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

Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #388005

Re: Gravity and light question

Show all headers | View raw

On 7/18/2016 3:55 PM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> I do not read the OP because they are posting via the source of spam and
> trolls, Google Groups, and I have all Google Groups posters, with the
> exception of one who posts reasonably, automagically killfiled unless they
> follow-up to one of my postings.  So thanks, but no, thanks.
>
> And what for?  The OP is obviously a science crank, their question is bogus
> (they confuse physical objects with physical quantities, a common indication
> of a science crank), and in the wrong newsgroup; their request is in fact a
> bait, and if interpreted in a benevolent way, it cannot reasonably be
> fulfilled.

Well, that's remarkable insight into OP's post considering you did "not 
read the OP", having had him "automagically killfiled unless they 
follow-up to one of [your] postings". Don't you think so?

> One needs an explanation involving math, in particular one needs
> to discuss *differential geometry*, to come even close to a correct
> explanation of general relativity, the *only* theory so far that predicted
> that and correctly explains why massive objects bend light.

Which is precisely what the OP did not want, and so there were at least 
two people who tried to respond more appropriately.

>
> So why have you taken the bait, replying to the OP’s nonsense with even
> greater nonsense?  You could have just ignored them, saving free time and
> your face in the process.

I'm not particularly concerned about saving face. And yes, I could have 
ignored them. In fact, my first response was to point out to the OP that 
math shouldn't be avoided for silly reasons. However, someone else 
encouraged me to try to answer the question in the simplest possible 
way, so that other readers might get something from it, even if the OP 
does not.

>
> With that out of the way, I am curious, though: Why did you think that the
> (radius of) curvature of spacetime in the vicinity of a massive object would
> be constant?

I didn't. As I told you already, I reduced the answer considerably, well 
beyond your personal taste. But then again, my response was not aimed at 
your tastes. Nor should you assume that your tastes are the only proper 
ones. That would be .... um .... pretentious and foolish.


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

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

Thread

Re: Gravity and light question Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-18 16:17 -0500
  Re: Gravity and light question Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-07-19 06:31 +0200
    Re: Gravity and light question Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-22 07:13 -0500
      Re: Gravity and light question Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-07-23 15:52 +0200
    Re: Gravity and light question Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-07-22 11:19 -0500
      Re: Gravity and light question Ben Wagner <benwa@ubuntusite.org> - 2016-07-22 18:40 +0000
        Re: Gravity and light question Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-07-22 22:43 -0500
          Re: Gravity and light question Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-07-23 07:23 +0200
            Re: Gravity and light question Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-07-23 08:15 +0200
      Re: Gravity and light question Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-07-23 15:38 +0200

csiph-web