| Sysop: | Amessyroom |
|---|---|
| Location: | Fayetteville, NC |
| Users: | 26 |
| Nodes: | 6 (0 / 6) |
| Uptime: | 51:45:07 |
| Calls: | 632 |
| Files: | 1,187 |
| D/L today: |
22 files (18,511K bytes) |
| Messages: | 178,045 |
There you have it. "they estabished the prime meridian at Greenwich"
(easy, it is an engraved line in a brass plate on the ground, nowadays
at about 100 meter from the GPS zero)
Greenwich Mean Time was the time shown by the pendulum clocks at
Greenwich.
Yes. As best they could, not by definition.
Unfortunately people at, say Cape Town for example,
never succeeded in reading those pendulum clocks over there.
They had to have their own,
and they had to measure their deviation from Greenwich,
aka their longitude, as best they could.
Greenwich time was no more than a reference in name. Jan
Den 27.08.2025 14:02, skrev Maciej Wo+|niak:
So it is wrong, or at least simplified.
No, TAI second is NOT your SI idiocy.
If they applied your idiocy they would have no synchronization.
This is meaningless nonsense, and you know it.
You are not trying to make sense.
If you have at least some knowledge of physics, you will understand the following:
All clocks consists of an oscillator and a counter.
In your wristwatch the oscillator is probably based on a quartz crystal.
If the frequency of this quartz crystal oscillator is - say 32.768 kHz,
you need a modulo 32768 counter to make it tick once every second.
[1] The actual reason Greenwich won out over Paris was the quality and general use of their almanacs.
(much to the chagrin of the French, who felt
that they had a historical right to the meridian)
On 8/30/2025 11:56 AM, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
This SI definition is obviously made to enforce the absurd General
Theory of Relativity on the rest of the world.
Yes, it was, poor trash. Sorry, poor trash. Fortunately - nobody serious cares about the nonsense, anyone can check GPS, the real second is 9 192
631 770 on Earth and 9 192 631 774 on a GPS satellite.
Maciej Wo+|niak wrote:
On 8/30/2025 11:56 AM, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
This SI definition is obviously made to enforce the absurd General
Theory of Relativity on the rest of the world.
Yes, it was, poor trash. Sorry, poor trash. Fortunately - nobody serious
cares about the nonsense, anyone can check GPS, the real second is 9 192
631 770 on Earth and 9 192 631 774 on a GPS satellite.
idiot, if you really check and care about, those numbers are the same.
On 8/30/2025 12:28 PM, Tharon Turlapov wrote:
Maciej Wo+|niak wrote:
On 8/30/2025 11:56 AM, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
This SI definition is obviously made to enforce the absurd General
Theory of Relativity on the rest of the world.
Yes, it was, poor trash. Sorry, poor trash. Fortunately - nobody
serious cares about the nonsense, anyone can check GPS, the real
second is 9 192 631 770 on Earth and 9 192 631 774 on a GPS satellite.
idiot, if you really check and care about, those numbers are the same.
No, idiot, 9 192 631 774 is 4 more than 9 192 631 770.
Maciej Wo+|niak wrote:
On 8/30/2025 12:28 PM, Tharon Turlapov wrote:
Maciej Wo+|niak wrote:
On 8/30/2025 11:56 AM, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
This SI definition is obviously made to enforce the absurd General
Theory of Relativity on the rest of the world.
Yes, it was, poor trash. Sorry, poor trash. Fortunately - nobody
serious cares about the nonsense, anyone can check GPS, the real
second is 9 192 631 770 on Earth and 9 192 631 774 on a GPS satellite.
idiot, if you really check and care about, those numbers are the same.
No, idiot, 9 192 631 774 is 4 more than 9 192 631 770.
what DSP capable device are you using to make sure, idiot. Put up some proofs, or shut up. We work with hard proofs in relativity.
On 8/30/2025 1:04 PM, Micha Wojew||dka wrote:
Maciej Wo+|niak wrote:
On 8/30/2025 12:28 PM, Tharon Turlapov wrote:
Maciej Wo+|niak wrote:
On 8/30/2025 11:56 AM, Paul B. Andersen wrote:idiot, if you really check and care about, those numbers are the same.
This SI definition is obviously made to enforce the absurd General >>>>>> Theory of Relativity on the rest of the world.
