Gravity and light question

[mapo...@gmail.com]

Is there a hypothesis that explains why light falls twice as fast as mass?

Please, don't offer equations because math explain nothing. On the contrary, it's the math that needs a physical explanation.

[Odd Bodkin]

Math is just a shorthand language. Either you know how to read it or you
don't. But if you have someone that expresses things well in French, it
is silly to say that French expresses nothing and that French needs to
be translated into English.


--
Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

[Sergio]

On 7/15/2016 1:01 AM, mapo...@gmail.com wrote:

> Is there a hypothesis that explains why light falls twice as fast as
> mass?

It does not.

>
> Please, don't offer equations because math explain nothing.

unless you understand math, you cannot understand science or physics.

> On the
> contrary, it's the math that needs a physical explanation.

already done, it is in science or physics books.


anything else ?

[mapo...@gmail.com]

Fuck you.

[mapo...@gmail.com]

Fuck you too.

[Odd Bodkin]

Oooh, such macho overcompensation.

I have to admit that it mystifies me how a woodworker would have no
difficulty working through books with a lot of math in them, but you
somehow feel it is an unfair burden for you.

This comparison is so that you know it has nothing to do with native
ability, but instead has more to do with laziness.

[Odd Bodkin]

On 7/15/2016 10:36 AM, mapo...@gmail.com wrote:

I think I just want to add that you announced you were leaving the
newsgroup, and then you didn't.

Then you said "adios" to a few people, letting them know you would have
nothing more to do with them, and then you didn't follow through on that
either.

All this is pretty indicative of someone who is all bluster but no
substance, a lot of noise and no follow-through, a lot of "gonnas" and
no actual doing. I imagine you are very familiar with hearing this comment.

[Sergio]

On 7/15/2016 10:36 AM, mapo...@gmail.com wrote:

I didn't mean to confuse you.

And I do understand that there are people with learning disabilities,
difficulties, drugs, alcohol, problems, intellectually disfunctional
like you.

But Don't worry about physics or science, others can do that work. Your
talents are needed growing carrots or radishes, perhaps the pulling them
out of the ground and putting them in the basket phase.

Feel better now ?

[reber g=emc^2]

Electron speed can be 99.999999999 of c.EM uses waves.Gravity does not.I go with Einstein on gravity waves.TreBert

[noTthaTguY]

here no equation was brought unto thousness ... how ever
many thousands of youse.

thw speed of lightwaves a-passing is only (solely dependent
upon the index of refraction of the surrounding medium --
you weren't thereupon

[mapo...@gmail.com]

On Thursday, July 14, 2016 at 11:01:12 PM UTC-7, mapo...@gmail.com wrote:
> Is there a hypothesis that explains why light falls twice as fast as mass?
>
> Please, don't offer equations because math explain nothing. On the contrary, it's the math that needs a physical explanation.

I forgot to post a reference:

Steve Carlip: "It is well known that the deflection of light is twice that predicted by Newtonian theory; in this sense, at least, light falls with twice the acceleration of ordinary “slow” matter."

Source: http://arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/9909014v1.pdf

Does anybody know of a hypothesis that gives a physical reason for this?

[edpr...@gmail.com]

On Friday, July 15, 2016 at 2:01:12 AM UTC-4, mapo...@gmail.com wrote:
> Is there a hypothesis that explains why light falls twice as fast as mass?

Actually that is wrong. It is more correct to say that light
falls 2 times faster than Newton's theory predicts.

Or as put in another way light falls twice as fast as SLOW mass.

>
> Please, don't offer equations because math explain nothing.
> On the contrary, it's the math that needs a physical explanation.

(I hope you don't mind a little math.)

My simple explanation is that Newton's theory does not account for
mass equivalent to the kinetic energy. remember E=Mc^2?

Total energy of something is the energy due to it's mass plus
it also has mass due to it's kinetic energy.
For things moving much slower than light, this mass is
VERY, Very, very, ..., small.

Now the acceleration due to gravity, g, is proportional
to the masses, Ma and Mb, multiplied together of both
bodies A & B involved.

Lets think about motion relative to the larger body A.
then body B's total mass is the mass it has when it is
not moving (also called it's rest mass) PLUS the mass
equivalent of its kinetic energy.

If B is moving VERY FAST, then this equivalent mass can
change the value of the acceleration g.

For light the math has to be done a little differently
but the idea is the same. As a result the value of g
(the rate the smaller body "falls") is twice as large
using relativity theory than Newtonian theory.

look here for some of the mathematical explanation:
http://arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/9909014v1.pdf

That paper also make the same (IMHO) erroneous description,
but otherwise it seem quite good.

[mapo...@gmail.com]

Also, it is obvious that this kills Einstein's equivalence principle dead.

[edpr...@gmail.com]

Sergio,
If you don't want to help, why post?

[edpr...@gmail.com]

Funny, I keep coming here hoping to discuss physics.
If you don't want to help mapou001, then consider posting
a thoughtful answer for others that only read this group
or are visiting for the first time.

A little civility can go a long was to quieting even trolls.
ed

[mapo...@gmail.com]

Yeah, but this violates the equivalence principle. Also, I have read somewhere that GR predicts that light falls slower (not faster) than ordinary massive particles. This, too, would break the EP.

[edpr...@gmail.com]

Sorry but you took the quote the wrong way.
It is precisely due to the equivalence principle that
Einstein got it right and Newton got it wrong.
ed

[Odd Bodkin]

http://mathpages.com/rr/s6-03/6-03.htm

[mapo...@gmail.com]

Sorry, this makes no sense. If the equivalence principle was right there should be no difference between the acceleration of massive and massless particles by gravity.

[Odd Bodkin]

Fine. I will just note that the OP has a habit of declaring that it's
all nonsense before even knowing what the heck he's talking about. Had
he approached with a little more civility, he would have earned some back.

