Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #600437 > unrolled thread

What is the speed of light????

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity

Contents

  What is the speed of light???? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2023-01-29 11:57 -0800
    Re: What is the speed of light???? "mitchr...@gmail.com" <mitchrae3323@gmail.com> - 2023-01-29 12:29 -0800
    Re: What is the speed of light???? Jim Pennino <jimp@gonzo.specsol.net> - 2023-01-29 13:08 -0800
      Re: What is the speed of light???? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2023-01-29 14:22 -0800
        Re: What is the speed of light???? Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> - 2023-01-29 14:58 -0800
          Re: What is the speed of light???? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2023-01-29 16:20 -0800
            Re: What is the speed of light???? Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-01-30 01:18 -0500
        Re: What is the speed of light???? Jim Pennino <jimp@gonzo.specsol.net> - 2023-01-29 15:05 -0800
          Re: What is the speed of light???? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2023-01-29 16:23 -0800
            Re: What is the speed of light???? Jim Pennino <jimp@gonzo.specsol.net> - 2023-01-29 20:30 -0800
          Re: What is the speed of light???? whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-01-29 18:42 -0600
            Re: What is the speed of light???? Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2023-01-29 17:20 -0800
              Re: What is the speed of light???? whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-01-29 20:10 -0600
    Re: What is the speed of light???? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2023-01-31 09:56 -0800
      Re: What is the speed of light???? whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-01-31 12:53 -0600
        Re: What is the speed of light???? "mitchr...@gmail.com" <mitchrae3323@gmail.com> - 2023-01-31 12:16 -0800
        Re: What is the speed of light???? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2023-01-31 16:58 -0800
          Re: What is the speed of light???? Jim Pennino <jimp@gonzo.specsol.net> - 2023-01-31 18:00 -0800
            Re: What is the speed of light???? whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-01-31 20:21 -0600
          Pathetic Starmaker *was Re: What is the speed of light????) whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-01-31 20:20 -0600
        Re: What is the speed of light???? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2023-02-01 20:39 -0800
          Re: What is the speed of light???? whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-02-02 00:16 -0600
            Re: What is the speed of light???? "gehan.am...@gmail.com" <gehan.ameresekere@gmail.com> - 2023-04-04 18:48 -0700
              Re: What is the speed of light???? Tom Roberts <tjoberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2023-04-04 23:43 -0500
    Re: What is the speed of light???? Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> - 2023-04-05 15:02 +1000
      Re: What is the speed of light???? whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-04-05 15:30 -0500
        Re: What is the speed of light???? "gehan.am...@gmail.com" <gehan.ameresekere@gmail.com> - 2023-04-05 18:32 -0700
          Re: What is the speed of light???? whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-04-05 22:52 -0500
            Re: What is the speed of light???? "gehan.am...@gmail.com" <gehan.ameresekere@gmail.com> - 2023-04-05 22:05 -0700
              Re: What is the speed of light???? whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-04-06 10:20 -0500
                Re: What is the speed of light???? Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-04-06 08:27 -0700

Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]

