Show the physics where a photon bends spacetime.
QuoteRelativity says otherwise? Then how does space know how to bend and by how much?Already been discussed.
Relativity says otherwise? Then how does space know how to bend and by how much?
Quote from: sokarul on March 23, 2008, 02:23:19 PMShow the physics where a photon bends spacetime. You hold that it does not?
Look at that, sokarul avoiding a question, again.
It's no slur if it's fact.
Quote from: TheEngineer on March 05, 2008, 06:39:42 PMQuote from: sokarul on March 04, 2008, 12:21:50 PMAnd for the most part the atmosphere is consistent. Since when?
Quote from: sokarul on March 04, 2008, 12:21:50 PMAnd for the most part the atmosphere is consistent. Since when?
And for the most part the atmosphere is consistent.
Quote from: TheEngineer on March 23, 2008, 02:27:35 PMQuote from: sokarul on March 23, 2008, 02:23:19 PMShow the physics where a photon bends spacetime. You hold that it does not?I just wanted you to show it.
Quote from: TheEngineer on March 05, 2008, 06:51:51 PMQuote from: TheEngineer on March 05, 2008, 06:39:42 PMQuote from: sokarul on March 04, 2008, 12:21:50 PMAnd for the most part the atmosphere is consistent. Since when?Already denminstrated. Less than a .003 change over 150 kilometers.
Quote from: sokarul on March 23, 2008, 02:44:33 PMQuote from: TheEngineer on March 23, 2008, 02:27:35 PMQuote from: sokarul on March 23, 2008, 02:23:19 PMShow the physics where a photon bends spacetime. You hold that it does not?I just wanted you to show it. So you admit that you were wrong? Photons do have a gravitational field.
Quote from: sokarul on March 23, 2008, 02:45:36 PMQuote from: TheEngineer on March 05, 2008, 06:51:51 PMQuote from: TheEngineer on March 05, 2008, 06:39:42 PMQuote from: sokarul on March 04, 2008, 12:21:50 PMAnd for the most part the atmosphere is consistent. Since when?Already denminstrated. Less than a .003 change over 150 kilometers. Nine orders of magnitude. You must be the worst chemistry student in your school.
So you can't show it?
Says the guy who thinks E=E^2.
Quote from: sokarul on March 23, 2008, 02:55:53 PMSo you can't show it?I can show it. Can you show that they do not?
Quote from: sokarul on March 23, 2008, 02:56:59 PMSays the guy who thinks E=E^2. Hmm, when did I think that?
Quote from: sokarul on March 19, 2008, 10:39:19 PMSet mass to any positive non zeroE^2=p^2c^2+m^2c^4Any questions? Yes. You just said E=pc does not apply to objects with mass. Yet, you have it right there in your equation. Make up your mind, please.
Set mass to any positive non zeroE^2=p^2c^2+m^2c^4Any questions?
Quote from: sokarul on March 23, 2008, 02:56:59 PMSays the guy who thinks E=E^2. Says the guy that thinks 1=-1
Quote from: Username on March 23, 2008, 03:01:41 PMQuote from: sokarul on March 23, 2008, 02:56:59 PMSays the guy who thinks E=E^2. Says the guy that thinks 1=-1Never said that. You jsut can't comprehend phsyics.
I believe you said:-mv = mvDividing by m and v, we see -1=1.Grats.
Quote from: TheEngineer on March 23, 2008, 02:59:11 PMQuote from: sokarul on March 23, 2008, 02:55:53 PMSo you can't show it?I can show it. Can you show that they do not?Show it then.
Quote from: TheEngineer on March 23, 2008, 02:59:40 PMQuote from: sokarul on March 23, 2008, 02:56:59 PMSays the guy who thinks E=E^2. Hmm, when did I think that?Quote from: TheEngineer on March 19, 2008, 10:41:58 PMQuote from: sokarul on March 19, 2008, 10:39:19 PMSet mass to any positive non zeroE^2=p^2c^2+m^2c^4Any questions? Yes. You just said E=pc does not apply to objects with mass. Yet, you have it right there in your equation. Make up your mind, please.Quote from: Username on March 23, 2008, 03:01:41 PMQuote from: sokarul on March 23, 2008, 02:56:59 PMSays the guy who thinks E=E^2. Says the guy that thinks 1=-1Never said that. You just can't comprehend phsyics.
Quote from: sokarul on March 23, 2008, 03:02:13 PMQuote from: TheEngineer on March 23, 2008, 02:59:11 PMQuote from: sokarul on March 23, 2008, 02:55:53 PMSo you can't show it?I can show it. Can you show that they do not?Show it then. You just did it for me in your post. Grats on your double failure.