The way I understand it, reduced down in a way that hopefully OP can
follow, is that a more accurate representation of gravity (general
relativity) has TWO terms for the rate of bend. There is a term that is
proportional to G and this is the term that survives even in the low
speed approximation. But there is an additional term that comes from the
curvature of spacetime, which corresponds to the familiar Newtonian
expression for the centripetal acceleration: v^2 / r. The radius of
curvature of spacetime is c^2 / G, and so substituting in, this term is
then G(v/c)^2. Combining both terms, you get
G + G(v/c)^2.
This applies to BOTH light and for matter, so strictly speaking, it is
not different for light and for matter at all.

But if the matter is slow moving (v<<c), then the second term is
negligibly small and so the only part that remains is the first term,
which is what Newton was aware of.

When it is light, though, v=c and so the second term is just as big as
the first term, hence the factor of 2. But it also would apply to a
proton moving at nearly the speed of light.

So, basically, the CORRECT answer for the deflection of ANYTHING by
gravity is proportional to G[ 1+(v/c)^2 ], and there is no physical
reason to explain about a difference in the freefall of ordinary matter
and of light because they are the SAME. It's just that the INCORRECT
answer (given by Newton) happens to be "ok enough" when v<<c and the
term in [ ] is indistinguishable from 1.

[Odd Bodkin]

See, this is why you get the heat you do.

Suggestion: FIRST learn the answer to your question. THEN draw
conclusions once you know what the answer is.

[Odd Bodkin]

No, it doesn't. I don't know why you think it does.

> Also, I have read somewhere that GR predicts that light falls
> slower (not faster) than ordinary massive particles.

Can you remember where you read this?

(If you can't remember where you read something, how confident are you
in how well you remember what you read?)

> This, too, would break the EP.
>

[mapo...@gmail.com]

Fuck you.

[Odd Bodkin]

On 7/15/2016 1:05 PM, mapo...@gmail.com wrote:
> Sorry, this makes no sense. If the equivalence principle was right there
> should be no difference between the acceleration of massive and massless
> particles by gravity.

And there isn't. They follow the identical law. That would be the point.

The law is that the bend is proportional to G(1+Y), where Y is close to
0 for slow-moving things and Y is close to 1 for things moving close to
the speed of light. Same law, factor of 2 arises only from slow-moving
vs. fast moving.

[mapo...@gmail.com]

Fuck you. The EP has nothing to do with the speed of objects. Einstein's thought experiment in the accelerating chamber makes that clear. If light particles are accelerated more than other particles, then the EP is broken. Live with it.

[Odd Bodkin]

I'll be nicer if you get nicer.

There's an underlying message here for you, which I hope you'll take
note of.
First off, you took a sound bite and ran clear to the hills with it,
without checking your understanding first. You saw Carlip's note and
interpreted it to mean that the deflection of light and the deflection
of matter obey two different rules, which then led you to jump to the
conclusion that the equivalence principle was violated, which then led
you to the presumption that you had discovered an internal inconsistency
in GR, which then led you to issue a whistle-blower cry of indignation
that the whole mess was an unholy fraud foisted on people for a century.

WHEN IN FACT, light and matter obey the exact same rule, completely
consistent with the equivalence principle, therefore no evidence of
internal inconsistency, and certainly no reason to bellow "FRAUD!"

And WHERE in fact, had you stopped your charge headlong into the weeds
long enough to actually pick something up and READ a bit about the
subject to learn what Carlip was actually saying (which is that fast
moving things deflect twice as much as slow moving things, in a way
described by the common rule), then you would have UNDERSTOOD FOR
YOURSELF where that statement comes from. But for some reason, you are
unwilling or unable to pick up something to read on the subject before
charging into the woods.

[Odd Bodkin]

On 7/15/2016 1:31 PM, mapo...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Friday, July 15, 2016 at 11:23:27 AM UTC-7, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>> On 7/15/2016 1:05 PM, mapo...@gmail.com wrote:
>>> Sorry, this makes no sense. If the equivalence principle was right there
>>> should be no difference between the acceleration of massive and massless
>>> particles by gravity.
>>
>> And there isn't. They follow the identical law. That would be the point.
>>
>> The law is that the bend is proportional to G(1+Y), where Y is close to
>> 0 for slow-moving things and Y is close to 1 for things moving close to
>> the speed of light. Same law, factor of 2 arises only from slow-moving
>> vs. fast moving.
>>
>>
>> --
>> Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
>
> Fuck you. The EP has nothing to do with the speed of objects.

The EP says that the effect of gravity is INDISTINGUISHABLE from the
physics of an accelerated frame, provided that the laboratory is small
enough. Period. That is ALL it says. It does NOT say that the
acceleration of a fast moving object under gravity will be the same as
the acceleration of a slow moving object under gravity. It never did.

> Einstein's
> thought experiment in the accelerating chamber makes that clear. If light
> particles are accelerated more than other particles, then the EP is broken.

Light is NOT accelerated more than other particles traveling at the same
speed.

> Live with it.

Consider the possibility that you may have misunderstood something about
the EP, or about what Carlip said, or what relativity actually says. And
do that before being so WEDDED UNTIL DEATH DO YOU PART that relativity
is wrong.

[mapo...@gmail.com]

If they obeyed the same rule, the acceleration would be the same for all. It should not be different. Einstein's thought experiment is therefore wrong. Don't talk about equivalence is the rule breaks the equivalence.

[mapo...@gmail.com]

This is not about what relativity says. Fuck that. It's about the equivalence principle. Either EVERYTHING accelerates the same way in gravity or they don't. They clearly don't, which means that the EP is violated. There must be a physical reason for it. And no, a math equation is not a reason. It's a fudge introduced to a theory to make it agree with observation. It's no better than Ptolemaic epicycles.

Math is descriptive only. It explains nothing, goddammit. Get a clue.

