Re: particles without mass!

From: Uncle Al (UncleAl0_at_hate.spam.net)
Date: 12/31/04 

Date: Thu, 30 Dec 2004 17:38:36 -0800

Old Man wrote:
>
> "Uncle Al" <UncleAl0@hate.spam.net> wrote in message
> news:41D46BB1.BD0846B9@hate.spam.net...
> > Androcles wrote:
> >>
> >> "stefjnoskynov" <miamail@fatticazzituoi.it> wrote in message
> >> news:MPG.1c3e6f8683b6da939896cb@powernews.inwind.it...
> >> > In article <sGWAd.89423$ef5.6996@fe1.news.blueyonder.co.uk>,
> >> > dummy@dummy.net says...
> >> >>
> >> >> "stefjnoskynov" <miamail@fatticazzituoi.it> wrote in message
> >> >> news:MPG.1c3e3d57cbf141259896ca@powernews.inwind.it...
> >
> >> > pay attention, no one know if there are differences between
> >> > gravitational and inertial mass.
> >>
> >> Pay attention. E= mc^2.
> >> Androcles.
> >
> > Hey fucking imbecile Androcles,
> >
> > F=m(i)a
> > F=GMm(g)/r^2
> >
> > Th best anybody can say is that m(i)/m(g) = constant. The Equivalence
> > Principle is a postulate, fuckwad Androcles. There is no evidence at
> > all that it is true for extremal opposite parity test masses.
> > Excellent theory (Weitzenboek) that says it isn't true in this case.
> > The necessary three experiments, qz.pdf, are running serially in PR
> > China as your are reading this.
> >
> > Poor idiot Androcles is about to be hoist by Uncle Al's aardvark.
> > (For the idiots reading this, the foregoing is called pun-ishment.)
> >
> > --
> > Uncle Al
>
> A parallel beam of light has no mass. A diverging beam does.
> In a gravitational field, is the geodesic for a diverging beam
> of light different from that of a converging beam ?

http://arXiv.org/abs/gr-qc/9909014
Phys. Rev. Lett. 92 (2004) 121101
 falling light

Light in vacuum defines the shape of space. Test mass is invisible,
a=GM/r^2. 

-- 
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
 (Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf