Re: gravitational bending of light, surprising?
Pentcho Valev
> david <david_lawrence_pe...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > It would seem that even Newtonian mechanics predicts that light will
> > follow a curved path in the presence of a gravitational field. If
> > that's not obvious, think about the following thought experiment. If
> > we shoot a bullet perfectly horizontally from, say, six feet above the
> > ground, and simultaneously drop a stone from six feet above the
> > ground, we know that they will hit the ground at the same time. So
> > just consider what would happen if we were to shoot the bullet at the
> > speed of light; it would still hit the ground at the same time as the
> > stone, according to Newtonian mechanics. So a particle of light should
> > do the same.
>
> That's right. This deflection was first computed by Soldner in a paper
> published in 1803.
>
> [...]
>
> > So this leads to a couple of possibly troubling questions. First of
> > all, why were physicists surprised by Einstein's prediction that the
> > path of light would bend in a gravitational field (after all, even
> > Newtonian mechanics predicts that it would)?
>
> I don't think this was ever seen as being particularly surprising, though
> it's less obvious what to expect in a wave theory of light. It's your
> second question that's the key:
>
> > But more importantly,
> > is there a difference between what would be predicted by the
> > differential equation as described in the above paragraph and what is
> > predicted by general relativity, and are experimental measurements of
> > the bending of light by the sun accurate enough to distinguish between
> > the two predictions?
>
> General relativity predicts a deflection that's twice the Newtonian amount.
> Current measurements use Very Long Baseline Interferometry to measure
> the deflection of radio waves from quasars, and are accurate to a tenth of
> a percent or better, so distinguishing the Newtonian and relativistic
> predictions is easy.
>
> Steve Carlip
Sooner or later, Honest Carlip, you and your brothers Einsteinians
will have to explain which prediction, the Newtonian or the
relativistic (giving "a deflection that's twice the Newtonian
amount"), is consistent with the gravitational redshift factor 1+V/c^2
experimentally confirmed by Pound and Rebka:
http://groups.google.com/group/fr.sci.physique/msg/449b66e152b76430
Pentcho Valev
pva...@yahoo.com
Pentcho Valev
sci.physics.relativity:
> mluttg...@orange.fr wrote:
> > one can quibble 'ad nauseam'
> > about the relativistic mass of the photon.
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass%E2%80%93energy_equivalence:
> > "Even a single photon traveling in empty space has a relativistic
> > mass, which is its energy divided by c2."
>
> > One can quibble about such claim, but the relativistic mass
> > m = E/c^2 = hNu/c^2 of the photon can be used to interpret
> > results of a series of experiments, for instance those obtained
> > by Pound & Rebka.
>
> Certainly a photon has a non-zero "relativistic mass". Just remember
> that "relativistic mass" does NOT refer to what we now mean by mass, but
> rather is a synonym for ENERGY. The name "relativistic mass" is an
> anachronism, coined in the past, before the subtleties were fully
> understood; in the manner of textbooks it lives on in elementary
> discussions.
>
> Tom Roberts
Honest Roberts why don't you abandon all those red herrings? Just
choose between (1) and (2) below:
(1) The photon behaves like all massive particles: in a gravitational
field, its speed varies in accordance with Einstein's 1911 equation
c'=c(1+V/c^2) given by Newton's emission theory of light:
http://www.physlink.com/Education/AskExperts/ae13.cfm
"So, it is absolutely true that the speed of light is not constant in
a gravitational field [which, by the equivalence principle, applies as
well to accelerating (non-inertial) frames of reference]. If this were
not so, there would be no bending of light by the gravitational field
of stars....Indeed, this is exactly how Einstein did the calculation
in: 'On the Influence of Gravitation on the Propagation of Light,'
Annalen der Physik, 35, 1911. which predated the full formal
development of general relativity by about four years. This paper is
widely available in English. You can find a copy beginning on page 99
of the Dover book 'The Principle of Relativity.' You will find in
section 3 of that paper, Einstein's derivation of the (variable) speed
of light in a gravitational potential, eqn (3). The result is,
c' = c0 ( 1 + V / c^2 )
where V is the gravitational potential relative to the point where the
speed of light c0 is measured."
http://www.blazelabs.com/f-g-gcont.asp
"So, faced with this evidence most readers must be wondering why we
learn about the importance of the constancy of speed of light. Did
Einstein miss this? Sometimes I find out that what's written in our
textbooks is just a biased version taken from the original work, so
after searching within the original text of the theory of GR by
Einstein, I found this quote: "In the second place our result shows
that, according to the general theory of relativity, the law of the
constancy of the velocity of light in vacuo, which constitutes one of
the two fundamental assumptions in the special theory of relativity
and to which we have already frequently referred, cannot claim any
unlimited validity. A curvature of rays of light can only take place
when the velocity of propagation of light varies with position. Now we
might think that as a consequence of this, the special theory of
relativity and with it the whole theory of relativity would be laid in
the dust. But in reality this is not the case. We can only conclude
that the special theory of relativity cannot claim an unlimited domain
of validity ; its results hold only so long as we are able to
disregard the influences of gravitational fields on the phenomena
(e.g. of light)." - Albert Einstein (1879-1955) - The General Theory
of Relativity: Chapter 22 - A Few Inferences from the General
Principle of Relativity-. Today we find that since the Special Theory
of Relativity unfortunately became part of the so called mainstream
science, it is considered a sacrilege to even suggest that the speed
of light be anything other than a constant. This is somewhat
surprising since even Einstein himself suggested in a paper "On the
Influence of Gravitation on the Propagation of Light," Annalen der
Physik, 35, 1911, that the speed of light might vary with the
gravitational potential. Indeed, the variation of the speed of light
in a vacuum or space is explicitly shown in Einstein's calculation for
the angle at which light should bend upon the influence of gravity.
One can find his calculation in his paper. The result is c'=c(1+V/c^2)
where V is the gravitational potential relative to the point where the
measurement is taken. 1+V/c^2 is also known as the GRAVITATIONAL
REDSHIFT FACTOR."
(2) The photon is more sensitive to gravity than ordinary massive
particles: in a gravitational field, its speed varies in accordance
with Einstein's 1915 (or 1955) equation c'=c(1+2V/c^2):
http://www.speed-light.info/speed_of_light_variable.htm
"Einstein wrote this paper in 1911 in German (download from:
http://www.physik.uni-augsburg.de/annalen/history/einstein-papers/1911_35_898-908.pdf).
It predated the full formal development of general relativity by about
four years. You can find an English translation of this paper in the
Dover book 'The Principle of Relativity' beginning on page 99; you
will find in section 3 of that paper Einstein's derivation of the
variable speed of light in a gravitational potential, eqn (3). The
result is: c'=c0(1+phi/c^2) where phi is the gravitational potential
relative to the point where the speed of light co is measured......You
can find a more sophisticated derivation later by Einstein (1955) from
the full theory of general relativity in the weak field
approximation....For the 1955 results but not in coordinates see page
93, eqn (6.28): c(r)=[1+2phi(r)/c^2]c. Namely the 1955 approximation
shows a variation in km/sec twice as much as first predicted in
1911."
http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s6-01/6-01.htm
"In geometrical units we define c_0 = 1, so Einstein's 1911 formula
can be written simply as c=1+phi. However, this formula for the speed
of light (not to mention this whole approach to gravity) turned out to
be incorrect, as Einstein realized during the years leading up to 1915
and the completion of the general theory. In fact, the general theory
of relativity doesn't give any equation for the speed of light at a
particular location, because the effect of gravity cannot be
represented by a simple scalar field of c values. Instead, the "speed
of light" at a each point depends on the direction of the light ray
through that point, as well as on the choice of coordinate systems, so
we can't generally talk about the value of c at a given point in a non-
vanishing gravitational field. However, if we consider just radial
light rays near a spherically symmetrical (and non- rotating) mass,
and if we agree to use a specific set of coordinates, namely those in
which the metric coefficients are independent of t, then we can read a
formula analogous to Einstein's 1911 formula directly from the
Schwarzschild metric. (...) In the Newtonian limit the classical
gravitational potential at a distance r from mass m is phi=-m/r, so if
we let c_r = dr/dt denote the radial speed of light in Schwarzschild
coordinates, we have c_r =1+2phi, which corresponds to Einstein's 1911
equation, except that we have a factor of 2 instead of 1 on the
potential term."
Pentcho Valev
pva...@yahoo.com
Dono
>
> (1) The photon behaves like all massive particles: in a gravitational
> field, its speed varies in accordance with Einstein's 1911 equation
> c'=c(1+V/c^2) given by Newton's emission theory of light:
>
Umm, no, Pacheco. Ask your doctors to double your Zoloft dose.
