account for the potential energy in
> GR. <shrug>
Of course it's accounted for. I don't see how someone who doesn't
understand what potential energy is, let alone a nauseous and
disoriented engineer who doesn't understand what potential energy is,
would be in a position to judge whether it's accounted for or not.
>
> > > Faster speed
> > > increases the mass; stronger gravity or more curvature in spacetime
> > > decreases the mass. The speed must go higher as one travel into
> > > stronger gravity or more curvature in spacetime. This is the
> > > conservation of energy.
>
> > BS again. This has NOTHING to do with conservation of energy.
>
> It helps if you understand what the conservation of energy means.
> <shrug>
I certainly agree with that statement. How are you going to go about
learning what it means?
>
> > Jiminy Christmas.
>
> Christmas is still 9 months away. <shrug>
>
> > So if a brick falls in a gravitational field from higher to
> > lower potential energy, and from a region of higher gravitational
> > strength to a region of lower gravitational strength, does the brick
> > speed up or slow down? Don't be confused by the fact that you are the
> > brick.
>
> What does the conservation of energy tell you?
I asked you first. Got a clue?
>
> > > However, this concept creates another state
> > > of mass to be considered --- the observed mass, the rest mass, and the
> > > intrinsic mass. With this concept, things become so much easier.
> > > Then, why the physicists do not embrace this?
>
> > Because it takes five seconds to recognize that it's idiotic. Would
> > you suggest that we embrace it anyway, just because it took you longer
> > to think of it?
>
> Well, if they do, in a few logical iterations, GR can only be declared
> nonsense. <shrug>
>
> > > This model describing the energy of light is rather too simplistic.
> > > Consider the case of gravitational redshift. After all, the energy
> > > must be conserved.
>
> > And just a minute ago you mentioned potential energy and seem to have
> > immediately forgotten it. Geez.
>
> Yes, I have mentioned the potential energy, and no, I have not
> forgotten about it. <shrug>
>
> So, why would the photon decreases its frequency and energy as it
> propagates out of the gravitational well? You cannot toss away the
> conservation of energy.
Because some of the energy goes into the potential energy of the
system containing the photon and the source of the gravitational well.
Idiot.
>
> > > So, are you suggesting a moving body with high speed is able to
> > > generate as much gravity as planets?
>
> > Yes. Got a problem with that?
>
> Absolutely. In this case, you are allowing an observer dependent
> quantity (the speed) to manifest gravity. That means you can play God
> by traveling with the moving body at desired speed to manifest any
> gravity of your wish. <shrug>
It's not playing God. It's recognizing that the source of the
curvature is frame-dependent. That is, the components of the tensor in
the field equations are frame-dependent. That is what NATURE does,
it's not what we do.
There are LOTS of frame-dependent properties. Kinetic energy is frame-
dependent. Electric field is frame-dependent. Center-of-mass momentum
of a system is frame-dependent. Whether an object is stationary is
frame-dependent. The split of kinetic energy between translational,
rotational and thermal is frame-dependent. None of these are playing
God with any of those properties. They are just frame-dependent
properties. Not a thing wrong with that.
>
> > Not quite. The curvature of the space remains constant. What the
> > *components* of the tensors are that appear in the field equations,
> > those are frame-dependent. Oh, I forgot, you don't know the difference
> > between a tensor and its components.
>
> It is utterly bullsh*t to call a metric as a tensor which implies
> invariance under any observation but having its elements observer-
> dependent. <shrug>
Don't be ridiculous. A tensor can be invariant and have its components
be observer-dependent. Hell, a *force* can be invariant and have its
components be observer-dependent. You don't know this very simple
thing? How on earth did you ever pass the physics and math classes to
become an engineer?
>
> > > If I am point my flash light towards the north, the path to allow the
> > > beam of light to travel from my flash light to the north pole is null
> > > geodesic, for it accumulates spacetime of exactly zero. Another path
> > > that takes light to travel to south pole first and then to north pole
> > > also accumulates a total spacetime of zero --- null geodesics. So,
> > > why does the photon favor one null-geodesic path than the others?
>
> > It doesn't. It is a null-geodesic in SPACETIME, not in space. Geez.
>
> Geez. I said spacetime.
>
> If I point my flash light towards the north, the path to allow the
> beam of light to travel from my flash light to the north pole is null
> geodesic, for it accumulates spacetime of exactly zero. Another path
> that takes light to travel to south pole first and then to north pole
> also accumulates a total spacetime of zero --- null geodesics. So,
> why does the photon favor one null-geodesic path than the others?
