sci.physics.particle

On Mar 4, 9:32 pm, Koobee Wublee wrote:
> On Mar 4, 6:03 pm, carlip-nos...@physics.ucdavis.edu wrote:
>
> > In sci.physics Koobee Wublee wrote:
> > > On Mar 4, 9:59 am, carlip-nos...@physics.ucdavis.edu wrote:
> > >> In sci.physics Koobee Wublee wrote:
> > >> > 2 O ~= pi + 2 u (1 + 1 / B^2)
>
> > >> This is correct.
> > > But according to you, Lightman gave a result below.
> > > 2 O = pi + 2 u (1 + B^2)
>
> > I did not say that. I said that the result was proportional to
> > 1+B^2. It is -- the GR prediction is 2u/B^2 (1+B^2), that is,
> > 1+B^2 times the Newtonian prediction for a given speed and impact
> > parameter.
>
> You were very misleading then. You left out a very important factor,
> 1 / B^2.
>
> > I suggest that you try for a graceful retreat.
>
> I did say the result was not what I initially expected. What else do
> you want me to do?
>
> However, I need no graceful retreat from the comment on the absurdity
> of the geodesics following the path with the least accumulated
> spacetime. When Christoffel derived the geodesic equations, there was
> nothing wrong with his assumption that the shortest distance between
> two points in 3-dimensional space is the actual distance through each
> local point even if that space is curved. It is not necessarily a
> straight line as an observer observes it using his choice of
> coordinate system. However, when the Goettingen group of
> mathematicians including Hilbert, Klein, Schwarzschild, and Minkowski
> worked on this problem, they simply extended to the 4-dimensional
> spacetime. In doing so, no one really thought out except 100 years
> later by yours truly that this model does not allow photons to
> propagate with a coherent path. Are you still standing by your
> conjecture that this model of geodesic is a valid one?

Oh look, another stunning display of your typical arrogant stupidity.
Learn what the parameterizations you use mean, then you won't make
cosmic fuckups like that over and over and over.