Yep.
No Einstein already got it. I find it quite telling that you have no idea what I am talking about even though you took Modern Physics.
Who said anything about the Photoelectric Effect?Oh, wait, you still have no idea.
"for his services to Theoretical Physics, and especially for his discovery of the law of the photoelectric effect"
Quote from: Nobelprize.org"for his services to Theoretical Physics, and especially for his discovery of the law of the photoelectric effect"
In 1921 Einstein was awarded the Nobel Prize in Physics, "for his services to Theoretical Physics, and especially for his discovery of the law of the photoelectric effect". This refers to his 1905 paper on the photoelectric effect: "On a Heuristic Viewpoint Concerning the Production and Transformation of Light", which was well supported by the experimental evidence by that time.
Quote from: TheEngineer on March 23, 2008, 03:26:00 PMQuote from: Nobelprize.org"for his services to Theoretical Physics, and especially for his discovery of the law of the photoelectric effect"Post the whole quote QuoteIn 1921 Einstein was awarded the Nobel Prize in Physics, "for his services to Theoretical Physics, and especially for his discovery of the law of the photoelectric effect". This refers to his 1905 paper on the photoelectric effect: "On a Heuristic Viewpoint Concerning the Production and Transformation of Light", which was well supported by the experimental evidence by that time.Funny you had to look it up. I didn't have too. His nobel prize had nothing to do with GR, thus your statment that Einstein already got the nobel prize for showing a photon emitting a graviton is wrong.
Quote from: sokarul on March 23, 2008, 03:32:00 PMQuote from: TheEngineer on March 23, 2008, 03:26:00 PMQuote from: Nobelprize.org"for his services to Theoretical Physics, and especially for his discovery of the law of the photoelectric effect"Post the whole quote QuoteIn 1921 Einstein was awarded the Nobel Prize in Physics, "for his services to Theoretical Physics, and especially for his discovery of the law of the photoelectric effect". This refers to his 1905 paper on the photoelectric effect: "On a Heuristic Viewpoint Concerning the Production and Transformation of Light", which was well supported by the experimental evidence by that time.Funny you had to look it up. I didn't have too. His nobel prize had nothing to do with GR, thus your statment that Einstein already got the nobel prize for showing a photon emitting a graviton is wrong. You seem to have missed the bolded part. So anyway, you realize that you were wrong about the photon, right.
Quote from: TheEngineer on March 23, 2008, 03:34:14 PMQuote from: sokarul on March 23, 2008, 03:32:00 PMQuote from: TheEngineer on March 23, 2008, 03:26:00 PMQuote from: Nobelprize.org"for his services to Theoretical Physics, and especially for his discovery of the law of the photoelectric effect"Post the whole quote QuoteIn 1921 Einstein was awarded the Nobel Prize in Physics, "for his services to Theoretical Physics, and especially for his discovery of the law of the photoelectric effect". This refers to his 1905 paper on the photoelectric effect: "On a Heuristic Viewpoint Concerning the Production and Transformation of Light", which was well supported by the experimental evidence by that time.Funny you had to look it up. I didn't have too. His nobel prize had nothing to do with GR, thus your statment that Einstein already got the nobel prize for showing a photon emitting a graviton is wrong. You seem to have missed the bolded part. So anyway, you realize that you were wrong about the photon, right.You seemed to miss that part. Photoelectric effect was theoretical physics. He proved it, thus got the nobel prize. He never proved gravitons.
Quote from: sokarul on March 23, 2008, 03:35:34 PMQuote from: TheEngineer on March 23, 2008, 03:34:14 PMQuote from: sokarul on March 23, 2008, 03:32:00 PMQuote from: TheEngineer on March 23, 2008, 03:26:00 PMQuote from: Nobelprize.org"for his services to Theoretical Physics, and especially for his discovery of the law of the photoelectric effect"Post the whole quote QuoteIn 1921 Einstein was awarded the Nobel Prize in Physics, "for his services to Theoretical Physics, and especially for his discovery of the law of the photoelectric effect". This refers to his 1905 paper on the photoelectric effect: "On a Heuristic Viewpoint Concerning the Production and Transformation of Light", which was well supported by the experimental evidence by that time.Funny you had to look it up. I didn't have too. His nobel prize had nothing to do with GR, thus your statment that Einstein already got the nobel prize for showing a photon emitting a graviton is wrong. You seem to have missed the bolded part. So anyway, you realize that you were wrong about the photon, right.You seemed to miss that part. Photoelectric effect was theoretical physics. He proved it, thus got the nobel prize. He never proved gravitons. You seemed to miss that red part.