sci.physics.particle

On Mar 6, 5:13=A0pm, "Androcles" wrote:
> wrote in message
>
> news:a9280ed5-94da-4786-a10c-aaa72bacaf07@s13g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
> On Mar 4, 3:40 am, "Y.Porat" wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Mar 4, 2:53 am, 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 t=
he
> > > >> important aspect in determining the path light follows. And it agre=
es
> > > >> with measurements to part-per-million accuracy over an enormous
> > > >> range.
> > > > First, derive a set of geodesic equations a massed particle travelin=
g
> > > > at high speed near the sun. Then, gradually reducing the mass to zer=
o
> > > > 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. I recommend that you do it.
> > > If you get stuck, you can find the details in Lightman et al., _Proble=
m
> > > book in relativity and gravitation_, problem 15.9.
>
> > > > As you know, the geodesic equations are independent of mass. What
> > > > 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. The 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
>
> | Nitwit. If you could actually do the analysis then you might not be so
> | inclined to make such a gargantuan fool of yourself. Calling somebody
> | a liar, based on ignorance, just proves you're a blusterinng
> | ignoramous.
>
> Ignorant fuckhead. You've just proven you're a "blusterinng ignoramous"
> who has made a gargantuan fool of himself by being unable to spell
> "blustering ignoramus".- Hide quoted text -

Goofball, at least I know there is no discontinuity @ tan pi/2. My
guess is, in your drunken stupor, you punched in tan pi 2 in your hand
help calc.. Dummy.
>
> - Show quoted text -