On Feb 26, 4:08*pm, " wrote:
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

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!).- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

----------------
just learn how a physical formula is created and used!!

if it is mc^2 and it is mc^2 !!!!!

it is not just m and just c^2
you cant separate them
IT IS THE COMBINATION OF THEM THAT MAKES
IT A SPECIAL FORMULA and a physical ENTITY !!

m i ssomething and c is something elses
only the combination of themmakes them
a specific physical entity
(just see how croocked mimded people can be
if locked on some concept (no mass to the photon.

while m there is jsut before their eys !!!)
they aave no proplem to castrate a formula
from its ingrediants !!)
such a behaviour fits betetr crooked lawyers
not physicists
sorry if i sound rude
i have nothing personal against you
at least untill now ...........
btw
just for you inforamtion:
not long ago
physicists admitted that the formula MUST
iclude mass (they had no choice butr to admit )
but they had a croooked explanation
they saied 'yes it has mass' but .....
it is a new kind of mass !!
(why ..?? becuase we aave to adjust it to their (stoopid)
understanding that
no mass can reach c !! (:-)
why ??
because we know from experience that (as you say)
as speed growes it becomes more difficuly
to add more velocity
but they were not cleaver and knwlegable
to understand that the above fact is not
because mass is swelling'
but because trhe
FASTEST FORCE AGENT CANNOT TARVEL FASTER THAN
ITS MAXIMUM VELOCITY c !!!...

and while you are closing to c
THE ENERGY NEEDED TO AADD VELOCITY
BECOMES INFINIT
you keep running after the accelerated body
investing more and more 'acceleration resources - (energy
while energy is as well mass in motion with c

and while your maximum running ability is
say 15 kph and the car you pusing is running
at 15 kmh
nothint will do
you will pump you energy and exaust youself
to death - running after the car but you will bever be able
to add a single additionl kmh to the car!!

you see the problem of out 'modern physicists
they dont think physics
they think only mathematics

so thje formula shoul not be

E=gamma m times c^2

but ....

E/Gamma = mc^2 !!

AND m REMAINS COOOOOOOONSTANT !! (:-)
no need to invent new physical enetities (relativistic mass)
just for 'explaining' ****en ubnderstanding of physics

and please dont forget who explained it to you
the first time

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

On Feb 27, 10:39 pm, "Y.Porat" wrote:
On Feb 26, 4:08 pm, " wrote:



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

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!).- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

----------------
just learn how a physical formula is created and used!!

if it is mc^2 and it is mc^2 !!!!!

it is not just m and just c^2
you cant separate them
IT IS THE COMBINATION OF THEM THAT MAKES
IT A SPECIAL FORMULA and a physical ENTITY !!

Now be consistent in your mewling and use the correct formula: E^2 =
[mc^2]^2 + [pc]^2.

[...]

"Y.Porat" wrote in message
...
so thje formula shoul not be

E=gamma m times c^2

but ....

E/Gamma = mc^2 !!

That is the same formula .. just written slightly differently.

AND m REMAINS COOOOOOOONSTANT !! (:-)

It is constant 9assuming you are talking about the one object) in both
formulas. 'm' means mass (rest mass or invariant mass) .. it doesn't
change. rewriting the formula does not make any difference whatsoever ..
except that the formula you propose is less useful in that neither side
directly gives you a meaningful value (ie most useful formulas have a single
symbol on one side, and an expression on the other side that calculates the
value for that formula.

On Feb 25, 3:37*am, "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
and at this satge it is obvious enough unless
you are an imbecil parrot
------------



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
------

Old and stupid.

*24 years *Nazi psychopath
whilpe off the milk of your mug
and go to psychiatric tratment
Y.Porat

We keep getting this incessant clattering, but no real information
seems to be coming through. I think we may have found the ultimate
definition of random noise.

On Feb 28, 10:07*am, Eric Gisse wrote:
On Feb 27, 10:39 pm, "Y.Porat" wrote:





On Feb 26, 4:08 pm, " wrote:

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

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!).- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

----------------
just learn how a physical formula is created and used!!

if it is mc^2 * and * * * it is mc^2 *!!!!!

it is not just m * * and * * * * just c^2
you cant separate them
*IT IS THE COMBINATION OF THEM THAT MAKES
IT A SPECIAL FORMULA *and a physical ENTITY *!!

Now be consistent in your mewling and use the correct formula: E^2 =
[mc^2]^2 + [pc]^2.
--------------------------------

the above formula is onlt for people who know
how and when to use it
it is not for little parrots

it does not aply to the photon
2
it does not apply fot the net case of photons
it is for a mixture of photons and particles
3

the gamma factor does not apply for the photon
only for aprticles
4
the photon is an exception case
that no mass can reach c

5
not for parrots

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

On Feb 28, 11:19*am, "Artful" wrote:
"Y.Porat" wrote in message

...

so thje formula shoul not be

E=gamma m * times c^2

but ....

E/Gamma = mc^2 !!

That is the same formula .. just written slightly differently.

AND m REMAINS * * COOOOOOOONSTANT * !! *(:-)

It is constant 9assuming you are talking about the one object) in both
formulas. *'m' means mass (rest mass or invariant mass) .. it doesn't
change. *rewriting the formula does not make any difference whatsoever ...
except that the formula you propose is less useful in that neither side
directly gives you a meaningful value (ie most useful formulas have a single
symbol on one side, and an expression on the other side that calculates the
value for that *formula.

----------------
thas exactly the point !!