Yes, it was, poor trash. Sorry, poor trash. Fortunately - nobody
serious cares about the nonsense, anyone can check GPS, the real
second is 9 192 631 770 on Earth and 9 192 631 774 on a GPS satellite. >>>>
No, idiot, 9 192 631 774 is 4 more than 9 192 631 770.
what DSP capable device are you using to make sure, idiot. Put up some
proofs, or shut up. We work with hard proofs in relativity.
Show me then your hard proof of
"We work with hard proofs in relativity."
Le 30/08/2025 |a 14:23, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
what DSP capable device are you using to make sure, idiot. Put up some
proofs, or shut up. We work with hard proofs in relativity.
Show me then your hard proof of "We work with hard proofs in
relativity."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tests_of_general_relativity
I wonder if you noticed, given how strong your grip on reality is, that
you are arguing with the resident "'nymshifting troll".
Are you yelling at clouds in Poland also?
Python wrote:
Le 30/08/2025 |a 14:23, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
what DSP capable device are you using to make sure, idiot. Put up some >>>> proofs, or shut up. We work with hard proofs in relativity.
Show me then your hard proof of "We work with hard proofs in
relativity."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tests_of_general_relativity
I wonder if you noticed, given how strong your grip on reality is, that
you are arguing with the resident "'nymshifting troll".
Are you yelling at clouds in Poland also?
I strongly believe that "troll" fucked your mother in she ass frequently,
in front of you, then paid nothing, you stupid puerile unskilled and uneducated troll. You frogs are all depraved gays in that allocated region of the territory.
Le 30/08/2025 |a 14:23, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
On 8/30/2025 1:04 PM, Micha Wojew||dka wrote:
Maciej Wo+|niak wrote:
On 8/30/2025 12:28 PM, Tharon Turlapov wrote:
Maciej Wo+|niak wrote:No, idiot, 9 192 631 774 is 4 more than 9 192 631 770.
On 8/30/2025 11:56 AM, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
This SI definition is obviously made to enforce the absurd General >>>>>>> Theory of Relativity on the rest of the world.
Yes, it was, poor trash. Sorry, poor trash. Fortunately - nobody
serious cares about the nonsense, anyone can check GPS, the real
second is 9 192 631 770 on Earth and 9 192 631 774 on a GPS
satellite.
idiot, if you really check and care about, those numbers are the same. >>>>
what DSP capable device are you using to make sure, idiot. Put up some
proofs, or shut up. We work with hard proofs in relativity.
Show me then your hard proof of
"We work with hard proofs in relativity."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tests_of_general_relativity
I wonder if you noticed, given how strong your grip on reality is, that
you are arguing with the resident "'nymshifting troll".
Are you yelling at clouds in Poland also?
Le 30/08/2025 |a 14:51, Joshawa L|-cuyer a |-crit :
Python wrote:
Le 30/08/2025 |a 14:23, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
what DSP capable device are you using to make sure, idiot. Put up
some proofs, or shut up. We work with hard proofs in relativity.
Show me then your hard proof of "We work with hard proofs in
relativity."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tests_of_general_relativity
I wonder if you noticed, given how strong your grip on reality is,
that you are arguing with the resident "'nymshifting troll".
Are you yelling at clouds in Poland also?
I strongly believe that "troll" fucked your mother in she ass
frequently, in front of you, then paid nothing, you stupid puerile
unskilled and uneducated troll. You frogs are all depraved gays in that
allocated region of the territory.
Your account on Eternal September will be shut down soon
On 8/30/2025 1:04 PM, Micha Wojew||dka wrote:
what DSP capable device are you using to make sure, idiot. Put upShow me then your hard proof of "We work with hard proofs in
some proofs, or shut up. We work with hard proofs in relativity.
relativity."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tests_of_general_relativity
And in the meantime in the real world - forbidden by your bunch of
idiots improper clocks keep indicating improper t'=t in improper
seconds.
No surprise, of course, that you have no clue what a "hard proof" mean.
I wonder if you noticed, given how strong your grip on reality is, that
you are arguing with the resident "'nymshifting troll".
I'm not arguing him, it's as pointless as arguing the idiots from your
bunch of idiots. I Just kick his ass.
