LaurenceClarkCrossen wrote:

How relativity derives the amount of the deflection:

1. It accepts the mass-velocity relationship, which prohibits anything
with any mass from reaching light speed, meaning the photon can have no
mass.
2. Therefore, according to relativity, gravity cannot affect photons.

Relativity either has to abandon the mass-velocity relationship or
abandon the claim that photons are affected by gravity. Until then, it remains self-contradictory nonsense, as always.

and then they continue the con by making up werds like...gravity energy.


wats next? spacetime??



--
The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable,
and challenge the unchallengeable.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

How relativity derives the amount of the deflection:

1. It accepts the mass-velocity relationship, which prohibits anything
with any mass from reaching light speed, meaning the photon can have no
mass.
2. Therefore, according to relativity, gravity cannot affect photons.

Relativity either has to abandon the mass-velocity relationship or
abandon the claim that photons are affected by gravity. Until then, it
remains self-contradictory nonsense, as always.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Mon, 17 Feb 2025 19:14:20 +0000, The Starmaker wrote:

LaurenceClarkCrossen wrote:

How relativity derives the amount of the deflection:

1. It accepts the mass-velocity relationship, which prohibits anything
with any mass from reaching light speed, meaning the photon can have no
mass.
2. Therefore, according to relativity, gravity cannot affect photons.

Relativity either has to abandon the mass-velocity relationship or
abandon the claim that photons are affected by gravity. Until then, it
remains self-contradictory nonsense, as always.

and then they continue the con by making up werds like...gravity energy.

wats next? spacetime??

If you would avoid putting words in my mouth like "con," I would
appreciate it. Then, you might begin to engage in intelligent discourse.
If you are defending relativity, you should be able to explain the contradiction. You have not defended it from this criticism. What do you believe? Do photons have mass, or do they not? Can you make up your
mind?

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Mon, 17 Feb 2025 19:14:20 +0000, The Starmaker wrote:

LaurenceClarkCrossen wrote:

How relativity derives the amount of the deflection:

1. It accepts the mass-velocity relationship, which prohibits anything
with any mass from reaching light speed, meaning the photon can have no
mass.
2. Therefore, according to relativity, gravity cannot affect photons.

Relativity either has to abandon the mass-velocity relationship or
abandon the claim that photons are affected by gravity. Until then, it
remains self-contradictory nonsense, as always.

and then they continue the con by making up werds like...gravity energy.

wats next? spacetime??

When you talk like that with allusions to hyperspace, you remind me of
those little lizards that puff up.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Mon, 17 Feb 2025 20:24:39 +0000, Ross Finlayson wrote:

On 02/17/2025 12:03 PM, LaurenceClarkCrossen wrote:

On Mon, 17 Feb 2025 19:14:20 +0000, The Starmaker wrote:

LaurenceClarkCrossen wrote:

How relativity derives the amount of the deflection:

1. It accepts the mass-velocity relationship, which prohibits anything >>>> with any mass from reaching light speed, meaning the photon can have no >>>> mass.
2. Therefore, according to relativity, gravity cannot affect photons.

Relativity either has to abandon the mass-velocity relationship or
abandon the claim that photons are affected by gravity. Until then, it >>>> remains self-contradictory nonsense, as always.

and then they continue the con by making up werds like...gravity energy. >>>

wats next? spacetime??

If you would avoid putting words in my mouth like "con," I would
appreciate it. Then, you might begin to engage in intelligent discourse.
If you are defending relativity, you should be able to explain the
contradiction. You have not defended it from this criticism. What do you
believe? Do photons have mass, or do they not? Can you make up your
mind?

Maybe it's simply part of halving- and doubling- spaces
and halving- and doubling- measures in continuum mechanics,
with regards to the continuous and discrete.

Sometimes you hear physicists say something like
"there's no infinity in physics" and it seems
among the most ludicrous and ignorant of opinions.

I would agree that there is infinity in physics, especially considering
there is no evidence of any limits to the universe.

