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

Groups > sci.physics > #590843

Re: Gravity and light question

Show all headers | View raw

Odd Bodkin wrote:

> On 7/18/2016 12:03 PM, mapou001@gmail.com wrote:
>> On Monday, July 18, 2016 at 9:57:07 AM UTC-7, edpr...@gmail.com wrote:
>>> There is a difference between the acceleration of
>>>  massive SLOW particles and
>>>  massless Speed-of-light particles
>>>  by gravity.
>> This is precisely the fucking point. There should be no difference if the
>> equivalence principle was true.
>>
>> Haysoos Martinez! I'm arguing with a cult of cretins.
> 
> Don't you find it interesting that it is pretty straightforward to
> DERIVE (logically and mathematically) the dependence of the acceleration
> on the speed of the object FROM the Equivalence Principle?

Pardon?  Speed is defined to be the magnitude of velocity (v = ||v⃗||), 
velocity is the time-derivative of position (v⃗ = ∂x⃗∕∂t), and acceleration 
is the time-derivative of velocity (a⃗ = ∂v⃗∕∂t; so all those quantities are 
dependent on the chosen frame of reference).  How does any equivalence 
principle (there are in fact *several*) feature in that?

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equivalence_principle>
 
> When I say Equivalence Principle, I'm referring to what physicists mean
> by that phrase, not what YOU think it means.

I do not think that you know what you are talking about either.
 
> So, to sum up, all you've managed to do is show that the experimentally
> MEASURED dependence of the acceleration on the speed is in conflict with
> YOUR version of the equivalence principle, which (no surprise) is not
> what physicists mean by it.

Given your history, you should not presume that you know what physicists 
mean by anything, or everything, either.  Reading a lot of books is not 
equivalent to understanding what they are about.

-- 
PointedEars

Twitter: @PointedEars2
Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.

Back to sci.physics | Previous | Next — Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

Re: Gravity and light question Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-07-26 21:36 +0200
  Re: Gravity and light question Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-26 15:05 -0500
    Re: Gravity and light question Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-07-27 18:36 +0200
      Re: Gravity and light question Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-27 13:08 -0500
        Re: Gravity and light question Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-07-28 00:15 +0200
          Re: Gravity and light question Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-28 09:24 -0500
            Re: Gravity and light question Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-07-29 07:05 +0200
  i.q at most zero noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2016-07-28 14:19 -0700
    Light (was: i.q at most zero) Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-07-29 07:16 +0200
      Re: Light (was: i.q at most zero) LIGO Fraud Investigator <mapou001@gmail.com> - 2016-07-28 22:34 -0700
        see _Light, a history: Fermat's complete correspondence on light_ noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2016-07-29 09:38 -0700
          Re: see _Light, a history: Fermat's complete correspondence on light_ brandonahenley9@gmail.com - 2016-07-29 12:38 -0700

csiph-web