sci.physics.particle

On Feb 25, 9:57 pm, "Y.Porat" wrote:
> On Feb 26, 2:53 am, Eric Gisse wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Feb 25, 8:03 am, "Y.Porat" wrote:
>
> > > On Feb 25, 6:02 pm, Eric Gisse wrote:
>
> > > > On Feb 25, 6:30 am, "Y.Porat" wrote:
>
> > > > > On Feb 25, 5:16 pm, "Y.Porat" wrote:
>
> > > > > > On Feb 25, 12:17 pm, Eric Gisse wrote:
>
> > > > > > > On Feb 24, 11:37 pm, "Y.Porat" wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > On Feb 25, 9:16 am, Eric Gisse wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > On Feb 24, 9:28 pm, "Y.Porat" wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > > On Feb 24, 11:25 pm, "chu...@gmail.com" wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > > > Ok...so I've been wondering how on earth does gravity bend light, I
> > > > > > > > > > > mean I read all about how Einstein's General Relativity describes
> > > > > > > > > > > space-time, and when there's a mass in space-time it creates a
> > > > > > > > > > > curve(Bowling ball on a sheet or something), and that curve is
> > > > > > > > > > > Gravity, and when light passes through the curve it bends....but why?
>
> > > > > > > > > > --------------------
> > > > > > > > > > just forget about curved spacetime
> > > > > > > > > > light bends next topthe sun
> > > > > > > > > > becuase of the most simple reason
> > > > > > > > > > LIGHT HAS MASS !!!
>
> > > > > > > > > You are amazingly sure of this despite not having one shred of
> > > > > > > > > evidence to support your claim. Then again, it is more important to be
> > > > > > > > > original than be right, eh?
>
> > > > > > > > > > (even Einstein ddint know to read his momentous formula
>
> > > > > > > > > > E=mc^2
>
> > > > > > > > > Show us the calculation of the deflection angle given the assumption
> > > > > > > > > that photons have mass.
>
> > > > > > > > --------------------
> > > > > > > > imbecil!!
> > > > > > > > it is first of all the qualitative profe
>
> > > > > > > Just admit you can't do it, and do away with the worthless posturing.
>
> > > > > > > [snip remaining gibberish]- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > > > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > > > > > --------------------
> > > > > > now you are a better physicist than me
> > > > > > so ????
> > > > > > lets see how do you *even startjust to * to think* about it **
> > > > > > hey little psychpath??
>
> > > > > > at least i know betetr than you (**much better than you **
> > > > > > about the mission we have
> > > > > > and have better information to just even come closer
> > > > > > to the practical solution.
> > > > > > at least i am not wondering in the cpmplete darkness
> > > > > > you are wrapped with
> > > > > > and you - with you psychpatic arrogance
> > > > > > do you want to compare my position about it
> > > > > > with yours ??
>
> > > > > > Y.Porat
> > > > > > ------------------------------ Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > > > > sorry
> > > > > my last response was ment about the Gold production
> > > > > from Lead
>
> > > > I'll have to take your word for it because it makes no fucking sense
> > > > either way.
>
> > > > > now about calculating curvature next to the sun
> > > > > it is no problem to fit(and fiddle ) the experimental data
> > > > > to a calculation
> > > > > that will look like a prediction of calculations
> > > > > as Schwarzschild did ...........
> > > > > the differenc ebetween clasic calculations of Newton
> > > > > and schwartschied is the factor of 2
>
> > > > > now since as i claime that
> > > > > THE PHOTON IS AN EXCEPTION CASE
> > > > > it should be calculated as an exception case
> > > > > withthe factor of 2
> > > > > and that is since we deally dont know
> > > > > not me nore you
> > > > > th ereal way the mass of the photon is spread and behaves
> > > > > under the attraction of sun
> > > > > fo rinstance:
> > > > > the gravitation agents
> > > > > might be the same family as the photon mass itself
> > > > > and theit interaction(and mechanism' ) is actually inded unknwn
> > > > > and above all that
>
> > > > What the fuck did I just try to read? Nothing you write makes any
> > > > sense anymore.
>
> > > > > E=mc^2
> > > > > showes qualitatively the mass in the photron energy
> > > > > so no need to show it quantitatively
> > > > > the quantitative profe is enouigh
> > > > > to make the **qualitative **p and theorethinc insight
> > > > > that the photon has mass!!
>
> > > > Yawn. More worthless posturing about a question I did not ask in the
> > > > typical Porat style of gibberish that requires more time than is worth
> > > > to understand.
>
> > > > Photons are massless -http://pdg.lbl.gov/2007/listings/s000.pdf
>
> > > > > Y.Porat
> > > > > -------------------------
> > > > > -- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > > ----------------
> > > no one asked an idiot like you
> > > to respnd to my threads
>
> > > Y.P
> > > --------------------------
>
> > no one asked an idiot like you
> > to crate threads- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> ----------------
> Nazi imbecil psychpath
> no one nominated a psychopatth pigg shit as you to tell others
> whether to post or not
> i dont start with you
> it is the psychopat Gisse that is responding to me
>
> so little 24 psychpath
> just fuck youself with the bears of Alaska
>
> no one gives a shit on you orherwise
> Y.P
> ---------------------

At least I can write a complete sentence without it being a day's
labor.