On 12/27/2023 8:49 AM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:

> And that it will be nothing. According to your Shit
> light [in vacuum] takes always straight/geodesic
> paths.

Straight or geodesic, janitor? Make up your mind. They aren't the same
except where space is flat.

On Wednesday 27 December 2023 at 15:08:07 UTC+1, Volney wrote:
> On 12/27/2023 8:49 AM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
>
> > And that it will be nothing. According to your Shit
> > light [in vacuum] takes always straight/geodesic
> > paths.
> Straight or geodesic, janitor? Make up your mind. They aren't the same
> except where space is flat.

Oh, really, stupid Mike? Different? So, tell me - which of
them was mentioned in V-th axiom of Lobachevsky?
And in I-IV axioms of Lobachevsky?
One of the reasons your bunch of idiots should stay
with Euclid: this non-euclidean bullshit is simply
incomprehendable for your tiny, fanatic halfbrains.

On 12/27/23 6:12 AM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> On Tuesday, December 26, 2023 at 1:42:10 PM UTC-8, Tom Roberts
> wrote:
>> On 12/26/23 3:30 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
>>> On Monday, December 25, 2023 at 10:09:40 PM UTC-8, Tom Roberts
>>> wrote:
>>>> On 12/25/23 1:51 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
>>>>> Because Galileo found that all objects, regardless of mass,
>>>>> are affected the same by gravity, and Eotvos found all
>>>>> objects are affected the same regardless of the material,
>>>> Yes. With the advent of GR we now know that the first is only
>>>> approximately valid for tiny objects, small fields, and
>>>> velocities << c. So it does not apply to light.
>>>>
>>>> GR predicts that a massive particle moving past the sun with
>>>> speed
>>>>> 0.999999*c would be deflected approximately the same as a
>>>>> light
>>>> ray. A massive particle moving with speed < 0.001*c would be
>>>> deflected approximately half as much as a light ray.
>>>>
>>>> Tom Roberts
>>> So you admit photons have mass and make them an exception to the
>>> rule purely on experimental results without any physics cause.
>> You REALLY need to learn how to read. I said no such thing, you're
>> just making it up and attributing it to me.
>>
>> Tom Roberts
> According to the mass-energy relationship, anything with energy has
> mass,

This is not true. Why do you just make stuff up and pretend it is true?

> so photons must have mass.

The current measurements of photon mass are consistent with zero, with
an upper limit of 10^-18 eV.

That is so incredibly small that any deviation between the actual vacuum
speed of light and c (the invariant velocity of SR and GR) is completely
unmeasurable, even over cosmic distances.

Tom Roberts

On Wednesday, December 27, 2023 at 6:36:48 AM UTC-8, Tom Roberts wrote:
> On 12/27/23 6:12 AM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> > On Tuesday, December 26, 2023 at 1:42:10 PM UTC-8, Tom Roberts
> > wrote:
> >> On 12/26/23 3:30 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> >>> On Monday, December 25, 2023 at 10:09:40 PM UTC-8, Tom Roberts
> >>> wrote:
> >>>> On 12/25/23 1:51 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> >>>>> Because Galileo found that all objects, regardless of mass,
> >>>>> are affected the same by gravity, and Eotvos found all
> >>>>> objects are affected the same regardless of the material,
> >>>> Yes. With the advent of GR we now know that the first is only
> >>>> approximately valid for tiny objects, small fields, and
> >>>> velocities << c. So it does not apply to light.
> >>>>
> >>>> GR predicts that a massive particle moving past the sun with
> >>>> speed
> >>>>> 0.999999*c would be deflected approximately the same as a
> >>>>> light
> >>>> ray. A massive particle moving with speed < 0.001*c would be
> >>>> deflected approximately half as much as a light ray.
> >>>>
> >>>> Tom Roberts
> >>> So you admit photons have mass and make them an exception to the
> >>> rule purely on experimental results without any physics cause.
> >> You REALLY need to learn how to read. I said no such thing, you're
> >> just making it up and attributing it to me.
> >>
> >> Tom Roberts
> > According to the mass-energy relationship, anything with energy has
> > mass,
> This is not true. Why do you just make stuff up and pretend it is true?
> > so photons must have mass.
> The current measurements of photon mass are consistent with zero, with
> an upper limit of 10^-18 eV.
>
> That is so incredibly small that any deviation between the actual vacuum
> speed of light and c (the invariant velocity of SR and GR) is completely
> unmeasurable, even over cosmic distances.
>
> Tom Roberts
How can anything with energy not have mass?
If photons have no mass, there is no way they would be affected by gravity.
Everything about relativity is pure fiction. There is no fourth spatial dimension except in the minds of the stupid and gullible, and time is not a spatial dimension.