It doesn't. If you roll a ball on a flat table, it follows a straight
line. If you roll the ball in the other direction, it also follows a
straight line. One direction is not favored over the other, other than
the direction it happened to be going. Both directions, however, are
straight.
>
> > > This is a great conjecture. The experiments that are supposed to
> > > prove the conjecture so are
>
> > > ** Eddington's 1919 expeditions to observer that solar eclipse
>
> > > ** Shapiro's bouncing of radar off Venus
>
> > > Eddington did not have the accuracy in his experimental setup to
> > > measure the deflected angle. So, the 1919 event cannot be taken as a
> > > scientific proof of your conjecture.
>
> > That's OK. It's been repeated since 1919.
>
> Which experiment showed photon deflection besides the 1919
> expeditions?
Oh, come on. You mean to tell me you really aren't aware of any
mention of gravitational lensing since 1919??!?
>
> > Does the fact that the 1919
> > experiment has a sensitivity issue (and it doesn't actually) have
> > anything to do with the results of the subsequent measurements which
> > demonstrated to *higher* precision that relativity is correct?
>
> There are no experiments that have successfully repeated the 1919
> expeditions. <shrug>
BS. How COMPLETELY out of touch with experimental data can you be?
When did you retire? 1920?
Eric Gisse
[...]
>
> > > Eddington did not have the accuracy in his experimental setup to
> > > measure the deflected angle. So, the 1919 event cannot be taken as a
> > > scientific proof of your conjecture.
>
> > That's OK. It's been repeated since 1919.
>
> Which experiment showed photon deflection besides the 1919
> expeditions?
www.google.com "how to use google"
What is really funny is that if I put your _exact words_ into Google
there are at least a half dozen articles that answer your very
question! In fact, of the first 10 links, I see 5 of which contain the
answer to your question.
Androcles
"PD" <TheDrap...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:30961841-3522-497f...@i29g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
On Mar 28, 2:21 am, Koobee Wublee <koobee.wub...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mar 27, 1:57 pm, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Mar 27, 2:14 pm, Koobee Wublee wrote:
> > > How does matter curve space and time exactly? If there is no answer,
> > > don't feel so back.
>
> > Of course, there is no answer to why a static electric charge adds a
> > field to the surrounding spacetime either. Physics doesn't feel
> > completely at a loss if it can't answer all "why" questions. It just
> > tries to characterize the predictable and reliable rules that nature
> > seems to obey. Along the way, some of the "why" questions get
> > answered. Not all, but a good number of them.
>
> > > Newtonian gravity cannot explain why matter
> > > manifests gravity either. GR is just no better than Newtonian gravity
> > > law. <shrug>
>
> > Except that GR gets right some numbers that Newtonian gravity gets
> > wrong.
>
> Well, Newtonian gravity works for launching spacecrafts. Now, how can
> you call that wrong?
| Because for launching spacecrafts, it's close enough.
| For playing billiards, using mv for momentum is close enough.
It's a definition, crank, and as such is as exact as 100 cents to the
dollar.
PD
> "PD" <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote in message
No, sir, that's incorrect.
Momentum as a physics quantity is useful insofar as it can be used
reliably in a broadly applicable physical law. What matters most for
momentum is not how it is defined, but instead the fact that there
seems to be a quantity (distinct from energy) that is conserved in
closed systems. We give the name "momentum" to whatever this vector
quantity is that appears to be conserved. It is useful to know how to
calculate that vector quantity which is conserved. It turns out that
in many cases, using m*v (where v is a vector and m is a scalar) is
pretty good for calculating the contributions of parts of a system to
the conserved momentum. But that formula is good only insofar as it is
demonstrated to work. In other cases, however, it does not work so
well. What is remarkable is that there is always a way to calculate a
vector quantity that represents an object's contribution to total
system momentum such that the total system momentum is in fact
conserved. That this is the case is not at all obvious and why it is
an important physical law.
Some introductory physics textbooks (including the ones that retired
engineers may remember learning from) make the mistake of saying that
momentum is *defined* as m*v, but that is indeed a mistake.
PD
Androcles
No, you are wrong.
PD
Hope your knee didn't hit you in the mouth on its fast jerk upward.
PD
Androcles
How come you didn't interrupt me in mid-sentence, but waited
until I'd finished?
'we do NOT establish by definition that the "time" required by
light to travel from A to B equals the "time" it requires
to travel from B to A' just because your tin god Einstein says so.
Live with it.
We establish by definition that p = mv. Live with it, bigot.