[Odd Bodkin]

On 7/15/2016 1:43 PM, mapo...@gmail.com wrote:
> If they obeyed the same rule, the acceleration would be the same for all.

Nonsense. The rule is the deflection is G[ 1 + (v/c)^2 ]. It is the same
RULE for all. It is not the same VALUE for all. There is no principle
ANYWHERE that says that equivalence means the same VALUE for all.

If it helps, go back to the principle of relativity. This says that the
laws of physics have the SAME MATHEMATICAL FORM in all inertial
reference frames. It does NOT MEAN that the variables in the equations
for the laws have the same VALUES in all inertial reference frames. This
much should be obvious. Consider the law of conservation of energy
(potential + kinetic + rest +...), which has the same form in all
frames. But clearly in different frames, the kinetic energy has a
different VALUE.

> It should not be different. Einstein's thought experiment is therefore wrong.

Don't try to force the equivalence principle to say what you think it
SHOULD be saying. Instead, just go with what it ACTUALLY says, ok?

> Don't talk about equivalence is the rule breaks the equivalence.

[mapo...@gmail.com]

Speed has nothing to do with it. Einstein's thought experiment has nothing to do with the speed of bodies in the accelerating chamber. The chamber accelerates equally relative to everything in it regardless of their speed or any other property that they may have.

[Odd Bodkin]

Then look up what the equivalence principle says. It does NOT say that
all things fall at the same rate in gravity. Period, end of story.

It's clear that SOMETHING has been violated, but it's only the thing
that you've made up, which is neither the equivalence principle nor
anything relativity actually says.

> Either EVERYTHING accelerates the same way in gravity or they don't. They clearly don't,
> which means that the EP is violated. There must be a physical reason for it. And no, a
> math equation is not a reason. It's a fudge introduced to a theory to make it agree with
> observation. It's no better than Ptolemaic epicycles.

Sorry, but this is just full of shit.
If there is a quantity like acceleration, and the acceleration goes like
G(1+Y) and you believe that Y changing from object to object is a FUDGE
designed to match data, then I'm afraid you're going to have a problem
with physics in general, and not with Einstein.

Here's a simple example from HIGH SCHOOL PHYSICS and Galileo:
The distance traveled by something starting from rest and accelerating
uniformly is given by s=(1/2)at^2.
Now, can you give me a PHYSICAL REASON for the factor of (1/2) or in
your mind, was that just a fudge to fit data after the fact?
Is there a PHYSICAL reason the t is squared as opposed to just being to
the first power or the third power, or was that just a fudge to fit the
data after the fact?

Go ahead, have at it.

>
> Math is descriptive only. It explains nothing, goddammit. Get a clue.
>

[Odd Bodkin]

On 7/15/2016 1:54 PM, mapo...@gmail.com wrote:
> Speed has nothing to do with it. Einstein's thought experiment has nothing to
> do with the speed of bodies in the accelerating chamber. The chamber accelerates
> equally relative to everything in it regardless of their speed or any other
> property that they may have.

Let's back up. What do you believe the equivalence principle says, exactly?

And before shooting your mouth off on that right away, do you want to go
look it up first and see what it really says?

[mapo...@gmail.com]

I don't fucking care what you or relativists mean by the EP. I don't fucking care what some equation says. I'm going by Einstein's thought experiment that gave him the idea for the EP. Anybody with a modicum of sense can see that the chamber accelerates equally relative to everything. Every fucking thing! Get a fucking clue.

[Odd Bodkin]

On 7/15/2016 1:58 PM, mapo...@gmail.com wrote:
> I don't fucking care what you or relativists mean by the EP. I don't
> fucking care what some equation says. I'm going by Einstein's thought
> experiment that gave him the idea for the EP.

When you say "what relativists mean by the EP" and then bring up
Einstein's thought experiment, you surely realize that what
"relativists" mean by the EP is what Einstein stated the EP is.

Not what you THINK it is by inferring something from the falling
elevator thought experiment.

> Anybody with a modicum of
> sense can see that the chamber accelerates equally relative to everything.
> Every fucking thing! Get a fucking clue.

That's not the point of the thought experiment at all. Would you care to
open the book again where you read about this thought experiment?

[mapo...@gmail.com]

Take your book and pack it up your ass. Now stay the fuck away from me. Jackass.

[Odd Bodkin]

If you post here, you're going to get comments from anybody who feels
like responding. That's the nature of an unmoderated newsgroup. If you
don't like it, don't post here. Why aren't you taking all this to your
reddit group instead? There you might actually have some control over
who responds.

I have no idea why you are so hostile at the prospect of having
misunderstood something, and so closed-minded to others pointing out
what the equivalence principle means and what Einstein was trying to
point out with the thought experiment. So what if you picked up on it
wrong? Get over it. Learn something new every day.

Unless you are COUNTING on Einstein being discredited for whatever
reasons and unless you are COUNTING on you being the one to successfully
do it. In which case, you likely will learn nothing today, or tomorrow,
or the day after. Pity.

[mapo...@gmail.com]

Fuck you.

[Sergio]

he is a troll,
Trolls don't want any help,
but we cannot encourage him for his spreading poo in newsgroup
make sure his Mr Hankey gets on him first.
If he is serious, then I help.

[Sergio]

On 7/15/2016 2:06 PM, mapo...@gmail.com wrote:

......mapou001 looses again.....

[Odd Bodkin]

That's ok, my wife fucked me good last night, thanks.

You have an awfully nice day. Enjoy your stew.

[mapo...@gmail.com]

Eat shit.

[mapo...@gmail.com]

On Thursday, July 14, 2016 at 11:01:12 PM UTC-7, mapo...@gmail.com wrote:
> Is there a hypothesis that explains why light falls twice as fast as mass?
>

> Please, don't offer equations because math explain nothing. On the contrary, it's the math that needs a physical explanation.

