Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics > #714456 > unrolled thread
| Started by | James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2018-11-24 11:46 -0800 |
| Last post | 2018-12-17 02:14 +0100 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 299 — 23 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics
Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2018-11-24 11:46 -0800
Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-11-24 12:57 -0800
Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? poraty6@gmail.com - 2018-11-24 15:49 -0800
Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-11-24 16:34 -0800
Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? poraty6@gmail.com - 2018-11-24 20:48 -0800
Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-11-25 09:27 -0800
Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? poraty6@gmail.com - 2018-11-24 20:53 -0800
Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-11-25 11:40 -0600
Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? poraty6@gmail.com - 2018-11-25 11:26 -0800
Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? Steve <invalidz@example.net> - 2018-11-25 16:52 -0800
Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2018-11-26 01:06 +0000
Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? poraty6@gmail.com - 2018-11-25 21:05 -0800
Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-11-26 10:51 -0800
Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? Richard Cranium <involidz@example.net> - 2018-11-28 07:38 -0800
Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-11-26 12:54 -0600
Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? poraty6@gmail.com - 2018-11-25 22:57 -0800
Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? pnalsing@gmail.com - 2018-11-24 16:22 -0800
Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-11-25 14:06 -0800
Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2018-11-26 15:43 -0800
Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? poraty6@gmail.com - 2018-11-26 17:51 -0800
Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? Oscar <invalidz@example.net> - 2018-11-26 18:11 -0800
Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-11-26 20:09 -0800
Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2018-11-26 20:40 -0800
Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-11-27 03:40 -0800
Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-11-27 16:44 +0000
Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? poraty6@gmail.com - 2018-11-27 15:38 -0800
Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-11-27 11:14 -0800
Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? poraty6@gmail.com - 2018-11-27 15:42 -0800
Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-11-28 01:08 +0100
Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2018-11-27 21:51 -0800
Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-11-27 23:32 -0800
Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? poraty6@gmail.com - 2018-11-27 23:44 -0800
Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2018-11-27 23:59 -0800
Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? poraty6@gmail.com - 2018-11-28 08:54 -0800
Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? Buck Futter <invaolidz@example.net> - 2018-11-28 17:28 -0800
Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2018-11-28 17:48 -0800
Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? poraty6@gmail.com - 2018-11-28 20:43 -0800
Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2018-11-28 20:50 -0800
Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? poraty6@gmail.com - 2018-11-28 23:55 -0800
Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2018-11-29 01:01 -0800
Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-11-29 12:08 -0800
Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2018-11-29 15:11 -0800
Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? poraty6@gmail.com - 2018-11-28 20:50 -0800
Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2018-11-28 23:12 -0800
Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? poraty6@gmail.com - 2018-11-29 00:03 -0800
Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? poraty6@gmail.com - 2018-11-29 00:07 -0800
Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? Steve <invaolidz@example.net> - 2018-11-29 18:57 -0800
Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-11-30 14:06 -0600
Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-11-29 12:02 -0800
Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2018-11-29 14:56 -0800
Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-11-29 23:06 +0000
Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2018-11-29 15:38 -0800
Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-11-29 18:05 -0800
Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? poraty6@gmail.com - 2018-11-30 01:41 -0800
Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-11-30 14:06 -0600
Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? poraty6@gmail.com - 2018-11-30 16:08 -0800
Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? poraty6@gmail.com - 2018-12-06 01:34 -0800
Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-11-29 19:16 -0800
Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2018-11-29 20:14 -0800
Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? pnalsing@gmail.com - 2018-11-29 20:27 -0800
Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2018-11-29 21:59 -0800
Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2018-11-30 09:48 -0800
Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? pnalsing@gmail.com - 2018-11-30 11:07 -0800
Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2018-11-30 12:22 -0800
Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2018-12-02 18:31 -0800
Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2018-12-02 22:13 -0800
Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-12-02 22:14 -0800
Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-12-02 22:20 -0800
Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2018-12-03 13:28 -0800
Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-12-03 13:44 -0800
Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2018-12-03 14:38 -0800
Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-12-03 14:47 -0800
Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2018-12-06 03:32 -0800
Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-12-03 23:31 +0000
Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2018-12-05 17:14 -0800
Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? pnalsing@gmail.com - 2018-12-05 17:44 -0800
Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? % <%> - 2018-12-05 18:49 -0700
Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? pnalsing@gmail.com - 2018-12-05 20:00 -0800
Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2018-12-05 19:24 -0800
Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? pnalsing@gmail.com - 2018-12-05 20:05 -0800
Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2018-12-05 21:08 -0800
Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? pnalsing@gmail.com - 2018-12-05 21:35 -0800
Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2018-12-05 22:38 -0800
Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? pnalsing@gmail.com - 2018-12-05 22:52 -0800
Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2018-12-05 22:50 -0800
Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? pnalsing@gmail.com - 2018-12-05 22:58 -0800
Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2018-12-05 23:14 -0800
Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-12-06 13:33 +0000
Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2018-12-06 07:41 -0800
Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-12-06 16:34 +0000
Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2018-12-06 09:45 -0800
Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2018-12-06 09:56 -0800
Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? pnalsing@gmail.com - 2018-12-06 11:16 -0800
Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? % <%> - 2018-12-06 12:26 -0700
Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? pnalsing@gmail.com - 2018-12-06 11:34 -0800
Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? % <%> - 2018-12-06 12:54 -0700
Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? pnalsing@gmail.com - 2018-12-06 13:42 -0800
Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2018-12-06 19:48 -0800
Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? pnalsing@gmail.com - 2018-12-06 20:35 -0800
Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2018-12-07 08:14 -0800
Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? pnalsing@gmail.com - 2018-12-07 15:58 -0800
Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2018-12-07 16:34 -0800
Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? pnalsing@gmail.com - 2018-12-07 21:46 -0800
Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2018-12-07 22:16 -0800
Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2018-12-07 22:32 -0800
Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? pnalsing@gmail.com - 2018-12-07 23:38 -0800
Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2018-12-08 09:45 -0800
Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2018-12-12 13:43 -0800
Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? % <%> - 2018-12-12 14:46 -0700
Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2018-12-07 23:33 -0800
Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? pnalsing@gmail.com - 2018-12-07 23:40 -0800
Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2018-12-08 10:51 -0800
Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2018-12-08 20:29 -0800
Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? pnalsing@gmail.com - 2018-12-08 23:07 -0800
Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2018-12-09 08:20 -0800
Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? pnalsing@gmail.com - 2018-12-09 09:13 -0800
Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2018-12-09 09:40 -0800
Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? pnalsing@gmail.com - 2018-12-09 14:37 -0800
Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-12-10 14:03 -0600
Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2018-12-09 08:34 -0800
Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2018-12-11 21:33 -0800
Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2018-12-12 13:06 -0800
Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2018-12-07 10:06 -0800
Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? pnalsing@gmail.com - 2018-12-07 16:01 -0800
Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2018-12-07 16:36 -0800
Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2018-12-07 04:28 -0800
Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-12-07 15:25 +0000
Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2018-12-07 07:46 -0800
Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-12-07 17:18 +0000
Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2018-12-07 09:51 -0800
Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-12-07 18:05 +0000
Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2018-12-07 10:17 -0800
Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-12-07 18:40 +0000
Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2018-12-07 10:44 -0800
Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-12-07 19:06 +0000
Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2018-12-07 13:26 -0800
Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2018-12-07 15:05 -0800
Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2018-12-07 17:37 -0800
Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2018-12-07 19:22 -0800
Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? pnalsing@gmail.com - 2018-12-07 21:48 -0800
Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-12-08 13:08 +0000
Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2018-12-08 10:26 -0800
Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2018-12-08 10:27 -0800
Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-12-10 14:09 -0600
Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2018-12-07 15:00 -0800
Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-12-08 03:17 +0000
Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2018-12-07 23:03 -0800
Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2018-12-08 10:02 -0800
Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-12-08 18:14 +0000
Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2018-12-08 10:25 -0800
Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-12-08 18:44 +0000
Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2018-12-08 10:52 -0800
Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-12-09 05:44 +0000
Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2018-12-09 08:31 -0800
Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2018-12-09 10:49 -0800
Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-12-09 22:36 +0000
Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2018-12-09 23:44 -0800
Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2018-12-08 18:28 -0800
Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2018-12-09 02:52 -0800
Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2018-12-09 08:22 -0800
Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2018-12-09 18:22 -0800
Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2018-12-09 20:14 -0800
Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? pnalsing@gmail.com - 2018-12-09 20:22 -0800
Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2018-12-09 20:45 -0800
Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? pnalsing@gmail.com - 2018-12-10 15:46 -0800
Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2018-12-10 17:04 -0800
Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2018-12-10 17:43 -0800
Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? pnalsing@gmail.com - 2018-12-10 20:04 -0800
Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2018-12-10 20:29 -0800
Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? pnalsing@gmail.com - 2018-12-10 20:42 -0800
Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2018-12-10 22:44 -0800
Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2018-12-11 00:32 -0800
Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? pnalsing@gmail.com - 2018-12-11 06:50 -0800
Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2018-12-11 07:52 -0800
Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2018-12-10 00:40 -0800
Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2018-12-10 20:50 -0800
Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2018-12-10 22:43 -0800
Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-12-10 15:20 -0600
Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2018-12-10 17:22 -0800
Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-12-11 23:04 +0000
Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2018-12-11 17:48 -0800
Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2018-12-11 18:51 -0800
Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? pnalsing@gmail.com - 2018-12-11 19:47 -0800
Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2018-12-11 20:42 -0800
Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2018-12-12 14:24 -0800
Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2018-12-11 21:03 -0800
Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? Michael Moroney <moroney@TheWorld.com> - 2018-12-12 06:07 +0000
Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2018-12-11 22:50 -0800
Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-12-12 19:13 +0000
Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2018-12-12 12:00 -0800
Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2018-12-13 11:57 -0800
Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2018-12-13 11:55 -0800
Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? pnalsing@gmail.com - 2018-12-12 14:49 -0800
Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2018-12-12 15:01 -0800
Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? pnalsing@gmail.com - 2018-12-12 17:42 -0800
Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? pnalsing@gmail.com - 2018-12-06 11:14 -0800
Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2018-12-07 04:33 -0800
Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2018-12-06 07:58 -0800
Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-12-09 14:03 -0600
Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2018-12-09 12:56 -0800
Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? pnalsing@gmail.com - 2018-12-09 14:38 -0800
Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2018-12-09 18:14 -0800
Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? pnalsing@gmail.com - 2018-12-09 19:37 -0800
Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2018-12-09 20:32 -0800
Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-12-09 20:48 -0800
Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? "reber G=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2018-12-16 12:37 -0800
Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> - 2018-12-16 14:01 -0800
Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-12-10 19:26 -0600
Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? pnalsing@gmail.com - 2018-12-05 20:14 -0800
Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-12-06 17:49 +0100
Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2018-12-06 13:19 -0800
Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2018-12-06 15:33 -0800
Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? pnalsing@gmail.com - 2018-12-06 16:51 -0800
Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2018-12-06 17:42 -0800
Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? pnalsing@gmail.com - 2018-12-06 18:37 -0800
Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2018-12-06 18:53 -0800
Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2018-12-06 19:20 -0800
Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-12-06 19:29 -0800
Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? pnalsing@gmail.com - 2018-12-06 19:47 -0800
Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? pnalsing@gmail.com - 2018-12-06 19:50 -0800
Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2018-12-06 20:08 -0800
Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? pnalsing@gmail.com - 2018-12-06 20:52 -0800
Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2018-12-06 22:09 -0800
Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? poraty6@gmail.com - 2018-12-08 00:19 -0800
Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2018-12-08 03:41 -0800
Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-12-07 01:01 +0100
Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2018-12-07 04:32 -0800
Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-12-11 23:29 +0100
Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2018-12-05 20:41 -0800
Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? pnalsing@gmail.com - 2018-12-05 20:46 -0800
Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2018-12-05 21:01 -0800
Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-12-07 11:35 +0100
Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2018-12-07 03:54 -0800
Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-12-08 15:19 +0100
Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-12-08 16:27 +0000
Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2018-12-08 13:29 -0800
Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-12-12 07:34 +0100
Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2018-12-13 21:55 -0800
Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-12-15 15:05 +0100
Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2018-12-16 17:15 -0800
Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2018-12-13 21:43 -0800
Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-12-14 05:58 +0000
Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2018-12-14 00:11 -0800
Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-12-15 15:03 +0100
Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2018-12-16 17:10 -0800
Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-12-17 22:01 +0100
Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2018-12-17 14:29 -0800
Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-12-17 22:03 +0100
Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2018-12-17 14:26 -0800
Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-12-06 10:38 -0800
Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? pnalsing@gmail.com - 2018-12-03 20:20 -0800
Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-12-03 22:15 +0000
Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-12-03 23:18 +0100
Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-12-03 23:32 +0100
Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2018-12-11 15:35 -0800
Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-12-12 01:30 +0100
Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2018-12-11 17:45 -0800
Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-12-12 07:21 +0100
Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2018-12-14 00:32 -0800
Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-12-15 15:18 +0100
Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2018-12-15 11:53 -0800
Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? pnalsing@gmail.com - 2018-12-15 17:21 -0800
Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2018-12-15 21:57 -0800
Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2018-12-16 17:26 -0800
Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? % <%> - 2018-12-16 18:28 -0700
Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-12-16 22:32 +0100
Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2018-12-17 13:10 -0800
Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2018-12-16 17:17 -0800
Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-12-17 22:11 +0100
Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2018-12-16 23:35 -0800
Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-12-17 12:27 -0800
Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2018-12-17 12:35 -0800
Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-12-17 22:42 +0100
Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2018-12-17 14:33 -0800
Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-12-03 20:17 -0800
Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-12-03 20:21 -0800
Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? pnalsing@gmail.com - 2018-12-03 20:29 -0800
Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-12-05 19:33 -0800
Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? pnalsing@gmail.com - 2018-12-05 20:02 -0800
Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-12-06 10:36 -0800
Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-12-07 12:11 +0100
Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-11-28 21:13 -0800
Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-11-30 14:30 -0600
Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2018-11-27 23:57 -0800
Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-11-28 21:10 -0800
Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-11-27 15:24 -0600
Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2018-11-27 17:56 -0800
Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? "reber G=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2018-11-28 12:00 -0800
Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> - 2018-11-28 13:47 -0800
Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-11-27 11:05 -0800
Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2018-11-27 21:48 -0800
Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2018-11-29 15:14 -0800
Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? "reber G=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2018-12-07 10:10 -0800
Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> - 2018-12-07 10:57 -0800
Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-12-12 11:45 -0800
Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? Scott Richman <sunn@idhnonow.iv> - 2018-12-12 19:55 +0000
Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-12-16 21:42 -0800
Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? % <%> - 2018-12-12 12:56 -0700
Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-12-17 02:14 +0100
Page 13 of 15 — ← Prev page 1 … 11 12 [13] 14 15 Next page →
| From | Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-13 21:43 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <681feb78-41ad-473c-9720-78745a1b42f9@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #717314 |
On Sunday, December 9, 2018 at 1:19:31 AM UTC+11, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: > Arindam Banerjee wrote: > > Shameless racist and bigoted e=mcc wallahs are ridiculous jokes. > > What is "racist" and "bigoted" about “e=mcc”? It is the equation that is printed on some US aircraft carriers. They print it as e=mc^2 minus the ^ and with 2 as a superscipt indicating the squaring of c. Very arrogant display of their fake maths. It has to do with their assumption of the supremacy of Jewish/Christian/Islamic metaphysical beliefs (one true God, creation, big bang for that, finite universe all twisted up) of the racist white people over the beliefs of the pagans/heathens/animists they want to exterminate one way or the other. > It is just an equation (which > you wrote wrongly, because you have no clue, so *you* are the "ridiculous > joke" here). Say that to those who printed that equation on the decks of USAn aircraft carriers. You brainwashed lot, who depend lying and thieving for your living, using various sorts of fraud like e=mcc, are not ridiculous, but despicable. In ways I elaborate below. > > They are crushed by the weight of the enormous nonsenses they have to > > bear. Whether they are more disgusting or pathetic is the question. > > I hate to break it to you, but you are very likely mentally ill. No, I am perfectly sane, and so are all the smart e=mcc frauds who make their living by fooling the public. To the extent those who really believe in e=mcc, thus making it a religion - they are insane. To the extent those who don't quite believe e=mcc but mumble it out of habit - they are unscientific. Those smart enough to not believe e=mcc, but also don't profit from mumbling e=mcc - they are cowards, and lazy too. > Please stop posting, and seek professional psychiatric help instead. I take this ad hom as your own admission of your pathetic defeat. Of course I won't stop posting. I owe it to my grandchildren and their friends to expose the illustrious e=mcc=hv Einsteinian coxcombs as public enemies. And pave the way to great technologies by revising physics, based upon the creation and destruction of energy on the kinetic basis, as per the formula e=0.5mVVN(N-k). Cheers, Arindam Banerjee TIA. > > -- > PointedEars > > Twitter: @PointedEars2 > Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-14 05:58 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <puvgql$kuu$2@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #718301 |
Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> writes: >On Sunday, December 9, 2018 at 1:19:31 AM UTC+11, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn= > wrote: >> What is "racist" and "bigoted" about "e=mcc"? >It has to do with their assumption of the supremacy of >Jewish/Christian/Islamic metaphysical beliefs (one true God, creation, >big bang for that, finite universe all twisted up) of the racist white >people over the beliefs of the pagans/heathens/animists they want to >exterminate one way or the other. That is a racist statement.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-14 00:11 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <08b0904b-4760-4f13-ba1b-2fffa2b4840c@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #718306 |
On Friday, December 14, 2018 at 4:58:48 PM UTC+11, Michael Moroney wrote: > Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> writes: > > >On Sunday, December 9, 2018 at 1:19:31 AM UTC+11, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn= > > wrote: > >> What is "racist" and "bigoted" about "e=mcc"? > > >It has to do with their assumption of the supremacy of > >Jewish/Christian/Islamic metaphysical beliefs (one true God, creation, > >big bang for that, finite universe all twisted up) of the racist white > >people over the beliefs of the pagans/heathens/animists they want to > >exterminate one way or the other. > > That is a racist statement. It is a historically accurate statement.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-15 15:03 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <533e5eb0-5e9f-bb3c-3f31-c88ca4c1fe12@PointedEars.de> |
| In reply to | #718301 |
Arindam Banerjee wrote: > […] Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: >> Arindam Banerjee wrote: >>> Shameless racist and bigoted e=mcc wallahs are ridiculous jokes. >> >> What is "racist" and "bigoted" about “e=mcc”? > > It is the equation that is printed on some US aircraft carriers. Even if that were true, what is "racist" and "bigoted" about it? Could it perhaps be that they are just celebrating a major scientific achievement (that lets them do their job: US aircraft carriers are powered by nuclear reactors)? -- PointedEars Twitter: @PointedEars2 Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-16 17:10 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <0b684037-5ab4-4301-8a45-5a3bfceda85a@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #718537 |
On Sunday, December 16, 2018 at 1:03:12 AM UTC+11, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: > Arindam Banerjee wrote: > > […] Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: > >> Arindam Banerjee wrote: > >>> Shameless racist and bigoted e=mcc wallahs are ridiculous jokes. > >> > >> What is "racist" and "bigoted" about “e=mcc”? > > > > It is the equation that is printed on some US aircraft carriers. > > Even if that were true, what is "racist" and "bigoted" about it? Firstly, you were saying that it is a wrong equation. Of course it is a wrong equation, for it is silly and makes no sense. It is very much acceptable, if not correct, so far as the US Navy is concerned. e=mcc=hv has nothing to do with physics, but metaphysics. In the 19th century the aether theory was in vogue. The aether is in line with the Vedic-Hindu concept of aum - the sacred component of the Divine filling the universe - which is age old. (Pity Newton did not study the Vedas and other ancient Indian literature.) Getting rid of aether theory was a top matter of concern for the Western racists and bigots, who were ruling the world then, no doubt about that! Accepting it would implicitly validate aum, sacred to Hindus, and Hinduism is so no-no to them for they hate any paganism especially non-white pagans; so they corrupted the whole of physics with this equation that got rid of aether by making light moves as particles instead of waves. That was the bigotry part. The racism related to their political superiority; they could not accept that the ruled people had better, sounder metaphysics as validated by science with elecctromagnetic wave motion in aether. > Could it perhaps be that they are just celebrating a major scientific > achievement (that lets them do their job: US aircraft carriers are > powered by nuclear reactors)? They are projecting their view of the world, obviously. Saying that e=mcc rules for it makes nukes and powers our ship. Looks ridiculous, when compared with the correct formula for all energy creation and destruction, that is, e=0.5mVVN(N-k). Cheers, Arindam Banerjee > > -- > PointedEars > > Twitter: @PointedEars2 > Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-17 22:01 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <0c1c1582-b81e-262e-5961-0dc21d101af2@PointedEars.de> |