Y.Porat
litle 24 disturbed imbecil icurable parrot
i dont need your fucken advaices
a parrot like you
is not in a position to undersand my physics
2
things that i have already forgotten
you still didnt came there
and will bever be there
Y.P
------------------------------------
Y.Porat
why a little dsuturbed shit shell post here
2
kobby
please note that the little shit
is deverting your posts
Y.P
---------------------
Koobee Wublee
> On Mar 28, 2:21 am, Koobee Wublee wrote:
> > Well, Newtonian gravity works for launching spacecrafts. Now, how can
> > you call that wrong?
>
> Because for launching spacecrafts, it's close enough.
> For playing billiards, using mv for momentum is close enough.
> For roller coasters, using (1/2)mv^2 for kinetic energy is close
> enough.
So, they are correct. Wow, we have more Orwelling teachings. In this
one
** CORRECT IS WRONG
> But none of them are correct.
And the opposite is also true.
** WRONG IS CORRECT
> They are just useful approximations that
> are close enough in many cases.
Just because your chick-sh*t conjectures shows a different second
order result from the Newtonian law of gravity does not mean yours is
the right one. After all, there are so many other crackpot ideas.
Your crackpot conjecture in SR and GR has very high chance of being
wrong.
> > GR is based on misapplication of mathematics.
>
> Certainly not. No physics is *based* in mathematics.
Well, from someone who thinks the field equations actually describes
how gravitational waves propagate. You have no clue all thanks to
your Orwelling teacher. <shrug>
> On purpose.
> Physical theories are based on *physical* premises.
Wishful thinking but not in an Orwelling academy.
> Mathematics is
> used in the development of those premises to make useful predictions.
That is correct. In GR's case, man-made mathematics guides the
physicists into the wrong end. <shrug>
> > It is enough to make
> > any sensible engineer puke, but of course not physicists. <shrug>
>
> If it makes some engineers nauseous and disoriented, then perhaps
> those engineers should refrain from attempting physics, no?
The engineers should refrain from attempting doing any chick-sh*t
physics, yes.
> > Well, how do you account for the potential energy in the configuration
> > of the brick-earth system based on the brick's point of view?
>
> The brick doesn't have a "point of view" with regard to potential
> energy.
Apparently, you do not understand the Newtonian law of gravity. Your
excuse can be your Messiah, Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist, and
the liar. It took Einstein many years to understand the Newtonian law
of gravity. In doing so, Einstein rediscovered the principle of
equivalence.
> The configuration of the system has potential energy. The
> objects in that configuration do not contain the potential energy. If
> you were not taught this in your basic physics classes as a
> prerequisite to your engineering studies, it's likely you would later
> become nauseous and disoriented.
So, the kinetic energy is not associated with an object.
> Oh, wait....
Wait, did I forget to point out another finer point in the Orwelling
educational system.
> > Well again, you can interpret nonsense whatever you want, but at the
> > end of the day you still cannot account for the potential energy in
> > GR. <shrug>
>
> Of course it's accounted for. I don't see how someone who doesn't
> understand what potential energy is, let alone a nauseous and
> disoriented engineer who doesn't understand what potential energy is,
> would be in a position to judge whether it's accounted for or not.
There is no concept of the potential energy in GR.
> > It helps if you understand what the conservation of energy means.
> > <shrug>
>
> I certainly agree with that statement.
Good. How are you going to go about learning what it means?
> > What does the conservation of energy tell you?
>
> I asked you first. Got a clue?
I brought it up first. Get a life.
> > So, why would the photon decreases its frequency and energy as it
> > propagates out of the gravitational well? You cannot toss away the
> > conservation of energy.
>
> Because some of the energy goes into the potential energy of the
> system containing the photon and the source of the gravitational well.
GR does not allow the concept of the potential energy.
> Idiot.
Get a clue.
> > Absolutely. In this case, you are allowing an observer dependent
> > quantity (the speed) to manifest gravity. That means you can play God
> > by traveling with the moving body at desired speed to manifest any
> > gravity of your wish. <shrug>
>
> It's not playing God. It's recognizing that the source of the
> curvature is frame-dependent.
Allowing frame-dependent quantities to shape the invariant geometry is
playing God. <shrug>
> That is, the components of the tensor in
> the field equations are frame-dependent.
If any of the components of a matrix is frame dependent, then the
matrix must be frame dependent as well. Calling such a matrix a
tensor is another point in the Orwelling education through
** MYSTICISM IS WISDOM
> That is what NATURE does,
> it's not what we do.
That is not what nature does. It is a f*ck up by you.
