sci.physics.particle

On Mar 7, 8:13=A0pm, "Androcles" wrote:
> wrote in message
>
> news:45ca494c-1baa-45fd-8eb9-7b47d5e88ba2@s8g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
> On Mar 6, 9:02 pm, pmb wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Feb 26, 2:18 am, va...@cox.net wrote:
>
> > > On Feb 25, 10:03 pm, pmb wrote:
>
> > > > On Feb 25, 2:24 pm, "Paul B. Andersen"
>
> > > > wrote:
> > > > > Juan R. Gonz=E1lez-=C1lvarez skrev:
>
> > > > > > Tom Roberts wrote on Mon, 25 Feb 2008 15:47:04 +0000:
>
> > > > > >> The best model we have for the propagation of light near a
> > > > > >> massive
>
> > > > > > no.
>
> > > > > >> 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.
>
> > > > > > Theories without spacetime curvature also agree with that.
>
> > > > > Could you name one of those theories, please?
>
> > > > Personally I know of no such theories. However spacetime curvature i=
s
> > > > not neccesary for light deflection in a gravitational field. So long=

> > > > is there is a gravitational field present, i.e. non-vanishing
> > > > connection coefficients, then a particle can be deflected. A uniform=

> > > > g-
> > > > field is a perfect example. The spacetime curvature associated with =
a
> > > > uniform gravitational field is zero and yet a beam of light will be
> > > > deflected. Geometrically speaking the deflection is described as the=

> > > > observer corresponding to a frame of reference for which a geodesic
> > > > represents a non-straight line in space, i.e. one changes from
> > > > Minkowski coordinates to "curvilinear" coordinates. Spacetime
> > > > curvature is only neccesary when geodesic deviation is expected.
>
> > > >Pete- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > > HiPete
>
> > > I remember Kip Thorne commenting, in his non-mathematical book on the
> > > history of gravitational physics, that he occasionally liked to use
> > > teleparallel gravity to evaluate gravitational wave phenomena.
> > > Teleparallelism is a GR equivalent.
>
> > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teleparallelism
>
> > > Bruce- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > Hi Bruce
>
> > Thanks. I've heard of that but have not had the time to learn about
> > it. Other subjects have taken a higher priority lately. Thanks for
> > reminding me of it. Do you know much about this subject? How is
> > Schitz's "Gravity from the ground up?" going? Have you finished
> > reading it? If so how did you like it?
>
> > Best wishes
>
> | Hi Pete
>
> | The limit of my GR knowledge is founded in the metric equations which
> | I learned to use when I worked through Edwin's book.
>
> The limit of your knowledge is learning how to push the "radians" button
> on your hand "help" calculator, fuckhead.- Hide quoted text -

Dipshit, I have enough sense to realize that the proof for a
theoretical model is the empirical confirmation of the predictions the
model makes wrt natural phenomena. Unlike you and the set of whining
dumbshits that frequent this site crying foul because the way the
universe works doesn't fit their goofy worldview. You're right at the
top of this set of nitwits. You're a mouthy punk, Androcles, who
should find something meaningful to do with the rest of your life. I
can easily fix my mathematical mistake. Your problems are clearly much
greater and probably beyond your ability to fix.




>
> - Show quoted text -