Just for the record:

http://sethi.lamar.edu/bahrim-cristian/Courses/PHYS4480/4480-PROBLEMS/optics-gravit-lens_PPT.pdf
Dr. Cristian Bahrim: "If we accept the principle of equivalence, we must also accept that light falls in a gravitational field with the same acceleration as material bodies."

The problem is that it doesn't. The equivalence principle is BS.

[mapo...@gmail.com]

Oops. That link does not work anymore. I'll see if I can find a new one. But then again, it's very probable that the relativist "disappeared" the original text because it contradicts relativity theory. This is Big Brother science for you. It's always about politics, intimidation and fear.

[Odd Bodkin]

On 7/15/2016 3:18 PM, mapo...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Thursday, July 14, 2016 at 11:01:12 PM UTC-7, mapo...@gmail.com wrote:
>> Is there a hypothesis that explains why light falls twice as fast as mass?
>>
>> Please, don't offer equations because math explain nothing. On the contrary, it's the math that needs a physical explanation.
>
> Just for the record:
>
> http://sethi.lamar.edu/bahrim-cristian/Courses/PHYS4480/4480-PROBLEMS/optics-gravit-lens_PPT.pdf
> Dr. Cristian Bahrim: "If we accept the principle of equivalence, we must also accept that light falls in a gravitational field
> with the same acceleration as material bodies."

It does. Light and material bodies both fall at the rate G[1 + (v/c)^2 ]

The rate obviously varies with v for ALL bodies, and there is nothing in
the statement above that says that all bodies accelerate at the same
rate in a gravitational field regardless of their speed. Nor is that
implied ANYWHERE in the elevator gedanken that Einstein used to explain
the equivalence principle.

>
> The problem is that it doesn't. The equivalence principle is BS.
>

[mapo...@gmail.com]

You're a fucking moron.

[Sergio]

are you Mapou Yanga-Mbiwa ? the gay football dude ?

[pnal...@gmail.com]

On Friday, July 15, 2016 at 1:34:27 PM UTC-7, mapo...@gmail.com wrote:

> > Just for the record:
> >
> > http://sethi.lamar.edu/bahrim-cristian/Courses/PHYS4480/4480-PROBLEMS/optics-gravit-lens_PPT.pdf
> > Dr. Cristian Bahrim: "If we accept the principle of equivalence, we must also accept that light falls in a gravitational field with the same acceleration as material bodies."
> >
> > The problem is that it doesn't. The equivalence principle is BS.

No, Dr. Bahtim is exactly right, and you are hopelessly wrong...

[mapo...@gmail.com]

Fuck you too. I know what acceleration means.

[pnal...@gmail.com]

You are bragging. I'll bet you don't. Prove me wrong...

[mapo...@gmail.com]

Yeah, I got your proof hanging.

ahahaha...AHAHAHA...ahahaha...

[mapo...@gmail.com]

On Thursday, July 14, 2016 at 11:01:12 PM UTC-7, mapo...@gmail.com wrote:
> Is there a hypothesis that explains why light falls twice as fast as mass?
>
> Please, don't offer equations because math explain nothing. On the contrary, it's the math that needs a physical explanation.

Why is it that, when a brain-dead relativist is asked to give a physical reason for a phenomenon, they immediately pull a fucking equation out of their asses as if an equation was a physical reason for anything?

What's up with this crap?

[pnal...@gmail.com]

Clearly, you are bat-shit crazy... but still, you should have no trouble with my request. Speak up or GTFO...

[mapo...@gmail.com]

Eat shit, maggot.

[pnal...@gmail.com]

A bit hostile, are we? Able to dish it out, but unable to take it?

If you can't stand the heat, perhaps you should exit the kitchen.

You are all bark and no bite. You haven't displayed a lick of physics knowledge and it is easy to see that you couldn't back your tenuous positions if your life depended on it. You didn't come here to actually learn anything, but rather only to sling your own feces around, like an ape at the zoo.

Move along, folks, absolutely nothing to see here.

[mapo...@gmail.com]

Go pack sand.

ahahaha...AHAHAHA...ahahaha...

[pnal...@gmail.com]

Make that LESS than nothing to see here...

[Odd Bodkin]

Such a well-reasoned response.

But go ahead, read some books and see if Einstein, or the elevator
gedanken, or any treatment of general relativity ever makes the claim
that the acceleration of bodies is independent of their speed.

Or the alternative might be that you say that this conclusion (that
objects should all fall at the same rate regardless of speed) is yours
and yours alone, and that these statements are in conflict with your
conclusion. I'd have no problem with that at all.

[mapo...@gmail.com]

You are a moron. It's simple common sense to expect everything in an accelerated elevator to accelerate at the same rate. It follows from elementary geometry and arithmetic. The speed thing was fudged in by Einstein in order to make their chicken feather voodoo theory agree with observation. Relativists have no fucking idea why photons fall faster than massive objects. Fudging an equation is not an explanation. It's Ptolemaic epicycles all over again. It's a sign of total fucking cluelessness.

Now go pack yams up your ass and see if I give a rat's ass.

ahahaha...AHAHAHAHA...ahahahaha...

[pnal...@gmail.com]

The problem is, of course, that you don't have any idea what the definition is for 'acceleration', since you are stump-stupid...

[mapo...@gmail.com]

LOL. No, the problem is that you and Bodkin take turn packing relativistic yams up each other's ass. Skin and all.

ahahaha...AHAHAHAHA...ahahahaha...

[Odd Bodkin]

On 7/16/2016 2:56 PM, mapo...@gmail.com wrote:
> You are a moron. It's simple common sense to expect everything in an accelerated
> elevator to accelerate at the same rate. It follows from elementary geometry and arithmetic.

Really? Do tell. Show me how it follows. This should be fun.

