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 | 2016-07-17 15:41 -0500 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 123 — 11 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 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 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
Page 1 of 7 [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next page →
| From | mapou001@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-14 23:01 -0700 |
| Subject | Gravity and light question |
| Message-ID | <0a163a49-9fa1-4559-9d24-690bc522b0c6@googlegroups.com> |
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.
[toc] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-15 07:25 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nmako8$rof$3@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #589377 |
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? > > Please, don't offer equations because math explain nothing. On the contrary, > it's the math that needs a physical explanation. > Math is just a shorthand language. Either you know how to read it or you don't. But if you have someone that expresses things well in French, it is silly to say that French expresses nothing and that French needs to be translated into English. -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mapou001@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-15 08:36 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <c3474368-e92e-4f11-a6d7-c04c11def351@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #589398 |
On Friday, July 15, 2016 at 5:25:48 AM UTC-7, Odd Bodkin 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? > > > > Please, don't offer equations because math explain nothing. On the contrary, > > it's the math that needs a physical explanation. > > > > Math is just a shorthand language. Either you know how to read it or you > don't. But if you have someone that expresses things well in French, it > is silly to say that French expresses nothing and that French needs to > be translated into English. > > > -- > Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables Fuck you.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-15 10:41 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nmb07p$1gp1$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #589402 |
On 7/15/2016 10:36 AM, mapou001@gmail.com wrote: > On Friday, July 15, 2016 at 5:25:48 AM UTC-7, Odd Bodkin 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? >>> >>> Please, don't offer equations because math explain nothing. On the contrary, >>> it's the math that needs a physical explanation. >>> >> >> Math is just a shorthand language. Either you know how to read it or you >> don't. But if you have someone that expresses things well in French, it >> is silly to say that French expresses nothing and that French needs to >> be translated into English. >> >> >> -- >> Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables > > Fuck you. > Oooh, such macho overcompensation. I have to admit that it mystifies me how a woodworker would have no difficulty working through books with a lot of math in them, but you somehow feel it is an unfair burden for you. This comparison is so that you know it has nothing to do with native ability, but instead has more to do with laziness. -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-15 11:02 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nmb1ec$1j11$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #589402 |
On 7/15/2016 10:36 AM, mapou001@gmail.com wrote: > On Friday, July 15, 2016 at 5:25:48 AM UTC-7, Odd Bodkin 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? >>> >>> Please, don't offer equations because math explain nothing. On the contrary, >>> it's the math that needs a physical explanation. >>> >> >> Math is just a shorthand language. Either you know how to read it or you >> don't. But if you have someone that expresses things well in French, it >> is silly to say that French expresses nothing and that French needs to >> be translated into English. >> >> >> -- >> Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables > > Fuck you. > I think I just want to add that you announced you were leaving the newsgroup, and then you didn't. Then you said "adios" to a few people, letting them know you would have nothing more to do with them, and then you didn't follow through on that either. All this is pretty indicative of someone who is all bluster but no substance, a lot of noise and no follow-through, a lot of "gonnas" and no actual doing. I imagine you are very familiar with hearing this comment. -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | edprochak@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-15 10:46 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <49ae83e7-5e93-4cdc-9a44-b6647718669f@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #589405 |
