Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics > #589377 > unrolled thread
| Started by | mapou001@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| First post | 2016-07-14 23:01 -0700 |
| Last post | 2016-07-27 11:19 -0700 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 184 — 19 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics
Gravity and light question mapou001@gmail.com - 2016-07-14 23:01 -0700
Re: Gravity and light question Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-15 07:25 -0500
Re: Gravity and light question mapou001@gmail.com - 2016-07-15 08:36 -0700
Re: Gravity and light question Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-15 10:41 -0500
Re: Gravity and light question Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-15 11:02 -0500
Re: Gravity and light question edprochak@gmail.com - 2016-07-15 10:46 -0700
Re: Gravity and light question Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-15 13:11 -0500
Re: Gravity and light question Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-07-17 16:30 +0200
Re: Gravity and light question Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-07-17 11:15 -0500
Re: Gravity and light question Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-17 15:29 -0500
Re: Gravity and light question Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-07-18 00:16 +0200
Re: Gravity and light question Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-18 06:39 -0500
Re: Gravity and light question xxein1@att.net - 2016-07-18 09:32 -0700
Re: Gravity and light question Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-07-18 22:55 +0200
Re: Gravity and light question john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-07-25 17:44 -0700
Re: Gravity and light question Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-07-15 09:33 -0500
Re: Gravity and light question mapou001@gmail.com - 2016-07-15 08:36 -0700
Re: Gravity and light question Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-07-15 11:25 -0500
Re: Gravity and light question "reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2016-07-15 10:02 -0700
Re: Gravity and light question edprochak@gmail.com - 2016-07-15 10:42 -0700
Re: Gravity and light question Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-07-15 14:22 -0500
glightinos noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2016-07-15 10:06 -0700
Re: Gravity and light question mapou001@gmail.com - 2016-07-15 10:40 -0700
Re: Gravity and light question mapou001@gmail.com - 2016-07-15 10:42 -0700
Re: Gravity and light question edprochak@gmail.com - 2016-07-15 10:51 -0700
Re: Gravity and light question mapou001@gmail.com - 2016-07-15 11:05 -0700
Re: Gravity and light question Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-15 13:23 -0500
Re: Gravity and light question mapou001@gmail.com - 2016-07-15 11:31 -0700
Re: Gravity and light question Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-15 13:40 -0500
Re: Gravity and light question mapou001@gmail.com - 2016-07-15 11:47 -0700
Re: Gravity and light question Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-15 13:56 -0500
Re: Gravity and light question mapou001@gmail.com - 2016-07-15 11:54 -0700
Re: Gravity and light question Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-15 13:58 -0500
Re: Gravity and light question edprochak@gmail.com - 2016-07-18 10:29 -0700
Re: Gravity and light question mapou001@gmail.com - 2016-07-18 11:09 -0700
Re: Gravity and light question edprochak@gmail.com - 2016-07-19 09:45 -0700
Re: Gravity and light question mapou001@gmail.com - 2016-07-19 09:59 -0700
Re: Gravity and light question Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-19 12:59 -0500
Re: Gravity and light question mapou001@gmail.com - 2016-07-19 11:15 -0700
Re: Gravity and light question edprochak@gmail.com - 2016-07-18 09:56 -0700
Re: Gravity and light question mapou001@gmail.com - 2016-07-18 10:03 -0700
Re: Gravity and light question Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-18 12:22 -0500
Re: Gravity and light question Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-18 12:38 -0500
Re: Gravity and light question mapou001@gmail.com - 2016-07-18 11:04 -0700
Re: Gravity and light question Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-18 13:25 -0500
Re: Gravity and light question mapou001@gmail.com - 2016-07-18 11:45 -0700
Re: Gravity and light question Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-18 14:12 -0500
Re: Gravity and light question Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-18 14:19 -0500
Re: Gravity and light question mapou001@gmail.com - 2016-07-18 12:24 -0700
Re: Gravity and light question Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-18 14:33 -0500
Re: Gravity and light question xxein1@att.net - 2016-07-18 14:01 -0700
Re: Gravity and light question Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-18 16:13 -0500
Re: Gravity and light question benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2016-07-18 19:02 -0400
Re: Gravity and light question mapou001@gmail.com - 2016-07-18 16:45 -0700
Re: Gravity and light question Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-19 13:12 -0500
Re: Gravity and light question mapou001@gmail.com - 2016-07-19 11:17 -0700
Re: Gravity and light question Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-19 13:46 -0500
Re: Gravity and light question mapou001@gmail.com - 2016-07-19 11:51 -0700
Re: Gravity and light question Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-19 13:58 -0500
Re: Gravity and light question mapou001@gmail.com - 2016-07-19 12:11 -0700
Re: Gravity and light question Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-19 14:19 -0500
Re: Gravity and light question mapou001@gmail.com - 2016-07-19 12:30 -0700
Re: Gravity and light question Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-19 14:38 -0500
Re: Gravity and light question mapou001@gmail.com - 2016-07-19 12:43 -0700