[Odd Bodkin]

On 7/16/2016 4:10 PM, mapo...@gmail.com wrote:
>> The problem is, of course, that you don't have any idea what the definition is for 'acceleration', since you are stump-stupid...
> LOL. No, the problem is that you and Bodkin take turn packing relativistic yams up each other's ass. Skin and all.
>
> ahahaha...AHAHAHAHA...ahahahaha...

The definition of acceleration doesn't have much to do with relativity.
Just stick to classical physics and prove what you claim is obvious.

[mapo...@gmail.com]

Acceleration is absolute, dumbass.

ahahahaha...AHAHAHAHA...ahahahaha...

[mapo...@gmail.com]

On Saturday, July 16, 2016 at 2:38:03 PM UTC-7, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> On 7/16/2016 4:10 PM, mapo...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> The problem is, of course, that you don't have any idea what the definition is for 'acceleration', since you are stump-stupid...
> > LOL. No, the problem is that you and Bodkin take turn packing relativistic yams up each other's ass. Skin and all.
> >
> > ahahaha...AHAHAHAHA...ahahahaha...
>
> The definition of acceleration doesn't have much to do with relativity.
> Just stick to classical physics and prove what you claim is obvious.

I just did but it flew over your little pointy head.

ahahaha...AHAHAHA...ahahahaha...

[Odd Bodkin]

And so how does your conclusion follow?

>
> ahahahaha...AHAHAHAHA...ahahahaha...

[mapo...@gmail.com]

Why do relativists insists on being so fuckung dense? What's up with that shit?

Doesn't the fact that acceleration is absolute tell you that it does not depend on speed? Doesn't this tell you that, if an elevator is accelerating, its acceleration is the same relative to everything else? Does this not tell you that, if photons are observed to accelerate differently in the gravitational field than massive particles, gravity and acceleration are not equivalent?

Get a fucking clue, moron. I no longer rejoice at your stupidity. It's no longer fucking funny. It's fucking pathetic. Like I said, go pack yams up your ass.

[mapo...@gmail.com]

By the way, I know exactly why photons accelerate twice as fast as ordinary matter. But since you people are a bunch of brain-dead assholes, you don't deserve to know squat. Jackshit is what you deserve. Pearls and swines and all that.

Now go pack relativistic yams up your asses.

ahahaha...AHAHAHAHA...ahahaha...

[noTthaTguY]

the problem is known as "the brachistochrone,
a.k.a the tautochrone, solved in planar form by Liebniz et al, but
it depends upon taking a single "ray of light -- that is
to say a single normal to hte wavefront,
as the canonical particulation (so to say

> "If we accept the principle of equivalence, we must also accept that light falls in a gravitational field with the same acceleration as material bodies."
>

[pnal...@gmail.com]

On Saturday, July 16, 2016 at 4:11:16 PM UTC-7, mapo...@gmail.com wrote:

> By the way, I know exactly why photons accelerate twice as fast as ordinary matter. But since you people are a bunch of brain-dead assholes, you don't deserve to know squat...

Translation; "I don't have a clue! I couldn't tell you if my life depended on it!"

[mapo...@gmail.com]

Says the brain-dead relativist who has no fucking idea what the equivalence principle means. Go pack yams up your ass with your butt-buddy, Bodkin.

ahahaha...AHAHAHA...ahahahaha...

[xxe...@att.net]

xxein: I'll try to clear up some confusion and make you happy.

http://www.relativity.li/en/epstein2/read/i0_en/i3_en/

This is the Shapiro effect. Read it at your own risk though.

The main points are that light will be bent AND will slow down. "On the other hand, the time needed for the traversal of a given path diameter grows significantly, because the light, in accordance with the formulas of G5, moves more slowly than it would when outside a gravitational field." "In the following we calculate the difference in time that arises because the light near the sun travels a little bit slower." "...we get the following expression for the total amount of delay which also provides good values for a path at a great distance from the sun..."

It says in words that light slows down. It, of course, means traveling more or less perpendicular to the direction of gravity. The consequence of this is that slower light bends more because it spends more time in the greater gravity. Throw a slower ball and it will sink more in gravity than a faster ball. Slower light bends more than faster light.

In essence it is saying, and for your understanding, that light bends double the amount as predicted by Newton. It implies a lot more in the math of it but don't be concerned with that. It does not imply a lot of the statements you made however. Especially not "Is there a hypothesis that explains why light falls twice as fast as mass?" Light does not fall twice as fast as mass.

That light slows down due to gravity (as a statement) is a misnomer but it is the only way that GR can express it within itself. Some day in the future I hope to make this clear. At present, the essence of gravity is misrepresented.

[pnal...@gmail.com]

Well, dumbfuck, I've forgotten more physics than you have ever known. Get over it.

You can't even give us the definition of the word 'acceleration'!

[mapo...@gmail.com]

Go pack sand up your ass, jackass.

ahahaha...AHAHAHA...ahahahaha...

[Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn]

Odd Bodkin wrote:

> The way I understand it, reduced down in a way that hopefully OP can
> follow, is that a more accurate representation of gravity (general
> relativity) has TWO terms for the rate of bend. There is a term that is
> proportional to G and this is the term that survives even in the low
> speed approximation. But there is an additional term that comes from the
> curvature of spacetime, which corresponds to the familiar Newtonian
> expression for the centripetal acceleration: v^2 / r. The radius of
> curvature of spacetime is c^2 / G, and so substituting in, this term is
> then G(v/c)^2. Combining both terms, you get
> G + G(v/c)^2.
> This applies to BOTH light and for matter, so strictly speaking, it is
> not different for light and for matter at all.

Such a nonsense, it is not even wrong.

To begin with, the curvature of a spacetime is a *tensor* *field*.

--
PointedEars

Twitter: @PointedEars2
Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.

[Sergio]

tensors are grown in the South of France, a summer crop, in large
fields, they are a cross between a carrot and onion. You dont see them
in the US.

"Tensor Field" is a famous brand name.