Y.Porat
-------------------
why do you talk so much
while you can do it much shorter??!!
it all starts withthe morons that
ddint knew thaT
the photon has mass!!
while you get it it becomes alas
so simle that it deprives nasses of professors of physics
from their endless mumbling jobs..
so we are here harmingtheir income
go it ??
so simce the photon has mass
them while next to sunh it curves
**as any mass do * while attracted by another mass
sothose amthematics fuckers crooks wil tell you
'but the Newtinian calcualtions gives you
a result that is twice from measured
big deal !!
the photon is a limit case even amthematically while moving at c
so the fuckers cant immagine that
for a limit cases
a correction muxt be done to the
**quantitative rersuly**
IT IS BY NO WAY A CONRADICTION TO
THE QUANTITATIVE CONCELT
just to the quantitative one
so
take your fucken calculations
and fit them to the experimental
results thats all !!
and you get it new and rigth
and much more compatible with the basics
of physics
--------
no much different than the
fucken idiotic GR theory about
curved space did !!
that also did nothing but
fitting the basics of that theory to the experimental results
anyone who does not realize it
is either an idiot physicist
or a crook !!
or both of them !!
ps
th e photn is an exception to the rule
that no mass can reach c
it is a limit case !!!
ATB
Y.Porat
--------------------------------
NoEinstein
>
Dear P. V.: Since "photons" are just clusters of IOTAs (the smallest
energy units of the ether), and since 'energy' (alone) has no mass,
then gravity can never bend light! The following link explains why.
— NoEinstein —
Light rays don’t travel on ballistic curves.
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/c3d7a4e9937ab73e/c7d941d2b2e80002?hl=en#c7d941d2b2e80002
> pva...@yahoo.com- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
John J
> On May 9, 2:47 am, Pentcho Valev <pva...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Dear P. V.: Since "photons" are just clusters of IOTAs (the smallest
> energy units of the ether), and since 'energy' (alone) has no mass,
> then gravity can never bend light! The following link explains why.
>
> Light rays don�t travel on ballistic curves.
> http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/c3d7a4e9937ab73e/c7d941d2b2e80002?hl=en#c7d941d2b2e80002
In essence then, are you are claiming that light travels in an
independent (possibly absolute) frame? That is an interesting assertion
and I'd be interested in how it might relate to the claim that light (in
a vacuum) always travels at the same speed regardless of the speed of
the originating source.
Sue...
> NoEinstein wrote:
> > On May 9, 2:47 am, Pentcho Valev <pva...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > Dear P. V.: Since "photons" are just clusters of IOTAs (the smallest
> > energy units of the ether), and since 'energy' (alone) has no mass,
> > then gravity can never bend light! The following link explains why.
>
> > Light rays don’t travel on ballistic curves.
> >http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/c3d7a...
>
> In essence then, are you are claiming that light travels in an
> independent (possibly absolute) frame? That is an interesting assertion
> and I'd be interested in how it might relate to the claim that light (in
> a vacuum) always travels at the same speed regardless of the speed of
> the originating source.
It is no mere assertion. About 100 years
of electromagnetism supports it.
What is the Interstellar Medium?
http://espg.sr.unh.edu/ism/what1.html
Propagation in a dielectric medium
http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/em/lectures/node98.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Sitter_double_star_experiment
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_space
Sue...
BradGuth
Because a photon is clearly a nonzero mass, is perhaps why gravity
affects their path and the velocity limit of c might be considered.
However, photons of the quantum tunnel or waveguide accommodated kind
seem to ignore such velocity limits.
The supposed ultra cold vacuum of the IGM is still saturated with
Cooper pairs of electrons and perhaps even Cooper positron pairs.
~ BG
Pentcho Valev
sci.physics.relativity:
> mluttg...@orange.fr wrote:
> > Do you accept the calculation of light deflection
> > given in the following paper?
> > Newtonian gravitational deflection of light revisited
> > arXiv: physics/0508030v4 [physics. gen- ph] 17 Apr 2009
> > (http://xxx.if.usp.br/abs/physics/0508030)
>
> It looks right (though of course it doesn't start at the
> beginning; equation (5) for eccentricity is derived from
> Newton's laws).
Honest Carlip, any clever teacher in Einsteiniana should immediately
draw the attention of sillier brothers to the following text:
http://xxx.if.usp.br/PS_cache/physics/pdf/0508/0508030v4.pdf
"Einstein’s first calculation of the gravitational deflection of
light, in 1911 (see [4], for a historical account and scientific
references), was performed using the Equivalence Principle and the
equivalent mass-energy of a photon. The calculation yielded δNG. Only
in his second calculation, published in 1916, where he included the
effect of space-time curvature, he obtained a value twice as large as
his first calculation, i.e., δGR [4]."
Then the clever teacher should explain: "Brothers Einsteinans,
Einstein's 1911 calculation based on Newton's emission theory of light
was wrong/correct and inconsistent/consistent with the gravitational
redshift factor 1+V/c^2, Einstein's 1916 calculation was correct/wrong
and consistent/inconsistent with the gravitational redshift factor 1+V/
c^2, but in any case the speed of light in a gravitational field is
VARIABLE. So those who teach you that the speed of light in a
gravitational field is constant are by no means clever teachers."