On Wednesday 27 December 2023 at 20:41:52 UTC+1, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> On Wednesday, December 27, 2023 at 6:36:48 AM UTC-8, Tom Roberts wrote:
> > On 12/27/23 6:12 AM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> > > On Tuesday, December 26, 2023 at 1:42:10 PM UTC-8, Tom Roberts
> > > wrote:
> > >> On 12/26/23 3:30 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> > >>> On Monday, December 25, 2023 at 10:09:40 PM UTC-8, Tom Roberts
> > >>> wrote:
> > >>>> On 12/25/23 1:51 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> > >>>>> Because Galileo found that all objects, regardless of mass,
> > >>>>> are affected the same by gravity, and Eotvos found all
> > >>>>> objects are affected the same regardless of the material,
> > >>>> Yes. With the advent of GR we now know that the first is only
> > >>>> approximately valid for tiny objects, small fields, and
> > >>>> velocities << c. So it does not apply to light.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> GR predicts that a massive particle moving past the sun with
> > >>>> speed
> > >>>>> 0.999999*c would be deflected approximately the same as a
> > >>>>> light
> > >>>> ray. A massive particle moving with speed < 0.001*c would be
> > >>>> deflected approximately half as much as a light ray.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Tom Roberts
> > >>> So you admit photons have mass and make them an exception to the
> > >>> rule purely on experimental results without any physics cause.
> > >> You REALLY need to learn how to read. I said no such thing, you're
> > >> just making it up and attributing it to me.
> > >>
> > >> Tom Roberts
> > > According to the mass-energy relationship, anything with energy has
> > > mass,
> > This is not true. Why do you just make stuff up and pretend it is true?
> > > so photons must have mass.
> > The current measurements of photon mass are consistent with zero, with
> > an upper limit of 10^-18 eV.
> >
> > That is so incredibly small that any deviation between the actual vacuum
> > speed of light and c (the invariant velocity of SR and GR) is completely
> > unmeasurable, even over cosmic distances.
> >
> > Tom Roberts
> How can anything with energy not have mass?

Simply, and energy was defined as massless, In opposition
to phlogyston. Maybe you're all talking about phlogyston,
not about enrgy?

On Wednesday, December 27, 2023 at 12:01:26 PM UTC-8, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> On Wednesday 27 December 2023 at 20:41:52 UTC+1, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> > On Wednesday, December 27, 2023 at 6:36:48 AM UTC-8, Tom Roberts wrote:
> > > On 12/27/23 6:12 AM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> > > > On Tuesday, December 26, 2023 at 1:42:10 PM UTC-8, Tom Roberts
> > > > wrote:
> > > >> On 12/26/23 3:30 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> > > >>> On Monday, December 25, 2023 at 10:09:40 PM UTC-8, Tom Roberts
> > > >>> wrote:
> > > >>>> On 12/25/23 1:51 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> > > >>>>> Because Galileo found that all objects, regardless of mass,
> > > >>>>> are affected the same by gravity, and Eotvos found all
> > > >>>>> objects are affected the same regardless of the material,
> > > >>>> Yes. With the advent of GR we now know that the first is only
> > > >>>> approximately valid for tiny objects, small fields, and
> > > >>>> velocities << c. So it does not apply to light.
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> GR predicts that a massive particle moving past the sun with
> > > >>>> speed
> > > >>>>> 0.999999*c would be deflected approximately the same as a
> > > >>>>> light
> > > >>>> ray. A massive particle moving with speed < 0.001*c would be
> > > >>>> deflected approximately half as much as a light ray.
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> Tom Roberts
> > > >>> So you admit photons have mass and make them an exception to the
> > > >>> rule purely on experimental results without any physics cause.
> > > >> You REALLY need to learn how to read. I said no such thing, you're
> > > >> just making it up and attributing it to me.
> > > >>
> > > >> Tom Roberts
> > > > According to the mass-energy relationship, anything with energy has
> > > > mass,
> > > This is not true. Why do you just make stuff up and pretend it is true?
> > > > so photons must have mass.
> > > The current measurements of photon mass are consistent with zero, with
> > > an upper limit of 10^-18 eV.
> > >
> > > That is so incredibly small that any deviation between the actual vacuum
> > > speed of light and c (the invariant velocity of SR and GR) is completely
> > > unmeasurable, even over cosmic distances.
> > >
> > > Tom Roberts
> > How can anything with energy not have mass?
> Simply, and energy was defined as massless, In opposition
> to phlogyston. Maybe you're all talking about phlogyston,
> not about enrgy?
Thanks, but if there is a mass-energy relation, there would have to be mass where there is energy, wouldn't there?

