On Feb 25, 4:02 pm, Eric Gisse wrote:
On Feb 25, 6:30 am, "Y.Porat" wrote:



On Feb 25, 5:16 pm, "Y.Porat" wrote:

On Feb 25, 12:17 pm, Eric Gisse wrote:

On Feb 24, 11:37 pm, "Y.Porat" wrote:

On Feb 25, 9:16 am, Eric Gisse wrote:

On Feb 24, 9:28 pm, "Y.Porat" wrote:

On Feb 24, 11:25 pm, " wrote:

Ok...so I've been wondering how on earth does gravity bend light, I
mean I read all about how Einstein's General Relativity describes
space-time, and when there's a mass in space-time it creates a
curve(Bowling ball on a sheet or something), and that curve is
Gravity, and when light passes through the curve it bends....but why?

--------------------
just forget about curved spacetime
light bends next topthe sun
becuase of the most simple reason
LIGHT HAS MASS !!!

You are amazingly sure of this despite not having one shred of
evidence to support your claim. Then again, it is more important to be
original than be right, eh?

(even Einstein ddint know to read his momentous formula

E=mc^2

Show us the calculation of the deflection angle given the assumption
that photons have mass.

--------------------
imbecil!!
it is first of all the qualitative profe

Just admit you can't do it, and do away with the worthless posturing.

[snip remaining gibberish]- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

--------------------
now you are a better physicist than me
so ????
lets see how do you *even startjust to * to think* about it **
hey little psychpath??

at least i know betetr than you (**much better than you **
about the mission we have
and have better information to just even come closer
to the practical solution.
at least i am not wondering in the cpmplete darkness
you are wrapped with
and you - with you psychpatic arrogance
do you want to compare my position about it
with yours ??

Y.Porat
------------------------------ Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

sorry
my last response was ment about the Gold production
from Lead

I'll have to take your word for it because it makes no ****ing sense
either way.









now about calculating curvature next to the sun
it is no problem to fit(and fiddle ) the experimental data
to a calculation
that will look like a prediction of calculations
as Schwarzschild did ...........
the differenc ebetween clasic calculations of Newton
and schwartschied is the factor of 2

now since as i claime that
THE PHOTON IS AN EXCEPTION CASE
it should be calculated as an exception case
withthe factor of 2
and that is since we deally dont know
not me nore you
th ereal way the mass of the photon is spread and behaves
under the attraction of sun
fo rinstance:
the gravitation agents
might be the same family as the photon mass itself
and theit interaction(and mechanism' ) is actually inded unknwn
and above all that

What the **** did I just try to read? Nothing you write makes any
sense anymore.



E=mc^2
showes qualitatively the mass in the photron energy
so no need to show it quantitatively
the quantitative profe is enouigh
to make the **qualitative **p and theorethinc insight
that the photon has mass!!

Yawn. More worthless posturing about a question I did not ask in the
typical Porat style of gibberish that requires more time than is worth
to understand.

Photons are massless -http://pdg.lbl.gov/2007/listings/s000.pdf







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

Lol..Porat just because m is multiplying c - speed of light does not
mean they are connected. it just means that if a mass is accelerated
to the speed of light it would require so so Energy(in Theory) but of
course we all know that its not possible in the real world(yet!).