| In reply to | #718888 |
Arindam Banerjee wrote: > On Sunday, December 16, 2018 at 1:03:12 AM UTC+11, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: >> Arindam Banerjee wrote: >>> […] Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: >>>> Arindam Banerjee wrote: >>>>> Shameless racist and bigoted e=mcc wallahs are ridiculous jokes. >>>> What is "racist" and "bigoted" about “e=mcc”? >>> It is the equation that is printed on some US aircraft carriers. >> Even if that were true, what is "racist" and "bigoted" about it? > > Firstly, you were saying that it is a wrong equation. No, I said that *you* have written *a* wrong equation, because you wrote wrongly the equation that you are referring to in your prose. Big difference. -- PointedEars Twitter: @PointedEars2 Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-17 14:29 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <0b775f7c-5666-4a0e-84ae-61dd689094ac@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #719032 |
On Tuesday, December 18, 2018 at 8:01:26 AM UTC+11, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: > Arindam Banerjee wrote: > > On Sunday, December 16, 2018 at 1:03:12 AM UTC+11, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: > >> Arindam Banerjee wrote: > >>> […] Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: > >>>> Arindam Banerjee wrote: > >>>>> Shameless racist and bigoted e=mcc wallahs are ridiculous jokes. > >>>> What is "racist" and "bigoted" about “e=mcc”? > >>> It is the equation that is printed on some US aircraft carriers. > >> Even if that were true, what is "racist" and "bigoted" about it? > > > > Firstly, you were saying that it is a wrong equation. > > No, I said that *you* have written *a* wrong equation, because you wrote > wrongly the equation that you are referring to in your prose. I wrote e=mcc and you said that it was a wrong equation. Then I showed that it was printed on the decks of US Navy ships. > > Big difference. Mathematically, none at all between e=mcc and e=mc^2. The former is easier to write, needs one less character and is implicitly scornful. > > -- > PointedEars > > Twitter: @PointedEars2 > Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-17 22:03 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <13026ee5-4f32-1958-554b-d67fb8bcab77@PointedEars.de> |
| In reply to | #718888 |
Arindam Banerjee wrote: > On Sunday, December 16, 2018 at 1:03:12 AM UTC+11, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: >> Could it perhaps be that they are just celebrating a major scientific >> achievement (that lets them do their job: US aircraft carriers are >> powered by nuclear reactors)? > > They are projecting their view of the world, obviously. Saying that e=mcc rules for it makes nukes and powers our ship. Looks ridiculous, when compared with the correct formula for all energy creation and destruction, that is, e=0.5mVVN(N-k). Blithering fool. Shut up and read: <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light-water_reactor#Reactor_design> -- PointedEars Twitter: @PointedEars2 Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-17 14:26 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <b250587e-3682-455f-beae-c06d44fafcc0@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #719034 |
On Tuesday, December 18, 2018 at 8:03:11 AM UTC+11, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: > Arindam Banerjee wrote: > > On Sunday, December 16, 2018 at 1:03:12 AM UTC+11, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: > >> Could it perhaps be that they are just celebrating a major scientific > >> achievement (that lets them do their job: US aircraft carriers are > >> powered by nuclear reactors)? > > > > They are projecting their view of the world, obviously. Saying that e=mcc rules for it makes nukes and powers our ship. Looks ridiculous, when compared with the correct formula for all energy creation and destruction, that is, e=0.5mVVN(N-k). > Blithering fool. > > Shut up and read: > > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light-water_reactor#Reactor_design> Read better than that in 1971 you fool. Moron, all that shows is that e=mcc is irrelevant for anything. And why not, for it is wrong and ridiculous, held dear only by brainwashed fools like you. It is the kinetic energies between atoms that creates the heat from nuclear stations which creates power. > > -- > PointedEars Donkey, bray elsewhere. > > Twitter: @PointedEars2 > Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mitchrae3323@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-06 10:38 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <f9e78fef-dfee-4aee-bbe8-50ff8ef68e3f@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #716889 |
On Wednesday, December 5, 2018 at 8:41:55 PM UTC-8, Arindam Banerjee wrote: > Anal pnal, there is no such thing as a scientist these days where the wrong and ridiculous e=mcc scum rule. Dismissing that disgusting corrupt lot, and reaching out to the public instead, is a far better strategy, executed cheaply, clearly, fairly and fast, with usenet as the medium. Science is elevated, great works will be done. Asses will always be there to bray, they cannot do anything else. It is e=mc Roy Masters... for God's form of light...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | pnalsing@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-03 20:20 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <6331ae98-e6a0-4715-80ce-1ee77f2e7287@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #716466 |
On Monday, December 3, 2018 at 2:38:21 PM UTC-8, Arindam Banerjee wrote: > What is wrong is that I am wasting time upon fools. So... go away, far, far away, and waste no more time! Such a simple solution should have already occured to the world's smartest man...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-03 22:15 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pu49uo$vkr$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #716455 |
Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> wrote: > Gravity acts on mass. Gravity acts in energy too. > Light Has no mass, True. > it is a travelling me wave. False. > It changes direction as it progresses through media of varying refractive indices. That’s ONE way it can do that. Not the only way. > It appears to travel in a curve when observed from a moving platform such as the Earth. > > Sooner these facts enter the heads of the vast public the better off they will be. > > Cheers, > Arindam Banerjee > -- Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-03 23:18 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <75a14558-7a8f-fa01-3a8d-1d8e1af8c953@PointedEars.de> |
| In reply to | #716455 |
Arindam Banerjee wrote:
> Gravity acts on mass.
Not only, in a manner of speaking.
> Light Has no mass,
You are arguing from your ignorance, based on Newton’s law of gravitation
only, which provides only an incomplete picture of the universe in which we
live.
In that, you are more than a century behind current knowledge.
Special relativity (1905+) once introduced the notion of “relativistic mass”
m_rel(v) = γ(v) m₀,
with m₀ the “rest mass”, by the equation E = m₀²c⁴ + p²c² = γ m₀ c² = m_rel
c². In that sense, light has no rest mass, but does have *relativistic*
mass m_rel = ℎ f/c².
[One can see how this can be confusing, and that it contradicts the
knowledge that the term produced by the Minkowski norm of the
four-momentum that contains mass, −m²c², is the same regardless of the
relative velocity. Therefore, the notions of “rest mass” and
“relativistic mass” are considered obsolete at least since Okun 1984.
Einstein already deprecated it publicly in the 1940s.]
General relativity (1915+) provides a more complete, and I think more
convincing, picture than either of those approaches. According to it (which
was confirmed by observation many times; the last major confirmation
occurred in October – google “VLT black hole”), gravity is just an
observable effect of the curvature of spacetime:
Spacetime is curved corresponding to the density of energy and momentum in
it. As always, objects on which no force acts follow trajectories that are
described by geodesics; but this time the geodesics of space*time*, which
are curved lines if spacetime is curved. This applies to (particles of)
light as well as to other physical objects.
> it is a travelling me wave.
What is a “me wave”?
Light can be described as an electromagnetic wave (and it can be a made into
a *standing* wave; experiments have shown that). This is a *model* of light
(one of two major ones). Which is very different from a statement about
what light is, which we do not, and probably never can, know.
> It changes direction as it progresses through media of varying refractive
> indices.
Correct.
> It appears to travel in a curve when observed from a moving platform such as the Earth.
No.
> Sooner these facts enter the heads of the vast public the better off they will be.
The vast public will be better off not subscribing to your pseudo-scientific
(self-)delusions. Trust me.
F’up2 sci.physics.relativity
--
PointedEars
Twitter: @PointedEars2
Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-03 23:32 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <d053a606-9fc6-bf1f-b33e-a42754914591@PointedEars.de> |
| In reply to | #716462 |
Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> Special relativity (1905+) once introduced the notion of “relativistic mass”
>
> m_rel(v) = γ(v) m₀,
>
> with m₀ the “rest mass”, by the equation E = m₀²c⁴ + p²c² = γ m₀ c² = m_rel
> c².
Correction: E = √(m₀²c⁴ + p²c²) = γ m₀ c².
[The energy–momentum relation as formulated by Paul Dirac in 1929
is equivalent to E² = m₀²c⁴ + p²c².]
> In that sense, light has no rest mass, but does have *relativistic*
> mass m_rel = ℎ f/c².
>
> [One can see how this can be confusing, and that it contradicts the
> knowledge that the term produced by the Minkowski norm of the
> four-momentum that contains mass, −m²c², is the same regardless of the
−m₀²c², then. (In the approach where there is only Lorentz-invariant mass:
m = m₀.)
> relative velocity. Therefore, the notions of “rest mass” and
> “relativistic mass” are considered obsolete at least since Okun 1984.
> Einstein already deprecated it publicly in the 1940s.]