On 8/30/2025 2:37 PM, Python wrote:
Le 30/08/2025 |a 14:23, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
Show me then your hard proof of
"We work with hard proofs in relativity."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tests_of_general_relativity
And in the meantime in the real world -
forbidden by your bunch of idiots improper
clocks keep indicating improper t'=t in
improper seconds.
No surprise, of course, that you have no
clue what a "hard proof" mean.
https://paulba.no/paper/Fizeau_by_Michelson.pdf https://paulba.no/paper/Michelson_1913.pdf https://paulba.no/paper/Michelson_Gale_I.pdf https://paulba.no/paper/Michelson_Gale_II.pdf https://paulba.no/paper/Kennedy_Thorndike.pdf https://paulba.no/paper/Ives_Stilwell.pdf https://paulba.no/paper/Ives_Stilwell_II.pdf https://paulba.no/paper/Clemence.pdf
https://paulba.no/paper/Pound&Rebka.pdf https://paulba.no/paper/Pound&Snider.pdf https://paulba.no/paper/Babcock_Bergman.pdf https://paulba.no/paper/Frisch_Smith.pdf https://paulba.no/paper/Alvager_et_al.pdf https://paulba.no/paper/Beckmann_Mandics.pdf https://paulba.no/paper/Filippas_Fox.pdf https://paulba.no/paper/Shapiro_1964.pdf https://paulba.no/paper/Shapiro_1968.pdf
https://paulba.no/paper/Hafele.pdf
https://paulba.no/paper/Hafele_Keating.pdf
https://paulba.no/paper/Alley.pdf
https://paulba.no/paper/Brecher.pdf https://paulba.no/paper/Initial_results_of_GPS_satellite_1977.pdf https://paulba.no/paper/Brillet_Hall.pdf
https://paulba.no/paper/Vessot.pdf
https://paulba.no/paper/Pollock.pdf https://paulba.no/paper/PPN_gamma_Hipparcos.pdf https://paulba.no/paper/PPN_gamma_Cassini.pdf https://paulba.no/paper/Shapiro_2004.pdf
https://paulba.no/paper/Liu.pdf
https://paulba.no/paper/Fomalont.pdf https://paulba.no/paper/GravityProbeB.pdf https://paulba.no/paper/PPN_gamma_Cassini_2.pdf https://paulba.no/paper/Remmen_McCreary.pdf https://paulba.no/paper/Botermann.pdf https://paulba.no/paper/LIGO_GravitationalWaves.pdf https://paulba.no/paper/LIGO_TestOfGR.pdf https://paulba.no/paper/LIGO_GravitationalWaves_2.pdf
Den 30.08.2025 15:02, skrev Maciej Wo+|niak:
On 8/30/2025 2:37 PM, Python wrote:
Le 30/08/2025 |a 14:23, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
Show me then your hard proof of
"We work with hard proofs in relativity."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tests_of_general_relativity
And in the meantime in the real world -
forbidden by your bunch of idiots improper
clocks keep indicating improper t'=t in
improper seconds.
No surprise, of course, that you have no
clue what a "hard proof" mean.
So you don't accept the description of experiments
confirming SR/GR as "hard proof".
But what about the papers written by those who
performed those experiments?
https://paulba.no/paper/LIGO_TestOfGR.pdf
https://paulba.no/paper/LIGO_GravitationalWaves_2.pdf
C'est de la pub pour le site de Paul, |oa.
Ne venez pas me dire le contraire, je vous croirai pas.
So you don't accept the description of experiments confirming SR/GR as
"hard proof".
But what about the papers written by those who performed those
experiments?
The papers are moronic arm waving, typical for relativistic idiots.
And anyway, poor trash, i asked not for a hard proof for your GR
delusions . I asked for a hard proof of "We work with hard proofs in relativity."
Any of your precious experiments confirming that? Which one?
Richard Hachel wrote:
https://paulba.no/paper/LIGO_TestOfGR.pdf
https://paulba.no/paper/LIGO_GravitationalWaves_2.pdf
C'est de la pub pour le site de Paul, |oa.
Ne venez pas me dire le contraire, je vous croirai pas.
which proves you never read any of it. You can't disprove anything. Go
come back when you can disprove.
Maciej Wo+|niak wrote:
So you don't accept the description of experiments confirming SR/GR as
"hard proof".
But what about the papers written by those who performed those
experiments?
The papers are moronic arm waving, typical for relativistic idiots.