[Alie...@gmail.com]

On Thursday, July 14, 2016 at 11:01:12 PM UTC-7, mapo...@gmail.com wrote:

> Is there a hypothesis that explains why light falls twice as fast as mass?

Yes, look it up.

> Please, don't offer equations because math explain nothing. On the contrary,
> it's the math that needs a physical explanation.

Why is it that when brain-dead anti-Relativists claim there's no "physical explanation" for Relativity, they have no "physical explanation" to offer to rebut Relativity?


Mark L. Fergerson

[mapo...@gmail.com]

Fuck you, you background believer. Take all your non-existent frames of reference and pack them up your ass.

ahahaha...AHAHAHA...ahahahaha...

[Odd Bodkin]

On 7/16/2016 5:10 PM, mapo...@gmail.com wrote:
> Doesn't the fact that acceleration is absolute tell you that it does not depend
> on speed? Doesn't this tell you that, if an elevator is accelerating, its acceleration
> is the same relative to everything else?

No, it does not. When a physicist tells you that acceleration is
absolute, it means that the acceleration of that ONE OBJECT is
independent of reference frame.

But I think it's awfully cute that you took a sound bite about
acceleration being absolute and decided for yourself what "absolute"
means in that sentence without reading further. I think it's adorable
that you think it means that the acceleration of all things is the same.
I think it's even more adorable that you looked at a PICTURE of the
elevator gedanken and drew your own conclusions about the point of the
gedanken, rather than reading any words about it.

Might I suggest starting with Hop On Pop? Good pictures AND a few words
to practice with.

> Does this not tell you that, if photons are observed to accelerate differently in the
> gravitational field than massive particles, gravity and acceleration are not equivalent?

But they don't, as already explained. They obey exactly the same rule,
which is how that rule got derived FROM the equivalence of gravity and
acceleration.

[Odd Bodkin]

On 7/16/2016 6:11 PM, mapo...@gmail.com wrote:
>By the way, I know exactly why photons accelerate twice as fast as
ordinary matter.

Well, if you do, surely you (thinking like a scientist) would have a way
to test your hypothesis experimentally.

Because otherwise, if you claim to know a new law of physics even
without scientific experimental test, then I'll bet even you would
understand why physicists would laugh at that claim.

> But since you people are a bunch of brain-dead assholes, you don't deserve to know squat.
> Jackshit is what you deserve. Pearls and swines and all that.
>
> Now go pack relativistic yams up your asses.
>
> ahahaha...AHAHAHAHA...ahahaha...

Bluster is no substitute for knowing what you're talking about.

[Odd Bodkin]

On 7/17/2016 9:30 AM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:

As I said, "reduced down in a way".

[Odd Bodkin]

On 7/17/2016 3:17 PM, mapo...@gmail.com wrote:
> Fuck you, you background believer. Take all your non-existent frames of reference and pack them up your ass.

You can say "Fuck you" and "pack sand" and "pack yams" all day long to
everyone you meet, for all anyone cares. What does that gain you? Hmmm?

[Odd Bodkin]

On 7/15/2016 3:34 PM, mapo...@gmail.com wrote:

> On Friday, July 15, 2016 at 1:18:40 PM UTC-7, mapo...@gmail.com wrote:
>> On Thursday, July 14, 2016 at 11:01:12 PM UTC-7, mapo...@gmail.com wrote:
>>> Is there a hypothesis that explains why light falls twice as fast as mass?
>>>

>>> Please, don't offer equations because math explain nothing. On the contrary, it's the math that needs a physical explanation.
>>

>> Just for the record:
>>
>> http://sethi.lamar.edu/bahrim-cristian/Courses/PHYS4480/4480-PROBLEMS/optics-gravit-lens_PPT.pdf

>> Dr. Cristian Bahrim: "If we accept the principle of equivalence, we must also accept that light falls in a gravitational

>> field with the same acceleration as material bodies."
>>
>> The problem is that it doesn't. The equivalence principle is BS.
>

> Oops. That link does not work anymore. I'll see if I can find a new one. But then again, it's very probable that the
> relativist "disappeared" the original text because it contradicts relativity theory. This is Big Brother science for you.
> It's always about politics, intimidation and fear.

Oh good grief. Paranoia much?

There is nothing in what Dr. Bahrim said that is in conflict with
anything that Dr. Carlip said. Notice that Dr. Carlip said that light
falls twice as fast as SLOW material bodies. Slow material bodies do not
fall at the same rate as fast material bodies, and there is NOTHING
you're going to find anywhere in Einstein's writings or otherwise that
says otherwise. How you interpret a *picture* is on you.

[mapo...@gmail.com]

Fuck you. I said what I had to say. If you don't get it,blame it on your own stupidity. Now go pack sand.

ahahaha...AHAHAHA...ahahaha...

[Sergio]

On 7/15/2016 6:42 PM, mapo...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Thursday, July 14, 2016 at 11:01:12 PM UTC-7, mapo...@gmail.com
> wrote:
>> Is there a hypothesis that explains why light falls twice as fast
>> as mass?
>>

no.

>> Please, don't offer equations because math explain nothing. On the
>> contrary, it's the math that needs a physical explanation.

wrong.

>
> Why is it that, when a brain-dead relativist is asked to give a
> physical reason for a phenomenon, they immediately pull a fucking
> equation out of their asses as if an equation was a physical reason
> for anything?

it is the language of science.

>
> What's up with this crap?
>

you too concerned with your butt, have a Dr look at it.

[Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn]

You have "reduced" so much whatever understanding of general relativity you
might have that the resulting explanation is utter nonsense of the form “not
even wrong”.

AISB, the curvature of a spacetime is a *tensor* *field*; the curvature
values for each point of that spacetime are *higher-rank* *tensors*. For
the spacetime in the vicinity of a massive body the curvature is not zero,
and it is *different* for each point/event of that spacetime compared to
neighboring points/events. IOW, the curvature of that spacetime is _not_
constant over that spacetime even for a body at relative rest; it follows
from the definition of the radius of curvature that the radius of curvature
is not constant, too. Whereas c and G are *constant* *scalars*, and so is
your c²∕G – it *cannot* describe the radius/radii of curvature in the
vicinity of massive object correctly.

