sci.physics.particle

On Mar 4, 2:53=A0am, carlip-nos...@physics.ucdavis.edu wrote:
> Apologies if this is a duplicate -- I'm having some news problems.
>
> In sci.physics Koobee Wublee wrote:
>
> > On Feb 25, 7:47 am, Tom Roberts wrote:
> >> The best model we have for the propagation of light near a massive
> >> object like the sun is GR, in which the curvature of spacetime is the
> >> important aspect in determining the path light follows. And it agrees
> >> with measurements to part-per-million accuracy over an enormous range.
> > First, derive a set of geodesic equations a massed particle traveling
> > at high speed near the sun. =A0Then, gradually reducing the mass to zero=

> > and increasing the speed to c, do you see a discontinuity at mass =3D 0
> > and speed =3D c?
>
> This is definitely a worthwhile exercise. =A0I recommend that you do it.
> If you get stuck, you can find the details in Lightman et al., _Problem
> book in relativity and gravitation_, problem 15.9.
>
> > As you know, the geodesic equations are independent of mass. =A0What
> > does that tell you when the model predicts a 1x deflection traveling
> > at speed just a hair below c and suddenly jumps to 2x deflection at
> > speed =3D c?
>
> It doesn't. =A0The model predicts a deflection proportional to 1+v^2/c^2,
> which varies smoothly from the "Newtonian" value of 1 for small velocities=

> to 2 as v approaches c.
>
> The moral is that before you decide that a model doesn't make sense,
> you should check what the model actually predicts.
>
> Steve Carlip

------------------
lie!!
the model ddint predict
it was **fiddling** the data to the model

Y.Porat
-----------------------------