Pentcho Valev
pva...@yahoo.com
PD
>
> Then the clever teacher should explain: "Brothers Einsteinans,
> Einstein's 1911 calculation based on Newton's emission theory of light
> was wrong/correct and inconsistent/consistent with the gravitational
> redshift factor 1+V/c^2, Einstein's 1916 calculation was correct/wrong
> and consistent/inconsistent with the gravitational redshift factor 1+V/
> c^2, but in any case the speed of light in a gravitational field is
> VARIABLE. So those who teach you that the speed of light in a
> gravitational field is constant are by no means clever teachers."
You know, Pentcho, at some point you should take responsibility for
your own confusion -- and CORRECT it -- rather than pinning the blame
on teachers for your confusion. It's really not a big deal. It happens
to students every day that they misunderstand something that their
teacher said, and you don't find them spending their lifetimes
expressing their outrage at their teachers for their misunderstanding.
PD
Strich-Reply-To-Idiots
> On May 19, 12:05 pm, Pentcho Valev <pva...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Then the clever teacher should explain: "Brothers Einsteinans,
> > Einstein's 1911 calculation based on Newton's emission theory of light
> > was wrong/correct and inconsistent/consistent with the gravitational
> > redshift factor 1+V/c^2, Einstein's 1916 calculation was correct/wrong
> > and consistent/inconsistent with the gravitational redshift factor 1+V/
> > c^2, but in any case the speed of light in a gravitational field is
> > VARIABLE. So those who teach you that the speed of light in a
> > gravitational field is constant are by no means clever teachers."
>
> You know, Pentcho, at some point you should take responsibility for
> your own confusion -- and CORRECT it -- rather than pinning the blame
> on teachers for your confusion. It's really not a big deal. It happens
> to students every day that they misunderstand something that their
And you still have not understood time dilation since the day you
opended Taylor and Wheeler.
Strich-Reply-To-Idiots
Classical physics along the lines of Newton and Maxwell...
Quantum physics along the lines of Planck and Gell-man...
Schizophrenic physics along the lines of Einstein and Dirac...
In the microscopic domain, Quantum physics operates. This reduces to
Classical physics in the macroscopic domain. Thus the general
Schrodinger equation for force reduces to the more specific Newtonian
equation for force.
Schizophrenic physics is merely a child's game of figuring out who is
left holding the stick when the contradictions come in. Thus in the
SR twin paradox, the winner gets to posit that the travelling twin is
able to suspend aging, while the loser is stuck with the dilemma of
explaining how the homely twin was exempted from a supposedly
universal law... Dirac gets to posit a relativistic quantum field
theory... The loser is stuck with renormalization...
PD
> There are three kinds of physics:
>
> Classical physics along the lines of Newton and Maxwell...
> Quantum physics along the lines of Planck and Gell-man...
1. Did you mean Murry Gell-Mann or some other Gell-man guy?
2. Gell-Mann worked on quantum field theories, despite what your comic
book tells you he did.
3. You tend to repeat elsewhere the same idiocy that has been
corrected before.
Wordsmith
>
> - Show quoted text -
I thought the three were as follows:
1. Physics for white people.
2. Physics for black people.
3. Physics for everyone else.
W : (
Y.Porat
------------------------
what is misunderstanding by knowing that
the photon has mass
from say the formulas E=hf
and therefore bends next to the sun
may be it is the misunderstanding of
parrot teachers that waist the precious
human resources by THEIR misunderstandings ???
what is the misunderstanding by un derstanding that the photon is
a limit case OF A MASS
that moves at c ???
and people why misunderstand
and consider themselves as understanding
all physics
and then blaming others for misunderstandings !!
that is inmany cases much wrong than misunderstanding
that is
**dishonesty **!!!
Y.Porat
-----------------------------
-----------------
Strich-Reply-To-Idiots
> On May 20, 2:38 pm, Strich-Reply-To-Idiots <iqgoo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > There are three kinds of physics:
>
> > Classical physics along the lines of Newton and Maxwell...
> > Quantum physics along the lines of Planck and Gell-man...
>
> 1. Did you mean Murry Gell-Mann or some other Gell-man guy?
There is only one Murray Gell-mann.
> 2. Gell-Mann worked on quantum field theories, despite what your comic
> book tells you he did.
He had to work in QFT. Otherwise his quark model might be ignored by
the orthodoxy. Still his quark theory is the foundation of quantum
physics.