> There are LOTS of frame-dependent properties. Kinetic energy is frame-
> dependent. Electric field is frame-dependent. Center-of-mass momentum
> of a system is frame-dependent. Whether an object is stationary is
> frame-dependent. The split of kinetic energy between translational,
> rotational and thermal is frame-dependent. None of these are playing
> God with any of those properties.
That's right.
> They are just frame-dependent
> properties. Not a thing wrong with that.
If you allow these to change the invariant geometry, then you are
playing God. <shrug>
> > It is utterly bullsh*t to call a metric as a tensor which implies
> > invariance under any observation but having its elements observer-
> > dependent. <shrug>
>
> Don't be ridiculous. A tensor can be invariant and have its components
> be observer-dependent.
No, you are wrong. If any of the components of a matrix is frame
dependent, then the matrix must be frame dependent as well. The
matrix cannot become a tensor. <shrug>
> Hell, a *force* can be invariant and have its
> components be observer-dependent.
This is not true.
> You don't know this very simple
> thing?
That is correct.
> How on earth did you ever pass the physics and math classes to
> become an engineer?
You are assuming I am an engineer. How I pass my math and physics
classes is not of your concern. By the way, have you tracked down the
institutions that gave me all these degrees and registered a complaint
on how you got your *ss kicked so bad in these newsgroup debates on
the subjects you are supposed to be an expert on yet?
> > If I point my flash light towards the north, the path to allow the
> > beam of light to travel from my flash light to the north pole is null
> > geodesic, for it accumulates spacetime of exactly zero. Another path
> > that takes light to travel to south pole first and then to north pole
> > also accumulates a total spacetime of zero --- null geodesics. So,
> > why does the photon favor one null-geodesic path than the others?
>
> It doesn't. If you roll a ball on a flat table, it follows a straight
> line.
Why?
> If you roll the ball in the other direction, it also follows a
> straight line.
Why?
> One direction is not favored over the other, other than
> the direction it happened to be going. Both directions, however, are
> straight.
Apparently, you do not understand the principle of least action. And
now you are a teacher.
> > Which experiment showed photon deflection besides the 1919
> > expeditions?
>
> Oh, come on. You mean to tell me you really aren't aware of any
> mention of gravitational lensing since 1919??!?
Does each lensing prove twice the Newtonian prediction?
> > There are no experiments that have successfully repeated the 1919
> > expeditions. <shrug>
>
> BS. How COMPLETELY out of touch with experimental data can you be?
> When did you retire? 1920?
Again, I ask you to point one out.
PD
> On Mar 28, 5:01 am, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Mar 28, 2:21 am, Koobee Wublee wrote:
> > > Well, Newtonian gravity works for launching spacecrafts. Now, how can
> > > you call that wrong?
>
> > Because for launching spacecrafts, it's close enough.
> > For playing billiards, using mv for momentum is close enough.
> > For roller coasters, using (1/2)mv^2 for kinetic energy is close
> > enough.
>
> So, they are correct.
No, they are *approximately* right. Under certain circumstances, they
may be wrong only by 0.00002% and that may be well below measurement
resolution and so it doesn't matter. But they are still wrong.
You'll note that if a behavior satisfies the differential equation dF/
dt = aF, then the behavior can be well approximated by the solution
F(t) = c[1 + at + (at)^2/2]. This is a simple and useful formula that
gets an answer that is just fine for small t. It is however wrong.
> Wow, we have more Orwelling teachings. In this
> one
>
> ** CORRECT IS WRONG
>
> > But none of them are correct.
>
> And the opposite is also true.
>
> ** WRONG IS CORRECT
>
> > They are just useful approximations that
> > are close enough in many cases.
>
> Just because your chick-sh*t conjectures shows a different second
> order result from the Newtonian law of gravity does not mean yours is
> the right one.
Of course. It's just that there are no other models presently that
agree with measurement better than relativity does.
> After all, there are so many other crackpot ideas.
None that get the answers as right as relativity does. And that's ALL
that matters.
> Your crackpot conjecture in SR and GR has very high chance of being
> wrong.
Well, I suppose "very high chance" is in the eye of the beholder. When
you find a model that works better than relativity does at getting the
answers right -- as in, matching observations -- then we'll know
you're right, and relativity is wrong. But until then, you're just
blowing putrid steam and you know it.
>
> > > GR is based on misapplication of mathematics.
>
> > Certainly not. No physics is *based* in mathematics.
>
> Well, from someone who thinks the field equations actually describes
> how gravitational waves propagate.
Yup. Would you like a chapter reference in Weinberg's book for more
detail on how that works? Or would you like something a little easier
to swallow, like a chapter reference in Kip Thorne's book? Either is
pretty straightforward to follow.