>
> General relativity (1915+) provides a more complete, and I think more
> convincing, picture than either of those approaches. […]
--
PointedEars
Twitter: @PointedEars2
Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-11 15:35 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <7c784a50-0ca1-485b-aa58-c5237a319704@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #716462 |
On Tuesday, December 4, 2018 at 9:18:15 AM UTC+11, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: > Arindam Banerjee wrote: > > Gravity acts on mass. > > Not only, in a manner of speaking. The gravitational force between two masses is GmM/R^2, look it up for details. > > > Light Has no mass, > > You are arguing from your ignorance, based on Newton’s law of gravitation > only, which provides only an incomplete picture of the universe in which we > live. You are talking like a brainwashed e=mcc=hv babbler, and there are so many of them. The universe as far as we can see and measure is infinite. And that is the correxct picture of the universe. It is infinite, when infinity means what exists beyond current level of measurement. The Aristotle-Einstein types want to limit the universe, to something finite. These days they cannot murder the Brunos, who died for saying the universe is infinite. Now that is scientific progress against great odds. > > In that, you are more than a century behind current knowledge. Current knowledge in physics is wrong. Physics became degraded with Helmholtz, Lorentz, Einstien, Feynman and in now totally nuts. I have often talked about this. All physics text books must be revised, and be based upon my new discoveries. Mainly, that the so-called Lorentz force does not have a reaction. All fully explained in the following videos, links at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hqBfwAClVlg IFE - 1 Ground Experiments https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w9eGq4Oiv9s IFE - 2 Experimental setups https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V3hC48BMrno IFE - 3 Pendulum experiments https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3sSPxGsLkws IFE - 4 Evolution of spaceship https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pJdM6UDPauU IFE - 5 Hydrogen Transmission Network https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TUAcx7rAplc IFE - 6 Spaceship Design https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H5Zbpvc3fdA IFE - 7 Anti-Gravity https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VA9LUwqMhxY IFE - 8 New Physics > > Special relativity (1905+) once introduced the notion of “relativistic mass” > > m_rel(v) = γ(v) m₀, Rubbish. This is fraud, institutionalised. Why do you believe this nonsense? Why does *anyone* believes this arrant nonsense? > > with m₀ the “rest mass”, by the equation E = m₀²c⁴ + p²c² = γ m₀ c² = m_rel > c². In that sense, light has no rest mass, but does have *relativistic* > mass m_rel = ℎ f/c². More rubbish, arbitrarily stated. The sooner these frauds who say such rubbish to make money from false pretensions are placed behind bars, the better. > > [One can see how this can be confusing, and that it contradicts the > knowledge that the term produced by the Minkowski norm of the > four-momentum that contains mass, −m²c², is the same regardless of the > relative velocity. Therefore, the notions of “rest mass” and > “relativistic mass” are considered obsolete at least since Okun 1984. > Einstein already deprecated it publicly in the 1940s.] More blah, all arbitrary. Just because some learned pirates and frauds have become very successful does not make them correct in the proper scientific sense. > General relativity (1915+) provides a more complete, and I think more > convincing, picture than either of those approaches. According to it (which > was confirmed by observation many times; the last major confirmation > occurred in October – google “VLT black hole”), gravity is just an > observable effect of the curvature of spacetime: Even more arbitrary blah. Wow, what rubbish. If you have a grain of honesty, answer this question correctly? DID THEY TAKE THE optical lensing effect of the SUN'S ATMOSPHERE INTO CONSIDERATION DURING THE ECLIPSE EXPT. WHICH APPARENTLY VALIDATED GENERAL RELATIVITY? > Spacetime is curved corresponding to the density of energy and momentum in > it. As always, objects on which no force acts follow trajectories that are > described by geodesics; but this time the geodesics of space*time*, which > are curved lines if spacetime is curved. This applies to (particles of) > light as well as to other physical objects. There is no such thing as spacetime. Light always travels in straight lines. If it appears not to, it is because the platform of measurement, usually Mother Earth, is also moving. The fact that the Earth moves after sending off the light, is critical for the understanding of the bungle underlying the analysis of the MMI expt as I was the first to point out, back in 2005. > > > it is a travelling me wave. > > What is a “me wave”? Sorry for the typo. It should be em wave, or an electromagnetic wave propagating through the aether that permeates the entire infinite universe. Aether is an infinitely fine, infinitely elastic solid through which all matter passes. > Light can be described as an electromagnetic wave (and it can be a made into > a *standing* wave; experiments have shown that). This is a *model* of light > (one of two major ones). Which is very different from a statement about > what light is, which we do not, and probably never can, know. It is an electromagnetic wave, because the very real phenomena of reflection, refraction, diffraction, interference can only happen with light being an electromagnetic wave. > > > It changes direction as it progresses through media of varying refractive > > indices. > > Correct. Well, how can photons as energy particles do the jobs of refraction, diffraction, interference? You need some shoddy de Broglie hypothesis to impart schizphrenia to light, now how low can you get to maintain quantum theory! > > > It appears to travel in a curve when observed from a moving platform such as the Earth. > > No. But it does appear to travel in a curve when leaving Earth and this is said to be caused by Earth's gravity. Whereas, it is simply a question of the Earth's movement, when Earth is the platform of measuring its trajectory. This is supposed to be yet another "proof" of GR. A spoof, actually. > > > Sooner these facts enter the heads of the vast public the better off they will be. > > The vast public will be better off not subscribing to your pseudo-scientific > (self-)delusions. Trust me. I don't trust you, and nor should the public. The public should hold all e=mcc=hv physicists as public enemies. When they follow my physics, they will be a lot saner, happier, productive and get enormous benefits from the result of the new physics - far faster and safer motors for travel, the hydrogen transmission network for unlimited reliable energy for all time from sun and seawater. That will be a glorious continuation of my professional work in antenna development, pioneering of googling, mathematical modelling of complex non linear systems, development of queuing theory for improving quality of service in telecom and other systems, call centre teletraffic perfomance modelling, fast messaging between robots, etc. Cheers, Arindam Banerjee > > F’up2 sci.physics.relativity > > -- > PointedEars > > Twitter: @PointedEars2 > Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-12 01:30 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <9735c19f-55bf-5309-8e34-4e323ec3becb@PointedEars.de> |
| In reply to | #717762 |
Arindam Banerjee wrote:
> On Tuesday, December 4, 2018 at 9:18:15 AM UTC+11, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>> Arindam Banerjee wrote:
>>> Gravity acts on mass.
>> Not only, in a manner of speaking.
>
> The gravitational force between two masses is GmM/R^2, look it up for details.
As I already told you, that model (Newtonian gravity [NG], since 1686) is an
*incomplete* description of reality. It suffices for *small* masses
*greater* than zero, but it fails terribly with *large* masses and with
*light* (mass *zero*).
For a more complete (note that I am NOT saying “complete”) description you
must use general relativity (since 1915).
And it is very simple: Geodesics, the locally shortest paths, are *curved*
lines in a *curved* space. Airplanes that want to get in the fastest way
from one point on Earth to another do not fly in straight lines, but on a
curved line (as seen from orbit), because the Earth’s surface is *curved*:
<https://www.google.com/maps/dir/Los+Angeles,+CA,+USA/Cape+Town,+South+Africa/@0.0487276,-89.9885853,3z/data=!3m1!4b1!4m14!4m13!1m5!1m1!1s0x80c2c75ddc27da13:0xe22fdf6f254608f4!2m2!1d-118.2436849!2d34.0522342!1m5!1m1!1s0x1dcc500f8826eed7:0x687fe1fc2828aa87!2m2!1d18.4240553!2d-33.9248685!3e4>
Like everything else on which *no* force acts, light follows trajectories
that are described by the geodesics of the (mathematical) space in which it
moves. The geodesics in a *curved* spacetime are *curved* lines. So the
trajectories of light are *curved* lines in the presence of (non-zero) mass(
density), which *is* equivalent to energy( density).
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0jjFjC30-4A>
>>> Light Has no mass,
>> You are arguing from your ignorance, based on Newton’s law of gravitation
>> only, which provides only an incomplete picture of the universe in which we
>> live.
>
> You are talking like a brainwashed e=mcc=hv babbler, and there are so many of them.
Look at this:
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einstein_ring#/media/File:A_Horseshoe_Einstein_Ring_from_Hubble.JPG>
How do you think this happened if not by bending of light around the central
mass – if not like this:
_____ galaxy
_.-''' o ''''-._ /
<)' oOo O
/ '-._ o\ _.' __
observer '''----\'''' |PE
\
galaxy cluster
?
NG offers *no explanation* for this phenomenon. (General relativity
*predicts* it *precisely*.)
