On Feb 25, 2:24*pm, "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?

Personally I know of no such theories. However spacetime curvature is
not neccesary for light deflection in a gravitational field. So long
is there is a gravitational field present, i.e. non-vanishing
connection coefficients, then a particle can be deflected. A uniform g-
field is a perfect example. The spacetime curvature associated with a
uniform gravitational field is zero and yet a beam of light will be
deflected. Geometrically speaking the deflection is described as the
observer corresponding to a frame of reference for which a geodesic
represents a non-straight line in space, i.e. one changes from
Minkowski coordinates to "curvilinear" coordinates. Spacetime
curvature is only neccesary when geodesic deviation is expected.

Pete

On Feb 26, 2:53*am, Eric Gisse wrote:
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- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

----------------
Nazi imbecil psychpath
no one nominated a psychopatth pigg **** as you to tell others
whether to post or not
i dont start with you
it is the psychopat Gisse that is responding to me

so little 24 psychpath
just **** youself with the bears of Alaska

no one gives a **** on you orherwise
Y.P
---------------------

On Feb 26, 7:40*am, Eric Gisse wrote:
On Feb 25, 8:28 pm, Surfer wrote:
[snip]

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

---------
psychopath Shaisse
---------------------------

On Feb 25, 10:03*pm, pmb wrote:
On Feb 25, 2:24*pm, "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?

Personally I know of no such theories. However spacetime curvature is
not neccesary for light deflection in a gravitational field. So long
is there is a gravitational field present, i.e. non-vanishing
connection coefficients, then a particle can be deflected. A uniform g-
field is a perfect example. The spacetime curvature associated with a
uniform gravitational field is zero and yet a beam of light will be
deflected. Geometrically speaking the deflection is described as the
observer corresponding to a frame of reference for which a geodesic
represents a non-straight line in space, i.e. one changes from
Minkowski coordinates to "curvilinear" coordinates. Spacetime
curvature is only neccesary when geodesic deviation is expected.

Pete- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Hi Pete

I remember Kip Thorne commenting, in his non-mathematical book on the
history of gravitational physics, that he occasionally liked to use
teleparallel gravity to evaluate gravitational wave phenomena.
Teleparallelism is a GR equivalent.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teleparallelism

Bruce

On Mon, 25 Feb 2008 21:40:26 -0800 (PST), Eric Gisse
wrote:

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

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


I am very curious about how matter causes space-time to curve.
GR models the effect, but does not explain it.

Cahill's theory explains it and makes the same predictions as GR in
the areas within which GR has been tested.

That suggests Cahill is at least partially correct.

I am also curious about dark matter effects.

MOND is able to model the effects.
Rings and shells of "dark matter" as MOND artifacts
http://arxiv.org/abs/0709.2561

Cahill's theory can not only model but also explain the effects.
Dynamical 3-Space: Alternative Explanation of the `Dark Matter Ring'
http://arxiv.org/abs/0705.2846

"Juan R." González-�lvarez wrote on Mon, 25 Feb 2008 20:28:06 +0100:

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

Juan R. González-�lvarez skrev:

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.

AAAD theories are based in instantaneous forces. Another example is this
one

http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0612019

Teleparallel gravity

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teleparallelism

Here there is no spacetime curvature and effects are modelled using
torsion on flat spacetime.


FTG

This is Feynman theory.

http://www.amazon.com/Feynman-Lectur...tiers-Physics/
dp/0201627345

It is a theory of fields over flat spacetime. Feynman was who said that
"the geometrical formulation of gravity was not needed nor fundamental to
physics".

Etc.



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

On Feb 25, 9:57 pm, "Y.Porat" wrote:
On Feb 26, 2:53 am, Eric Gisse wrote:



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- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

----------------
Nazi imbecil psychpath
no one nominated a psychopatth pigg **** as you to tell others
whether to post or not
i dont start with you
it is the psychopat Gisse that is responding to me

so little 24 psychpath
just **** youself with the bears of Alaska

no one gives a **** on you orherwise
Y.P
---------------------

At least I can write a complete sentence without it being a day's
labor.

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!).

On Feb 25, 1:28*am, "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 !!!
(even Einstein ddint know to read his momentous formula

E=mc^2

the m there i snot just for garnement * (:-)
so wake up idiots !!
2
the photon is **an exception to the rule** that
'no mass cn reach c '
that is an old copyright of Y.Porat
------

Are you sure that's not an old copyrat of Y. Poright?

pmb wrote:
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.

You are still propagating this myth. Energy and mass are equivalent that
doesn't mean that energy has mass.

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com