sci.physics.particle

On Mar 4, 2:40 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 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. Then, gradually reducing the mass to zero
> > > and increasing the speed to c, do you see a discontinuity at mass = 0
> > > and speed = 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., _Problem
> > 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 = 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
>
> Y.Porat
> -----------------------------

Oh shut the fuck up.