sci.physics.particle

wrote in message
news:0b3a1d93-6cf3-4d4d-859e-c9a88aa4caa9@s19g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
On Mar 7, 8:13 pm, "Androcles" wrote:
> wrote in message
>
> news:45ca494c-1baa-45fd-8eb9-7b47d5e88ba2@s8g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
> On Mar 6, 9:02 pm, pmb wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Feb 26, 2:18 am, va...@cox.net wrote:
>
> > > On Feb 25, 10:03 pm, pmb wrote:
>
> > > > On Feb 25, 2:24 pm, "Paul B. Andersen"
>
> > > > wrote:
> > > > > Juan R. González-Álvarez 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
> > > > > >> the
> > > > > >> important aspect in determining the path light follows. And it
> > > > > >> agrees
> > > > > >> with measurements to part-per-million accuracy over an enormous
> > > > > >> range.
>
> > > > > > 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 -
>
> > > HiPete
>
> > > 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 -
>
> > Hi Bruce
>
> > Thanks. I've heard of that but have not had the time to learn about
> > it. Other subjects have taken a higher priority lately. Thanks for
> > reminding me of it. Do you know much about this subject? How is
> > Schitz's "Gravity from the ground up?" going? Have you finished
> > reading it? If so how did you like it?
>
> > Best wishes
>
> | Hi Pete
>
> | The limit of my GR knowledge is founded in the metric equations which
> | I learned to use when I worked through Edwin's book.
>
> The limit of your knowledge is learning how to push the "radians" button
> on your hand "help" calculator, fuckhead.- Hide quoted text -

| Dipshit, I have enough sense to realize that the proof for a
| theoretical model is the empirical confirmation of the predictions the
| model makes wrt natural phenomena. Unlike you and the set of whining
| dumbshits that frequent this site crying foul because the way the
| universe works doesn't fit their goofy worldview. You're right at the
| top of this set of nitwits. You're a mouthy punk, Androcles, who
| should find something meaningful to do with the rest of your life. I
| can easily fix my mathematical mistake.

Go on then, fix this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_time_dilation

" While an observer on the Earth measure 1,000,000 years,
an observer on the Moon (if we ignore the mass of the Moon)
would measure 1000000.0006797 years.
That is approximately 6 hours more than the observer on the Earth." --
ASS-istant professor Paul B. Andersen.

You are an arrogant, stupid and ignorant arsehole, vane peacocks,
without a clue how to measure time astronomically; and so was the
cretin Einstein. An observer on the Moon would look at the day-night
terminator on the Earth to determine the fuckin' time and there
is no way he'd see it crossing New York when it was noon.
You are part of the set of whining dumbfucks that frequent this site
crying foul because the way the universe works doesn't fit your goofy
worldview.
No only is the limit of your knowledge learning how to push the
"radians" button on your hand "help" calculator, fuckhead, but you
don't even know how to tell the fuckin' time, you dumb bastard.