> 3. You tend to repeat elsewhere the same idiocy that has been
> corrected before.
>
You must have someone else confused with yourself. Your lies tend to
get repetitive.
>
>
> > Schizophrenic physics along the lines of Einstein and Dirac...
>
> > In the microscopic domain, Quantum physics operates. This reduces to
> > Classical physics in the macroscopic domain. Thus the general
> > Schrodinger equation for force reduces to the more specific Newtonian
> > equation for force.
>
> > Schizophrenic physics is merely a child's game of figuring out who is
> > left holding the stick when the contradictions come in. Thus in the
> > SR twin paradox, the winner gets to posit that the travelling twin is
> > able to suspend aging, while the loser is stuck with the dilemma of
> > explaining how the homely twin was exempted from a supposedly
> > universal law... Dirac gets to posit a relativistic quantum field
> > theory... The loser is stuck with renormalization...- Dölj citerad text -
>
> - Visa citerad text -
PD
> On May 19, 7:22 pm, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On May 19, 12:05 pm, Pentcho Valev <pva...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > Then the clever teacher should explain: "Brothers Einsteinans,
> > > Einstein's 1911 calculation based on Newton's emission theory of light
> > > was wrong/correct and inconsistent/consistent with the gravitational
> > > redshift factor 1+V/c^2, Einstein's 1916 calculation was correct/wrong
> > > and consistent/inconsistent with the gravitational redshift factor 1+V/
> > > c^2, but in any case the speed of light in a gravitational field is
> > > VARIABLE. So those who teach you that the speed of light in a
> > > gravitational field is constant are by no means clever teachers."
>
> > You know, Pentcho, at some point you should take responsibility for
> > your own confusion -- and CORRECT it -- rather than pinning the blame
> > on teachers for your confusion. It's really not a big deal. It happens
> > to students every day that they misunderstand something that their
> > teacher said, and you don't find them spending their lifetimes
> > expressing their outrage at their teachers for their misunderstanding.
>
> > PD
>
> ------------------------
> what is misunderstanding by knowing that
> the photon has mass
> from say the formulas E=hf
> and therefore bends next to the sun
Because Newtonian physics DOES predict that *qualitatively*, just like
you do. But, as has been pointed out to you repeatedly, *qualitative*
is not enough. The Newtonian prediction is *quantitatively* wrong.
Which is enough to say that it is just plain wrong, even
*qualitatively*.
Y.Porat
and i indicate dto youmany times that:
the photon is an exception case
*a limit case***
an exception case must be treated
specifically and has some changes
from the extrapolation technique:
(and i have to mention you as well
that any physics formula has
8its limits of validation))
so the exception case need at our case to be calculated specifucally
to that case
it is to be fitted to the experimental data
(and dont you be shocked from my claim of fitting formulas to data
because **that is what GR did as well **
now thejob of fitting the results to Newton and light data
ias not as 'traomatic' or disturbing
as you see it
because it is you youself that
admitted that **qualitatively* it fits the dtata
the additional fitting that is needed is only
**quantitatively **
(not a colplete different approach
physically)
2
the big advantage of douin gmu ssuggestion is
THAT IT DOES NOT NEED
TO INVENT NEW REVOLUTIONARY (NOT TO SAY
FANTASTIC ) NEW LAWS OF PHYSICS
it fits the basics (ideplogic) of the 'old physics)
and that is IMHO a great advantage
3
as far as i heard the difference
between the 'Newtonian calculation and GR calculation is
quantitatively about 2 times magnitude
that is not a fantastic difference
provided as i said
the need to invent new lawas of physics
is a much worse situation !!
4
such thing will fit waht we know
from anotrher experinetal formula
E=hf of which it comes that
the photon energy has mass
and in that case we avoid anothe 'need' to invent a new kind of mass
- 'relativistic mass'
so Mr PD
i consider you a rational physicist
just consider all the above
and try to
**get out of the box **!
if many people like you will join that understanding-- we can open a
new era of advance !!!
(just being able to calculate
physics phenonena
**is not good enough** for advance
we must try and understand better and closer to the *real
cuases *of that phenomenon
btw
i dont have to remind you that i agree with SR !!!
ATB
Y.Porat
----------------------
in advance of physics
PD
On May 21, 9:46 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...@gmail.com> wrote:
I'm going to let your usual spouting about original thinking and
parroting slide by, to focus on one key issue below:
> 3
> as far as i heard the difference
> between the 'Newtonian calculation and GR calculation is
> quantitatively about 2 times magnitude
> that is not a fantastic difference
>
This is where you are DEAD wrong. If you have a measurement
sensitivity of a percent or so, then a factor of 2 is as wide as the
sea, and it is clearly enough to rule out one completely and accept
the other. This is the *whole point* of quantitative experiment -- to
make a measurement with sufficient precision to unambiguously discern
which model is right and which model is wrong.
You have the completely incorrect impression that, once you get a
model within the ballpark, then the rest is just fiddling and fitting.
That is wrong, wrong, wrong, and it is not how science works, nor how
it should work.
PD
Y.Porat
> On May 21, 9:46 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I'm going to let your usual spouting about original thinking and
> parroting slide by, to focus on one key issue below:
you focus on just one issue
because you have a real answer for
all the other issues that i raised !!!
that is demagogism
------------
>
> > 3
> > as far as i heard the difference
> > between the 'Newtonian calculation and GR calculation is
> > quantitatively about 2 times magnitude
> > that is not a fantastic difference
>
> This is where you are DEAD wrong. If you have a measurement
> sensitivity of a percent or so, then a factor of 2 is as wide as the
> sea, and it is clearly enough to rule out one completely and accept
------------
the one who have no practical sense of measurement is you not me
yur se;ective senses can see a mice
but no see that at the same time
an Elephant is satnding right before the mice !!
i ddint emphasize the principal argument
that is much bigger than the figures
of 2 here or 3 there
it is the
**mathematial prove that
THE PHOTON HAS MASS BY
E= hf !!
that should be enopugh to abolish stupid
curved soace trime for sensible people ahio are real physicists
it seems that you are not a physicist
you are a cleargy man
not only a cleary man but one who have a deeep personal interrst in
keepinng all he old
aprrotong !
or else** how can you come to morow to your students and much of all
i tought you until now is nonsense
and i was wasting your time and mioney
and much worse --*precious time **
and i turned you to little parrots like myself ??
whiloe you are not a brave and honest
enough person ???
-----------
> the other. This is the *whole point* of quantitative experiment -- to
> make a measurement with sufficient precision to unambiguously discern
> which model is right and which model is wrong.
> ----------------------
you have a wonderful quantitative sense
to see fleas but not to see
elephants standing right before them !!
----------
> You have the completely incorrect impression that, once you get a
> model within the ballpark, then the rest is just fiddling and fitting.
> That is wrong, wrong, wrong, and it is not how science works, nor how
> it should work.
> -------------
you can say 100 times **wrong**
that is because you are an emotional thru believer in a religion not
in real physics
while you are the wrong one
if youwould look properly to how GR was built and used
you would find that it could not work at its nnase
unless its basic figures were fiffled in to the
formulas !!!
a correction of magnitude 2
is much less wrong than the cheating
fiddling in that was done in GR !!
and btw
there is nothing wrong i fitting formula to data
that is actually the only way how pioneering science cam be don !!
now
since you never in your life did any
pioneering science
how can **you** be presumptuous enough
to teach *me* how pioneering science is done ??
Keep well
Y.Porat
-----------------------
> PD
PD
> On 20 Maj, 17:07, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On May 20, 2:38 pm, Strich-Reply-To-Idiots <iqgoo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > There are three kinds of physics:
>
> > > Classical physics along the lines of Newton and Maxwell...
> > > Quantum physics along the lines of Planck and Gell-man...
>
> > 1. Did you mean Murry Gell-Mann or some other Gell-man guy?
>
> There is only one Murray Gell-mann.
>
> > 2. Gell-Mann worked on quantum field theories, despite what your comic
> > book tells you he did.
>
> He had to work in QFT. Otherwise his quark model might be ignored by
> the orthodoxy.
Ah, so you admire him, though he's a sell-out in your view? Keep in
mind that he doesn't have much in the way of published work that is in
nonrelativistic quantum mechanics, the kind you want to promote. Now,
if you'd like to project that he WOULD HAVE worked on nonrelativistic
quantum mechanics if given the chance, I'm sure you could and should
check with him on it. As far as I know, he's still alive.
> Still his quark theory is the foundation of quantum
> physics.
Uh, no. Quark theory is a QFT. The foundation of quantum mechanics was
laid in the 1920's and 1930's. The quark theory was 3 decades later.
Anything else you'd like to get wrong, as long as you're just making
stuff up?
Strich-Reply-To-Idiots
> On May 21, 7:53 am, Strich-Reply-To-Idiots <iqgoo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 20 Maj, 17:07, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On May 20, 2:38 pm, Strich-Reply-To-Idiots <iqgoo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > There are three kinds of physics:
>
> > > > Classical physics along the lines of Newton and Maxwell...
> > > > Quantum physics along the lines of Planck and Gell-man...
