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

Groups > sci.physics > #590891 > unrolled thread

Re: Gravity and light question

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.

Contents

  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

#590891 — Re: Gravity and light question

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'm still waiting for one of you assholes in the physics community to coherently explain why photons fall twice as fast as massive particles. Don't tell me it's because of the math because it would be a sign that you are a clueless jackass. I want a physical explanation, not abstract math. If all you got is math, roll it up and pack it up your ass.

ahahaha...AHAHAHAHA...ahahahaha...

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#590912

On 7/26/2016 11:05 PM, mapou001@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'm still waiting for one of you assholes in the physics community to coherently explain why
> photons fall twice as fast as massive particles. Don't tell me it's because of the math
> because it would be a sign that you are a clueless jackass. I want a physical explanation,
> not abstract math. If all you got is math, roll it up and pack it up your ass.

You want an explanation you UNDERSTAND, because you can't deal with even 
the simplest math. Rather than putting the burden on you to LEARN 
something (which you're terrified of trying to do), you want physics to 
stoop down to your 2nd-grade ability and work with you there.

No soap, pal.

Suck it up and grow a pair. Be a man, not a whiny 2nd grader.

-- 
Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

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

#590922

On Wednesday, July 27, 2016 at 5:47:52 AM UTC-7, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> On 7/26/2016 11:05 PM, mapou001@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'm still waiting for one of you assholes in the physics community to coherently explain why
> > photons fall twice as fast as massive particles. Don't tell me it's because of the math
> > because it would be a sign that you are a clueless jackass. I want a physical explanation,
> > not abstract math. If all you got is math, roll it up and pack it up your ass.
> 
> You want an explanation you UNDERSTAND, because you can't deal with even 
> the simplest math. Rather than putting the burden on you to LEARN 
> something (which you're terrified of trying to do), you want physics to 
> stoop down to your 2nd-grade ability and work with you there.
> 
> No soap, pal.
> 
> Suck it up and grow a pair. Be a man, not a whiny 2nd grader.
> 
> -- 
> Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

You're a nutless wonder, not to mention stupid. Math never explains anything. It's purely descriptive. The inverse square law of gravity does not explain gravity or anything else. Why do you insist on being so fucking stupid, jackass?

ahahahaha...AHAHAHAHA...ahahahaha...

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

#590934

On 7/27/2016 11:19 AM, mapou001@gmail.com wrote:

> You're a nutless wonder, not to mention stupid. Math never explains
> anything. It's purely descriptive. The inverse square law of gravity
> does not explain gravity or anything else. Why do you insist on being
> so fucking stupid, jackass?
>
> ahahahaha...AHAHAHAHA...ahahahaha...
>



you want a bar fight in a newsgroup, meh.

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

#590951

On 7/27/2016 11:19 AM, mapou001@gmail.com wrote:
> You're a nutless wonder, not to mention stupid. Math never explains anything. It's purely descriptive.

And in this you're just flat wrong, as I've stated before.
I get that you WANT math to be not ever explanatory, because you can't 
deal with math and want to diminish its value, but that's just not the 
case. Math is a SHORTHAND for words. When you are writing math, you are 
doing the same thing you could be doing with words, just more concretely 
and more compactly. So where there is an explanation available in words, 
there is also often a way to provide the SAME explanation in math. You 
just don't understand it.

> The inverse square law of gravity does not explain gravity or anything else. Why do you insist
> on being so fucking stupid, jackass?
>
> ahahahaha...AHAHAHAHA...ahahahaha...


-- 
Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

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

#590958

On Wednesday, July 27, 2016 at 10:56:38 AM UTC-7, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>[crap]
I just trash your crap without reading it from now on. I can't stand ass kissers. Grow a pair, wuss.

ahahahaha...AHAHAHAHA...ahahahaha...

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics

csiph-web