Light is unconcentrated wave energy. It is not infinite density like
mass zero D point particle. Matter generates gravity but light
doesn't. Light does not qualify.

Mitch Raemsch

On Jun 9, 3:21 pm, BURT wrote:
Light is unconcentrated wave energy. It is not infinite density like
mass zero D point particle. Matter generates gravity but light
doesn't. Light does not qualify.

Mitch Raemsch
Wrong.
Does the sun bend the path of a beam of light? Then the sun pulls on
the beam of light. By the conservation of momentum, the beam of light
pulls on the sun. The sun has to move, if only by a little bit, as the
beam passes the sun.
Yes, light generates gravity.


I don't believe you won those two Nobel prizes in a poker game.
You couldn't even play a decent game of poker.
You burglarized the houses of two Nobel prize winners. Or maybe
you just burglarized Irene Curies house|:-)

On Jun 9, 3:34*pm, Darwin123 wrote:
On Jun 9, 3:21 pm, BURT wrote: Light is unconcentrated wave energy. It is not infinite density like
mass zero D point particle. Matter generates gravity but light
doesn't. Light does not qualify.

Mitch Raemsch

* * *Wrong.

No. Space geometry causes the curved path of light. There is no pull
of gravity rather it is an inward push to matter center.

Light falls is true but things do not fall toward light. Period.


Does the sun bend the path of a beam of light? Then the sun pulls on
the beam of light. By the conservation of momentum, the beam of light
pulls on the sun. The sun has to move, if only by a little bit, as the
beam passes the sun.
* * Yes, light generates gravity.

* * *I don't believe you won those two Nobel prizes in a poker game.
You couldn't even play a decent game of poker.
* * * You burglarized the houses of two Nobel prize winners. Or maybe
you just burglarized Irene Curies house|:-)

In article 418002e8-ff7e-4c57-9529-9d9955466472
@h1g2000prh.googlegroups.com, says...
Light is unconcentrated wave energy. It is not infinite density like
mass zero D point particle. Matter generates gravity but light
doesn't. Light does not qualify.

Mitch Raemsch


Light = energy

Many black holes would be in the core have something like infinite
density and they would be energy. Black holes bend light.

On Jun 9, 6:41*pm, BURT wrote:
No. Space geometry causes the curved path of light.

It's irrelevant what "causes" it. The light bends, changes momentum,
the sun recoils because total momentum is conserved.

Even if gremlins did it, the sun STILL recoils. (At the worst, the
gremlins recoil, but then -- being part of the sun-gremlin system,
ultimately bring about a change in the sun's motion, as well). Even if
magical fairy dust made it happen, alongside tiny hard-etched rivulets
in the fabric of space, the sun STILL recoils... because total moemtum
is conserved.

It's no different that the same gremlins or space geometry [note 1]
that cause the planets paths to curve in the vicinity of the star. The
star recoils and you can discern the presence of planets around remote
stars by that fact.

Notes:
[1]: and by the way it's not spatial geometry, but spaceTIME geometry
the nt operative effect being the TIMElike components of the
connection, not the space-like components which are virtually nil

On Jun 9, 7:41 pm, BURT wrote:
On Jun 9, 3:34 pm, Darwin123 wrote:

On Jun 9, 3:21 pm, BURT wrote: Light is unconcentrated wave energy. It is not infinite density like
mass zero D point particle. Matter generates gravity but light
doesn't. Light does not qualify.

Mitch Raemsch

Wrong.

No. Space geometry causes the curved path of light. There is no pull
of gravity rather it is an inward push to matter center.

Light falls is true but things do not fall toward light. Period.

The light beam causes the space around it to curve. Otherwise,
there would be no conservation of linear momentum. Conservation of
momentum is a valid concept even in GR.
Where did you get the impression that matter does not bend
toward light? Here is my conjecture. One of your Nobel prizes is for
determining a violation of GR, and the other Nobel prize was for
determining a violation of the conservation of linear momentum.

On Jun 10, 2:12*pm, Darwin123 wrote:
On Jun 9, 7:41 pm, BURT wrote: On Jun 9, 3:34 pm, Darwin123 wrote:

On Jun 9, 3:21 pm, BURT wrote: Light is unconcentrated wave energy. It is not infinite density like
mass zero D point particle. Matter generates gravity but light
doesn't. Light does not qualify.

Mitch Raemsch

* * *Wrong.

No. Space geometry causes the curved path of light. There is no pull
of gravity rather it is an inward push to matter center.

Light falls is true but things do not fall toward light. Period.

* *The light beam causes the space around it to curve.

It is moving at light speed. Gravity cannot propagate in any direction
around light.

Otherwise,

Balogna.





there would be no conservation of linear momentum. Conservation of
momentum is a valid concept even in GR.
* * * Where did you get the impression that matter does not bend
toward light? Here is my conjecture. One of your Nobel prizes is for
determining a violation of GR, and the other Nobel prize was for
determining a violation of the conservation of linear momentum.

On Jun 10, 6:29 pm, BURT wrote:
On Jun 10, 2:12 pm, Darwin123 wrote:



On Jun 9, 7:41 pm, BURT wrote: On Jun 9, 3:34 pm, Darwin123 wrote:

On Jun 9, 3:21 pm, BURT wrote: Light is unconcentrated wave energy. It is not infinite density like
mass zero D point particle. Matter generates gravity but light
doesn't. Light does not qualify.

Mitch Raemsch

Wrong.

No. Space geometry causes the curved path of light. There is no pull
of gravity rather it is an inward push to matter center.

Light falls is true but things do not fall toward light. Period.

The light beam causes the space around it to curve.

It is moving at light speed. Gravity cannot propagate in any direction
around light.

Sure. And sound can't propagate in any direction around a
supersonic jet. Sonic booms are produced by government musicians
trying to convince people that the United States has airplanes that
broke the sound barrier.
There is another way to look at it.
The light beam can be pictured as a linear rod of inertial mass
that is standing still. Gravity wouldn't "propagate" from the light
beam. Since it is a light beam, it has a linear extension. So there
are static gravitational fields that surround the linear beam. The
problem that you are talking about only exist when the beam is first
arriving in our solar system from the distant star.
You are picturing the light beam as being made of a photon. This
is a misuse of quantum mechanics. A packet of energy that is
travelling. However, the photon has an uncertain postion in the beam.
I am thinking of the light in a classical sense as an electromagnetic
wave. That light you see is a distribution of inertial mass, not a
point particle.
Talking about gravity "racing ahead" of the light beam is wrong.
The gravity wave has already propagated from the light. What we are
talking about is a static gravitational field rpopagating from the
light wave.
In any case, you keep calling gravity "space time curvature." How
can space time curvature propagate out of a light beam? You are mixing
up metaphors, and not thinking mechanically.