On Mar 27, 2:14*pm, Koobee Wublee wrote:
On Mar 26, 10:03 pm, Justintruth wrote:

Space has curvature not matter. Space curvature is determined by the
mass causing the curvature.

How does matter curve space and time exactly? *If there is no answer,
don't feel so back.

Of course, there is no answer to why a static electric charge adds a
field to the surrounding spacetime either. Physics doesn't feel
completely at a loss if it can't answer all "why" questions. It just
tries to characterize the predictable and reliable rules that nature
seems to obey. Along the way, some of the "why" questions get
answered. Not all, but a good number of them.

*Newtonian gravity cannot explain why matter
manifests gravity either. *GR is just no better than Newtonian gravity
law. *shrug

Except that GR gets right some numbers that Newtonian gravity gets
wrong.

That's usually enough in science. Not for you, maybe. But then again,
you're looking for excuses to not like GR.


In the case of non-zero rest mass
particles, the energy is determined by the rest mass and the velocity.

Then, how do you account for the potential energy?

Of what? A brick does not have potential energy. The configuration of
the brick-earth system has potential energy.

*The best way to
interpret the potential energy is also a mass change.

Bull****. Here is the start of where you start to try to leverage a
dim understanding into confident-sounding assertions that are also
patently wrong. Fools no one.

*Faster speed
increases the mass; stronger gravity or more curvature in spacetime
decreases the mass. *The speed must go higher as one travel into
stronger gravity or more curvature in spacetime. *This is the
conservation of energy.

BS again. This has NOTHING to do with conservation of energy. Jiminy
Christmas. So if a brick falls in a gravitational field from higher to
lower potential energy, and from a region of higher gravitational
strength to a region of lower gravitational strength, does the brick
speed up or slow down? Don't be confused by the fact that you are the
brick.

*However, this concept creates another state
of mass to be considered --- the observed mass, the rest mass, and the
intrinsic mass. *With this concept, things become so much easier.
Then, why the physicists do not embrace this?

Because it takes five seconds to recognize that it's idiotic. Would
you suggest that we embrace it anyway, just because it took you longer
to think of it?

*Well, if they do, in a
few logical iterations, GR can only be declared nonsense. *shrug

In the case of zero rest mass particles, the energy is not determined
by the velocity as it is, in all cases in vacuum, the speed of light
(c). In that case the frequency of the light is used to determine the
energy of its particles.

This model describing the energy of light is rather too simplistic.
Consider the case of gravitational redshift. *After all, the energy
must be conserved.

And just a minute ago you mentioned potential energy and seem to have
immediately forgotten it. Geez.

*So, why would the photon decreases its frequency
and energy as it propagates out of the gravitational well? *You cannot
toss away the conservation of energy.

This is a case where quantum and relativity
are related as the frequency of light determines its energy (quantum
mech) which is its mass (special relativity) which then determines the
curvature of space around it which is gravity (general relativity).

So, are you suggesting a moving body with high speed is able to
generate as much gravity as planets?

Yes. Got a problem with that?

*In this case, you are allowing
an observer dependent quantity (the speed) to manifest gravity. *That
means you can play God by traveling with the moving body at desired
speed to manifest any gravity of your wish.

Not quite. The curvature of the space remains constant. What the
*components* of the tensors are that appear in the field equations,
those are frame-dependent. Oh, I forgot, you don't know the difference
between a tensor and its components.


Light travels on null geodesics, geodesics which have zero (null)
length when calculated using the metric of the space.

If I am point my flash light towards the north, the path to allow the
beam of light to travel from my flash light to the north pole is null
geodesic, for it accumulates spacetime of exactly zero. *Another path
that takes light to travel to south pole first and then to north pole
also accumulates a total spacetime of zero --- null geodesics. *So,
why does the photon favor one null-geodesic path than the others?

It doesn't. It is a null-geodesic in SPACETIME, not in space. Geez.


Non zero rest
mass energy, when not disturbed by an external force, travels
"ubperturbed" on non-null geodesics. There are not two kinds of
curvature but there are two kinds of geodesics (null and non-null).
For zero rest mass particles travelling at the speed of light the
geodesic is null - for the others it is non-null. Interestingly, for
curved spaces, null geodesics can be curved. Hence light does not
travel in curved space in a straight line.

This is a great conjecture. *The experiments that are supposed to
prove the conjecture so are

** *Eddington's 1919 expeditions to observer that solar eclipse

** *Shapiro's bouncing of radar off Venus

Eddington did not have the accuracy in his experimental setup to
measure the deflected angle. *So, the 1919 event cannot be taken as a
scientific proof of your conjecture.

That's OK. It's been repeated since 1919. Does the fact that the 1919
experiment has a sensitivity issue (and it doesn't actually) have
anything to do with the results of the subsequent measurements which
demonstrated to *higher* precision that relativity is correct?

*Shapiro's experiment requires
one to compare the experimental result with a control reference.
Without an interferometer, the claim is very questionable. *So, your
conjecture is still not yet proven valid. *shrug

Once again, you don't know what you're talking about. But this is just
another in a long string of goofball statements that you pull out of
your ass with impunity and add shrugs as though that adds
credibility. Shrug away. It's still wrong.

PD