And anyway, poor trash, i asked not for a hard proof for your GR
delusions . I asked for a hard proof of "We work with hard proofs in
relativity."
Any of your precious experiments confirming that? Which one?
not only you are stupid like a door, you are also a liar. You never read
nor undrestand any of it, nor dispute nor debate. Idiot. Go come back when you can disprove relativity from the core.
On 8/31/2025 2:14 PM, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
Den 30.08.2025 15:02, skrev Maciej Wo+|niak:
On 8/30/2025 2:37 PM, Python wrote:
Le 30/08/2025 |a 14:23, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
Show me then your hard proof of
"We work with hard proofs in relativity."
https://paulba.no/paper/Fizeau_by_Michelson.pdf
https://paulba.no/paper/Michelson_1913.pdf
https://paulba.no/paper/Michelson_Gale_I.pdf
https://paulba.no/paper/Michelson_Gale_II.pdf
https://paulba.no/paper/Kennedy_Thorndike.pdf
https://paulba.no/paper/Ives_Stilwell.pdf
https://paulba.no/paper/Ives_Stilwell_II.pdf
https://paulba.no/paper/Clemence.pdf
https://paulba.no/paper/Pound&Rebka.pdf
https://paulba.no/paper/Pound&Snider.pdf
https://paulba.no/paper/Babcock_Bergman.pdf
https://paulba.no/paper/Frisch_Smith.pdf
https://paulba.no/paper/Alvager_et_al.pdf
https://paulba.no/paper/Beckmann_Mandics.pdf
https://paulba.no/paper/Filippas_Fox.pdf
https://paulba.no/paper/Shapiro_1964.pdf
https://paulba.no/paper/Shapiro_1968.pdf
https://paulba.no/paper/Hafele.pdf
https://paulba.no/paper/Hafele_Keating.pdf
https://paulba.no/paper/Alley.pdf
https://paulba.no/paper/Brecher.pdf
https://paulba.no/paper/Initial_results_of_GPS_satellite_1977.pdf
https://paulba.no/paper/Brillet_Hall.pdf
https://paulba.no/paper/Vessot.pdf
https://paulba.no/paper/Pollock.pdf
https://paulba.no/paper/PPN_gamma_Hipparcos.pdf
https://paulba.no/paper/PPN_gamma_Cassini.pdf
https://paulba.no/paper/Shapiro_2004.pdf
https://paulba.no/paper/Liu.pdf
https://paulba.no/paper/Fomalont.pdf
https://paulba.no/paper/GravityProbeB.pdf
https://paulba.no/paper/PPN_gamma_Cassini_2.pdf
https://paulba.no/paper/Remmen_McCreary.pdf
https://paulba.no/paper/Botermann.pdf
https://paulba.no/paper/LIGO_GravitationalWaves.pdf
https://paulba.no/paper/LIGO_TestOfGR.pdf
https://paulba.no/paper/LIGO_GravitationalWaves_2.pdf
Is this evidence hard enough for you?
A wise guy like you know of course that the only way
to falsify a consistent theory of physics is to
perform an experiment and show that the predictions
of the theory are inconsistent with measurements.
Can you name an experiment which falsifies GR? No? So GR is still not falsified.
The papers are-a moronic arm waving, typical
for relativistic idiots.
And anyway, poor trash, i asked not for
a hard proof for your GR delusions . I
asked for a hard proof of "We work with
hard proofs in relativity."
Any of your precious experiments confirming
that? Which one?
Le 30/08/2025 |a 14:23, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
On 8/30/2025 1:04 PM, Micha Wojew||dka wrote:
Maciej Wo+|niak wrote:
On 8/30/2025 12:28 PM, Tharon Turlapov wrote:
Maciej Wo+|niak wrote:No, idiot, 9 192 631 774 is 4 more than 9 192 631 770.
On 8/30/2025 11:56 AM, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
This SI definition is obviously made to enforce the absurd General >>>>>>> Theory of Relativity on the rest of the world.
Yes, it was, poor trash. Sorry, poor trash. Fortunately - nobody
serious cares about the nonsense, anyone can check GPS, the real
second is 9 192 631 770 on Earth and 9 192 631 774 on a GPS
satellite.
idiot, if you really check and care about, those numbers are the same. >>>>
what DSP capable device are you using to make sure, idiot. Put up some
proofs, or shut up. We work with hard proofs in relativity.