> You have no clue all thanks to
> your Orwelling teacher. <shrug>
>
> > On purpose.
> > Physical theories are based on *physical* premises.
>
> Wishful thinking but not in an Orwelling academy.
Can't help it if you want to clamp your hands over your ears and
shout, "No! No! No! No! You can't make me!"
>
> > Mathematics is
> > used in the development of those premises to make useful predictions.
>
> That is correct. In GR's case, man-made mathematics guides the
> physicists into the wrong end. <shrug>
>
> > > It is enough to make
> > > any sensible engineer puke, but of course not physicists. <shrug>
>
> > If it makes some engineers nauseous and disoriented, then perhaps
> > those engineers should refrain from attempting physics, no?
>
> The engineers should refrain from attempting doing any chick-sh*t
> physics, yes.
And since you can't tell the difference, I suggest you refrain
entirely.
>
> > > Well, how do you account for the potential energy in the configuration
> > > of the brick-earth system based on the brick's point of view?
>
> > The brick doesn't have a "point of view" with regard to potential
> > energy.
>
> Apparently, you do not understand the Newtonian law of gravity.
Sure I do. Where did you get your understanding that an object alone
bears a potential energy? Or did you just "reason that out" for
yourself? Or is that the chickensh*t physics you were taught in the
gateway course when you were learning engineering?
> Your
> excuse can be your Messiah, Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist, and
> the liar. It took Einstein many years to understand the Newtonian law
> of gravity. In doing so, Einstein rediscovered the principle of
> equivalence.
>
> > The configuration of the system has potential energy. The
> > objects in that configuration do not contain the potential energy. If
> > you were not taught this in your basic physics classes as a
> > prerequisite to your engineering studies, it's likely you would later
> > become nauseous and disoriented.
>
> So, the kinetic energy is not associated with an object.
Umm... we were talking about potential energy. Did you forget?
>
> > Oh, wait....
>
> Wait, did I forget to point out another finer point in the Orwelling
> educational system.
>
> > > Well again, you can interpret nonsense whatever you want, but at the
> > > end of the day you still cannot account for the potential energy in
> > > GR. <shrug>
>
> > Of course it's accounted for. I don't see how someone who doesn't
> > understand what potential energy is, let alone a nauseous and
> > disoriented engineer who doesn't understand what potential energy is,
> > would be in a position to judge whether it's accounted for or not.
>
> There is no concept of the potential energy in GR.
What on earth makes you think that? Where did you read that? Or did
you just make that up?
>
> > > It helps if you understand what the conservation of energy means.
> > > <shrug>
>
> > I certainly agree with that statement.
>
> Good. How are you going to go about learning what it means?
>
> > > What does the conservation of energy tell you?
>
> > I asked you first. Got a clue?
>
> I brought it up first. Get a life.
You brought up a brick falling from higher to lower potential energy
in a gravitational field that goes from high strength to low strength,
and you asked whether the brick would speed up or slow down? I don't
think so. Answer the question.
>
> > > So, why would the photon decreases its frequency and energy as it
> > > propagates out of the gravitational well? You cannot toss away the
> > > conservation of energy.
>
> > Because some of the energy goes into the potential energy of the
> > system containing the photon and the source of the gravitational well.
>
> GR does not allow the concept of the potential energy.
>
> > Idiot.
>
> Get a clue.
>
> > > Absolutely. In this case, you are allowing an observer dependent
> > > quantity (the speed) to manifest gravity. That means you can play God
> > > by traveling with the moving body at desired speed to manifest any
> > > gravity of your wish. <shrug>
>
> > It's not playing God. It's recognizing that the source of the
> > curvature is frame-dependent.
>
> Allowing frame-dependent quantities to shape the invariant geometry is
> playing God. <shrug>
The invariant geometry doesn't change. That's why it's called
invariant. There is more than one component to the source of that
geometry. The components are frame-dependent. The geometry is frame-
independent. Geez, this is not that complicated.
The invariant mass is the trace of p*p, the square magnitude of the 4-
momentum. The components of the four-momentum are frame-dependent.
(Those components are E, p1, p2, p3, and even Newton knew those are
frame-dependent.) The invariant mass is not frame dependent.
Here's a nickel. Go buy a clue.
>
> > That is, the components of the tensor in
> > the field equations are frame-dependent.
>
> If any of the components of a matrix is frame dependent, then the
> matrix must be frame dependent as well. Calling such a matrix a
> tensor
And no one does call the frame-dependent matrix the frame-independent
tensor, except for you. The two are distinct. This has been explained
to you many times, and you repeatedly claim that we say they're the
same when they're not. You are quite addled at this point, I'm sure.