Re: Gravity and light question Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-19 15:08 -0500
Re: Gravity and light question mapou001@gmail.com - 2016-07-19 13:26 -0700
Re: Gravity and light question noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2016-07-19 16:36 -0700
Re: Gravity and light question edprochak@gmail.com - 2016-07-19 19:32 -0700
Re: Gravity and light question mapou001@gmail.com - 2016-07-20 10:54 -0700
Re: Gravity and light question Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-20 13:13 -0500
Re: Gravity and light question mapou001@gmail.com - 2016-07-20 11:31 -0700
Re: Gravity and light question Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-20 14:10 -0500
Re: Gravity and light question edprochak@gmail.com - 2016-07-22 11:24 -0700
Re: Gravity and light question Kent Evans <kenev@bluebarryinfo.org> - 2016-07-22 18:27 +0000
Re: Gravity and light question mapou001@gmail.com - 2016-07-22 11:34 -0700
Re: Gravity and light question edprochak@gmail.com - 2016-07-23 23:21 -0700
Re: Gravity and light question mapou001@gmail.com - 2016-07-24 00:09 -0700
Re: Gravity and light question edprochak@gmail.com - 2016-07-24 13:11 -0700
Re: Gravity and light question mapou001@gmail.com - 2016-07-24 14:09 -0700
light is waves through the electronic matters of free space noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2016-07-25 19:16 -0700
Re: Gravity and light question Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-24 15:22 -0500
Re: Gravity and light question mapou001@gmail.com - 2016-07-24 14:12 -0700
Re: Gravity and light question Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-25 07:53 -0500
Re: Gravity and light question john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-07-25 07:37 -0700
Re: Gravity and light question Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-25 09:39 -0500
Re: Gravity and light question john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-07-25 08:12 -0700
Re: Gravity and light question Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-25 10:54 -0500
Re: Gravity and light question Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-25 11:56 -0500
Re: Gravity and light question john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-07-25 17:12 -0700
Re: Gravity and light question Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-26 17:10 -0500
Re: Gravity and light question john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-07-26 16:51 -0700
Re: Gravity and light question Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-27 07:24 -0500
Re: Gravity and light question moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-07-26 19:18 +0000
Re: Gravity and light question mapou001@gmail.com - 2016-07-24 15:04 -0700
Re: Gravity and light question Lofty Goat <rlwatkins@gmail.com> - 2016-07-24 18:50 -0500
Re: Gravity and light question noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2016-07-20 15:05 -0700
Re: Gravity and light question jay moseley <jaymoseley@hotmail.com> - 2016-07-25 11:16 -0700
Re: Gravity and light question edprochak@gmail.com - 2016-07-26 11:00 -0700
Re: Gravity and light question noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2016-07-26 11:52 -0700
Re: Gravity and light question jay moseley <jaymoseley@hotmail.com> - 2016-07-27 08:29 -0700
Re: Gravity and light question Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-31 14:01 -0500
Re: Gravity and light question noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2016-07-31 18:45 -0700
Re: Gravity and light question jay moseley <jaymoseley@hotmail.com> - 2016-08-01 08:45 -0700
Re: Gravity and light question Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-01 15:12 -0500
Re: Gravity and light question Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-07-26 21:36 +0200
Re: Gravity and light question Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-26 15:05 -0500
Re: Gravity and light question Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-07-27 18:36 +0200
Re: Gravity and light question Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-27 13:08 -0500
Re: Gravity and light question Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-07-28 00:15 +0200
Re: Gravity and light question Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-28 09:24 -0500
Re: Gravity and light question Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-07-29 07:05 +0200
i.q at most zero noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2016-07-28 14:19 -0700
Light (was: i.q at most zero) Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-07-29 07:16 +0200
Re: Light (was: i.q at most zero) LIGO Fraud Investigator <mapou001@gmail.com> - 2016-07-28 22:34 -0700
see _Light, a history: Fermat's complete correspondence on light_ noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2016-07-29 09:38 -0700
Re: see _Light, a history: Fermat's complete correspondence on light_ brandonahenley9@gmail.com - 2016-07-29 12:38 -0700
Re: Gravity and light question Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-15 13:15 -0500
Re: Gravity and light question Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-15 12:54 -0500
Re: Gravity and light question edprochak@gmail.com - 2016-07-15 10:41 -0700
Re: Gravity and light question mapou001@gmail.com - 2016-07-15 10:50 -0700
Re: Gravity and light question Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-15 13:18 -0500
Re: Gravity and light question mapou001@gmail.com - 2016-07-15 11:22 -0700
Re: Gravity and light question Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-15 13:36 -0500
Re: Gravity and light question mapou001@gmail.com - 2016-07-15 11:43 -0700
Re: Gravity and light question Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-15 13:49 -0500
Re: Gravity and light question mapou001@gmail.com - 2016-07-15 11:58 -0700
Re: Gravity and light question Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-15 14:01 -0500