#600625

whodat wrote:
> 
> On 1/31/2023 11:56 AM, The Starmaker wrote:
> > The Starmaker wrote:
> >>
> >> I know you're not suppose to ask this question...
> >> worse yet, you're not even suppose to answer it..
> >>
> >> But since I question the unquestionable, and ask the unaskable,...
> >>
> >> What is the speed of light, since I don't live in a vacuum..and the universe
> >> is not in a vacuum...so What is the speed of light?
> >>
> >> That number doesn't appear to be anywhere. Are you not suppose to know, ...or even ask?
> >>
> >> Or even test it to find the answer because it is forbidden to test it and publish it for others to see????
> >>
> >> What is the speed of light, since I don't 'live in' a vacuum?
> >>
> >> Oh, I forgot..most of yous don't know what the definition of a "vacuum" is...
> >> so for your convenience I'll post it here...(maybes yous forgots)
> >>
> >>   vac·u·um
> >> /'vak?yo?om/
> >> noun
> >>
> >>      a space entirely devoid of matter.
> >>      synonyms: empty space, emptiness, void, nothingness, vacuity, vacancy, voidness, nihility
> >> https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&source=hp&biw=&bih=&q=define+vacuum
> >>
> >> What is the speed of light, anyway?
> >>
> >
> > I mean, I don't live in "a space entirely devoid of matter", nobody
> > does.
> >
> > And I understand yous have been 'conditioned'/indoctrinated/mandated
> > to only think in terms of..."in a vacuum" whenever refering to the speed
> > of light.
> >
> > Maybe because this hangup yous people have to always desire to know what
> > is constant.
> >
> > Yous don't like uncertaintly. So you want a same number ALL the time.
> > Yous sleep better.
> 
> > And Einstein sleeps better if he conditions yous to only think in his
> > box.
> >
> >
> > But, I don't live in "a space entirely devoid of matter", so what is the
> > speed of light?
> 
> Asked and answered, but apparently you are too stupid to read what has
> been provided. There is no answer to "what is the speed of light" since
> it varies with conditions. 


What do you mean exactly by "varies with conditions"? What conditions
does it vary with?? Can you give an example???





-- 
The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
 to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable,
and challenge
 the unchallengeable.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#600628

On 2/1/2023 10:39 PM, The Starmaker wrote:
> whodat wrote:
>>
>> On 1/31/2023 11:56 AM, The Starmaker wrote:
>>> The Starmaker wrote:
>>>>
>>>> I know you're not suppose to ask this question...
>>>> worse yet, you're not even suppose to answer it..
>>>>
>>>> But since I question the unquestionable, and ask the unaskable,...
>>>>
>>>> What is the speed of light, since I don't live in a vacuum..and the universe
>>>> is not in a vacuum...so What is the speed of light?
>>>>
>>>> That number doesn't appear to be anywhere. Are you not suppose to know, ...or even ask?
>>>>
>>>> Or even test it to find the answer because it is forbidden to test it and publish it for others to see????
>>>>
>>>> What is the speed of light, since I don't 'live in' a vacuum?
>>>>
>>>> Oh, I forgot..most of yous don't know what the definition of a "vacuum" is...
>>>> so for your convenience I'll post it here...(maybes yous forgots)
>>>>
>>>>    vac·u·um
>>>> /'vak?yo?om/
>>>> noun
>>>>
>>>>       a space entirely devoid of matter.
>>>>       synonyms: empty space, emptiness, void, nothingness, vacuity, vacancy, voidness, nihility
>>>> https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&source=hp&biw=&bih=&q=define+vacuum
>>>>
>>>> What is the speed of light, anyway?
>>>>
>>>
>>> I mean, I don't live in "a space entirely devoid of matter", nobody
>>> does.
>>>
>>> And I understand yous have been 'conditioned'/indoctrinated/mandated
>>> to only think in terms of..."in a vacuum" whenever refering to the speed
>>> of light.
>>>
>>> Maybe because this hangup yous people have to always desire to know what
>>> is constant.
>>>
>>> Yous don't like uncertaintly. So you want a same number ALL the time.
>>> Yous sleep better.
>>
>>> And Einstein sleeps better if he conditions yous to only think in his
>>> box.
>>>
0>>
>>> But, I don't live in "a space entirely devoid of matter", so what is the
>>> speed of light?
>>
>> Asked and answered, but apparently you are too stupid to read what has
>> been provided. There is no answer to "what is the speed of light" since
>> it varies with conditions.
> 
> 
> What do you mean exactly by "varies with conditions"? What conditions
> does it vary with?? Can you give an example???


It is clear you are way out of your depth, but here goes:

All light moves through a medium. In a vacuum that medium is space,
defined by Einstein in 1920 to be the ether.[1] Not a point to be argued
here either way, but the speed at that point is generally agreed to be
"c." Anyone can look up the detail. Only cranks argue about this and
theyshould get no attention.