> is another point in the Orwelling education through
>
> ** MYSTICISM IS WISDOM
>
> > That is what NATURE does,
> > it's not what we do.
>
> That is not what nature does. It is a f*ck up by you.
Sure it is. That's what *measurement* shows.
>
> > There are LOTS of frame-dependent properties. Kinetic energy is frame-
> > dependent. Electric field is frame-dependent. Center-of-mass momentum
> > of a system is frame-dependent. Whether an object is stationary is
> > frame-dependent. The split of kinetic energy between translational,
> > rotational and thermal is frame-dependent. None of these are playing
> > God with any of those properties.
>
> That's right.
>
> > They are just frame-dependent
> > properties. Not a thing wrong with that.
>
> If you allow these to change the invariant geometry, then you are
> playing God. <shrug>
They don't.
>
> > > It is utterly bullsh*t to call a metric as a tensor which implies
> > > invariance under any observation but having its elements observer-
> > > dependent. <shrug>
>
> > Don't be ridiculous. A tensor can be invariant and have its components
> > be observer-dependent.
>
> No, you are wrong.
> If any of the components of a matrix is frame
> dependent, then the matrix must be frame dependent as well. The
> matrix cannot become a tensor. <shrug>
>
> > Hell, a *force* can be invariant and have its
> > components be observer-dependent.
>
> This is not true.
Of COURSE it is true. Newton knew it was true. Geez, what a goofball.
>
> > You don't know this very simple
> > thing?
>
> That is correct.
>
> > How on earth did you ever pass the physics and math classes to
> > become an engineer?
>
> You are assuming I am an engineer.
I was giving you the best reputation I'd heard about you. If you're
not an engineer, and if you did NOT take physics and math classes on
your way to training as an engineer, then I'm enormously relieved
about the quality of our education system, for I was afraid that a
monstrosity had escaped from the system.
> How I pass my math and physics
> classes is not of your concern.
Have you passed any physics and math classes?
> By the way, have you tracked down the
> institutions that gave me all these degrees
No, no one will claim you as one of their own.
> and registered a complaint
> on how you got your *ss kicked so bad in these newsgroup debates on
> the subjects you are supposed to be an expert on yet?
>
> > > If I point my flash light towards the north, the path to allow the
> > > beam of light to travel from my flash light to the north pole is null
> > > geodesic, for it accumulates spacetime of exactly zero. Another path
> > > that takes light to travel to south pole first and then to north pole
> > > also accumulates a total spacetime of zero --- null geodesics. So,
> > > why does the photon favor one null-geodesic path than the others?
>
> > It doesn't. If you roll a ball on a flat table, it follows a straight
> > line.
>
> Why?
>
> > If you roll the ball in the other direction, it also follows a
> > straight line.
>
> Why?
Because there's no net force on it.
>
> > One direction is not favored over the other, other than
> > the direction it happened to be going. Both directions, however, are
> > straight.
>
> Apparently, you do not understand the principle of least action.
Sure I do. Do you suppose that the principle of least action allows
you to determine a favored direction in space from a Lagrangian that
has no potential term? Please elucidate.
> And
> now you are a teacher.
>
> > > Which experiment showed photon deflection besides the 1919
> > > expeditions?
>
> > Oh, come on. You mean to tell me you really aren't aware of any
> > mention of gravitational lensing since 1919??!?
>
> Does each lensing prove twice the Newtonian prediction?
>
> > > There are no experiments that have successfully repeated the 1919
> > > expeditions. <shrug>
>
> > BS. How COMPLETELY out of touch with experimental data can you be?
> > When did you retire? 1920?
>
> Again, I ask you to point one out.
OK
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/9505065
http://prola.aps.org/abstract/PRL/v75/i8/p1439_1
http://prola.aps.org/abstract/PRL/v60/i3/p173_1
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v425/n6956/abs/nature01997.html
http://www.iop.org/EJ/abstract/0264-9381/16/5/303
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v405/n6783/abs/405143a0.html
http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/abs/10.1046/j.1365-8711.2000.03851.x
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0108013
Now, you were saying...
Eric Gisse
Can someone translate for me because I have no fucking idea what he is
saying.
mitc...@hotmail.com
>
> - Show quoted text -
Since space-time extension is curved anything occupying it will bend
with it.
Your meter rod is curved because it is extended in curved space.
Everything is geometrically curved because everything is Extended in
curved space.
Gravity is ubiquitous in the universe.