I strongly recommend that you read, *carefully*, *at least*:

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curvature>
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematics_of_general_relativity>
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Riemann_curvature_tensor>

Also, this should be discussed in <news:sci.physics.relativity> instead.

[Odd Bodkin]

You certainly have the right to say anything stupid that crosses your
mind. You certainly have the right to stay ignorant of physics by
refusing to read. And you can bet I get that about you.

>
> ahahaha...AHAHAHA...ahahaha...

[Odd Bodkin]

You are welcome to try to explain this to the OP, to whose post I refer
you. Please note his request.

>
> I strongly recommend that you read, *carefully*, *at least*:
>
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curvature>
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematics_of_general_relativity>
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Riemann_curvature_tensor>
>
> Also, this should be discussed in <news:sci.physics.relativity> instead.
>


--

[xxe...@att.net]

xxein: ...which can be further reduced to 1/r^2.

On the other hand the greater math describes the mechanics in a curved space-time without describing the mechanics of how it came to be formed in the first place. That is - why is there a gravity and how does it curve space-time? And that can be elevated to - what is gravity?

But why stop there? What is the difference between myth (model, imagination) and reality? Can reality be described without myth? Define reality. Is there a sub-basic difference between matter and energy? **What is?** **Why?**

Can we remain satisfied to know less?

[edpr...@gmail.com]

On Friday, July 15, 2016 at 2:05:03 PM UTC-4, mapo...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Friday, July 15, 2016 at 10:51:19 AM UTC-7, edpr...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Friday, July 15, 2016 at 1:42:52 PM UTC-4, mapo...@gmail.com wrote:

> > > On Friday, July 15, 2016 at 10:40:34 AM UTC-7, mapo...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > On Thursday, July 14, 2016 at 11:01:12 PM UTC-7, mapo...@gmail.com wrote:

> > > > > Is there a hypothesis that explains why light falls twice as fast as mass?

> > > > >
> > > > > Please, don't offer equations because math explain nothing. On the contrary, it's the math that needs a physical explanation.
> > > >

> > > > I forgot to post a reference:
> > > >
> > > > Steve Carlip: "It is well known that the deflection of light is twice that predicted by Newtonian theory; in this sense, at least, light falls with twice the acceleration of ordinary “slow” matter."
> > > >
> > > > Source: http://arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/9909014v1.pdf
> > > >
> > > > Does anybody know of a hypothesis that gives a physical reason for this?
> > >
> > > Also, it is obvious that this kills Einstein's equivalence principle dead.
> >
> > Sorry but you took the quote the wrong way.
> > It is precisely due to the equivalence principle that
> > Einstein got it right and Newton got it wrong.
> > ed
>
> Sorry, this makes no sense. If the equivalence principle was right
> there should be no difference between the acceleration of massive
> and massless particles by gravity.

RIGHT!

But my explanation was using the equivalence of mass and energy.
Sorry we got our equivalence terms were not equivalent. :)

There is a difference between the acceleration of
massive SLOW particles and
massless Speed-of-light particles
by gravity.

Read the Carlipp quote again:
' ... in this sense, at least, light falls with
twice the acceleration of ordinary “slow” matter.'

Note the emphasis on SLOW.

ed

[mapo...@gmail.com]

On Monday, July 18, 2016 at 9:57:07 AM UTC-7, edpr...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> There is a difference between the acceleration of
> massive SLOW particles and
> massless Speed-of-light particles
> by gravity.

This is precisely the fucking point. There should be no difference if the equivalence principle was true.

Haysoos Martinez! I'm arguing with a cult of cretins.

[Odd Bodkin]

What do you think the Equivalence Principle states, exactly? (Recall
earlier you said you didn't give a shit what Einstein or physicists
think it states. You had your own idea of what the Equivalence Principle
means, apparently.)

And while we're at it, what do you think "acceleration is absolute"
means? (Recall that what you thought it meant is different than what
physicists say it means, and they're the ones that said it in the first
place.)

Just for completeness, what do you think "acceleration" means?

[edpr...@gmail.com]

On Friday, July 15, 2016 at 2:31:50 PM UTC-4, mapo...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Friday, July 15, 2016 at 11:23:27 AM UTC-7, Odd Bodkin wrote:

> > On 7/15/2016 1:05 PM, mapo...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > Sorry, this makes no sense. If the equivalence principle was right there
> > > should be no difference between the acceleration of massive and massless
> > > particles by gravity.
> >

> > And there isn't. They follow the identical law. That would be the point.
> >
> > The law is that the bend is proportional to G(1+Y), where Y is close to
> > 0 for slow-moving things and Y is close to 1 for things moving close to
> > the speed of light. Same law, factor of 2 arises only from slow-moving
> > vs. fast moving.

> >
> >
> > --
> > Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
>

> [expletive deleted] The EP has nothing to do with the speed of objects.

yes.

> Einstein's thought experiment in the accelerating chamber
> makes that clear.

yes

> If light particles are accelerated more than other particles,
> then the EP is broken.

Yes.

What we have been trying to tell you is they are accelerated
exactly the same.

An electron at close to the speed of light will follow
a curve that matches closely to the curve
that a photon will follow.

The math works.

> Live with it.

Yes, please do.

[Odd Bodkin]

On 7/18/2016 12:03 PM, mapo...@gmail.com wrote:

Don't you find it interesting that it is pretty straightforward to
DERIVE (logically and mathematically) the dependence of the acceleration
on the speed of the object FROM the Equivalence Principle?

When I say Equivalence Principle, I'm referring to what physicists mean
by that phrase, not what YOU think it means.