Re: Gravity and light question mapou001@gmail.com - 2016-07-15 12:06 -0700
Re: Gravity and light question Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-15 14:17 -0500
Re: Gravity and light question mapou001@gmail.com - 2016-07-15 12:19 -0700
Re: Gravity and light question Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-15 14:29 -0500
Re: Gravity and light question Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-07-15 14:23 -0500
Re: Gravity and light question mapou001@gmail.com - 2016-07-15 12:33 -0700
Re: Gravity and light question Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-07-15 16:58 -0500
Re: Gravity and light question mapou001@gmail.com - 2016-07-15 13:18 -0700
Re: Gravity and light question mapou001@gmail.com - 2016-07-15 13:34 -0700
Re: Gravity and light question pnalsing@gmail.com - 2016-07-15 15:19 -0700
Re: Gravity and light question mapou001@gmail.com - 2016-07-15 15:29 -0700
Re: Gravity and light question pnalsing@gmail.com - 2016-07-15 16:15 -0700
Re: Gravity and light question mapou001@gmail.com - 2016-07-15 16:17 -0700
Re: Gravity and light question pnalsing@gmail.com - 2016-07-15 16:46 -0700
Re: Gravity and light question mapou001@gmail.com - 2016-07-15 17:14 -0700
Re: Gravity and light question pnalsing@gmail.com - 2016-07-15 17:55 -0700
Re: Gravity and light question mapou001@gmail.com - 2016-07-15 18:08 -0700
Re: Gravity and light question pnalsing@gmail.com - 2016-07-15 19:47 -0700
Re: Gravity and light question Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-17 15:41 -0500
Re: Gravity and light question mapou001@gmail.com - 2016-07-17 14:08 -0700
Re: Gravity and light question Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-18 06:38 -0500
Re: Gravity and light question Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-15 15:38 -0500
Re: Gravity and light question mapou001@gmail.com - 2016-07-15 14:03 -0700
Re: Gravity and light question Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-16 13:02 -0500
Re: Gravity and light question mapou001@gmail.com - 2016-07-16 12:56 -0700
Re: Gravity and light question pnalsing@gmail.com - 2016-07-16 14:02 -0700
Re: Gravity and light question mapou001@gmail.com - 2016-07-16 14:10 -0700
Re: Gravity and light question Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-16 16:38 -0500
Re: Gravity and light question mapou001@gmail.com - 2016-07-16 14:46 -0700
Re: Gravity and light question Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-16 16:36 -0500
Re: Gravity and light question mapou001@gmail.com - 2016-07-16 14:45 -0700
Re: Gravity and light question Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-16 16:48 -0500
Re: Gravity and light question mapou001@gmail.com - 2016-07-16 15:10 -0700
Re: Gravity and light question mapou001@gmail.com - 2016-07-16 16:11 -0700
Re: Gravity and light question pnalsing@gmail.com - 2016-07-16 18:18 -0700
Re: Gravity and light question mapou001@gmail.com - 2016-07-16 19:40 -0700
Re: Gravity and light question pnalsing@gmail.com - 2016-07-16 23:35 -0700
Re: Gravity and light question mapou001@gmail.com - 2016-07-17 00:35 -0700
Re: Gravity and light question Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-17 15:24 -0500
Re: Gravity and light question xxein1@att.net - 2016-07-16 22:22 -0700
Re: Gravity and light question Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-17 15:22 -0500
all properties of light are wave(y\s, including the photon-electrical effect noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2016-07-16 17:03 -0700
Re: Gravity and light question mapou001@gmail.com - 2016-07-15 16:42 -0700
Re: Gravity and light question Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-07-17 16:37 -0500
Re: Gravity and light question "nuny@bid.nes" <Alien8752@gmail.com> - 2016-07-17 13:15 -0700
Re: Gravity and light question mapou001@gmail.com - 2016-07-17 13:17 -0700
Re: Gravity and light question Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-17 15:41 -0500
Re: Gravity and light question Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-07-24 17:29 +1000
Re: Gravity and light question mapou001@gmail.com - 2016-07-24 00:39 -0700
Re: Gravity and light question Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-07-27 12:06 -0500
Re: Gravity and light question mapou001@gmail.com - 2016-07-27 10:17 -0700
Re: Gravity and light question mapou001@gmail.com - 2016-07-26 21:05 -0700
Re: Gravity and light question Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-27 07:47 -0500
Re: Gravity and light question mapou001@gmail.com - 2016-07-27 09:19 -0700
Re: Gravity and light question Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-07-27 11:56 -0500
Re: Gravity and light question Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-27 12:56 -0500
Re: Gravity and light question mapou001@gmail.com - 2016-07-27 11:19 -0700
Page 2 of 10 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 … 10 Next page →
| From | Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-15 14:22 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nmbd66$5vj$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #589418 |
On 7/15/2016 12:42 PM, edprochak@gmail.com wrote: > On Friday, July 15, 2016 at 10:33:50 AM UTC-4, Sergio wrote: >> On 7/15/2016 1:01 AM, mapou001@gmail.com wrote: >>> Is there a hypothesis that explains why light falls twice as fast as >>> mass? >> >> It does not. >> >>> Please, don't offer equations because math explain nothing. >> >> unless you understand math, you cannot understand science or physics. >> >> >>> On the >>> contrary, it's the math that needs a physical explanation. >> >> already done, it is in science or physics books. >> >> >> anything else ? > > Sergio, > If you don't want to help, why post? > he is a troll, Trolls don't want any help, but we cannot encourage him for his spreading poo in newsgroup make sure his Mr Hankey gets on him first. If he is serious, then I help.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-15 10:06 -0700 |
