Re: Bending of light not well authenticated


Bilge wrote:
> Ken S. Tucker:
> >Bilge wrote:
>
> >> Cut the bull***, ken. You've pulled the same crap repeatedly.
> >> Write down what was asked instead of a bunk of bull***.
> >
> >No ***, the web-site Gene refd to has g^00=(1-2m/r)^2,
> >go see for yourself, if buy that metric I got..florida.
>
> Do you bother to _read_ what is written?

Evidently more carefully than Gene or you.

>That is _not_ g^00.
> That is the metric coefficient for what has labeled eq. (1).

The pre-condition to Eq.(1) is, "we set dt = 0", would you
care to define the CS where that is true. The site is over
simplified, because you can't set dx^0=0 or dx_0=0.

> Unfortunately, he didn't label the equation before that so
> I can't reference it by number, but the equation before that
> is the scharzchild metric.

So what, the she takes a good chicken and it lays
a bad egg, don't the people for seeing that.

>If you _read_ the paragraph between
> that and eq. (1), then go find a pen and some paper, you _should_
> be able to do the algebra required to obtain eq (1). To get
> started, note that (d\tau)^2 = 0, so you can multiply through
> by (r/(r - 2m)).

Quote that, you can't, it's unrealistic.

> >> >But if you're really sharp, metrics solving G_uv=T_uv
> >> >turns me on...do you understand the difference?
> >>
> >> Do you understand that you are only making yourself look more
> >> foolish?
> >
> >Bilge intends to interogate Gene's understanding of the diff
> >between G_uv=0 and G_uv=T_uv, that's something of interest.
> >I'd like to hear bilges take.
>
> Stop fabricating what I said. I intend to interrogate _your_
> understanding of the crap you write.

What fabrication, you agreed with Gene. Bilge rarely
has the courage to take sides, he normally spit-balls
from the peanut gallery, and when he finally does he's
screwed.

> >> He asked you what you think the deflection should be. Well,
> >> are you going to calculate it for us or are you going to
> >> continue shoveling bull*** over everyones shoes in another
> >> failed attempt to bluff your way out of the spot you're in?
> >
> >The equation of motion was provided and explained.
>
> Does this mean, that unlike gene, you aren't willing to
> put your money where your mouth is and calculate a result?

I DID IT TWICE!!! READ...

> If you want to do science, you have to actually do more than
> wave your hands regarding what you think a calculation will
> show. You actually have to calculate the result.

No, not in Gene's simple case. One can *reverse-engineer*
and arrive at the equation of motion, that's good stuff!
Nothing wrong with taking experimental results and
producing a formula. Gene's approach is good, but his
1st approximation is defective, no sweat.
My recent corrections should certainly be helpful,
as they rely on the experimentally determined deflection
of light and Pound-Rebka from which we obtain,

dr/dt = dR/dT - 2M/R

from which I can certify to 1st Order even by
independant means.
Bilge, you don't need to know more than 1st
Order in your business, so why stick a pickle
in your bum??
Regards
Ken S. Tucker

.

Quantcast