Eric Gisse
Because he is, like you, a moron.
Koobee Wublee
> On Mar 28, 2:54 pm, Koobee Wublee wrote:
> > So, they are correct.
>
> No, they are *approximately* right. Under certain circumstances, they
> may be wrong only by 0.00002% and that may be well below measurement
> resolution and so it doesn't matter. But they are still wrong.
Again, what you call "wrong" is actually the disagreement between the
Newtonian result and the crackpot conjecture of GR in the second order
effect. You believe in GR because through matheMagic, you can fudge
anything to match whatever result you wish/believe in to be. This
does not mean GR is correct and Newtonian law of gravity is wrong.
More likely, both are just wrong down to the second order effect.
<shrug>
> You'll note that if a behavior satisfies the differential equation dF/
> dt = aF, then the behavior can be well approximated by the solution
> F(t) = c[1 + at + (at)^2/2]. This is a simple and useful formula that
> gets an answer that is just fine for small t. It is however wrong.
This exercise is absolutely fruitless. It comes from someone who
deeply believe in GR as a religion inclination. Faith is talking
here. <shrug>
> > Just because your chick-sh*t conjectures shows a different second
> > order result from the Newtonian law of gravity does not mean yours is
> > the right one.
>
> Of course. It's just that there are no other models presently that
> agree with measurement better than relativity does.
So, GR based on cracky mathematical foundation does not bother you at
all because of your own ignorance. Well, Confucius used to say
'Ignorance is blessing in disguise." This proves that you argue to
defend GR through fait, and arguing with your faith yields no useful
results anywhere and anytime. <shrug>
I have asked you to show me where any other experiments that actually
have proven the deflected angle of a photon being twice of Newtonian
prediction, and you came back with more crap. You seem to enjoy
swimming in crap. So, the rest of your crap can only be mercifully
snipped to preserve the sanity of humanity and for the next generation
of scientific development. <shrug>
Eric Gisse
> On Mar 28, 1:34 pm, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Mar 28, 2:54 pm, Koobee Wublee wrote:
> > > So, they are correct.
>
> > No, they are *approximately* right. Under certain circumstances, they
> > may be wrong only by 0.00002% and that may be well below measurement
> > resolution and so it doesn't matter. But they are still wrong.
>
> Again, what you call "wrong" is actually the disagreement between the
> Newtonian result and the crackpot conjecture of GR in the second order
> effect. You believe in GR because through matheMagic, you can fudge
> anything to match whatever result you wish/believe in to be.
Prove it. Show us how you can make the result be 4 times the Newtonian
result.
[...]
Eric Gisse
[...]
> I have asked you to show me where any other experiments that actually
> have proven the deflected angle of a photon being twice of Newtonian
> prediction, and you came back with more crap.
BTW:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/09452bc9ce953990?dmode=source
On Mar 27, 11:21 pm, Koobee Wublee <koobee.wub...@gmail.com> wrote:
[...]
> > > Eddington did not have the accuracy in his experimental setup to
> > > measure the deflected angle. So, the 1919 event cannot be taken as a
> > > scientific proof of your conjecture.
> > That's OK. It's been repeated since 1919.
> Which experiment showed photon deflection besides the 1919
> expeditions?
www.google.com "how to use google"
What is really funny is that if I put your _exact words_ into Google
there are at least a half dozen articles that answer your very
question! In fact, of the first 10 links, I see 5 of which contain the
answer to your question.
[...]
PD
> On Mar 28, 1:34 pm, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Mar 28, 2:54 pm, Koobee Wublee wrote:
> > > So, they are correct.
>
> > No, they are *approximately* right. Under certain circumstances, they
> > may be wrong only by 0.00002% and that may be well below measurement
> > resolution and so it doesn't matter. But they are still wrong.
>
> Again, what you call "wrong" is actually the disagreement between the
> Newtonian result and the crackpot conjecture of GR in the second order
> effect.
The one that gets the *measurable* quantity more accurately, whether
calculated as a second order effect or not, wins. Relativity wins over
relativity in many such cases.
> You believe in GR because through matheMagic, you can fudge
> anything to match whatever result you wish/believe in to be. This
> does not mean GR is correct and Newtonian law of gravity is wrong.
It means that GR gets the answer better than Newtonian gravity.
> More likely, both are just wrong down to the second order effect.
Sorry, GR doesn't have any indication, at least in match-up against
experimental data, of being wrong. Now, you may believe it's wrong
anyway, but you have no experimental data in support of that.