Neither can NG it explain this:
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tests_of_general_relativity#/media/File:Apsidendrehung.png>
This:
<https://www.ligo.caltech.edu/image/ligo20171016f>
Or this:
<https://www.eso.org/public/news/eso1825/>
--
PointedEars
Twitter: @PointedEars2
Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-11 17:45 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <25d07727-4d3d-4a4e-88c3-a426e34b5ba2@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #717791 |
On Wednesday, December 12, 2018 at 11:30:42 AM UTC+11, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: > Arindam Banerjee wrote: > > On Tuesday, December 4, 2018 at 9:18:15 AM UTC+11, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: > >> Arindam Banerjee wrote: > >>> Gravity acts on mass. > >> Not only, in a manner of speaking. > > > > The gravitational force between two masses is GmM/R^2, look it up for details. > > As I already told you, that model (Newtonian gravity [NG], since 1686) is an > *incomplete* description of reality. It suffices for *small* masses > *greater* than zero, but it fails terribly with *large* masses and with > *light* (mass *zero*). Light has no mass, true, so the law of gravitation cannot be applied to light. The law of gravity explains the motion of the planets and satellites admirably. It is used to explain the orbits of electrons and the energy levels. It is a simple and clear law. > > For a more complete (note that I am NOT saying “complete”) description you > must use general relativity (since 1915). That is rubbish. Once again, answer whether the optical lensing of the sun due to its atmosphere was taken, or not taken, to declare the correctness of general relativity from the solar eclipse experiment? > And it is very simple: Geodesics, the locally shortest paths, are *curved* > lines in a *curved* space. So what. The Earth is a sphere. We cannot go through it so we go over it, and that line is a curve. We take the shortest curve as a general rule. Airplanes that want to get in the fastest way > from one point on Earth to another do not fly in straight lines, but on a > curved line (as seen from orbit), because the Earth’s surface is *curved*: Correct. So? <https://www.google.com/maps/dir/Los+Angeles,+CA,+USA/Cape+Town,+South+Africa/@0.0487276,-89.9885853,3z/data=!3m1!4b1!4m14!4m13!1m5!1m1!1s0x80c2c75ddc27da13:0xe22fdf6f254608f4!2m2!1d-118.2436849!2d34.0522342!1m5!1m1!1s0x1dcc500f8826eed7:0x687fe1fc2828aa87!2m2!1d18.4240553!2d-33.9248685!3e4> > > Like everything else on which *no* force acts, light follows trajectories > that are described by the geodesics of the (mathematical) space in which it > moves. No, light travels straight. It appears to go on a curve simply because the reference frame (usually the Earth) is moving in space; or it is due to optical effects such as refraction. The air has variable density with respect to altitude, and this variable density causes bending of light. Thus mechanical and optical effects are used to "prove" general relativity. It will take time for the public to grasp the scope of this colossal fraud. There is no such thing as spacetime. It is a mathematical hocus-pocus to corrupt the entire subject of physics, reducing it to mumbo-jumbo religion controlled by some high priests. The geodesics in a *curved* spacetime are *curved* lines. So the > trajectories of light are *curved* lines in the presence of (non-zero) mass( > density), which *is* equivalent to energy( density). There is no spacetime, and light motion in vacuum or consistent medium is never curved. Mass is not equivalent ot energy. That is the first big nonsense in physics. Energy is created and destroyed from linear kinetic interactions of matter following the formula I discovered in 1999, namely, e=0.5mVVN(N-k). Look that up on usenet, plenty of references! > > <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0jjFjC30-4A> > > >>> Light Has no mass, > >> You are arguing from your ignorance, based on Newton’s law of gravitation > >> only, which provides only an incomplete picture of the universe in which we > >> live. > > > > You are talking like a brainwashed e=mcc=hv babbler, and there are so many of them. > > Look at this: > > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einstein_ring#/media/File:A_Horseshoe_Einstein_Ring_from_Hubble.JPG> First tell us whether or not the atmospher of the Sun was taken into account to "prove" Einstein's general relativity. Let us get that straight. The we shall consider why the Sun has a strong magnetic field if its insides are extremely hot. > > How do you think this happened if not by bending of light around the central > mass – if not like this: > > _____ galaxy > _.-''' o ''''-._ / > <)' oOo O > / '-._ o\ _.' __ > observer '''----\'''' |PE > \ > galaxy cluster > ? > > NG offers *no explanation* for this phenomenon. (General relativity > *predicts* it *precisely*.) First get the basics straight by giving a straight answer to my earlier question. To repeat: Did they take the Sun's atmosphere into consideration when they "proved" GR with the solar eclipse experiment? To the best of my knowledge, based upon reading the literature, the answer is a resounding NO. Do not evade this question, if you wish to retain any respectability. > > Neither can NG it explain this: > > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tests_of_general_relativity#/media/File:Apsidendrehung.png> > > This: > > <https://www.ligo.caltech.edu/image/ligo20171016f> > > Or this: > > <https://www.eso.org/public/news/eso1825/> > > -- > PointedEars > > Twitter: @PointedEars2 > Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail. Just answer my single question. Did or did not the Einsteinians take the optical lensing due to the Sun's atmosphere into account when "proving" general relativity using the solar eclipse? Cheers, Arindam Banerjee
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-12 07:21 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <34b8d72c-7674-3f9d-b56d-afa0bc7b5126@PointedEars.de> |
| In reply to | #717801 |
Arindam Banerjee wrote: > On Wednesday, December 12, 2018 at 11:30:42 AM UTC+11, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: >> Arindam Banerjee wrote: >>> On Tuesday, December 4, 2018 at 9:18:15 AM UTC+11, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: >>>> Arindam Banerjee wrote: >>>>> Gravity acts on mass. >>>> Not only, in a manner of speaking. >>> The gravitational force between two masses is GmM/R^2, look it up for details. >> >> As I already told you, that model (Newtonian gravity [NG], since 1686) is an >> *incomplete* description of reality. It suffices for *small* masses >> *greater* than zero, but it fails terribly with *large* masses and with >> *light* (mass *zero*). > > Light has no mass, true, so the law of gravitation cannot be applied to light. The law of gravity explains the motion of the planets and satellites admirably. It is used to explain the orbits of electrons and the energy levels. It is a simple and clear law. But in a *proper* theory you cannot pick and choose to which physical objects it applies. It MUST apply to *all* of them. Therefore, as I keep telling you, NG is an *incomplete* description of reality. NG is not the only case of such a theory: Newtonian mechanics (NM) as a whole produces wrong results for fast relative motion; special relativity (SR) does not, it generalizes that and reduces to NM when speeds are low. [I have mathematically proved that /ad nauseam/ in sci.physics.relativity.] NG and SR are incomplete because they does not apply to situations where energy–momentum densities are high; general relativity (GR) does, it generalizes that aspect, and reduces to SR when energy–density is low or the difference in energy–density is negligible (i.e. locally). [I might prove that at some later point; I presume it can already be found online.] Classical mechanics (NM, SR, GR) is incomplete as that it cannot explain subatomic processes properly; quantum mechanics (QM) can. Combining QM with SR produces quantum electrodynamics (QED), which can be applied to matter particles as well as light particles. QM so far is incomplete as it cannot explain gravity on subatomic scales. A theory of quantum gravity (QG) is needed, and looked for. >> For a more complete (note that I am NOT saying “complete”) description you >> must use general relativity (since 1915). > > That is rubbish. No, it is not. You are just ignorant and incompetent (in this field), and *too* ignorant and incompetent to realize that you are: <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning–Kruger_effect> > Once again, answer whether the optical lensing of the sun > due to its atmosphere was taken, or not taken, to declare > the correctness of general relativity from the solar eclipse experiment? See below. >> And it is very simple: Geodesics, the locally shortest paths, are *curved* >> lines in a *curved* space. > > So what. The Earth is a sphere. We cannot go through it so we go over it, More like _along_ it(s surface). > and that line is a curve. We take the shortest curve as a general rule. The same is true for spacetime, as all observation shows. In your words, “we cannot go through spacetime so we go over/along it, and that line is a curve”. > Airplanes that want to get in the fastest way >> from one point on Earth to another do not fly in straight lines, but on a >> curved line (as seen from orbit), because the Earth’s surface is *curved*: > > Correct. So? So you cannot pick and choose. You cannot apply the concepts of geometry to this situation and *neglect* it for space(time). Such an approach produces wrong results that are NOT observed, on top of the inner logical inconsistency of your argument. Have you watched the video? If no, why not? >> Like everything else on which *no* force