When traveling in "not space" light is traveling through something else.
For example, when traveling through a glass or plastic lens, the
speed is slower than it is in atmospheric air. If that glass or
plastic has a shape that is not parallel surfaces, then that
is considered a lens. See examples at 
<https://ohioenergy.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/5L13-Light-What-Are-Lenses-Teacher-Handout.pdf> 


Ordinary glasses people wear depend on those principles.

Every different "not in space" medium yields different speed for
light.

If you look into a pond or stream and see a fish, that fish is not
where it seems to be. The speed of light is different in water than
it is in air so "refraction" happens.

"Spearfishing with a hand-held spear from land, shallow water or boat 
has been practised for thousands of years. The fisher must account for 
optical refraction at the water's surface, which makes fish appear 
higher in their line of sight than they are. By experience, the fisher 
learns to aim lower. Calm and shallow waters are favored for spearing 
fish from above the surface, as water clarity is of utmost importance. 
Many people who grew up on farms in the midwest U.S. in the 1940s-'60s 
recall going spearing for carp with pitchforks when their fields flooded 
in the spring. Spearfishing in this manner has some similarities to 
bowfishing."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spearfishing

All of this, and especially the deal with how and where we see fish in
the water, was taught no later than high school general science when I
was going to school. Indeed I took that course in 1954. Apparently you
have been short changed possibly your own fault where it comes to such
elementary science knowledge. You appear to me to have been one of those
boys who sat in the back of the classroom cutting up all the time
instead of paying attention. In that way you missed out acquiring
general knowledge your peers got and you've been left behind.

Clearly you should do a lot of reading on these topics in order to
become qualified to make comments on the state of science. I found
"physics for dummies" on eBay for as little as $3.98 or thriftbooks for
$5.89. That would be a really good starting point for you, no insult
intended by the title you insult your own intelligence plenty enough
here.

[1] As I have posted several times before, this is Einstein's speech
in 1920. Pay particular attention to the final paragraph:

<https://mathshistory.st-andrews.ac.uk/Extras/Einstein_ether/>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#606091

The initial claims of the speed of light 'relative to empty space'  which I find meaningless, has been replaced by the 'speed of light through empty space'. Also, according to Einstein,  every point in space could possibly be identified through its gravitational potential map. If he is correct in saying that ""empty space" in its physical relation is neither homogeneous nor isotropic" (<https://mathshistory.st-andrews.ac.uk/Extras/Einstein_ether/>)

 Wikipedia:

Use in unit systems
Further information: Metre § Speed of light definition
Since 1983, the constant c has been defined in the International System of Units (SI) as exactly 299792458 m/s; this relationship is used to define the metre as exactly the distance that light travels in vacuum in 1⁄299792458 of a second.

Britannica:
speed of light, speed at which light waves propagate through different materials. In particular, the value for the speed of light in a vacuum is now defined as exactly 299,792,458 metres per second.

Einstein (Above paper,  <https://mathshistory.st-andrews.ac.uk/Extras/Einstein_ether/>)

To deny the ether is ultimately to assume that empty space has no physical qualities whatever. The fundamental facts of mechanics do not harmonize with this view.

Mach's idea finds its full development in the ether of the general theory of relativity. According to this theory the metrical qualities of the continuum of space-time differ in the environment of different points of space-time, and are partly conditioned by the matter existing outside of the territory under consideration. This space-time variability of the reciprocal relations of the standards of space and time, or, perhaps, the recognition of the fact that "empty space" in its physical relation is neither homogeneous nor isotropic, compelling us to describe its state by ten functions (the gravitation potentials g  mn  ), has, I think, finally disposed of the view that space is physically empty.

If we consider the gravitational field and the electromagnetic field from the standpoint of the ether hypothesis, we find a remarkable difference between the two. There can be no space nor any part of space without gravitational potentials; for these confer upon space its metrical qualities, without which it cannot be imagined at all. 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#606116

On 4/4/23 8:48 PM, gehan.am...@gmail.com wrote:
> [...]

Speed, ANY SPEED, has meaning only relative to a specified set of
coordinates. In physics we generally presume an inertial frame for
referencing speed, unless otherwise specified, and good authors always
state which inertial frame is used. In our everyday lives, we naturally
presume coordinates fixed to the surface of the earth where we are.