> <shrug>
>
> > You'll note that if a behavior satisfies the differential equation dF/
> > dt = aF, then the behavior can be well approximated by the solution
> > F(t) = c[1 + at + (at)^2/2]. This is a simple and useful formula that
> > gets an answer that is just fine for small t. It is however wrong.
>
> This exercise is absolutely fruitless. It comes from someone who
> deeply believe in GR as a religion inclination.
OK, don't look at it if it's painful.
> Faith is talking
> here. <shrug>
>
> > > Just because your chick-sh*t conjectures shows a different second
> > > order result from the Newtonian law of gravity does not mean yours is
> > > the right one.
>
> > Of course. It's just that there are no other models presently that
> > agree with measurement better than relativity does.
>
> So, GR based on cracky mathematical foundation does not bother you at
> all because of your own ignorance.
Sorry, GR isn't based on a cracky mathematical foundation, or any
mathematical foundation at all. And it agrees with data. That, in
science, is enough, whether you like it or not, or whether you want
to invent other reasons to try to discredit theories.
> Well, Confucius used to say
> 'Ignorance is blessing in disguise." This proves that you argue to
> defend GR through fait, and arguing with your faith yields no useful
> results anywhere and anytime. <shrug>
>
> I have asked you to show me where any other experiments that actually
> have proven the deflected angle of a photon being twice of Newtonian
> prediction, and you came back with more crap.
No, I gave you *exactly* what you asked for. They are called
experimental results. If you want to dismiss experimental results as
"crap", then this is the point where you deviate from doing science.
Androcles
On Mar 30, 1:44 am, Koobee Wublee <koobee.wub...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mar 28, 1:34 pm, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Mar 28, 2:54 pm, Koobee Wublee wrote:
> > > So, they are correct.
>
> > No, they are *approximately* right. Under certain circumstances, they
> > may be wrong only by 0.00002% and that may be well below measurement
> > resolution and so it doesn't matter. But they are still wrong.
>
> Again, what you call "wrong" is actually the disagreement between the
> Newtonian result and the crackpot conjecture of GR in the second order
> effect.
| The one that gets the *measurable* quantity more accurately, whether
| calculated as a second order effect or not, wins. Relativity wins over
| relativity in many such cases.
Yes, but relativity loses over relativity in many such cases too.
Idiot!
> You believe in GR because through matheMagic, you can fudge
> anything to match whatever result you wish/believe in to be. This
> does not mean GR is correct and Newtonian law of gravity is wrong.
| It means that GR gets the answer better than Newtonian gravity.
Lying shit.
> More likely, both are just wrong down to the second order effect.
| Sorry, GR doesn't have any indication, at least in match-up against
| experimental data, of being wrong.
You should be sorry, Newtonian gravity doesn't have any indication,
at least in match-up against experimental data, of being wrong.
It means that Newtonian gravity gets the answer better than GR,
which loses every time over GR, crank.
| Now, you may believe it's wrong
| anyway, but you have no experimental data in support of that.
Now, you may believe you are right anyway, but you have no
experimental data in support of that, fuckhead.
PD
> "PD" <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote in message
As you said yourself, Androcles, denial earns you no brownie points.
Androcles
Nor does assertion, Duck.
You are completely wrong, Newton's correct values outweigh Einstein's
wrong guesses. Short trip to wrong, Duck. Oh wait, you were already there.
(Sounding just like you but with Newton and Einstein reversed.)
"mv is not momentum." - Idiot, it must be drapertum.
You are an insane bigot, Duck, you don't even know what a definition is.
According to you "we know" the LHC measured a 7 TeV collision before
it goes into service.
"Relativity wins over relativity in many such cases." - PD
That's as crazy as you and Ghost really are, you fuckin' lunatics.
Cretin!
PD
> On Mar 30, 1:44 am, Koobee Wublee <koobee.wub...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Mar 28, 1:34 pm, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Mar 28, 2:54 pm, Koobee Wublee wrote:
> > > > So, they are correct.
>
> > > No, they are *approximately* right. Under certain circumstances, they
> > > may be wrong only by 0.00002% and that may be well below measurement
> > > resolution and so it doesn't matter. But they are still wrong.
>
> > Again, what you call "wrong" is actually the disagreement between the
> > Newtonian result and the crackpot conjecture of GR in the second order
> > effect.
>
> The one that gets the *measurable* quantity more accurately, whether
> calculated as a second order effect or not, wins. Relativity wins over
> relativity in many such cases.
Whoops, meant to say "relativity wins over Newtonian physics in many
such cases". There are no known cases where Newtonian physics wins
over relativity.
Thanks to Androcles for catching the error.