It has been proposed that the Shapiro effect is operational.
That is you can pick only one of two explanations as to
the delay of light.
It is not. It is both a combined space(length) and time(slowdown)
effect. One effect is that the slowdown of time would slowdown light.
The other effect is one of space. The light follows a curve
which is longer; therefor effectivly delaying the light's
arival.
Well what if you could bounce a light beam off of a supermasive
body in such a way that the light never follows a curve?
It will still be slowed down even if there is no lengthened
path to follow.

The slowdown for light is not operational. It is both effects
taken together - time slowdown and space lengthening.
Mitch Raemsch
-- Light Falls --

Mitchell wrote:

It has been proposed that the Shapiro effect is operational.
That is you can pick only one of two explanations as to
the delay of light.
It is not. It is both a combined space(length) and time(slowdown)
effect. One effect is that the slowdown of time would slowdown light.
The other effect is one of space. The light follows a curve
which is longer; therefor effectivly delaying the light's
arival.
Well what if you could bounce a light beam off of a supermasive
body in such a way that the light never follows a curve?
It will still be slowed down even if there is no lengthened
path to follow.

The slowdown for light is not operational. It is both effects
taken together - time slowdown and space lengthening.
Mitch Raemsch
-- Light Falls --
-- Bull**** Walks--
Idiot.

http://www.geocities.com/newastronomy/animate.htm

Science 303(5661) 1143;1153 (2004)
http://arXiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0401086
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0312071
Deeply relativistic neutron star binaries

http://www.npl.washington.edu/eotwash/pdf/prl83-3585.pdf
http://arXiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0301024
Nordtvedt Effect

http://rattler.cameron.edu/EMIS/journals/LRG/Articles/Volume4/2001-4will/index.html
http://arXiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0311039
http://www.weburbia.demon.co.uk/physics/experiments.html
Experimental constraints on General Relativity

Hey stooopid Raemsch, have you won a game of Minesweeper yet?
Uncle Al is well beyond anything you and your blood-dripping
Yahweh could imagine,

http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/092.png

and the record time in 2004 appears to be no worse than 73
seconds,

http://www.minesweepers.org/

Uncle Al provides the foregoing link because you are too stooopid
to find it on your own. Suggestion: Pray harder while Uncle Al
preys harder. See where that gets you.

--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf

On 5 Aug 2004 13:00:19 -0700, (Mitchell)
wrote:

It has been proposed that the Shapiro effect is operational.
That is you can pick only one of two explanations as to
the delay of light.

'it has been proposed'. HAHA

It is not. It is both a combined space(length) and time(slowdown)
effect. One effect is that the slowdown of time would slowdown light.
The other effect is one of space. The light follows a curve
which is longer; therefor effectivly delaying the light's
arival.

Why do you insist on reading books on GR and distorting their
explanations just enough to pass a quick scan but still be WRONG?

Well what if you could bounce a light beam off of a supermasive
body in such a way that the light never follows a curve?
It will still be slowed down even if there is no lengthened
path to follow.

Wrong, idiot. Even if you bounce a photon off a massive object it will
STILL follow a geodesic that is longer than one infinitely far away
where spacetime is flat.


The slowdown for light is not operational. It is both effects
taken together - time slowdown and space lengthening.
Mitch Raemsch
-- Light Falls --

Idiot.

Read a GR book and learn.

Don't say you think for yourself, you continually pull results and
terminology from physics and use them in a broken way. You can't even
be a proper crank with new bull****.

Go play your IQ video games Mensa baby Little Al.

Eric Gisse wrote in message . ..
On 5 Aug 2004 13:00:19 -0700, (Mitchell)
wrote:

It has been proposed that the Shapiro effect is operational.
That is you can pick only one of two explanations as to
the delay of light.

'it has been proposed'. HAHA

It is not. It is both a combined space(length) and time(slowdown)
effect. One effect is that the slowdown of time would slowdown light.
The other effect is one of space. The light follows a curve
which is longer; therefor effectivly delaying the light's
arival.

Why do you insist on reading books on GR and distorting their
explanations just enough to pass a quick scan but still be WRONG?

Well what if you could bounce a light beam off of a supermasive
body in such a way that the light never follows a curve?
It will still be slowed down even if there is no lengthened
path to follow.

Wrong, idiot. Even if you bounce a photon off a massive object it will
STILL follow a geodesic that is longer than one infinitely far away
where spacetime is flat.

Right.
How much can you lengthen the geodesic?
If lengthening the geodesic causes the light slowdown then you
would have an infinite geodesic to explain the infinite delay to light
at an event horzion; another infinity failure in your interpretation of GR.
But you can't deal with GR failure can you Eric?
According to you the geodesic could become infinite at the event horizon.
You lost this argument too.

The slowdown for light is not operational. It is both effects
taken together - time slowdown and space lengthening.
Mitch Raemsch
-- Light Falls --

Idiot.

Read a GR book and learn.

Don't say you think for yourself, you continually pull results and
terminology from physics and use them in a broken way. You can't even
be a proper crank with new bull****.
"Education is what's left after you've forgotten everything you ever
learned in school." Albert Einstein

Mitch Raemsch
-- Light Accelerates --

On 5 Aug 2004 19:05:15 -0700, (Mitchell)
wrote:

Eric Gisse wrote in message . ..
On 5 Aug 2004 13:00:19 -0700, (Mitchell)
wrote:

It has been proposed that the Shapiro effect is operational.
That is you can pick only one of two explanations as to
the delay of light.

'it has been proposed'. HAHA

It is not. It is both a combined space(length) and time(slowdown)
effect. One effect is that the slowdown of time would slowdown light.
The other effect is one of space. The light follows a curve
which is longer; therefor effectivly delaying the light's
arival.