>
> > > 1. Did you mean Murry Gell-Mann or some other Gell-man guy?
>
> > There is only one Murray Gell-mann.
>
> > > 2. Gell-Mann worked on quantum field theories, despite what your comic
> > > book tells you he did.
>
> > He had to work in QFT. Otherwise his quark model might be ignored by
> > the orthodoxy.
>
> Ah, so you admire him, though he's a sell-out in your view? Keep in
> mind that he doesn't have much in the way of published work that is in
> nonrelativistic quantum mechanics, the kind you want to promote. Now,
> if you'd like to project that he WOULD HAVE worked on nonrelativistic
> quantum mechanics if given the chance, I'm sure you could and should
> check with him on it. As far as I know, he's still alive.
Quark theory is not relativistic. It just so happens that the current
Standard Model is relativistic and quarks, being the elementary
structure of baryons, are needed in the Standard Model, not the other
way around that quarks need the Standard Model to get accepted.
>
> > Still his quark theory is the foundation of quantum
> > physics.
>
> Uh, no. Quark theory is a QFT. The foundation of quantum mechanics was
> laid in the 1920's and 1930's. The quark theory was 3 decades later.
> Anything else you'd like to get wrong, as long as you're just making
> stuff up?
>
>
>
>
>
> > > 3. You tend to repeat elsewhere the same idiocy that has been
> > > corrected before.
>
> > You must have someone else confused with yourself. Your lies tend to
> > get repetitive.
>
> > > > Schizophrenic physics along the lines of Einstein and Dirac...
>
> > > > In the microscopic domain, Quantum physics operates. This reduces to
> > > > Classical physics in the macroscopic domain. Thus the general
> > > > Schrodinger equation for force reduces to the more specific Newtonian
> > > > equation for force.
>
> > > > Schizophrenic physics is merely a child's game of figuring out who is
> > > > left holding the stick when the contradictions come in. Thus in the
> > > > SR twin paradox, the winner gets to posit that the travelling twin is
> > > > able to suspend aging, while the loser is stuck with the dilemma of
> > > > explaining how the homely twin was exempted from a supposedly
> > > > universal law... Dirac gets to posit a relativistic quantum field
> > > > theory... The loser is stuck with renormalization...- Dölj citerad text -
>
> > > - Visa citerad text -- Dölj citerad text -
>
> - Visa citerad text -- Dölj citerad text -
PD
wrote:
> On 22 Maj, 09:41, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On May 21, 7:53 am, Strich-Reply-To-Idiots <iqgoo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On 20 Maj, 17:07, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On May 20, 2:38 pm, Strich-Reply-To-Idiots <iqgoo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > There are three kinds of physics:
>
> > > > > Classical physics along the lines of Newton and Maxwell...
> > > > > Quantum physics along the lines of Planck and Gell-man...
>
> > > > 1. Did you mean Murry Gell-Mann or some other Gell-man guy?
>
> > > There is only one Murray Gell-mann.
>
> > > > 2. Gell-Mann worked on quantum field theories, despite what your comic
> > > > book tells you he did.
>
> > > He had to work in QFT. Otherwise his quark model might be ignored by
> > > the orthodoxy.
>
> > Ah, so you admire him, though he's a sell-out in your view? Keep in
> > mind that he doesn't have much in the way of published work that is in
> > nonrelativistic quantum mechanics, the kind you want to promote. Now,
> > if you'd like to project that he WOULD HAVE worked on nonrelativistic
> > quantum mechanics if given the chance, I'm sure you could and should
> > check with him on it. As far as I know, he's still alive.
>
> Quark theory is not relativistic.
Oh, this is just precious. Just the kind of thing Strich9 makes a
point of saying day in and day out.
Wait for it....
Wait for it....
Strich-Reply-To-Idiots
Quark theory is governed by the strong force. No gravitation, no
electromagnetic interaction, no weak interaction. Relativity only
dealt with electromagnetic theory (a so-called extension of Maxwell)
and gravitation (a so-called extension of gravitation). Einstein died
without even knowing about the strong interaction or quarks.
But we all know you are schizophrenic and detached from reality, so
feel free to deny this part of reality again... and again... and
again. (Now in Einstein's relativity--appropriately named
schizophrenic physics--an observer can deny the reality of another
since he only goes by what he supposedly computes, not what really
happens in the other observer... this is shown very well in my famous
cosmic ray example, where my aging is denied by the cosmic ray's
supposed computation of my 'other' age.)
PD
That's right. Relativity as EINSTEIN put forward originally only dealt
with those two forces. But since it worked so well in experiment,
subsequent quantum field theories, including the quark model, were all
built to be relativistically covariant from the outset. Keep in mind
that relativity did not end development when Einstein was done with
it, any more than Newtonian physics ended development when Newton was
done with it.