> [... nonsense ignored]

Tom Roberts

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#606118

On 30-Jan-23 6:57 am, The Starmaker wrote:
> I know you're not suppose to ask this question...
> worse yet, you're not even suppose to answer it..

That seems a strange claim.

It's exactly 299,792,458 metres per second.

Sylvia.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#606190

On 4/5/2023 12:02 AM, Sylvia Else wrote:
> On 30-Jan-23 6:57 am, The Starmaker wrote:
>> I know you're not suppose to ask this question...
>> worse yet, you're not even suppose to answer it..
> 
> That seems a strange claim.
> 
> It's exactly 299,792,458 metres per second.
> 
> Sylvia.

We pick some star approximately 20 light years from earth. We
then predict its location for some time in the future based on
hitting that star based the speed of light you have defined for
us. If we dispatch a three second beam of light at the future
location of that star will our beam of light actually hit it?

This question is based on our knowledge of the path traveled by
our light beam appears to be a straight line while in reality
our beam of light will travel a somewhat longer geodesic path
that we cannot define.

Hint: there's more than one problem involved.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#606209

On Thursday, April 6, 2023 at 1:30:06 AM UTC+5, whodat wrote:
> On 4/5/2023 12:02 AM, Sylvia Else wrote: 
> > On 30-Jan-23 6:57 am, The Starmaker wrote: 
> >> I know you're not suppose to ask this question... 
> >> worse yet, you're not even suppose to answer it.. 
> > 
> > That seems a strange claim. 
> > 
> > It's exactly 299,792,458 metres per second. 
> > 
> > Sylvia.
> We pick some star approximately 20 light years from earth. We 
> then predict its location for some time in the future based on 
> hitting that star based the speed of light you have defined for 
> us. If we dispatch a three second beam of light at the future 
> location of that star will our beam of light actually hit it? 
> 
> This question is based on our knowledge of the path traveled by 
> our light beam appears to be a straight line while in reality 
> our beam of light will travel a somewhat longer geodesic path 
> that we cannot define. 
> 
> Hint: there's more than one problem involved.

Why can't it be defined?

This does not bode well for interstellar travel. 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#606224

On 4/5/2023 8:32 PM, gehan.am...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Thursday, April 6, 2023 at 1:30:06 AM UTC+5, whodat wrote:
>> On 4/5/2023 12:02 AM, Sylvia Else wrote:
>>> On 30-Jan-23 6:57 am, The Starmaker wrote:
>>>> I know you're not suppose to ask this question...
>>>> worse yet, you're not even suppose to answer it..
>>>
>>> That seems a strange claim.
>>>
>>> It's exactly 299,792,458 metres per second.
>>>
>>> Sylvia.
>> We pick some star approximately 20 light years from earth. We
>> then predict its location for some time in the future based on
>> hitting that star based the speed of light you have defined for
>> us. If we dispatch a three second beam of light at the future
>> location of that star will our beam of light actually hit it?
>>
>> This question is based on our knowledge of the path traveled by
>> our light beam appears to be a straight line while in reality
>> our beam of light will travel a somewhat longer geodesic path
>> that we cannot define.
>>
>> Hint: there's more than one problem involved.
> 
> Why can't it be defined?

Please tell us how to define the geodesic that light will
travel to a star some 20 light years present.

> This does not bode well for interstellar travel.