Why do you insist on reading books on GR and distorting their
explanations just enough to pass a quick scan but still be WRONG?

Well what if you could bounce a light beam off of a supermasive
body in such a way that the light never follows a curve?
It will still be slowed down even if there is no lengthened
path to follow.

Wrong, idiot. Even if you bounce a photon off a massive object it will
STILL follow a geodesic that is longer than one infinitely far away
where spacetime is flat.

Time to play 'spot the ignorance'.


Right.
How much can you lengthen the geodesic?

DING. You do not lengthen a geodesic. I was comparing between a local
geodesic in curved space vs one infintely far away where spacetime is
flat.

If lengthening the geodesic causes the light slowdown then you

DING. Idiocy piles upon itself. Correct in another context, incorrect
in this.

would have an infinite geodesic to explain the infinite delay to light
at an event horzion; another infinity failure in your interpretation of GR.

DING. Idiot you are talking about black holes again. You have proven
that you know nothing.

But you can't deal with GR failure can you Eric?

Idiot projects his failures on me.

According to you the geodesic could become infinite at the event horizon.
You lost this argument too.

Idiot is incorrect and declares victory.


The slowdown for light is not operational. It is both effects
taken together - time slowdown and space lengthening.
Mitch Raemsch
-- Light Falls --

Idiot.

Read a GR book and learn.

Don't say you think for yourself, you continually pull results and
terminology from physics and use them in a broken way. You can't even
be a proper crank with new bull****.
"Education is what's left after you've forgotten everything you ever
learned in school." Albert Einstein

Mitch Raemsch
-- Light Accelerates --

Sub-idiot. You haven't even managed to crawl out of highschool yet and
you presume to judge the way you do?

Have you even had calculus yet?

Why don't you show me your skill with physics and use newton's laws
[whichever you choose] to obtain the equation of motion d = 1/2at^2 -
vt

Can you multiply 2 negative numbers together?

What is (-1) x (-1) ?

On Fri, 06 Aug 2004 00:05:47 -0800, Eric Gisse
wrote:

On 5 Aug 2004 19:05:15 -0700, (Mitchell)
wrote:

Eric Gisse wrote in message . ..
On 5 Aug 2004 13:00:19 -0700, (Mitchell)
wrote:

It has been proposed that the Shapiro effect is operational.
That is you can pick only one of two explanations as to
the delay of light.

'it has been proposed'. HAHA

It is not. It is both a combined space(length) and time(slowdown)
effect. One effect is that the slowdown of time would slowdown light.
The other effect is one of space. The light follows a curve
which is longer; therefor effectivly delaying the light's
arival.

Why do you insist on reading books on GR and distorting their
explanations just enough to pass a quick scan but still be WRONG?

Well what if you could bounce a light beam off of a supermasive
body in such a way that the light never follows a curve?
It will still be slowed down even if there is no lengthened
path to follow.

Wrong, idiot. Even if you bounce a photon off a massive object it will
STILL follow a geodesic that is longer than one infinitely far away
where spacetime is flat.

Time to play 'spot the ignorance'.


Right.
How much can you lengthen the geodesic?

DING. You do not lengthen a geodesic. I was comparing between a local
geodesic in curved space vs one infintely far away where spacetime is
flat.

If lengthening the geodesic causes the light slowdown then you

DING. Idiocy piles upon itself. Correct in another context, incorrect
in this.

would have an infinite geodesic to explain the infinite delay to light
at an event horzion; another infinity failure in your interpretation of GR.

DING. Idiot you are talking about black holes again. You have proven
that you know nothing.

But you can't deal with GR failure can you Eric?

Idiot projects his failures on me.

According to you the geodesic could become infinite at the event horizon.
You lost this argument too.

Idiot is incorrect and declares victory.


The slowdown for light is not operational. It is both effects
taken together - time slowdown and space lengthening.
Mitch Raemsch
-- Light Falls --

Idiot.

Read a GR book and learn.

Don't say you think for yourself, you continually pull results and
terminology from physics and use them in a broken way. You can't even
be a proper crank with new bull****.
"Education is what's left after you've forgotten everything you ever
learned in school." Albert Einstein

Mitch Raemsch
-- Light Accelerates --

Sub-idiot. You haven't even managed to crawl out of highschool yet and
you presume to judge the way you do?

Have you even had calculus yet?

Why don't you show me your skill with physics and use newton's laws
[whichever you choose] to obtain the equation of motion d = 1/2at^2 -
vt

Can you multiply 2 negative numbers together?

What is (-1) x (-1) ?

Don't be too hard on him. MWT has an *analysis* on page 1107. If
anyone can make head or tail out of that goulash, my hat's off. MTW
doesn't even list Shapiro in the index. There is no explanation here,
no clear statement that it's time dilation or space dilation or both.
I don't see much discussion of Shapiro except in MWT and it was in
1964, when suddenly it might be admitted that the velocity of light
might vary. Or might it, who knows? Maybe you have a better reference.

This could be your opportunity to set us all right.

Mr. Dual Space
(If you have something to say, write an equation.
If you have nothing to say, write an essay).

Mitchell wrote:
Go play your IQ video games Mensa baby Little Al.

Of course you didn't actually have a rebuttal for all the links he supplied...

Mitchell wrote:
How much can you lengthen the geodesic?

That's hilarious all by itself... I wonder if the little taliban actually sits
down and thinks stuff like this through before he types it in.

"The apple is red."
"Yeah, but how much redder can you make it?"

Eric Gisse wrote:

Sub-idiot. You haven't even managed to crawl out of highschool yet and
you presume to judge the way you do?

Of course. The righteous need never stand on anything as mortal as evidence.
Their moral authority in anything they talk about is as heavy as, well, as a
singularity with an "infinite geodesic"... heh heh..