I don't connect much with Antonio Leon's stuff about the continuous and discrete.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

LaurenceClarkCrossen wrote:

On Mon, 17 Feb 2025 19:14:20 +0000, The Starmaker wrote:

LaurenceClarkCrossen wrote:

How relativity derives the amount of the deflection:

1. It accepts the mass-velocity relationship, which prohibits anything
with any mass from reaching light speed, meaning the photon can have no
mass.
2. Therefore, according to relativity, gravity cannot affect photons.

Relativity either has to abandon the mass-velocity relationship or
abandon the claim that photons are affected by gravity. Until then, it
remains self-contradictory nonsense, as always.

and then they continue the con by making up werds like...gravity energy.

wats next? spacetime??

If you would avoid putting words in my mouth like "con," I would
appreciate it. Then, you might begin to engage in intelligent discourse.
If you are defending relativity, you should be able to explain the contradiction. You have not defended it from this criticism. What do you believe? Do photons have mass, or do they not? Can you make up your
mind?

Is the source of gravity mass or energy?


--
The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable,
and challenge the unchallengeable.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Mon, 17 Feb 2025 21:56:40 +0000, The Starmaker wrote:

LaurenceClarkCrossen wrote:

On Mon, 17 Feb 2025 19:14:20 +0000, The Starmaker wrote:

LaurenceClarkCrossen wrote:

How relativity derives the amount of the deflection:

1. It accepts the mass-velocity relationship, which prohibits anything >>>> with any mass from reaching light speed, meaning the photon can have no >>>> mass.
2. Therefore, according to relativity, gravity cannot affect photons.

Relativity either has to abandon the mass-velocity relationship or
abandon the claim that photons are affected by gravity. Until then, it >>>> remains self-contradictory nonsense, as always.

and then they continue the con by making up werds like...gravity energy. >>>

wats next? spacetime??

If you would avoid putting words in my mouth like "con," I would
appreciate it. Then, you might begin to engage in intelligent discourse.
If you are defending relativity, you should be able to explain the
contradiction. You have not defended it from this criticism. What do you
believe? Do photons have mass, or do they not? Can you make up your
mind?

Is the source of gravity mass or energy?

Answer a question with a question when you have no answer. The source of
the gravity energy is the mass.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

LaurenceClarkCrossen wrote:

On Mon, 17 Feb 2025 21:56:40 +0000, The Starmaker wrote:

LaurenceClarkCrossen wrote:

On Mon, 17 Feb 2025 19:14:20 +0000, The Starmaker wrote:

LaurenceClarkCrossen wrote:

How relativity derives the amount of the deflection:

1. It accepts the mass-velocity relationship, which prohibits anything >>>> with any mass from reaching light speed, meaning the photon can have no >>>> mass.
2. Therefore, according to relativity, gravity cannot affect photons. >>>>
Relativity either has to abandon the mass-velocity relationship or
abandon the claim that photons are affected by gravity. Until then, it >>>> remains self-contradictory nonsense, as always.

and then they continue the con by making up werds like...gravity energy. >>>

wats next? spacetime??

If you would avoid putting words in my mouth like "con," I would
appreciate it. Then, you might begin to engage in intelligent discourse. >> If you are defending relativity, you should be able to explain the
contradiction. You have not defended it from this criticism. What do you >> believe? Do photons have mass, or do they not? Can you make up your
mind?

Is the source of gravity mass or energy?

Answer a question with a question when you have no answer. The source of
the gravity energy is the mass.

But that is opposite of what Einstein said. Einstein said the the source
of gravity is the energy.

But, I'm saying the source of gravity is the mass.