| Subject | glightinos |
| Message-ID | <efbe37b5-bd53-429b-97ca-1da83fc80437@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #589377 |
here no equation was brought unto thousness ... how ever many thousands of youse. thw speed of lightwaves a-passing is only (solely dependent upon the index of refraction of the surrounding medium -- you weren't thereupon
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mapou001@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-15 10:40 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <640fa32e-dc3d-4ca6-8cf4-c6c07fe44b58@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #589377 |
On Thursday, July 14, 2016 at 11:01:12 PM UTC-7, mapo...@gmail.com wrote: > Is there a hypothesis that explains why light falls twice as fast as mass? > > Please, don't offer equations because math explain nothing. On the contrary, it's the math that needs a physical explanation. I forgot to post a reference: Steve Carlip: "It is well known that the deflection of light is twice that predicted by Newtonian theory; in this sense, at least, light falls with twice the acceleration of ordinary “slow” matter." Source: http://arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/9909014v1.pdf Does anybody know of a hypothesis that gives a physical reason for this?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mapou001@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-15 10:42 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <88ac1ce4-0afb-45b9-b2bc-18119c0ef564@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #589414 |
On Friday, July 15, 2016 at 10:40:34 AM UTC-7, mapo...@gmail.com wrote: > On Thursday, July 14, 2016 at 11:01:12 PM UTC-7, mapo...@gmail.com wrote: > > Is there a hypothesis that explains why light falls twice as fast as mass? > > > > Please, don't offer equations because math explain nothing. On the contrary, it's the math that needs a physical explanation. > > I forgot to post a reference: > > Steve Carlip: "It is well known that the deflection of light is twice that predicted by Newtonian theory; in this sense, at least, light falls with twice the acceleration of ordinary “slow” matter." > > Source: http://arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/9909014v1.pdf > > Does anybody know of a hypothesis that gives a physical reason for this? Also, it is obvious that this kills Einstein's equivalence principle dead.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | edprochak@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-15 10:51 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <21c39fd4-51ef-479f-b797-503ce71fbd1c@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #589417 |
On Friday, July 15, 2016 at 1:42:52 PM UTC-4, mapo...@gmail.com wrote: > On Friday, July 15, 2016 at 10:40:34 AM UTC-7, mapo...@gmail.com wrote: > > On Thursday, July 14, 2016 at 11:01:12 PM UTC-7, mapo...@gmail.com wrote: > > > Is there a hypothesis that explains why light falls twice as fast as mass? > > > > > > Please, don't offer equations because math explain nothing. On the contrary, it's the math that needs a physical explanation. > > > > I forgot to post a reference: > > > > Steve Carlip: "It is well known that the deflection of light is twice that predicted by Newtonian theory; in this sense, at least, light falls with twice the acceleration of ordinary “slow” matter." > > > > Source: http://arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/9909014v1.pdf > > > > Does anybody know of a hypothesis that gives a physical reason for this? > > Also, it is obvious that this kills Einstein's equivalence principle dead. Sorry but you took the quote the wrong way. It is precisely due to the equivalence principle that Einstein got it right and Newton got it wrong. ed
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mapou001@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-15 11:05 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <e8ea96b9-5f35-4a2c-b418-82a20294c87f@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #589421 |
On Friday, July 15, 2016 at 10:51:19 AM UTC-7, edpr...@gmail.com wrote: > On Friday, July 15, 2016 at 1:42:52 PM UTC-4, mapo...@gmail.com wrote: > > On Friday, July 15, 2016 at 10:40:34 AM UTC-7, mapo...@gmail.com wrote: > > > On Thursday, July 14, 2016 at 11:01:12 PM UTC-7, mapo...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > Is there a hypothesis that explains why light falls twice as fast as mass? > > > > > > > > Please, don't offer equations because math explain nothing. On the contrary, it's the math that needs a physical explanation. > > > > > > I forgot to post a reference: > > > > > > Steve Carlip: "It is well known that the deflection of light is twice that predicted by Newtonian theory; in this sense, at least, light falls with twice the acceleration of ordinary “slow” matter." > > > > > > Source: http://arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/9909014v1.pdf > > > > > > Does anybody know of a hypothesis that gives a physical reason for this? > > > > Also, it is obvious that this kills Einstein's equivalence principle dead. > > Sorry but you took the quote the wrong way. > It is precisely due to the equivalence principle that > Einstein got it right and Newton got it wrong. > ed Sorry, this makes no sense. If the equivalence principle was right there should be no difference between the acceleration of massive and massless particles by gravity.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-15 13:23 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nmb9mr$hm$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #589425 |
