Flawed FE Foundations

Another flaw is Tom's calculation of how much a sphere should drop after six miles. The six miles would be on the edge of the circle, not on a tangent.

He got that from me.  Care to show me how I am wrong?

Quote from: Germanicus on January 31, 2008, 01:34:17 PM

Another flaw is Tom's calculation of how much a sphere should drop after six miles. The six miles would be on the edge of the circle, not on a tangent.

He got that from me.  Care to show me how I am wrong?

You? Wrong? That would create a rift in space-time or something...

Is it not just the equation of a circle at -radius for the y center?

Gravity does not affect light.

If it existed, why would gravity not effect light?

Quote

Gravity does not affect light.

If it existed, why would gravity not effect light?

Because gravity is specifically a force between objects with mass.

Quote from: jdoe on January 31, 2008, 03:59:59 PM

Quote

Gravity does not affect light.

If it existed, why would gravity not effect light?

Because gravity is specifically a force between objects with mass.

But does not light have relativistic mass, with mass-energy equivalence and all?

Engy's nitpicking again, ignore him. Gravity does effect the geodesics of light.

But at any rate, Username, that's a strange thing to predict, and could easily be tested by bouncing the light ping within two mirrors. Remember, this effect is relatively strong, so bouncing it between two mirrors at a low point(use a one way mirror) with exactly measured angles would end up with the light ending below the mirrors after a few hundred bounces. Would you agree? Would this constitute an objective, fair experiment to test for the existence of this new force?

Quote from: TheEngineer on January 31, 2008, 05:33:56 PM

Quote from: jdoe on January 31, 2008, 03:59:59 PM

Quote

Gravity does not affect light.

If it existed, why would gravity not effect light?

Because gravity is specifically a force between objects with mass.

But does not light have relativistic mass, with mass-energy equivalence and all?

m^2 = E^2/c^4 - p^2/c^2 = 0 for light.  You can, however, claim that light does have a relativistic mass.  But, what would happen if I were to slow down a photon?

Gravity does effect the geodesics of light.

Sorry, but gravity does no such thing.

Quote from: jdoe on January 31, 2008, 05:36:42 PM

Quote from: TheEngineer on January 31, 2008, 05:33:56 PM

Quote from: jdoe on January 31, 2008, 03:59:59 PM

Quote

Gravity does not affect light.

If it existed, why would gravity not effect light?

Because gravity is specifically a force between objects with mass.

But does not light have relativistic mass, with mass-energy equivalence and all?

m^2 = E^2/c^4 - p^2/c^2 = 0 for light.  You can, however, claim that light does have a relativistic mass.  But, what would happen if I were to slow down a photon?

How could a photon possibly slow down?  They always travel at c.

They only travel at c through a vacuum.

Yeah, but don't they still travel at c as they get bounced around atoms in a medium?

The discussion is straying off topic.

They only travel at c through a vacuum.

No. They always travel at c. All massless particles do. They only get absorbed and re-emitted in other substances. On topic, I still want Username's response on my experimental idea.

Quote from: TheEngineer on January 31, 2008, 05:56:35 PM

They only travel at c through a vacuum.

No. They always travel at c. All massless particles do.

Uh, no.  Light only travels at c in a vacuum.  Light travels at a slower velocity as it makes its way through denser mediums. 

Uh, no.  Light only travels at c in a vacuum.  Light travels at a slower velocity as it makes its way through denser mediums.

Yeah, but the photons themselves never change speed.  They stay at c as they bounce around the vacuum between atoms in the medium.  Light only appears to travel less than c because the net speed of the photons as they bounce around atoms is less than c.

Quote from: fshy94 on January 31, 2008, 06:12:02 PM

Quote from: TheEngineer on January 31, 2008, 05:56:35 PM

They only travel at c through a vacuum.

No. They always travel at c. All massless particles do.

Uh, no.  Light only travels at c in a vacuum.  Light travels at a slower velocity as it makes its way through denser mediums. 

In reality, the speed of light never actually slows down. It is just delayed as the photons are absorbed and re-emitted by atoms in the intervening space. When a light beam exits a transparent medium into a vacuum, it continues traveling at the same rate as when it originally entered, without any added energy.

Note that the speed of light referred to is the observed or measured speed in some medium and not the true speed of light (as observed in vacuum). It may be noted, that once the light has emerged from the medium it changes back to its original speed and this is without gaining any energy. This can mean only one thing—that the light's speed itself was never altered in the first place.

There seem to be many sites in need of your guidance. Let's see if you are capable of humility, or whether you shall continue to dig a ditch for yourself.

I don't nor do I disagree with what those quotes say.  Notice I said "makes its way through a denser medium".  The overall velocity is lower, not the actual velocity of the individual photons. 

I was going to carry this out into an illustration of the differences between Newton's gravity and gravitation, but I got lost along the way with a bad thought experiment.



Sorry, but you only get a little bit of humility.

Good. So you made a mistake communicating. Fine, it happens. Just remember it for next time you decide to get pompous.

Good. So you made a mistake communicating. Fine, it happens. Just remember it for next time you decide to get pompous.

Yea, now I know what it is like to be you.   




 

You know, its actually not so bad if you chill out occasionally and drop your narcissistic insistence on "educating" the world. The world was doing just fine without you, and it'll get along just fine when you're gone.

Let's not jump the gun here!   

Good to see your sense of humor is intact 

So how were you going to show that light could not be affected by Newtonian gravity?

He was nitpicking. He wanted me to say gravitation 

So how were you going to show that light could not be affected by Newtonian gravity?

Light does not have mass according to Newtonian gravity.

Neither does it in Einsteinian. Geodesics, my friend, Geodesics.

Geodesics don't exist in Newtonian gravity, my friend.

Couldn't the relativistic mass of light cause it to be affected by gravity?

No, because gravity does not exist.