acts, light follows trajectories >> that are described by the geodesics of the (mathematical) space in which it >> moves. > > No, light travels straight. In travels on a trajectory described by a geodesic in space(time). But in curved space(time) geodesics are curved lines: > It appears to go on a curve simply because the reference frame (usually the Earth) > is moving in space; or […] No. The observation is the same from every vantage point, in all directions. We have been having probes in outer space for more than 50 years now, you know. >> trajectories of light are *curved* lines in the presence of (non-zero) mass( >> density), which *is* equivalent to energy( density). > > There is no spacetime, (Repeatedly) claiming something does not make it true. All observations, all measurements, are *consistent* *to 18 decimal places* (the strain predicted, and produced by gravitational waves) with the assumption that spacetime exists, is curved in the presence of, and corresponding to, the energy−momentum density in it, and is dynamic. If you can show one example where that is not so, then people will be willing to listen and consider your alternative idea (not that this would already make it a theory). So far you have not been able to, so you are just a loudmouth and people rightfully laugh at your ignorance. End of story. >>>>> Light Has no mass, >>>> You are arguing from your ignorance, based on Newton’s law of gravitation >>>> only, which provides only an incomplete picture of the universe in which we >>>> live. >>> You are talking like a brainwashed e=mcc=hv babbler, and there are so many of them. >> >> Look at this: >> 4>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einstein_ring#/media/File:A_Horseshoe_Einstein_Ring_from_Hubble.JPG> > > First tell us There is no “us” in that regard. You are *alone* in your delusions (together with your *few* fellow crackpots). > whether or not the atmospher of the Sun was taken into account to "prove" > Einstein's general relativity. Probably. But the atmosphere does not matter as the bended light is not even grazing the atmosphere. > Let us get that straight. The we shall consider See above. You are suffering from delusions of grandeur. > why the Sun has a strong magnetic field if its insides are extremely hot. Light (photons) is electrically *neutral*, so it is NOT affected by electric or magnetic fields. And that is good so. Like every school child knows, magnetic fields are produced by moving electric charges. This is the same with and within the Sun. > Do not evade this question, if you wish to retain any respectability. Oh the hubris. How many semesters have you studied *physics* again? > Did or did not the Einsteinians There are no "Einsteinians". You are delusional. > take the optical lensing due to the Sun's atmosphere into account when > "proving" general relativity using the solar eclipse? See above. And like every other crackpot, you think that you can pick and choose facts: accept those that are to your liking, and ignore those that are not. This is NOT how science works. Also, (natural) sciences are NOT about proof, because every (natural) scientist knows that this is not possible: It is about observational falsification and confirmation of theories (about nature) instead. (Do not confuse the wording for the general public with the scientific terminology and approach.) The 1919 observation is *by far* not the only evidence for general relativity. I have already told you three others. As *examples*. And you cannot have general relativity without special relativity. As there are dozens of examples that confirm general relativity (GPS being among them, every nanosecond), there are literally a gazillion examples that confirm special relativity. A "small" part of it, 65 billion (6.5 × 10¹⁰) solar neutrinos, produced by stellar nuclear fusion in the Sun, *due to the mass–energy equivalence* that you deny in blissful ignorance, are passing through *every square centimetre* of your skin *every second*. *Confirmed* by observation. Then there are nuclear power plants that are based on nuclear *fission*. Where do you think does the energy come from that, unfortunately, probably still powers your computer, too? -- PointedEars Twitter: @PointedEars2 Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-14 00:32 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <c0a501c7-3194-499f-8196-72b0f2c071c5@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #717835 |
Pointed Ears wrote something I missed. Let us see! *** On Wednesday, December 12, 2018 at 5:21:51 PM UTC+11, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: > Arindam Banerjee wrote: > > On Wednesday, December 12, 2018 at 11:30:42 AM UTC+11, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: > >> Arindam Banerjee wrote: > >>> On Tuesday, December 4, 2018 at 9:18:15 AM UTC+11, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: > >>>> Arindam Banerjee wrote: > >>>>> Gravity acts on mass. > >>>> Not only, in a manner of speaking. > >>> The gravitational force between two masses is GmM/R^2, look it up for details. > >> > >> As I already told you, that model (Newtonian gravity [NG], since 1686) is an > >> *incomplete* description of reality. It suffices for *small* masses > >> *greater* than zero, but it fails terribly with *large* masses and with > >> *light* (mass *zero*). > > > > Light has no mass, true, so the law of gravitation cannot be applied to light. The law of gravity explains the motion of the planets and satellites admirably. It is used to explain the orbits of electrons and the energy levels. It is a simple and clear law. > > But in a *proper* theory you cannot pick and choose to which physical > objects it applies. It MUST apply to *all* of them. Therefore, as I keep > telling you, NG is an *incomplete* description of reality. It may be incomplete, but it is not bullshit like spacetime and general relativity, which are purely fraudulent. It is a great and wonderful theory which explains the universe beautifully. It is simple and clear, and that is why the charlatans using math mumbo-jumbo do not like it. > NG is not the only case of such a theory: > > Newtonian mechanics (NM) as a whole produces wrong results for fast relative > motion; special relativity (SR) does not, it generalizes that and reduces to > NM when speeds are low. [I have mathematically proved that /ad nauseam/ in > sci.physics.relativity.] Special relativity is total nonsense, while GR is fraud. Special relativity is based upon the invariance of the speed of light. But light speed does vary with the speed of the emitter, as is evidenced when the MMI results are analysed properly. As I did in 2005, the first to do so. I showed that when you take the Earth's motion into consideration, then the null results can only happen when the speed of light does vary with the speed of emission. Since the major postulate behind SR - invariance of c - is wrong, totally bollocks, the whole structure of SR falls to the ground in shambles. > NG and SR are incomplete because they does not apply to situations where > energy–momentum densities are high; general relativity (GR) does, it > generalizes that aspect, and reduces to SR when energy–density is low or the > difference in energy–density is negligible (i.e. locally). [I might prove > that at some later point; I presume it can already be found online.] Bullshit piled upon bullshit, that is what the whole of modern physics has now become. Getting rid of it with experiment that proves Lorenz force has no reaction, validates Maxwell's electrodynamics, and throws out the quantum theory, and all the relativistic quantum mechanics mumbo-jumbo sanctified by giving Feynman the Nobel Prize. Physics has to develop on the following lines, if people want to remain sane and progressive: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hqBfwAClVlg IFE - 1 Ground Experiments https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w9eGq4Oiv9s IFE - 2 Experimental setups https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V3hC48BMrno IFE - 3 Pendulum experiments https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3sSPxGsLkws IFE - 4 Evolution of spaceship https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pJdM6UDPauU IFE - 5 Hydrogen Transmission Network https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TUAcx7rAplc IFE - 6 Spaceship Design https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H5Zbpvc3fdA IFE - 7 Anti-Gravity https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VA9LUwqMhxY IFE - 8 New Physics > Classical mechanics (NM, SR, GR) is incomplete as that it cannot explain > subatomic processes properly; quantum mechanics (QM) can. Combining QM with > SR produces quantum electrodynamics (QED), which can be applied to matter > particles as well as light particles. There is no such thing as light particles. Light is an em wave progressing through aether that permeates the infinite universe. > QM so far is incomplete as it cannot explain gravity on subatomic scales. > A theory of quantum gravity (QG) is needed, and looked for. Good old gravitation theory is fine. No need for math mumbo-jumbo. Throwing out the conservation laws of mass and energy, replacing that with new thermodynamics where energy is constantly created and destroyed using the formula e=0.5mVVN(N-k) will explain all the energy formations, from the Sun to the lighting of a match and nukes. It will also make the whole of physics sane. Like, the interior of the Sun and Earth at the core will be very cold, enough to drive the superconducting currents that form the magnetic fields. Infinite universe we have, energy radiating away continually to infinite distances and dying at infinity; and in between, merging with other such energies to form the background noise frequencies that cover all the