Motion curvature of matter is determined by its speed through space-
time curvature of which is the null geodesic. There are two kinds of
curvature one for matter varying with speed and one for light.

Mitch Raemsch Twice Nobel Laureate 2008

On Mar 26, 8:39*pm, wrote:
Motion curvature of matter is determined by its speed through space-
time curvature of which is the null geodesic. There are two kinds of
curvature one for matter varying with speed and one for light.

Mitch Raemsch Twice Nobel Laureate 2008

Space has curvature not matter. Space curvature is determined by the
mass causing the curvature. In the case of non-zero rest mass
particles, the energy is determined by the rest mass and the velocity.
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 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).

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

wrote:

Motion curvature of matter is determined by its speed through space-
time curvature of which is the null geodesic.
[snip utter bull****]

Read "The Story of O"

Mitch Raemsch Twice Nobel Laureate 2008

http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/sapient.jpg

--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/lajos.htm#a2

On Mar 27, 7:48 am, Uncle Al wrote:
wrote:

Motion curvature of matter is determined by its speed through space-
time curvature of which is the null geodesic.

[snip utter bull****]

Bull**** doesn't come from utters,
Google "cow" 1,234,567 hits. The BS
comes from someplace else.

Mitch Raemsch Twice Nobel Laureate 2008

Well now he'll be able to afford to let laid.
Ken

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

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

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?

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. 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

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

On Mar 27, 1:57 pm, PD wrote:
On Mar 27, 2:14 pm, Koobee Wublee wrote:

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.

Well, Newtonian gravity works for launching spacecrafts. Now, how can
you call that wrong?

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

GR is based on misapplication of mathematics. It is enough to make
any sensible engineer puke, but of course not physicists. shrug

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.

Well, how do you account for the potential energy in the configuration
of the brick-earth system based on the brick's point of view?

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.

Well again, you can interpret nonsense whatever you want, but at the
end of the day you still cannot account for the potential energy in
GR. shrug

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.

It helps if you understand what the conservation of energy means.
shrug

Jiminy Christmas.

Christmas is still 9 months away. shrug

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.

What does the conservation of energy tell you?

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

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.

Yes, I have mentioned the potential energy, and no, I have not
forgotten about it. shrug

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.

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?

Absolutely. 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. shrug

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.

It is utterly bullsh*t to call a metric as a tensor which implies
invariance under any observation but having its elements observer-
dependent. shrug

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.

Geez. I said spacetime.

If I 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?

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.

Which experiment showed photon deflection besides the 1919
expeditions?

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?

There are no experiments that have successfully repeated the 1919
expeditions. shrug

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.

After ranting your anger at your own ignorance, 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

On Mar 27, 11:14*am, Koobee Wublee wrote:

[snip arrogant stupidity]

Why even post?

On Mar 27, 11:57*pm, PD wrote:
On Mar 27, 2:14*pm, Koobee Wublee Non zero rest
mass energy, when not disturbed by an external force, travels
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- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

--------------------
people like PD are walking disasters for the advance of science!
not only that they are list little parrot mathematicians
they have not a basic physics touch!!
and the worst thing
those little pompous crooks
PRETENT TO SPEAK IN BEHALF OF SCINCE !!

who ar eyou little crook to speak in behalf of science !!
who are you in spaeaking in behalf of pioneering science !!
what have you little parrot innovated in physics
who nominated you to teach what you don't know
ie
who nominated you to teach your ignorance ??!!

space is nothing
and has no properties except hosting science
anyone out time who has a basic logic
realizes that gravitation is property of MASS
got it idiot ??
if there is no mass there is no gravitation
toeven a little chield who was not stuffed with biased prejudices will
understand it .

at the beginning of the 20th century it was nice
from Einstein to make a trial idea
but 100 years later ??
i am sire he himself would realise it was a false assumption
now to your crooks claim that
GR explains Nice;y' gravity

1
it does not explain the connection between gravity
and other attraction force s
2
you say sort of :
'if we dont know something to scratch 'physics does not get excited
about it '

may be idiots crooks like you do not get excited
so dont you crook
TURN YOUR MISUNDERSTANDING
TO A LEGITIAMTE AND EVEN ADVANTAGOUS SITUATION!!

if you dont know and understand
tan say it loud and clear that that is A DISADVANTAGE
A A LOKOON in the existing situation
and if idiot like you are happy with the existing situation
DONT ISPIRE THAT IDIOTIC
SMUGG MOOD ON OTHER PEOPLE
with the crooks pose of 'every thing is controlled
by me and other GREAT PHYSICISTS !!

because you are not a great physicist
you are a very little one
(may be a great lawyer not a great physicist)
may be at most a true believer good parrot

and the op is right !!
gravitation is dome by some property of mass!!
NO MASS NO REAL PHYSICS !!
3
dont you speak about potential energy
and energy at all
because you are an pompous crook ignorant about it !!

4
one of the great lies is
that GR calculated gravity proprly
just by the bet theiry of GR

all those calculations that look so nice
were fiddleling experimental data
to look as done by bet theory
the fact the Newtons theory cannot calculate gravity
is the same reason that GR cant to it
without fiddlings
IT IS BECAUSE GRAVITAION IS A SPECIAL CASE
NOT UNDERSTOOD PROPERLY UNTILL THIS VERY DAY !!
and the sooner people understnad it
the better !!!

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

On Mar 28, 1:06*am, "Y.Porat" wrote:
[snip whatever]

Your stupidity would be far more entertaining if you would be bothered
to make the effort of writing a complete sentence to express a
thought.