sci.physics.particle

wrote in message
news:a4011891-64bb-424c-ae7f-9b7935febd9f@s37g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
On Mar 6, 5:13 pm, "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
> > > >> 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
>
> | 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.

Not only can you not spell, you are so stupid you don't know how
to operate the "radians" button on your hand "help" calculator and
calculated tan 3.14159 degrees in your drunken stupor, you fuckin'
ignoramus.