On Friday, July 15, 2016 at 12:02:26 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 7/15/2016 10:36 AM, mapou001@gmail.com wrote: > > On Friday, July 15, 2016 at 5:25:48 AM UTC-7, Odd Bodkin 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? > >>> > >>> Please, don't offer equations because math explain nothing. On the contrary, > >>> it's the math that needs a physical explanation. > >>> > >> > >> Math is just a shorthand language. Either you know how to read it or you > >> don't. But if you have someone that expresses things well in French, it > >> is silly to say that French expresses nothing and that French needs to > >> be translated into English. > >> > >> > >> -- > >> Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables > > > > Fuck you. > > > > I think I just want to add that you announced you were leaving the > newsgroup, and then you didn't. > > Then you said "adios" to a few people, letting them know you would have > nothing more to do with them, and then you didn't follow through on that > either. > > All this is pretty indicative of someone who is all bluster but no > substance, a lot of noise and no follow-through, a lot of "gonnas" and > no actual doing. I imagine you are very familiar with hearing this comment. > > -- > Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables Funny, I keep coming here hoping to discuss physics. If you don't want to help mapou001, then consider posting a thoughtful answer for others that only read this group or are visiting for the first time. A little civility can go a long was to quieting even trolls. ed
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-15 13:11 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nmb90o$1v6a$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #589419 |
On 7/15/2016 12:46 PM, edprochak@gmail.com wrote: > On Friday, July 15, 2016 at 12:02:26 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> On 7/15/2016 10:36 AM, mapou001@gmail.com wrote: >>> On Friday, July 15, 2016 at 5:25:48 AM UTC-7, Odd Bodkin 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? >>>>> >>>>> Please, don't offer equations because math explain nothing. On the contrary, >>>>> it's the math that needs a physical explanation. >>>>> >>>> >>>> Math is just a shorthand language. Either you know how to read it or you >>>> don't. But if you have someone that expresses things well in French, it >>>> is silly to say that French expresses nothing and that French needs to >>>> be translated into English. >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables >>> >>> Fuck you. >>> >> >> I think I just want to add that you announced you were leaving the >> newsgroup, and then you didn't. >> >> Then you said "adios" to a few people, letting them know you would have >> nothing more to do with them, and then you didn't follow through on that >> either. >> >> All this is pretty indicative of someone who is all bluster but no >> substance, a lot of noise and no follow-through, a lot of "gonnas" and >> no actual doing. I imagine you are very familiar with hearing this comment. >> >> -- >> Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables > > Funny, I keep coming here hoping to discuss physics. > If you don't want to help mapou001, then consider posting > a thoughtful answer for others that only read this group > or are visiting for the first time. > > A little civility can go a long was to quieting even trolls. > ed > Fine. I will just note that the OP has a habit of declaring that it's all nonsense before even knowing what the heck he's talking about. Had he approached with a little more civility, he would have earned some back. The way I understand it, reduced down in a way that hopefully OP can follow, is that a more accurate representation of gravity (general relativity) has TWO terms for the rate of bend. There is a term that is proportional to G and this is the term that survives even in the low speed approximation. But there is an additional term that comes from the curvature of spacetime, which corresponds to the familiar Newtonian expression for the centripetal acceleration: v^2 / r. The radius of curvature of spacetime is c^2 / G, and so substituting in, this term is then G(v/c)^2. Combining both terms, you get G + G(v/c)^2. This applies to BOTH light and for matter, so strictly speaking, it is not different for light and for matter at all. But if the matter is slow moving (v<<c), then the second term is negligibly small and so the only part that remains is the first term, which is what Newton was aware of. When it is light, though, v=c and so the second term is just as big as the first term, hence the factor of 2. But it also would apply to a proton moving at nearly the speed of light. So, basically, the CORRECT answer for the deflection of ANYTHING by gravity is proportional to G[ 1+(v/c)^2 ], and there is no physical reason to explain about a difference in the freefall of ordinary matter and of light because they are the SAME. It's just that the INCORRECT answer (given by Newton) happens to be "ok enough" when v<<c and the term in [ ] is indistinguishable from 1. -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-17 16:30 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <1664495.taCxCBeP46@PointedEars.de> |
| In reply to | #589426 |
Odd Bodkin wrote: > The way I understand it, reduced down in a way that hopefully OP can > follow, is that a more accurate representation of gravity (general > relativity) has TWO terms for the rate of bend. There is a term that is > proportional to G and this is the term that survives even in the low > speed approximation. But there is an additional term that comes from the > curvature of spacetime, which corresponds to the familiar Newtonian > expression for the centripetal acceleration: v^2 / r. The radius of > curvature of spacetime is c^2 / G, and so substituting in, this term is > then G(v/c)^2. Combining both terms, you get > G + G(v/c)^2. > This applies to BOTH light and for matter, so strictly speaking, it is > not different for light and for matter at all. Such a nonsense, it is not even wrong. To begin with, the curvature of a spacetime is a *tensor* *field*. -- PointedEars Twitter: @PointedEars2 Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-17 11:15 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nmgava$647$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #589642 |
On 7/17/2016 9:30 AM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: > Odd Bodkin wrote: > >> The way I understand it, reduced down in a way that hopefully OP can >> follow, is that a more accurate representation of gravity (general >> relativity) has TWO terms for the rate of bend. There is a term that is >> proportional to G and this is the term that survives even in the low >> speed approximation. But there is an additional term that comes from the >> curvature of spacetime, which corresponds to the familiar Newtonian >> expression for the centripetal acceleration: v^2 / r. The radius of >> curvature of spacetime is c^2 / G, and so substituting in, this term is >> then G(v/c)^2. Combining both terms, you get >> G + G(v/c)^2. >> This applies to BOTH light and for matter, so strictly speaking, it is >> not different for light and for matter at all. > Such a nonsense, it is not even wrong. > > To begin with, the curvature of a spacetime is a *tensor* *field*. > tensors are grown in the South of France, a summer crop, in large fields, they are a cross between a carrot and onion. You dont see them in the US. "Tensor Field" is a famous brand name.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-17 15:29 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nmgpqg$tee$5@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #589642 |
On 7/17/2016 9:30 AM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: > Odd Bodkin wrote: > >> The way I understand it, reduced down in a way that hopefully OP can >> follow, is that a more accurate representation of gravity (general >> relativity) has TWO terms for the rate of bend. There is a term that is >> proportional to G and this is the term that survives even in the low >> speed approximation. But there is an additional term that comes from the >> curvature of spacetime, which corresponds to the familiar Newtonian >> expression for the centripetal acceleration: v^2 / r. The radius of >> curvature of spacetime is c^2 / G, and so substituting in, this term is >> then G(v/c)^2. Combining both terms, you get >> G + G(v/c)^2. >> This applies to BOTH light and for matter, so strictly speaking, it is >> not different for light and for matter at all. > > Such a nonsense, it is not even wrong. > > To begin with, the curvature of a spacetime is a *tensor* *field*. > As I said, "reduced down in a way". -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-18 00:16 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <10663825.O9o76ZdvQC@PointedEars.de> |
| In reply to | #589679 |
Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 7/17/2016 9:30 AM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: >> Odd Bodkin wrote: >>> The way I understand it, reduced down in a way that hopefully OP can >>> follow, is that a more accurate representation of gravity (general >>> relativity) has TWO terms for the rate of bend. There is a term that is >>> proportional to G and this is the term that survives even in the low >>> speed approximation. But there is an additional term that comes from the >>> curvature of spacetime, which corresponds to the familiar Newtonian >>> expression for the centripetal acceleration: v^2 / r. The radius of >>> curvature of spacetime is c^2 / G, and so substituting in, this term is >>> then G(v/c)^2. Combining both terms, you get >>> G + G(v/c)^2. >>> This applies to BOTH light and for matter, so strictly speaking, it is >>> not different for light and for matter at all. >> >> Such a nonsense, it is not even wrong. >> >> To begin with, the curvature of a spacetime is a *tensor* *field*. > > As I said, "reduced down in a way". You have "reduced" so much whatever understanding of general relativity you might have that the resulting explanation is utter nonsense of the form “not even wrong”. AISB, the curvature of a spacetime is a *tensor* *field*; the curvature values for each point of that spacetime are *higher-rank* *tensors*. For the spacetime in the vicinity of a massive body the curvature is not zero, and it is *different* for each point/event of that spacetime compared to neighboring points/events. IOW, the curvature of that spacetime is _not_ constant over that spacetime even for a body at relative rest; it follows from the definition of the radius of curvature that the radius of curvature is not constant, too. Whereas c and G are *constant* *scalars*, and so is your c²∕G – it *cannot* describe the radius/radii of curvature in the vicinity of massive object correctly. I strongly recommend that you read, *carefully*, *at least*: <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curvature> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematics_of_general_relativity> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Riemann_curvature_tensor> Also, this should be discussed in <news:sci.physics.relativity> instead. -- PointedEars Twitter: @PointedEars2 Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-18 06:39 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nmif5n$1711$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #589696 |