Show me then your hard proof of
"We work with hard proofs in relativity."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tests_of_general_relativity
I wonder if you noticed, given how strong your grip on reality is, that
you are arguing with the resident "'nymshifting troll".
Are you yelling at clouds in Poland also?
On 8/31/2025 7:49 PM, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
GR predicts that the gravitational deflection of EM-radiation observed
from the Earth is:
No, poor trash, it doesn't.
As said, your idiot guru has defined "a straight line" as a path of
light in vacuum. No surprise you have no clue, you're a really primitive idiot.
Den 31.08.2025 14:50, skrev Maciej Wo+|niak:
On 8/31/2025 2:14 PM, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
Den 30.08.2025 15:02, skrev Maciej Wo+|niak:
On 8/30/2025 2:37 PM, Python wrote:
Le 30/08/2025 |a 14:23, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
Show me then your hard proof of
"We work with hard proofs in relativity."
Quite.
Physicists work with hard, experimental evidence.
If a theory is falsified by one experiment,
the theory is dead.
SR and GR are thoroughly experimentally verified
by innumerable experiments and falsified by none.
The papers are-a moronic arm waving, typical
for relativistic idiots.
Don't pretend you have read any of them.
Show me then your hard proof of "We work with hard proofs in
relativity."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tests_of_general_relativity
I wonder if you noticed, given how strong your grip on reality is, that
you are arguing with the resident "'nymshifting troll".
Are you yelling at clouds in Poland also?
For some reason, it reminds me of JG when he gets pissed off... His
insults have a certain "signature", so to speak...
Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
Show me then your hard proof of "We work with hard proofs in
relativity."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tests_of_general_relativity
I wonder if you noticed, given how strong your grip on reality is, that
you are arguing with the resident "'nymshifting troll".
Are you yelling at clouds in Poland also?
For some reason, it reminds me of JG when he gets pissed off... His
insults have a certain "signature", so to speak...
speaking the witch, i suspect you also might be terribly fucked up into
your ass, as signature, so to speak
GR predicts that the gravitational deflection of EM-radiation by a
massive object, observed from the Earth, is:
++ = (2-+GM/(b-+c-#))-+(1 + cos-a) (1)
Paul B. Andersen <relativity@paulba.no> wrote:
There are not two interpretations, there are two different theories.
Being pedantic about it: General relativity -by itself-
predicts nothing about light deflection.
It is a purely geometrical theory without physical content.
Physical theories have to be reformulated to be in agreement with GR.
And if you generalise Maxwell's equations to be compatible with GR in
the natural way then the fact that light rays follow space-time
geodesics is a derivable result.
It doesn't need a separate postulate. [1]
The approximation is very good, and the impact parameter b is hard to
measure precisely.
In fact it cannot be measured at all.
Eddington had to measure many star positions,
and he had to deduce the deflections by comparing the observed positions
of stars at different distances from the sun.
This involved a lot of heavy computation.
(and took some months, and a lot of hard work)
Eddington could use only a limited number of stars because of the amount
of work involved.
All this has been redone, the still existing plates have been remeasured using modern equipment,
and the computations have been redone with a computer,
and for more stars.
It all vindicates Eddington's results.
His detractors were wrong about it, Jan
J. J. Lodder wrote:
Paul B. Andersen <relativity@paulba.no> wrote:
There are not two interpretations, there are two different theories.
Being pedantic about it: General relativity -by itself-
predicts nothing about light deflection.
It is a purely geometrical theory without physical content.
Physical theories have to be reformulated to be in agreement with GR.
And if you generalise Maxwell's equations to be compatible with GR in
the natural way then the fact that light rays follow space-time
geodesics is a derivable result.
It doesn't need a separate postulate. [1]
absolutely, finally a correct answer. It not appears that gay paul be andersen would agree or undrestand.
geodesics is a derivable result.
It doesn't need a separate postulate. [1]
absolutely, finally a correct answer. It not appears that gay paul be
andersen would agree or undrestand.
Of course Paul Andersen understands these things. He is obviously a
competent physisist.
However, when relpying to the nutters it may be necessary to simplify
things somewhat,
Jan
BTW, your use of 'gay' disqualifies you as someone to be taken
seriously.