On 7/15/2016 1:05 PM, mapou001@gmail.com wrote: > Sorry, this makes no sense. If the equivalence principle was right there > should be no difference between the acceleration of massive and massless > particles by gravity. And there isn't. They follow the identical law. That would be the point. The law is that the bend is proportional to G(1+Y), where Y is close to 0 for slow-moving things and Y is close to 1 for things moving close to the speed of light. Same law, factor of 2 arises only from slow-moving vs. fast moving. -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mapou001@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-15 11:31 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <ae02d5c0-db1d-4fda-8949-f3a40b4294be@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #589430 |
On Friday, July 15, 2016 at 11:23:27 AM UTC-7, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 7/15/2016 1:05 PM, mapou001@gmail.com wrote: > > Sorry, this makes no sense. If the equivalence principle was right there > > should be no difference between the acceleration of massive and massless > > particles by gravity. > > And there isn't. They follow the identical law. That would be the point. > > The law is that the bend is proportional to G(1+Y), where Y is close to > 0 for slow-moving things and Y is close to 1 for things moving close to > the speed of light. Same law, factor of 2 arises only from slow-moving > vs. fast moving. > > > -- > Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables Fuck you. The EP has nothing to do with the speed of objects. Einstein's thought experiment in the accelerating chamber makes that clear. If light particles are accelerated more than other particles, then the EP is broken. Live with it.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-15 13:40 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nmbamp$27p$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #589431 |
On 7/15/2016 1:31 PM, mapou001@gmail.com wrote: > On Friday, July 15, 2016 at 11:23:27 AM UTC-7, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> On 7/15/2016 1:05 PM, mapou001@gmail.com wrote: >>> Sorry, this makes no sense. If the equivalence principle was right there >>> should be no difference between the acceleration of massive and massless >>> particles by gravity. >> >> And there isn't. They follow the identical law. That would be the point. >> >> The law is that the bend is proportional to G(1+Y), where Y is close to >> 0 for slow-moving things and Y is close to 1 for things moving close to >> the speed of light. Same law, factor of 2 arises only from slow-moving >> vs. fast moving. >> >> >> -- >> Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables > > Fuck you. The EP has nothing to do with the speed of objects. The EP says that the effect of gravity is INDISTINGUISHABLE from the physics of an accelerated frame, provided that the laboratory is small enough. Period. That is ALL it says. It does NOT say that the acceleration of a fast moving object under gravity will be the same as the acceleration of a slow moving object under gravity. It never did. > Einstein's > thought experiment in the accelerating chamber makes that clear. If light > particles are accelerated more than other particles, then the EP is broken. Light is NOT accelerated more than other particles traveling at the same speed. > Live with it. Consider the possibility that you may have misunderstood something about the EP, or about what Carlip said, or what relativity actually says. And do that before being so WEDDED UNTIL DEATH DO YOU PART that relativity is wrong. -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mapou001@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-15 11:47 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <dc6f4c29-bbf2-4b13-b3e5-ad717661f90e@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #589433 |
On Friday, July 15, 2016 at 11:40:31 AM UTC-7, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 7/15/2016 1:31 PM, mapou001@gmail.com wrote: > > On Friday, July 15, 2016 at 11:23:27 AM UTC-7, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >> On 7/15/2016 1:05 PM, mapou001@gmail.com wrote: > >>> Sorry, this makes no sense. If the equivalence principle was right there > >>> should be no difference between the acceleration of massive and massless > >>> particles by gravity. > >> > >> And there isn't. They follow the identical law. That would be the point. > >> > >> The law is that the bend is proportional to G(1+Y), where Y is close to > >> 0 for slow-moving things and Y is close to 1 for things moving close to > >> the speed of light. Same law, factor of 2 arises only from slow-moving > >> vs. fast moving. > >> > >> > >> -- > >> Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables > > > > Fuck you. The EP has nothing to do with the speed of objects. > > The EP says that the effect of gravity is INDISTINGUISHABLE from the > physics of an accelerated frame, provided that the laboratory is small > enough. Period. That is ALL it says. It does NOT say that the > acceleration of a fast moving object under gravity will be the same as > the acceleration of a slow moving object under gravity. It never did. > > > Einstein's > > thought experiment in the accelerating chamber makes that clear. If light > > particles are accelerated more than other particles, then the EP is broken. > > Light is NOT accelerated more than other particles traveling at the same > speed. > > > Live with it. > > Consider the possibility that you may have misunderstood something about > the EP, or about what Carlip said, or what relativity actually says. And > do that before being so WEDDED UNTIL DEATH DO YOU PART that relativity > is wrong. > > > -- > Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables This is not about what relativity says. Fuck that. It's about the equivalence principle. Either EVERYTHING accelerates the same way in gravity or they don't. They clearly don't, which means that the EP is violated. There must be a physical reason for it. And no, a math equation is not a reason. It's a fudge introduced to a theory to make it agree with observation. It's no better than Ptolemaic epicycles. Math is descriptive only. It explains nothing, goddammit. Get a clue.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-15 13:56 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nmbbl0$3ot$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #589436 |