On 7/17/2016 5:16 PM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: > Odd Bodkin wrote: > >> On 7/17/2016 9:30 AM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: >>> Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>> The way I understand it, reduced down in a way that hopefully OP can >>>> follow, is that a more accurate representation of gravity (general >>>> relativity) has TWO terms for the rate of bend. There is a term that is >>>> proportional to G and this is the term that survives even in the low >>>> speed approximation. But there is an additional term that comes from the >>>> curvature of spacetime, which corresponds to the familiar Newtonian >>>> expression for the centripetal acceleration: v^2 / r. The radius of >>>> curvature of spacetime is c^2 / G, and so substituting in, this term is >>>> then G(v/c)^2. Combining both terms, you get >>>> G + G(v/c)^2. >>>> This applies to BOTH light and for matter, so strictly speaking, it is >>>> not different for light and for matter at all. >>> >>> Such a nonsense, it is not even wrong. >>> >>> To begin with, the curvature of a spacetime is a *tensor* *field*. >> >> As I said, "reduced down in a way". > > You have "reduced" so much whatever understanding of general relativity you > might have that the resulting explanation is utter nonsense of the form “not > even wrong”. > > AISB, the curvature of a spacetime is a *tensor* *field*; the curvature > values for each point of that spacetime are *higher-rank* *tensors*. For > the spacetime in the vicinity of a massive body the curvature is not zero, > and it is *different* for each point/event of that spacetime compared to > neighboring points/events. IOW, the curvature of that spacetime is _not_ > constant over that spacetime even for a body at relative rest; it follows > from the definition of the radius of curvature that the radius of curvature > is not constant, too. Whereas c and G are *constant* *scalars*, and so is > your c²∕G – it *cannot* describe the radius/radii of curvature in the > vicinity of massive object correctly. You are welcome to try to explain this to the OP, to whose post I refer you. Please note his request. > > I strongly recommend that you read, *carefully*, *at least*: > > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curvature> > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematics_of_general_relativity> > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Riemann_curvature_tensor> > > Also, this should be discussed in <news:sci.physics.relativity> instead. > -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | xxein1@att.net |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-18 09:32 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <ef01027a-ef9f-434f-acf4-8a9a356d1f00@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #589744 |
On Monday, July 18, 2016 at 7:39:39 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 7/17/2016 5:16 PM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: > > Odd Bodkin wrote: > > > >> On 7/17/2016 9:30 AM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: > >>> Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>>> The way I understand it, reduced down in a way that hopefully OP can > >>>> follow, is that a more accurate representation of gravity (general > >>>> relativity) has TWO terms for the rate of bend. There is a term that is > >>>> proportional to G and this is the term that survives even in the low > >>>> speed approximation. But there is an additional term that comes from the > >>>> curvature of spacetime, which corresponds to the familiar Newtonian > >>>> expression for the centripetal acceleration: v^2 / r. The radius of > >>>> curvature of spacetime is c^2 / G, and so substituting in, this term is > >>>> then G(v/c)^2. Combining both terms, you get > >>>> G + G(v/c)^2. > >>>> This applies to BOTH light and for matter, so strictly speaking, it is > >>>> not different for light and for matter at all. > >>> > >>> Such a nonsense, it is not even wrong. > >>> > >>> To begin with, the curvature of a spacetime is a *tensor* *field*. > >> > >> As I said, "reduced down in a way". > > > > You have "reduced" so much whatever understanding of general relativity you > > might have that the resulting explanation is utter nonsense of the form “not > > even wrong”. > > > > AISB, the curvature of a spacetime is a *tensor* *field*; the curvature > > values for each point of that spacetime are *higher-rank* *tensors*. For > > the spacetime in the vicinity of a massive body the curvature is not zero, > > and it is *different* for each point/event of that spacetime compared to > > neighboring points/events. IOW, the curvature of that spacetime is _not_ > > constant over that spacetime even for a body at relative rest; it follows > > from the definition of the radius of curvature that the radius of curvature > > is not constant, too. Whereas c and G are *constant* *scalars*, and so is > > your c²∕G – it *cannot* describe the radius/radii of curvature in the > > vicinity of massive object correctly. > > You are welcome to try to explain this to the OP, to whose post I refer > you. Please note his request. > > > > > I strongly recommend that you read, *carefully*, *at least*: > > > > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curvature> > > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematics_of_general_relativity> > > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Riemann_curvature_tensor> > > > > Also, this should be discussed in <news:sci.physics.relativity> instead. > > > > > -- > Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables xxein: ...which can be further reduced to 1/r^2. On the other hand the greater math describes the mechanics in a curved space-time without describing the mechanics of how it came to be formed in the first place. That is - why is there a gravity and how does it curve space-time? And that can be elevated to - what is gravity? But why stop there? What is the difference between myth (model, imagination) and reality? Can reality be described without myth? Define reality. Is there a sub-basic difference between matter and energy? **What is?** **Why?** Can we remain satisfied to know less?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-18 22:55 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <2358326.mvXUDI8C0e@PointedEars.de> |