--
The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable,
and challenge the unchallengeable.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Mon, 17 Feb 2025 23:03:10 +0000, The Starmaker wrote:

LaurenceClarkCrossen wrote:

On Mon, 17 Feb 2025 21:56:40 +0000, The Starmaker wrote:

LaurenceClarkCrossen wrote:

On Mon, 17 Feb 2025 19:14:20 +0000, The Starmaker wrote:

LaurenceClarkCrossen wrote:

How relativity derives the amount of the deflection:

1. It accepts the mass-velocity relationship, which prohibits anything >>>>>> with any mass from reaching light speed, meaning the photon can have no >>>>>> mass.
2. Therefore, according to relativity, gravity cannot affect photons. >>>>>>
Relativity either has to abandon the mass-velocity relationship or >>>>>> abandon the claim that photons are affected by gravity. Until then, it >>>>>> remains self-contradictory nonsense, as always.

and then they continue the con by making up werds like...gravity energy. >>>>>

wats next? spacetime??

If you would avoid putting words in my mouth like "con," I would
appreciate it. Then, you might begin to engage in intelligent discourse. >>>> If you are defending relativity, you should be able to explain the
contradiction. You have not defended it from this criticism. What do you >>>> believe? Do photons have mass, or do they not? Can you make up your
mind?

Is the source of gravity mass or energy?

Answer a question with a question when you have no answer. The source of
the gravity energy is the mass.

But that is opposite of what Einstein said. Einstein said the the source
of gravity is the energy.

But, I'm saying the source of gravity is the mass.

To think I thought we could never see eye to eye! Then Einstein thought
the source of the energy is the curved space?
"What Einstein did Not Consider about Gravity" by
David Rowland, Independent Researcher registered with ORCID, Member of
Royal
Astronomical Society of Canada, Canadian Association of Physicists.
E-mail: david222@hush.com

"Abstract
General relativity (GR) is the geometric theory of gravity that has
become the accepted definition of gravitation in modern
physics. GR proposes that gravity is the result of a geometric
distortion of four-dimensional spacetime by massive objects.
The more mass that produces gravity in a body, the more distortion you
get. This distortion supposedly changes the trajectories of objects
moving through space and even the paths of light rays as they pass close
by massive objects.
Unfortunately, general relativity is a fatally flawed theory that is a diversion from how gravity really works. This study explains in detail
the logical errors, false assumptions, and misinterpretation of evidence
upon which GR is based. Geometric spacetime does not exist, does not
curve, and cannot possibly interact with or be affected by gravity...................... Inconclusive Results
No one seems to have taken parallax into consideration. Parallax is a difference or change in the apparent position of a celestial object as
seen from different points on the Earth’s surface [8-13]. It is a
natural phenomenon caused by viewing stars from different angles at
various locations on the globe and can also be affected by atmospheric
and seasonal conditions at those locations. Parallax alone could account
for discrepancies in readings between Oxford and Principe, between
Principe and Sobral, and between Sobral during the eclipse and Sobral
two months afterward."

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Wed, 19 Feb 2025 20:43:05 +0000, JanPB wrote:

On Mon, 17 Feb 2025 18:15:15 +0000, LaurenceClarkCrossen wrote:

How relativity derives the amount of the deflection:

1. It accepts the mass-velocity relationship, which prohibits anything
with any mass from reaching light speed, meaning the photon can have no
mass.
2. Therefore, according to relativity, gravity cannot affect photons.

You don't know the basics of the theory. Mass is not the only tyhing
that couples to gravity, it's only one of 10 components.

Relativity either has to abandon the mass-velocity relationship or
abandon the claim that photons are affected by gravity. Until then, it
remains self-contradictory nonsense, as always.

No, you either should learn physics before posting on physics newsgroup
or
simply change your hobby.

--
Jan

--

Unsolicited advice is worthless. Deplatforming is a defense tactic of ideologues. That relativity is an ideology has been demonstrated by
Peter Hayes in "The Ideology of Relativity: The Case of the Clock
Paradox."

What components couple with gravity that have no mass? Photons, Higgs
bosons, and what else? Particles without mass? I certainly don't accept
that nonsense.
That you think anything but mass couples to gravity disqualifies you.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)