On 7/15/2016 1:47 PM, mapou001@gmail.com wrote: > On Friday, July 15, 2016 at 11:40:31 AM UTC-7, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> On 7/15/2016 1:31 PM, mapou001@gmail.com wrote: >>> On Friday, July 15, 2016 at 11:23:27 AM UTC-7, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>> On 7/15/2016 1:05 PM, mapou001@gmail.com wrote: >>>>> Sorry, this makes no sense. If the equivalence principle was right there >>>>> should be no difference between the acceleration of massive and massless >>>>> particles by gravity. >>>> >>>> And there isn't. They follow the identical law. That would be the point. >>>> >>>> The law is that the bend is proportional to G(1+Y), where Y is close to >>>> 0 for slow-moving things and Y is close to 1 for things moving close to >>>> the speed of light. Same law, factor of 2 arises only from slow-moving >>>> vs. fast moving. >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables >>> >>> Fuck you. The EP has nothing to do with the speed of objects. >> >> The EP says that the effect of gravity is INDISTINGUISHABLE from the >> physics of an accelerated frame, provided that the laboratory is small >> enough. Period. That is ALL it says. It does NOT say that the >> acceleration of a fast moving object under gravity will be the same as >> the acceleration of a slow moving object under gravity. It never did. >> >>> Einstein's >>> thought experiment in the accelerating chamber makes that clear. If light >>> particles are accelerated more than other particles, then the EP is broken. >> >> Light is NOT accelerated more than other particles traveling at the same >> speed. >> >>> Live with it. >> >> Consider the possibility that you may have misunderstood something about >> the EP, or about what Carlip said, or what relativity actually says. And >> do that before being so WEDDED UNTIL DEATH DO YOU PART that relativity >> is wrong. >> >> >> -- >> Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables > > This is not about what relativity says. Fuck that. It's about the equivalence principle. Then look up what the equivalence principle says. It does NOT say that all things fall at the same rate in gravity. Period, end of story. It's clear that SOMETHING has been violated, but it's only the thing that you've made up, which is neither the equivalence principle nor anything relativity actually says. > Either EVERYTHING accelerates the same way in gravity or they don't. They clearly don't, > which means that the EP is violated. There must be a physical reason for it. And no, a > math equation is not a reason. It's a fudge introduced to a theory to make it agree with > observation. It's no better than Ptolemaic epicycles. Sorry, but this is just full of shit. If there is a quantity like acceleration, and the acceleration goes like G(1+Y) and you believe that Y changing from object to object is a FUDGE designed to match data, then I'm afraid you're going to have a problem with physics in general, and not with Einstein. Here's a simple example from HIGH SCHOOL PHYSICS and Galileo: The distance traveled by something starting from rest and accelerating uniformly is given by s=(1/2)at^2. Now, can you give me a PHYSICAL REASON for the factor of (1/2) or in your mind, was that just a fudge to fit data after the fact? Is there a PHYSICAL reason the t is squared as opposed to just being to the first power or the third power, or was that just a fudge to fit the data after the fact? Go ahead, have at it. > > Math is descriptive only. It explains nothing, goddammit. Get a clue. > -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mapou001@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-15 11:54 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <79c72953-f4b4-4801-9395-1ca7d3a493c0@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #589433 |
On Friday, July 15, 2016 at 11:40:31 AM UTC-7, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 7/15/2016 1:31 PM, mapou001@gmail.com wrote: > > On Friday, July 15, 2016 at 11:23:27 AM UTC-7, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >> On 7/15/2016 1:05 PM, mapou001@gmail.com wrote: > >>> Sorry, this makes no sense. If the equivalence principle was right there > >>> should be no difference between the acceleration of massive and massless > >>> particles by gravity. > >> > >> And there isn't. They follow the identical law. That would be the point. > >> > >> The law is that the bend is proportional to G(1+Y), where Y is close to > >> 0 for slow-moving things and Y is close to 1 for things moving close to > >> the speed of light. Same law, factor of 2 arises only from slow-moving > >> vs. fast moving. > >> > >> > >> -- > >> Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables > > > > Fuck you. The EP has nothing to do with the speed of objects. > > The EP says that the effect of gravity is INDISTINGUISHABLE from the > physics of an accelerated frame, provided that the laboratory is small > enough. Period. That is ALL it says. It does NOT say that the > acceleration of a fast moving object under gravity will be the same as > the acceleration of a slow moving object under gravity. It never did. > > > Einstein's > > thought experiment in the accelerating chamber makes that clear. If light > > particles are accelerated more than other particles, then the EP is broken. > > Light is NOT accelerated more than other particles traveling at the same > speed. > > > Live with it. > > Consider the possibility that you may have misunderstood something about > the EP, or about what Carlip said, or what relativity actually says. And > do that before being so WEDDED UNTIL DEATH DO YOU PART that relativity > is wrong. > > > -- > Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables Speed has nothing to do with it. Einstein's thought experiment has nothing to do with the speed of bodies in the accelerating chamber. The chamber accelerates equally relative to everything in it regardless of their speed or any other property that they may have.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-15 13:58 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nmbbo3$3ot$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #589438 |