Den 03.09.2025 14:10, skrev J. J. Lodder:
Being pedantic about it: General relativity -by itself- predicts
nothing about light deflection.
It is a purely geometrical theory without physical content.
What is "General relativity - by itself" ?
The theory which Einstein called "The General Theory of Relativity"
predicts gravitational deflection of light.
J. J. Lodder wrote:
geodesics is a derivable result.
It doesn't need a separate postulate. [1]
absolutely, finally a correct answer. It not appears that gay paul be
andersen would agree or undrestand.
Of course Paul Andersen understands these things. He is obviously a competent physisist.
However, when relpying to the nutters it may be necessary to simplify things somewhat,
Jan
BTW, your use of 'gay' disqualifies you as someone to be taken
seriously.
it's obvious the pba is terribly confused, not understanding domains and mapping (the reason for your post replying). To me it looks like another IT-supporter familiar in java and java script. Which is not that bad, as "gay" is a matter of 'proud' in collective_west.
I would urge you to reconsider your shortsighted decision.
He can back up his pretenses.
With worshipping your mumbling guru, maybe?
No, with relevant papers and posts. Not quite like you.
Den 05.09.2025 12:38, skrev Maciej Wo+|niak:
GR is the only valid (not falsified) theory that correctly predicts
that such a phenomenon should exist.
In gravitational lensing the light source is behind the massive object,
In this case GR predicts that the deflection of light observed from the
Earth is: ++ = (4-+GM/(b-+c-#)) Where:
Le 07/09/2025 |a 11:00, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
No, poor stinker, mistaken like always, and even if you weren't it
would still demonstrate plainly his alleged knowledge of math.
My guess: Paul has absolutely no incentive to demonstrate his knowledge
of math to *you*.
Python wrote:
Le 07/09/2025 |a 11:00, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
No, poor stinker, mistaken like always, and even if you weren't it
would still demonstrate plainly his alleged knowledge of math.
My guess: Paul has absolutely no incentive to demonstrate his knowledge
of math to *you*.
no, poor stinker, go read the Shit.
Le 07/09/2025 |a 13:27, Teobaldo Szczepanski a |-crit :
Python wrote:
Le 07/09/2025 |a 11:00, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
No, poor stinker, mistaken like always, and even if you weren't it
would still demonstrate plainly his alleged knowledge of math.
My guess: Paul has absolutely no incentive to demonstrate his
knowledge of math to *you*.
no, poor stinker, go read the Shit.
Nym-shifting troll, what is exactly your point in posting absurd posts
here for years, if not decades, one out of 1000 being remotely funny ?
[stupid trolling]
Le 08/09/2025 |a 09:36, Javier Poingdestre a |-crit :
[stupid trolling]
I've already shut down your previous accounts, this one will be shut
down too.
Python wrote:
Le 08/09/2025 |a 09:36, Javier Poingdestre a |-crit :
[stupid trolling]
I've already shut down your previous accounts, this one will be shut
down too.
this deplorable irrelevant troll, void of education it-supporter, wannabe physicist, not even today undrestand how the internet works. Myohhmy.
Therefore I think it is best to keep pure geometry,
(as given by general relativity)
and the physics that plays out in that geometry as separate as
possible,
My own approach to this problem was:
assume that spacetime of GR is real and make particles (and 'all things quantum') out of that.
Le 08/09/2025 |a 12:14, Merlin Lebeau a |-crit :
Python wrote:
Le 08/09/2025 |a 09:36, Javier Poingdestre a |-crit :
[stupid trolling]
I've already shut down your previous accounts, this one will be shut
down too.
this deplorable irrelevant troll, void of education it-supporter,
wannabe physicist, not even today undrestand how the internet works.
Myohhmy.
bla bla bla. Your account will terminate soon.
Den 09.09.2025 13:22, skrev HenryWilson:
Paul, if light's deflection is really double the Newtonian
prediction....which has never been convincingly proved...it would
merely tell us that light's gravitational mass is twice its inertial
mass. So it deflects twice as much as ordinary matter. An analogy might
be the deflection of a singly and a doubly ionized helium atom by an
electric field.
After all, what is 'mass' anyway?
..You can certainly learn a lot from Newton.
This is nonsense.
Experimental evidence trumps your fantasies.
GR's prediction of gravitational deflection of EM-radiation is so
thoroughly experimentally confirmed that it can be considered a fact.