Geez, you are such a loon. Funny, but a loon.
>
> But we all know you are schizophrenic and detached from reality, so
> feel free to deny this part of reality again... and again... and
> again. (Now in Einstein's relativity--appropriately named
> schizophrenic physics--an observer can deny the reality of another
> since he only goes by what he supposedly computes, not what really
> happens in the other observer... this is shown very well in my famous
> cosmic ray example, where my aging is denied by the cosmic ray's
> supposed computation
Not "supposed computation". Measurement. That's what physics is about
-- what will be *measured*. You on the other hand say that what is
*measured* in one frame is real and what is *measured* in another
frame is not real. By Decree of Your Royal Highness, of course.
Whatever makes you feel strong enough to avoid slashing your wrists,
Strich9.
> of my 'other' age.)
Martin Musatov
Relativity physics--an observer can deny the reality of another
> > since he only goes by what he supposedly computes, not what really
> > happens in the other observer... this is shown very well in my famous
> > cosmic ray example, where my aging is denied by the cosmic ray's
> > supposed computation
> *exclude Schizophrenic as the foundation of modern physics is simply NOT*
> Not "proposed/proved/computation". Measurement. That's what physics is about
> -- what will be *measured*. You on the other hand say that what is
> *measured* in one frame is real and what is *measured* in another
> frame is not real. By Decree of Your Royal Highness, of course.
> Whatever makes you feel strong enough to avoid slashing your wrists,
> Strich9.
>
> > of my 'other' age.) P==NP accepted as prior axiom sufficient. Einstein agrees. Zero counts to disagree.
VMCM1905
"Strich-Reply-To-Idiots" <iqgo...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:84f3c75d-356c-4ab1...@v4g2000vba.googlegroups.com...
> There are three kinds of physics:
And you are conversant in none of them.
Han de Bruijn
> [ .. ] The loser is stuck with renormalization...
Oh well, renormalization is already involved with the VERY classical
problem of calculating the self energy of a point charge. E.g. read:
http://hdebruijn.soo.dto.tudelft.nl/QED/index.htm#fe (Typos in there)
Han de Bruijn
PD
Things in the circus get pretty quiet when the clowns are on vacation.
Eric Gisse
Perhaps someone at the VA finally noticed this guy hasn't done any
work in most of a year, having spent most of his working hours
babbling on USENET.
zzbu...@netscape.net
> There are three kinds of physics:
>
> Classical physics along the lines of Newton and Maxwell...
> Quantum physics along the lines of Planck and Gell-man...
> Schizophrenic physics along the lines of Einstein and Dirac...
>
> In the microscopic domain, Quantum physics operates. This reduces to
> Classical physics in the macroscopic domain. Thus the general
> Schrodinger equation for force reduces to the more specific Newtonian
> equation for force.
>
> Schizophrenic physics is merely a child's game of figuring out who is
> left holding the stick when the contradictions come in.
All of physics is a child's game. Since the entire idiot science
consists of nothing noting but electing mathmeatician cranks to the
International Olympic Committee.
zzbu...@netscape.net
wrote:
> On May 20, 3:38 pm, Strich-Reply-To-Idiots <iqgoo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > There are three kinds of physics:
>
> > Classical physics along the lines of Newton and Maxwell...
> > Quantum physics along the lines of Planck and Gell-man...
> > Schizophrenic physics along the lines of Einstein and Dirac...
>
> > In the microscopic domain, Quantum physics operates. This reduces to
> > Classical physics in the macroscopic domain. Thus the general
> > Schrodinger equation for force reduces to the more specific Newtonian
> > equation for force.
>
> > Schizophrenic physics is merely a child's game of figuring out who is
> > left holding the stick when the contradictions come in.
>
> All of physics is a child's game. Since the entire idiot science
> consists of nothing noting but electing mathmeatician cranks to the
> International Olympic Committee.
Or since General Relativity consits of nothing but making sure
the kids get to church on time, it's perhpas the most trivial
of sciences.
And Quantum Mechanics mostly consists mostly of educating IBM
loons
how Holograms work, so it is not the most difficilt of subject
matter.
>
> Thus in the
>
>
>
> > SR twin paradox, the winner gets to posit that the travelling twin is
> > able to suspend aging, while the loser is stuck with the dilemma of
> > explaining how the homely twin was exempted from a supposedly
> > universal law... Dirac gets to posit a relativistic quantum field
> > theory... The loser is stuck with renormalization...- Hide quoted text -