On 7/15/2016 1:54 PM, mapou001@gmail.com wrote: > Speed has nothing to do with it. Einstein's thought experiment has nothing to > do with the speed of bodies in the accelerating chamber. The chamber accelerates > equally relative to everything in it regardless of their speed or any other > property that they may have. Let's back up. What do you believe the equivalence principle says, exactly? And before shooting your mouth off on that right away, do you want to go look it up first and see what it really says? -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | edprochak@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-18 10:29 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <ec29a594-6649-4116-9798-293bed300222@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #589431 |
On Friday, July 15, 2016 at 2:31:50 PM UTC-4, mapo...@gmail.com wrote: > On Friday, July 15, 2016 at 11:23:27 AM UTC-7, Odd Bodkin wrote: > > On 7/15/2016 1:05 PM, mapou001@gmail.com wrote: > > > Sorry, this makes no sense. If the equivalence principle was right there > > > should be no difference between the acceleration of massive and massless > > > particles by gravity. > > > > And there isn't. They follow the identical law. That would be the point. > > > > The law is that the bend is proportional to G(1+Y), where Y is close to > > 0 for slow-moving things and Y is close to 1 for things moving close to > > the speed of light. Same law, factor of 2 arises only from slow-moving > > vs. fast moving. > > > > > > -- > > Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables > > [expletive deleted] The EP has nothing to do with the speed of objects. yes. > Einstein's thought experiment in the accelerating chamber > makes that clear. yes > If light particles are accelerated more than other particles, > then the EP is broken. Yes. What we have been trying to tell you is they are accelerated exactly the same. An electron at close to the speed of light will follow a curve that matches closely to the curve that a photon will follow. The math works. > Live with it. Yes, please do.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mapou001@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-18 11:09 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <aaec7d10-d52b-439f-8b0d-8edf3df875f3@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #589766 |
On Monday, July 18, 2016 at 10:29:53 AM UTC-7, edpr...@gmail.com wrote: > The math works. Fuck you.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | edprochak@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-19 09:45 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <917b1b13-d919-4164-8785-a12df26caf6b@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #589774 |
On Monday, July 18, 2016 at 2:09:57 PM UTC-4, mapo...@gmail.com wrote: > On Monday, July 18, 2016 at 10:29:53 AM UTC-7, edpr...@gmail.com wrote: > > > The math works. > > [] you. And a good day to you too. I assumed that your question was sincere. I did not assume your had a hidden agenda. I see I was wrong about you. Bye
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mapou001@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-19 09:59 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <6a234f07-8479-427e-ac1e-945ea05a703d@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #589940 |
On Tuesday, July 19, 2016 at 9:45:48 AM UTC-7, edpr...@gmail.com wrote: > On Monday, July 18, 2016 at 2:09:57 PM UTC-4, mapo...@gmail.com wrote: > > On Monday, July 18, 2016 at 10:29:53 AM UTC-7, edpr...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > > The math works. > > > > [] you. > > And a good day to you too. > > I assumed that your question was sincere. I did not assume your had a hidden agenda. I see I was wrong about you. > > Bye I'm sincere alright. That's why I wrote "fuck you" to your lying nonsense. Newtonian mechanics assume true equivalence between acceleration and gravity. Newtonian gravity is falsified because true equivalence is broken by the fact that photons are accelerated by gravity twice as fast as massive particles. So what do you assholes do? You redefined the original meaning of equivalence so that your stupid lie about the EP can agree with observation. And yet, even after all of this mathematical legerdemain, you stupid relativists still don't have a fucking clue why photons accelerate faster than massive particles. You still think it's because of the math. You still haven't answered the question I posed at the start of the thread. So, once again. Fuck you. All of you. You're a bunch of Star Trek voodoo physicists. Both you and your physics are chicken shit. ahahaha...AHAHAHAHA...ahahahaha...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-19 12:59 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nmlpqm$7s6$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #589944 |
On 7/19/2016 11:59 AM, mapou001@gmail.com wrote: > I'm sincere alright. That's why I wrote "fuck you" to your lying nonsense. Newtonian mechanics > assume true equivalence between acceleration and gravity. Newtonian gravity is falsified because > true equivalence is broken by the fact that photons are accelerated by gravity twice as fast as > massive particles. > > So what do you assholes do? You redefined the original meaning of equivalence so that your stupid > lie about the EP can agree with observation. And yet, even after all of this mathematical > legerdemain, you stupid relativists still don't have a fucking clue why photons accelerate faster > than massive particles. You still think it's because of the math. You still haven't answered the > question I posed at the start of the thread. > > So, once again. Fuck you. All of you. You're a bunch of Star Trek voodoo physicists. Both you and > your physics are chicken shit. > > ahahaha...AHAHAHAHA...ahahahaha... Look, you twit. I'm not a physicist, I'm an amateur, like you. I'm a woodworker. But the difference between you and me is that I don't get a load of rebar up my ass because physics is hard to understand on first blush. I don't go calling physicists voodoo liars just because they don't explain everything in ordinary language without math so that I can feel better about myself. What *I* do, which is what you don't do, is attempt to learn it, instead of calling it all bullshit. I can't help your inferiority complex that's got you so cockblocked that you freeze up and start gagging, and then you get pissed that you feel that way. You have some weird fucking expectations, pal, that you should be able to understand physics on the basis of soundbites, that it's all simply explainable in terms of mechanisms that YOU BUY, and that if it's not, then it's fucking broken. Sorry, chum, but life doesn't work that way. Some areas of work require expertise, and expertise requires 10,000 hours of concentrated practice and training, and if that's too much of a load for you, then you're fucking SCREWED. Get over it. To compensate, you FABRICATE shit like this "Newtonian equivalence principle", and you FABRICATE history that flips the order of events, and then you both deny that you're doing it, and then you DO IT AGAIN. Here is a small taste of REALITY for you. 1. There IS NO Newtonian equivalence principle. You made it up. 2. Einstein's equivalence principle was proposed in 1911, almost a full decade BEFORE it was discovered through measurement that light's acceleration was twice the Newtonian prediction. To imagine that Einstein fudged the equivalence principle to match data FROM THE FUTURE is outright lunacy. 3. Even if there WERE a Newtonian equivalence principle that said what you invented, then it would be WRONG, because it disagrees with experimental data. That's how science WORKS, you bozo. If you have an idea of something you think should be true, but data doesn't match your beloved idea, then your beloved idea is WRONG. 4. Your reaction to not getting an explanation you buy is that you make up your own -- this discrete crap -- which you like BECAUSE YOU UNDERSTAND IT, and to you anything that you understand is automatically better than something you don't. 5. And you're STILL pissed off that people aren't answering your questions IN A WAY YOU UNDERSTAND, rather than you trying to understand the answers in the way they are given. This is just you being fucking lazy and vaporlocked, and having a childish tantrum that you can't get your way. Whether you like or not, I'm sure all the readers here are aware of these five facts and see straight through your bluster and false arrogance. -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mapou001@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-19 11:15 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <6307f112-dc79-4d52-a588-b6920a59adad@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #589960 |
On Tuesday, July 19, 2016 at 10:59:55 AM UTC-7, Odd Bodkin wrote: >[crap] > Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables Fuck you. ahahaha...AHAHAHAHA...ahahahaha...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | edprochak@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-18 09:56 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <95a5f592-3ac0-45ae-9a16-41518bfe2acc@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #589425 |
On Friday, July 15, 2016 at 2:05:03 PM UTC-4, mapo...@gmail.com wrote: > On Friday, July 15, 2016 at 10:51:19 AM UTC-7, edpr...@gmail.com wrote: > > On Friday, July 15, 2016 at 1:42:52 PM UTC-4, mapo...@gmail.com wrote: > > > On Friday, July 15, 2016 at 10:40:34 AM UTC-7, mapo...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > On Thursday, July 14, 2016 at 11:01:12 PM UTC-7, mapo...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > > Is there a hypothesis that explains why light falls twice as fast as mass? > > > > > > > > > > Please, don't offer equations because math explain nothing. On the contrary, it's the math that needs a physical explanation. > > > > > > > > I forgot to post a reference: > > > > > > > > Steve Carlip: "It is well known that the deflection of light is twice that predicted by Newtonian theory; in this sense, at least, light falls with twice the acceleration of ordinary “slow” matter." > > > > > > > > Source: http://arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/9909014v1.pdf > > > > > > > > Does anybody know of a hypothesis that gives a physical reason for this? > > > > > > Also, it is obvious that this kills Einstein's equivalence principle dead. > > > > Sorry but you took the quote the wrong way. > > It is precisely due to the equivalence principle that > > Einstein got it right and Newton got it wrong. > > ed > > Sorry, this makes no sense. If the equivalence principle was right > there should be no difference between the acceleration of massive > and massless particles by gravity. RIGHT! But my explanation was using the equivalence of mass and energy. Sorry we got our equivalence terms were not equivalent. :) There is a difference between the acceleration of massive SLOW particles and massless Speed-of-light particles by gravity. Read the Carlipp quote again: ' ... in this sense, at least, light falls with twice the acceleration of ordinary “slow” matter.' Note the emphasis on SLOW. ed
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 2 of 10 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 … 10 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics
csiph-web