IT IS THE SAME FORMULA WITH A BASICALLY
DIFFERENT PHYSICAL UNDERSTANDING!!

at least you saw that it can be interpreatted in two ways !!
(not mathematically but PHYSICALLY)

and that6 why i always claime
that one of the disasters that fell on modern physics is
that methematicians who have no physics clue
and touch
too over physics

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

"Y.Porat" wrote in message
...
On Feb 28, 11:19 am, "Artful" wrote:
"Y.Porat" wrote in message

...

so thje formula shoul not be

E=gamma m times c^2

but ....

E/Gamma = mc^2 !!

That is the same formula .. just written slightly differently.

AND m REMAINS COOOOOOOONSTANT !! (:-)

It is constant 9assuming you are talking about the one object) in both
formulas. 'm' means mass (rest mass or invariant mass) .. it doesn't
change. rewriting the formula does not make any difference whatsoever ..
except that the formula you propose is less useful in that neither side
directly gives you a meaningful value (ie most useful formulas have a
single
symbol on one side, and an expression on the other side that calculates
the
value for that formula.

----------------
thas exactly the point !!

IT IS THE SAME FORMULA WITH A BASICALLY
DIFFERENT PHYSICAL UNDERSTANDING!!

There is no difference .. its just the same formula WRITTEN differently. It
doesn't say anything different that way .. if anything it just says less.
But the physics of it doesn't get changed by rewriting it.

On Feb 29, 2:35*am, "Y.Porat" wrote:
On Feb 28, 11:19*am, "Artful" wrote:





"Y.Porat" wrote in message

...

so thje formula shoul not be

E=gamma m * times c^2

but ....

E/Gamma = mc^2 !!

That is the same formula .. just written slightly differently.

AND m REMAINS * * COOOOOOOONSTANT * !! *(:-)

It is constant 9assuming you are talking about the one object) in both
formulas. *'m' means mass (rest mass or invariant mass) .. it doesn't
change. *rewriting the formula does not make any difference whatsoever ..
except that the formula you propose is less useful in that neither side
directly gives you a meaningful value (ie most useful formulas have a single
symbol on one side, and an expression on the other side that calculates the
value for that *formula.

----------------
thas exactly the point !!

*IT IS THE SAME FORMULA WITH A BASICALLY
DIFFERENT PHYSICAL UNDERSTANDING!!

And you're physical understanding is certainly different.

On Feb 28, 10:30 pm, "Y.Porat" wrote:
On Feb 28, 10:07 am, Eric Gisse wrote:



On Feb 27, 10:39 pm, "Y.Porat" wrote:

On Feb 26, 4:08 pm, " wrote:

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

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!).- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

----------------
just learn how a physical formula is created and used!!

if it is mc^2 and it is mc^2 !!!!!

it is not just m and just c^2
you cant separate them
IT IS THE COMBINATION OF THEM THAT MAKES
IT A SPECIAL FORMULA and a physical ENTITY !!

Now be consistent in your mewling and use the correct formula: E^2 =
[mc^2]^2 + [pc]^2.
--------------------------------

the above formula is onlt for people who know
how and when to use it

Eg: Not you.

[snip]

On Feb 29, 12:37*pm, "Artful" wrote:
"Y.Porat" wrote in message

...





On Feb 28, 11:19 am, "Artful" wrote:
"Y.Porat" wrote in message

....

so thje formula shoul not be

E=gamma m times c^2

but ....

E/Gamma = mc^2 !!

That is the same formula .. just written slightly differently.

AND m REMAINS COOOOOOOONSTANT !! (:-)

It is constant 9assuming you are talking about the one object) in both
formulas. 'm' means mass (rest mass or invariant mass) .. it doesn't
change. rewriting the formula does not make any difference whatsoever ...
except that the formula you propose is less useful in that neither side
directly gives you a meaningful value (ie most useful formulas have a
single
symbol on one side, and an expression on the other side that calculates
the
value for that formula.

----------------
thas exactly the point !!

IT IS THE SAME FORMULA WITH A BASICALLY
DIFFERENT PHYSICAL UNDERSTANDING!!

There is no difference .. its just the same formula WRITTEN differently. *It
doesn't say anything different that way .. if anything it just says less.
But the physics of it doesn't get changed by rewriting it.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

----------------
right !!! (did i ever saied that there are two physics ?? (:-)

you stilldont undersatnd my claim
may be because it is amazingly simple
and for you
*physics cant be simple * (:-)

the physics is simple
but

THE INTERPRETATION OF THE FORMULA
IS DIFFERENT !!

may be i will try this way (to explain it )

acccording to you (you agree that it i slegitimate to writre it as
E/Gamma =mc^2 (not for photons
because the gamma factor DOES NT APPLY TO THE PHOTON the photon is a
limit case
and thetrefore an EXCEPTION CASE)

so if you agree to the other formal legituimate
presentationj of the formula
e/gamma =mc^2
and we all algree to the experimentla fact that
it becomes more and more diffucult t add
acceleration to a body while veliocity comes closer to
c (ans even much before coming close to c )

soi ask you
WHYIS IT MORE DIFFICULT
??
becuase mass
infaltes withvelocity
or 2
because the fiorce *agent* that is driving the driven body
has for itself a maximum limit velecity ability (c)??
which is showen in the versuion
E/Gamam =mc^2 ??

btw
if you use the formula

mc^2 ^2 plus (pc) ^2
it is trhe same problem!!

because pc is actually mc^2 as well !!
(some times it is jsut a matetr of convinence to use
pc insead of mc^2
becase that pc i s more 'available 'for technical reasons only .....!!
that formula i s used properly in cases of **a mixture**
of energy* and* particles(coming in ot out ) in the system
so what is your answer
tomy questions
is it case 1
or case 2?

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