sci.physics.particle

On Mar 7, 1:22=A0am, va...@cox.net wrote:
> On Mar 4, 3:40=A0am, "Y.Porat" wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Mar 4, 2:53=A0am, 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 ran=
ge.
> > > > First, derive a set of geodesic equations a massed particle travelin=
g
> > > > at high speed near the sun. =A0Then, gradually reducing the mass to =
zero
> > > > 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. =A0I recommend that you do i=
t.
> > > 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. =A0What=

> > > > 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. =A0The model predicts a deflection proportional to 1+v^2/c=
^2,
> > > which varies smoothly from the "Newtonian" value of 1 for small veloci=
ties
> > > 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.
--------------------
and ???
how about some proves of your claimes littler disturbed crook??

how can a theory be **quantitative **
without fitting its calcualtions to real experimental data ??!!
and if in our case
that Schwartzscield theory
based itself only on** prior **to GR data
and how is it that only by curvature of space-time
it could be explained??

2
do you ever get curvature if there is no mass
nearby ??
3
if not idiot parrot
may be curved movement is only somer property of
some particles having mass?
and dont you think that curved movement of photons
caould be explained by gravitation on that unknown particles
and not of fucken space curavture ??


3
what is the roll of time in that all bussiness?
time is just motion comparison!!
a human invension for describing motion
do yu o have time without any mass ascociated ??
(may be that is the time that you spent learning physics ??)


please show that to us
4
have you heared about the formula
E=3Dmc^2
waht is that m in that formula (Mr imbecil ??)
have you heared abou the formula

E=3Dhf ??

did you ever tryed to analize the contence of h ??

it is
6.6 ^10 - ..... times 1 kilograms times 1 meter/1second

pease tell us mr idiot
what is that kilogram doing there ??
5
things that i already forgot
yopu still ddint hear about them

have you ever did any pioneering science ??


TIA
Y.Porat
---------------------------

>
>
>
>
>
> > Y.Porat
> > ------------------------------ Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -