sci.physics.particle

On Mar 4, 6:03 pm, carlip-nos...@physics.ucdavis.edu wrote:
> In sci.physics Koobee Wublee wrote:

> > On Mar 4, 9:59 am, carlip-nos...@physics.ucdavis.edu wrote:
> >> In sci.physics Koobee Wublee wrote:
> >> > 2 O ~= pi + 2 u (1 + 1 / B^2)
>
> >> This is correct.
> > But according to you, Lightman gave a result below.
> > 2 O = pi + 2 u (1 + B^2)
>
> I did not say that. I said that the result was proportional to
> 1+B^2. It is -- the GR prediction is 2u/B^2 (1+B^2), that is,
> 1+B^2 times the Newtonian prediction for a given speed and impact
> parameter.

You were very misleading then. You left out a very important factor,
1 / B^2.

> I suggest that you try for a graceful retreat.

I did say the result was not what I initially expected. What else do
you want me to do?

However, I need no graceful retreat from the comment on the absurdity
of the geodesics following the path with the least accumulated
spacetime. When Christoffel derived the geodesic equations, there was
nothing wrong with his assumption that the shortest distance between
two points in 3-dimensional space is the actual distance through each
local point even if that space is curved. It is not necessarily a
straight line as an observer observes it using his choice of
coordinate system. However, when the Goettingen group of
mathematicians including Hilbert, Klein, Schwarzschild, and Minkowski
worked on this problem, they simply extended to the 4-dimensional
spacetime. In doing so, no one really thought out except 100 years
later by yours truly that this model does not allow photons to
propagate with a coherent path. Are you still standing by your
conjecture that this model of geodesic is a valid one?