Howso? Are you suggesting that space vehicles cannot travel in
straight lines?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#606226

On Thursday, April 6, 2023 at 8:52:06 AM UTC+5, whodat wrote:
> On 4/5/2023 8:32 PM, gehan.am...@gmail.com wrote: 
> > On Thursday, April 6, 2023 at 1:30:06 AM UTC+5, whodat wrote: 
> >> On 4/5/2023 12:02 AM, Sylvia Else wrote: 
> >>> On 30-Jan-23 6:57 am, The Starmaker wrote: 
> >>>> I know you're not suppose to ask this question... 
> >>>> worse yet, you're not even suppose to answer it.. 
> >>> 
> >>> That seems a strange claim. 
> >>> 
> >>> It's exactly 299,792,458 metres per second. 
> >>> 
> >>> Sylvia. 
> >> We pick some star approximately 20 light years from earth. We 
> >> then predict its location for some time in the future based on 
> >> hitting that star based the speed of light you have defined for 
> >> us. If we dispatch a three second beam of light at the future 
> >> location of that star will our beam of light actually hit it? 
> >> 
> >> This question is based on our knowledge of the path traveled by 
> >> our light beam appears to be a straight line while in reality 
> >> our beam of light will travel a somewhat longer geodesic path 
> >> that we cannot define. 
> >> 
> >> Hint: there's more than one problem involved. 
> > 
> > Why can't it be defined?
> Please tell us how to define the geodesic that light will 
> travel to a star some 20 light years present.
> > This does not bode well for interstellar travel.
> Howso? Are you suggesting that space vehicles cannot travel in 
> straight lines?

Question:
Please tell us how to define the geodesic that light will
travel to a star some 20 light years present.

Answer: 
To define the geodesic that light will travel to a star 20 light-years away, we need to first understand what a geodesic is. In general relativity, a geodesic is the shortest path between two points in spacetime. It is the path that an object with no forces acting on it would naturally follow through curved space-time.

In the case of light, which is massless, it travels in a straight line in space-time, but the path appears to be curved due to the curvature of space-time caused by the presence of massive objects such as stars and planets.

To define the geodesic that light will travel to a star 20 light-years away, we need to know the gravitational field of the star and the initial conditions of the light. Assuming that the star is stationary and spherically symmetric, we can use the Schwarzschild metric to calculate the path of the light.

The Schwarzschild metric describes the curvature of space-time around a stationary, spherically symmetric object like a star. Using this metric, we can calculate the trajectory of the light as it travels from its source to the star 20 light-years away.

Assuming that the light starts from rest at some point in space, the geodesic it follows can be found by solving the geodesic equation, which describes the path of an object moving through curved space-time.

The exact path of the geodesic depends on the mass and distance of the star, as well as the initial conditions of the light. However, in general, the geodesic will be a curved path that bends towards the star due to the gravitational attraction between the light and the star.

In summary, to define the geodesic that light will travel to a star 20 light-years away, we need to know the gravitational field of the star, the initial conditions of the light, and solve the geodesic equation using the Schwarzschild metric.




Regenerate response

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#606257

On 4/6/2023 12:05 AM, gehan.am...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Thursday, April 6, 2023 at 8:52:06 AM UTC+5, whodat wrote:
>> On 4/5/2023 8:32 PM, gehan.am...@gmail.com wrote:
>>> On Thursday, April 6, 2023 at 1:30:06 AM UTC+5, whodat wrote:
>>>> On 4/5/2023 12:02 AM, Sylvia Else wrote:
>>>>> On 30-Jan-23 6:57 am, The Starmaker wrote:
>>>>>> I know you're not suppose to ask this question...
>>>>>> worse yet, you're not even suppose to answer it..
>>>>>
>>>>> That seems a strange claim.
>>>>>
>>>>> It's exactly 299,792,458 metres per second.
>>>>>
>>>>> Sylvia.
>>>> We pick some star approximately 20 light years from earth. We
>>>> then predict its location for some time in the future based on
>>>> hitting that star based the speed of light you have defined for
>>>> us. If we dispatch a three second beam of light at the future
>>>> location of that star will our beam of light actually hit it?
>>>>
>>>> This question is based on our knowledge of the path traveled by
>>>> our light beam appears to be a straight line while in reality
>>>> our beam of light will travel a somewhat longer geodesic path
>>>> that we cannot define.
>>>>
>>>> Hint: there's more than one problem involved.
>>>
>>> Why can't it be defined?
>> Please tell us how to define the geodesic that light will
>> travel to a star some 20 light years present.
>>> This does not bode well for interstellar travel.
>> Howso? Are you suggesting that space vehicles cannot travel in
>> straight lines?
> 
> Question:
> Please tell us how to define the geodesic that light will
> travel to a star some 20 light years present.
> 
> Answer:
> To define the geodesic that light will travel to a star 20 light-years away, we need to first understand what a geodesic is. In general relativity, a geodesic is the shortest path between two points in spacetime. It is the path that an object with no forces acting on it would naturally follow through curved space-time.