bands... New motors for travelling hundreds of times faster than light, when my ideas are accepted and Eisntein's silly notions binned, ridiculed for ages. With the silly conservation ideas gone, unlimited energy from the sun and sea, with the Hydrogen Transmission Network, for all people for all time. Enough for now. If there is anything interesting you wrote, I will consider later. Point is, while concrete heads may consider me - very foolishly - to be crazy, even they with all their malevolence cannot call me a plagiarist! Heh-heh. Cheers, Arindam Banerjee > > >> For a more complete (note that I am NOT saying “complete”) description you > >> must use general relativity (since 1915). > > > > That is rubbish. > > No, it is not. You are just ignorant and incompetent (in this field), and > *too* ignorant and incompetent to realize that you are: > > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning–Kruger_effect> > > > Once again, answer whether the optical lensing of the sun > > due to its atmosphere was taken, or not taken, to declare > > the correctness of general relativity from the solar eclipse experiment? > See below. > > >> And it is very simple: Geodesics, the locally shortest paths, are *curved* > >> lines in a *curved* space. > > > > So what. The Earth is a sphere. We cannot go through it so we go over it, > > More like _along_ it(s surface). > > > and that line is a curve. We take the shortest curve as a general rule. > > The same is true for spacetime, as all observation shows. In your words, > “we cannot go through spacetime so we go over/along it, and that line is a > curve”. > > > Airplanes that want to get in the fastest way > >> from one point on Earth to another do not fly in straight lines, but on a > >> curved line (as seen from orbit), because the Earth’s surface is *curved*: > > > > Correct. So? > > So you cannot pick and choose. You cannot apply the concepts of geometry to > this situation and *neglect* it for space(time). Such an approach produces > wrong results that are NOT observed, on top of the inner logical > inconsistency of your argument. > > Have you watched the video? If no, why not? > > >> Like everything else on which *no* force acts, light follows trajectories > >> that are described by the geodesics of the (mathematical) space in which it > >> moves. > > > > No, light travels straight. > > In travels on a trajectory described by a geodesic in space(time). But in > curved space(time) geodesics are curved lines: > > > It appears to go on a curve simply because the reference frame (usually the Earth) > > is moving in space; or […] > > No. The observation is the same from every vantage point, in all > directions. We have been having probes in outer space for more than > 50 years now, you know. > > >> trajectories of light are *curved* lines in the presence of (non-zero) mass( > >> density), which *is* equivalent to energy( density). > > > > There is no spacetime, > > (Repeatedly) claiming something does not make it true. All observations, > all measurements, are *consistent* *to 18 decimal places* (the strain > predicted, and produced by gravitational waves) with the assumption that > spacetime exists, is curved in the presence of, and corresponding to, > the energy−momentum density in it, and is dynamic. > > If you can show one example where that is not so, then people will be > willing to listen and consider your alternative idea (not that this would > already make it a theory). So far you have not been able to, so you are > just a loudmouth and people rightfully laugh at your ignorance. > > End of story. > > >>>>> Light Has no mass, > >>>> You are arguing from your ignorance, based on Newton’s law of gravitation > >>>> only, which provides only an incomplete picture of the universe in which we > >>>> live. > >>> You are talking like a brainwashed e=mcc=hv babbler, and there are so many of them. > >> > >> Look at this: > >> > 4>> > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einstein_ring#/media/File:A_Horseshoe_Einstein_Ring_from_Hubble.JPG> > > > > First tell us > > There is no “us” in that regard. You are *alone* in your delusions > (together with your *few* fellow crackpots). > > > whether or not the atmospher of the Sun was taken into account to "prove" > > Einstein's general relativity. > > Probably. But the atmosphere does not matter as the bended light is not > even grazing the atmosphere. > > > Let us get that straight. The we shall consider > > See above. You are suffering from delusions of grandeur. > > > why the Sun has a strong magnetic field if its insides are extremely hot. > > Light (photons) is electrically *neutral*, so it is NOT affected by electric > or magnetic fields. And that is good so. > > Like every school child knows, magnetic fields are produced by moving > electric charges. This is the same with and within the Sun. > > > Do not evade this question, if you wish to retain any respectability. > > Oh the hubris. How many semesters have you studied *physics* again? > > > Did or did not the Einsteinians > > There are no "Einsteinians". You are delusional. > > > take the optical lensing due to the Sun's atmosphere into account when > > "proving" general relativity using the solar eclipse? > > See above. > > And like every other crackpot, you think that you can pick and choose facts: > accept those that are to your liking, and ignore those that are not. This > is NOT how science works. Also, (natural) sciences are NOT about proof, > because every (natural) scientist knows that this is not possible: It is > about observational falsification and confirmation of theories (about > nature) instead. (Do not confuse the wording for the general public with > the scientific terminology and approach.) > > The 1919 observation is *by far* not the only evidence for general > relativity. I have already told you three others. As *examples*. > > And you cannot have general relativity without special relativity. As there > are dozens of examples that confirm general relativity (GPS being among > them, every nanosecond), there are literally a gazillion examples that > confirm special relativity. > > A "small" part of it, 65 billion (6.5 × 10¹⁰) solar neutrinos, produced by > stellar nuclear fusion in the Sun, *due to the mass–energy equivalence* > that you deny in blissful ignorance, are passing through *every square > centimetre* of your skin *every second*. *Confirmed* by observation. > > Then there are nuclear power plants that are based on nuclear *fission*. > Where do you think does the energy come from that, unfortunately, probably > still powers your computer, too? > > -- > PointedEars > > Twitter: @PointedEars2 > Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-15 15:18 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <ea2a0cf8-f1ec-f0d8-1594-f2de9f8530b8@PointedEars.de> |
| In reply to | #718312 |
Arindam Banerjee wrote:
> On Wednesday, December 12, 2018 at 5:21:51 PM UTC+11, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>> Arindam Banerjee wrote:
>>> On Wednesday, December 12, 2018 at 11:30:42 AM UTC+11, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>>>> Arindam Banerjee wrote:
>>>>> On Tuesday, December 4, 2018 at 9:18:15 AM UTC+11, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>>>>>> Arindam Banerjee wrote:
>>>>>>> Gravity acts on mass.
>>>>>> Not only, in a manner of speaking.
>>>>> The gravitational force between two masses is GmM/R^2, look it up for details.
>>>>
>>>> As I already told you, that model (Newtonian gravity [NG], since 1686) is an
>>>> *incomplete* description of reality. It suffices for *small* masses
>>>> *greater* than zero, but it fails terribly with *large* masses and with
>>>> *light* (mass *zero*).
>>>
>>> Light has no mass, true, so the law of gravitation cannot be applied to light. The law of gravity explains the motion of the planets and satellites admirably. It is used to explain the orbits of electrons and the energy levels. It is a simple and clear law.
>>
>> But in a *proper* theory you cannot pick and choose to which physical
>> objects it applies. It MUST apply to *all* of them. Therefore, as I keep
>> telling you, NG is an *incomplete* description of reality.
>
> It may be incomplete, but it is not bullshit like spacetime and general relativity,
That is only your ignorant opinion which is therefore completely worthless.
“Opinions are like assholes, Your Honor: Everybody has one.”
–Woody Harrelson as Larry Flynt in “The People vs. Larry Flynt”
JFYI, without the correctness of special relativity it would literally not
be possible for you to post this:
> which are purely fraudulent.
Which is why you can post here using a device (computer) that is built on
the assumption that special relativity is correct.
[Quantum electrodynamics is a *special-relativistic* quantum field
theory.]
Your computer is likely powered by a machine that is built on the assumption
that special relativity is correct.
[E₀ = m c² implies that binding energy is freed when large nuclei are
split in a nuclear fission reactor, because the sum of the masses of
the resulting nuclei is smaller than that of the progenitor nucleus
(mass defect).]
Which is why it is impossible to find one’s way with satellite-based
navigation without assuming that special and general relativity are correct.
[Satellite-based navigation, like GPS, is based on the isotropy of the
speed of light, is calculated using the Minkowski metric, and requires
corrections for special- and general-relativistic time dilation.]
You are so crazy, you do not even realize how crazy your statements are.
Hopeless (nut)case.
X-Post & F’up2 sci.physics.relativity
--
PointedEars
Twitter: @PointedEars2
Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 13 of 15 — ← Prev page 1 … 11 12 [13] 14 15 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics
csiph-web