Since the dependence of the acceleration on the speed of the object
stems directly from the Equivalence Principle, it can't be in conflict
with it, can it?

So, to sum up, all you've managed to do is show that the experimentally
MEASURED dependence of the acceleration on the speed is in conflict with
YOUR version of the equivalence principle, which (no surprise) is not
what physicists mean by it.

[mapo...@gmail.com]

On Monday, July 18, 2016 at 10:38:36 AM UTC-7, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> On 7/18/2016 12:03 PM, mapo...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Monday, July 18, 2016 at 9:57:07 AM UTC-7, edpr...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>
> >> There is a difference between the acceleration of
> >> massive SLOW particles and
> >> massless Speed-of-light particles
> >> by gravity.
> >
> > This is precisely the fucking point. There should be no difference if the equivalence principle was true.
> >
> > Haysoos Martinez! I'm arguing with a cult of cretins.
> >
>
> Don't you find it interesting that it is pretty straightforward to
> DERIVE (logically and mathematically) the dependence of the acceleration
> on the speed of the object FROM the Equivalence Principle?
>
> When I say Equivalence Principle, I'm referring to what physicists mean
> by that phrase, not what YOU think it means.

This is precisely why it's crap. Physicists lie all the time. The true EP is as Newton saw it. This is why the acceleration of light by gravity does not work in Newtonian physics. Newton was assuming true equivalence.

Your so-called equivalence is just a chicken shit deception. It's used in order to make Einstein correct. Einstein must be correct always even though he isn't. It's Big Brother crappy physics in your face whether or not you like it.

Fuck all of you and the mules you sleep with.

ahahahaha...AHAHAHAHA...ahahahaha...

[mapo...@gmail.com]

On Monday, July 18, 2016 at 10:29:53 AM UTC-7, edpr...@gmail.com wrote:

> The math works.

Fuck you.

[Odd Bodkin]

On 7/18/2016 1:04 PM, mapo...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Monday, July 18, 2016 at 10:38:36 AM UTC-7, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>> On 7/18/2016 12:03 PM, mapo...@gmail.com wrote:
>>> On Monday, July 18, 2016 at 9:57:07 AM UTC-7, edpr...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>
>>>> There is a difference between the acceleration of
>>>> massive SLOW particles and
>>>> massless Speed-of-light particles
>>>> by gravity.
>>>
>>> This is precisely the fucking point. There should be no difference if the equivalence principle was true.
>>>
>>> Haysoos Martinez! I'm arguing with a cult of cretins.
>>>
>>
>> Don't you find it interesting that it is pretty straightforward to
>> DERIVE (logically and mathematically) the dependence of the acceleration
>> on the speed of the object FROM the Equivalence Principle?
>>
>> When I say Equivalence Principle, I'm referring to what physicists mean
>> by that phrase, not what YOU think it means.
>
> This is precisely why it's crap. Physicists lie all the time. The true EP is as Newton saw it.

Maybe you'd better back up and quote Newton's equivalence principle,
preferably from his writings.

As far as I know, Einstein (not Newton) coined the term.

> This is why
> the acceleration of light by gravity does not work in Newtonian physics. Newton was assuming true equivalence.
>
> Your so-called equivalence is just a chicken shit deception.

OK, so we've confirmed that you're not referring to the Equivalence
Principle as scientists understand that term. You're referring to SOME
OTHER thing you're calling the Equivalence Principle and THIS OTHER
thing is what you're saying that the speed dependence of acceleration is
in conflict with. On top of that, THIS OTHER thing you're attributing to
Newton, for some reason.

At least we know that it's not general relativity that's internally
inconsistent. It's just that general relativity is not consistent with
"Newton's" version of the equivalence principle. OK, we already knew
that general relativity is not consistent with Newtonian mechanics. Big
deal.

OK, so how to deal with experimental data that shows this speed
dependence of acceleration in fact happens? Doesn't that tell you that
Einstein's version of the equivalence principle matches experiment, and
that "Newton's" version does not?

> It's used in order to make Einstein correct. Einstein must be correct always even though he isn't.

Well, it's a rather elaborate deception, isn't it?
I mean, the equivalence principle was published several YEARS before the
first experimental evidence rolled in that showed he was right.

So you're saying that Einstein read the future, knew what the
experimental results were going to be, and then cobbled together his
equivalence principle to match the results of the future?

> It's
> Big Brother crappy physics in your face whether or not you like it.

Well, yeah, that's the nature of science. If experimental data says it
happens, then it happens, whether or not you like it. In this way, the
scientific method FORCES people to change their minds about how the
world works. If you don't like that, then science ain't a great hobby
for you.

>
> Fuck all of you and the mules you sleep with.
>
> ahahahaha...AHAHAHAHA...ahahahaha...
>

[mapo...@gmail.com]

On Monday, July 18, 2016 at 11:25:36 AM UTC-7, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> On 7/18/2016 1:04 PM, mapo...@gmail.com wrote:

[crap]

Fuck you.

[Odd Bodkin]

OK, just to summarize.

1. You claimed that the Einsteinian Equivalence Principle was
inconsistent with the soundbite from Carlip about falling twice as fast,
which as it turns out you misquoted originally.
2. When it was pointed out that particles and light fall according to
the same rule, in accord with the equivalence principle, you disputed
that the equivalence principle says what it says.
3. Then it turned out you didn't mean the Einsteinian equivalence
principle at all, but some other thing you were calling the equivalence
principle, something you apparently made up.
4. When it was pointed out that experimental measurement agrees with the
Einsteinian Equivalence Principle and disagrees with the equivalence
principle you made up, you called it a big conspiracy to make people
believe things they don't like.
5. In response to all these true things being revealed, your final
comment is "Fuck you."

And what's your take-away from this experience?

[Odd Bodkin]

Oh, and how's www.reddit.com/r/RebelScience coming along, since you
announced you were leaving usenet, SixWings?