<https://m.cas.oslo.no/getfile.php/137560-1458045883/6_CAS-publikasjoner/Seminar_booklets/PDF/0809Raynaud.pdf>

General relativity is a model, perhaps modeling some reality, perhaps
not. The significant questions revolve around what is the relationship
between model you mention and the realities posed by my question.

"John Bell, a physicist from Northern Ireland, made an important
breakthrough in 1964, devising a theoretical test to show that the
hidden variables Einstein had in mind don't exist."

<https://www.sciencealert.com/scientists-win-physics-nobel-prize-for-proving-einstein-wrong>

I realize that this is a mix and match, but when the castle walls
begin to crumble, a total collapse is almost always imminent. In
1920 Einstein recanted abandoning an aether. In 2020 Bell and others
contribution. Still, even today, we cannot define what space
and/or space/time is. We merely poke around some aspects of its
most obvious behavior. That's where my questions fall as well.

<snip balance of the post>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#606260

On Thursday, 6 April 2023 at 17:20:38 UTC+2, whodat wrote:
> On 4/6/2023 12:05 AM, gehan.am...@gmail.com wrote: 
> > On Thursday, April 6, 2023 at 8:52:06 AM UTC+5, whodat wrote: 
> >> On 4/5/2023 8:32 PM, gehan.am...@gmail.com wrote: 
> >>> On Thursday, April 6, 2023 at 1:30:06 AM UTC+5, whodat wrote: 
> >>>> On 4/5/2023 12:02 AM, Sylvia Else wrote: 
> >>>>> On 30-Jan-23 6:57 am, The Starmaker wrote: 
> >>>>>> I know you're not suppose to ask this question... 
> >>>>>> worse yet, you're not even suppose to answer it.. 
> >>>>> 
> >>>>> That seems a strange claim. 
> >>>>> 
> >>>>> It's exactly 299,792,458 metres per second. 
> >>>>> 
> >>>>> Sylvia. 
> >>>> We pick some star approximately 20 light years from earth. We 
> >>>> then predict its location for some time in the future based on 
> >>>> hitting that star based the speed of light you have defined for 
> >>>> us. If we dispatch a three second beam of light at the future 
> >>>> location of that star will our beam of light actually hit it? 
> >>>> 
> >>>> This question is based on our knowledge of the path traveled by 
> >>>> our light beam appears to be a straight line while in reality 
> >>>> our beam of light will travel a somewhat longer geodesic path 
> >>>> that we cannot define. 
> >>>> 
> >>>> Hint: there's more than one problem involved. 
> >>> 
> >>> Why can't it be defined? 
> >> Please tell us how to define the geodesic that light will 
> >> travel to a star some 20 light years present. 
> >>> This does not bode well for interstellar travel. 
> >> Howso? Are you suggesting that space vehicles cannot travel in 
> >> straight lines? 
> > 
> > Question: 
> > Please tell us how to define the geodesic that light will 
> > travel to a star some 20 light years present. 
> > 
> > Answer: 
> > To define the geodesic that light will travel to a star 20 light-years away, we need to first understand what a geodesic is. In general relativity, a geodesic is the shortest path between two points in spacetime. It is the path that an object with no forces acting on it would naturally follow through curved space-time.
> <https://m.cas.oslo.no/getfile.php/137560-1458045883/6_CAS-publikasjoner/Seminar_booklets/PDF/0809Raynaud.pdf> 
> 
> General relativity is a model, perhaps modeling some reality, perhaps 
> not. 

For sure not, it's only modelling some delusions of
some brainwashed religious maniac.

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity

csiph-web