sci.physics.particle

On Feb 26, 9:18=A0am, va...@cox.net wrote:
> On Feb 25, 10:03=A0pm, pmb wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Feb 25, 2:24=A0pm, "Paul B. Andersen"
>
> > wrote:
> > > Juan R. Gonz=E1lez-=C1lvarez skrev:
>
> > > > Tom Roberts wrote on Mon, 25 Feb 2008 15:47:04 +0000:
>
> > > >> The best model we have for the propagation of light near a massive
>
> > > > no.
>
> > > >> object like the sun is GR, in which the curvature of spacetime is t=
he
> > > >> important aspect in determining the path light follows. And it agre=
es
> > > >> with measurements to part-per-million accuracy over an enormous ran=
ge.
>
> > > > Theories without spacetime curvature also agree with that.
>
> > > Could you name one of those theories, please?
>
> > Personally I know of no such theories. However spacetime curvature is
> > not neccesary for light deflection in a gravitational field. So long
> > is there is a gravitational field present, i.e. non-vanishing
> > connection coefficients, then a particle can be deflected. A uniform g-
> > field is a perfect example. The spacetime curvature associated with a
> > uniform gravitational field is zero and yet a beam of light will be
> > deflected. Geometrically speaking the deflection is described as the
> > observer corresponding to a frame of reference for which a geodesic
> > represents a non-straight line in space, i.e. one changes from
> > Minkowski coordinates to "curvilinear" coordinates. Spacetime
> > curvature is only neccesary when geodesic deviation is expected.
>
> > Pete- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> Hi Pete
>
> I remember Kip Thorne commenting, in his non-mathematical book on the
> history of gravitational physics, that he occasionally liked to use
> teleparallel gravity to evaluate gravitational wave phenomena.
> Teleparallelism is a GR equivalent.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teleparallelism
>
> Bruce- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

------------------------
No tensor and no schmensor willhelp you make real advance
as long as your
BASIC PHYSICS ASSUMPTIONS ARE WRONG!!

*space has no curvature and no schmervature**
space is by definition nothing
and has no properties whatsoever
except hosting matter !!

the curved movement is not a property of space
it is a property ascociated with mass!!??
now the stupidity is rising tothe sky by not noticing that
if there is no mass there is no curvature
si idiots
just get tothe real thing:
becuse as you can see (if there is soemthing behind your eyes)
that is is mass the main hero!
mass is the cause of curved movement
the fact that is confusiong aprrots is
Newtons first law of movement
but Newton lived hundreds of year ago
and he could not immagine that ther are some exceptions
to his law in the macrocosm world
(just relember what old cattotold you
EACH PHYSICS FORMULASHAS ITS LIMITSOF VALIDATION
somethmes even physics principles has their limits of
exixtance !!)
now
in microcosm there is natural curved movement
NATURAL MEANS IT DOES IT NOT BECAUSE SOMETHING IS COMPELLING IT TO DO
IT
BUT BECAUSE
THAT IS HOW 'GOD CREATED IT ' )

a second stupidity came up because
of trhe sweeping 'law'
that
'no mass can reach c ' end of stupid quote ')

**the photon mass can reach c **!!
it is an exception cace
and has the fools of those times recognized it
the whole stiry of curved space time whould not had born at all
and every thing could be ways simpler !!

light cuves nest tothe sun becuase
*light has mass*
if it is two times more curved than EXPECTED'
THAN JUST CHANGE YOU '**EXPECTED*
AND QUITE AND PEICE and some salvation
to physics
you see guys
we have no time to waist on nonsense physics
there is alot ahaed of us
like solving the energy crisis
global worming etc etc etc
and last but not least:
NO MASS -- NO REAL PHYSICS !.(said old Catto....... )

ATB
Y.Porat
-------------------------------