| In reply to | #589744 |
Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 7/17/2016 5:16 PM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: >> You have "reduced" so much whatever understanding of general relativity >> you might have that the resulting explanation is utter nonsense of the >> form “not even wrong”. >> >> AISB, the curvature of a spacetime is a *tensor* *field*; the curvature >> values for each point of that spacetime are *higher-rank* *tensors*. For >> the spacetime in the vicinity of a massive body the curvature is not >> zero, and it is *different* for each point/event of that spacetime >> compared to neighboring points/events. IOW, the curvature of that >> spacetime is _not_ constant over that spacetime even for a body at >> relative rest; it follows from the definition of the radius of curvature >> that the radius of curvature is not constant, too. Whereas c and G are >> *constant* *scalars*, and so is your c²∕G – it *cannot* describe the >> radius/radii of curvature in the vicinity of massive object correctly. > > You are welcome to try to explain this to the OP, BTDT. > to whose post I refer you. Please note his request. I do not read the OP because they are posting via the source of spam and trolls, Google Groups, and I have all Google Groups posters, with the exception of one who posts reasonably, automagically killfiled unless they follow-up to one of my postings. So thanks, but no, thanks. And what for? The OP is obviously a science crank, their question is bogus (they confuse physical objects with physical quantities, a common indication of a science crank), and in the wrong newsgroup; their request is in fact a bait, and if interpreted in a benevolent way, it cannot reasonably be fulfilled. One needs an explanation involving math, in particular one needs to discuss *differential geometry*, to come even close to a correct explanation of general relativity, the *only* theory so far that predicted that and correctly explains why massive objects bend light. So why have you taken the bait, replying to the OP’s nonsense with even greater nonsense? You could have just ignored them, saving free time and your face in the process. With that out of the way, I am curious, though: Why did you think that the (radius of) curvature of spacetime in the vicinity of a massive object would be constant? F'up2 <news:sci.physics.relativity> -- PointedEars Twitter: @PointedEars2 Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-15 09:33 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nmas87$19ab$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #589377 |
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 ?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mapou001@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-15 08:36 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <97bcb082-1963-41e0-a9dc-a2ed08443818@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #589399 |
On Friday, July 15, 2016 at 7:33:50 AM UTC-7, 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 ? Fuck you too.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-15 11:25 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nmb2ph$1l6d$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #589403 |
On 7/15/2016 10:36 AM, mapou001@gmail.com wrote: > On Friday, July 15, 2016 at 7:33:50 AM UTC-7, 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 ? > > Fuck you too. > I didn't mean to confuse you. And I do understand that there are people with learning disabilities, difficulties, drugs, alcohol, problems, intellectually disfunctional like you. But Don't worry about physics or science, others can do that work. Your talents are needed growing carrots or radishes, perhaps the pulling them out of the ground and putting them in the basket phase. Feel better now ?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-15 10:02 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <854cd990-53a6-4feb-9fde-04644bbe2d72@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #589406 |
On Friday, July 15, 2016 at 9:25:26 AM UTC-7, Sergio wrote: > On 7/15/2016 10:36 AM, mapou001@gmail.com wrote: > > On Friday, July 15, 2016 at 7:33:50 AM UTC-7, 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 ? > > > > Fuck you too. > > > > > I didn't mean to confuse you. > > And I do understand that there are people with learning disabilities, > difficulties, drugs, alcohol, problems, intellectually disfunctional > like you. > > But Don't worry about physics or science, others can do that work. Your > talents are needed growing carrots or radishes, perhaps the pulling them > out of the ground and putting them in the basket phase. > > Feel better now ? Electron speed can be 99.999999999 of c.EM uses waves.Gravity does not.I go with Einstein on gravity waves.TreBert
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | edprochak@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-15 10:42 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <6cde5341-d03c-453f-8dc9-611043044c63@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #589399 |
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?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| 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]
Page 1 of 7 [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics
csiph-web