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
-------------------------
-

On Feb 25, 6:02*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
-------------------------
*-- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

----------------
no one asked an idiot like you
to respnd to my threads

Y.P
--------------------------

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.


--
I follow http://canonicalscience.org/en/misce...guidelines.txt

Juan R. González-�lvarez 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?

--
Paul

http://home.c2i.net/pb_andersen/

Paul B. Andersen wrote on Mon, 25 Feb 2008 20:24:50 +0100:

Juan R. González-�lvarez 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?

Action at a distance theories based in Weber-Thiserand-Mach models.

Teleparallel gravity

FTG

Etc.


--
I follow http://canonicalscience.org/en/misce...guidelines.txt

On Feb 25, 8:03 am, "Y.Porat" wrote:
On Feb 25, 6:02 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
-------------------------
-- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

----------------
no one asked an idiot like you
to respnd to my threads

Y.P
--------------------------

no one asked an idiot like you
to crate threads

On Mon, 25 Feb 2008 20:24:50 +0100, "Paul B. Andersen"
wrote:

Juan R. González-Álvarez 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?

1.

The river model of black holes
http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0411060

"In the river model, space itself flows like a river through a flat
background, while objects move through the river according to the
rules of special relativity. In a spherical black hole, the river of
space falls into the black hole at the Newtonian escape velocity,
hitting the speed of light at the horizon."

(This provides an easy way to visualize why light cannot escape from
the horizon of a black hole. If light travels at the speed of light
relative space inflowing at the same speed, it can't go anywhere.)

Further away from the horizon, the flow of space towards the black
hole will bend a beam of light exactly as predicted as GR.

(The above model is actually just a particular way of applying GR.)


2.

3-Space In-Flow Theory of Gravity: Boreholes, Blackholes and the Fine
Structure Constant
http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0512109

"A theory of 3-space explains the phenomenon of gravity as arising
from the time-dependence and inhomogeneity of the differential flow of
this 3-space."

This theory models gravity in an analogous way to the river model, but
it is derived independently of GR.

On Feb 25, 8:28 pm, Surfer wrote:
[snip]

Looks like you are back to your old hobby: shilling for Cahill.

On Feb 25, 2:16*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.

The reason that all text particles fall at the same rate given the
same inititial conditions is because the gravitational mass equals the
inertial mass and therefore the mass cancelts out in the equatuions of
motion. Einstein predicted that light is deflected in a gravitational
field because light has energy and energy has mass. Your reqest for
such a derivation can't even be given for a particle *with* non-zero
rest mass for this reason. The mass simply doesn't appear in the
equations. However I could find Einstein's or Feynman's arguements for
the deflection of light based on the postulate the light has passive
gravitational mass if you'd like?

Pete

On Feb 25, 9:28 pm, Surfer wrote:

3-Space In-Flow Theory of Gravity: Boreholes, Blackholes and the Fine
Structure Constanthttp://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0512109

We've seen this before , it has been languishing in arxiv for 3 years.
You are back to pandering, old boy.