On 12/27/2023 2:41 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> On Wednesday, December 27, 2023 at 6:36:48 AM UTC-8, Tom Roberts wrote:
>> On 12/27/23 6:12 AM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
>>> On Tuesday, December 26, 2023 at 1:42:10 PM UTC-8, Tom Roberts
>>> wrote:
>>>> On 12/26/23 3:30 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
>>>>> On Monday, December 25, 2023 at 10:09:40 PM UTC-8, Tom Roberts
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> On 12/25/23 1:51 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
>>>>>>> Because Galileo found that all objects, regardless of mass,
>>>>>>> are affected the same by gravity, and Eotvos found all
>>>>>>> objects are affected the same regardless of the material,
>>>>>> Yes. With the advent of GR we now know that the first is only
>>>>>> approximately valid for tiny objects, small fields, and
>>>>>> velocities << c. So it does not apply to light.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> GR predicts that a massive particle moving past the sun with
>>>>>> speed
>>>>>>> 0.999999*c would be deflected approximately the same as a
>>>>>>> light
>>>>>> ray. A massive particle moving with speed < 0.001*c would be
>>>>>> deflected approximately half as much as a light ray.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Tom Roberts
>>>>> So you admit photons have mass and make them an exception to the
>>>>> rule purely on experimental results without any physics cause.
>>>> You REALLY need to learn how to read. I said no such thing, you're
>>>> just making it up and attributing it to me.
>>>>
>>>> Tom Roberts
>>> According to the mass-energy relationship, anything with energy has
>>> mass,
>> This is not true. Why do you just make stuff up and pretend it is true?
>>> so photons must have mass.
>> The current measurements of photon mass are consistent with zero, with
>> an upper limit of 10^-18 eV.
>>
>> That is so incredibly small that any deviation between the actual vacuum
>> speed of light and c (the invariant velocity of SR and GR) is completely
>> unmeasurable, even over cosmic distances.
>>
>> Tom Roberts

> How can anything with energy not have mass?

Because for light, E=pc, where p is the momentum and c is the speed of
light.

> If photons have no mass, there is no way they would be affected by gravity.

Gravity actually acts on energy, not just mass.

On Wednesday, December 27, 2023 at 2:39:04 PM UTC-8, Volney wrote:
> On 12/27/2023 2:41 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> > On Wednesday, December 27, 2023 at 6:36:48 AM UTC-8, Tom Roberts wrote:
> >> On 12/27/23 6:12 AM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> >>> On Tuesday, December 26, 2023 at 1:42:10 PM UTC-8, Tom Roberts
> >>> wrote:
> >>>> On 12/26/23 3:30 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> >>>>> On Monday, December 25, 2023 at 10:09:40 PM UTC-8, Tom Roberts
> >>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>> On 12/25/23 1:51 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> >>>>>>> Because Galileo found that all objects, regardless of mass,
> >>>>>>> are affected the same by gravity, and Eotvos found all
> >>>>>>> objects are affected the same regardless of the material,
> >>>>>> Yes. With the advent of GR we now know that the first is only
> >>>>>> approximately valid for tiny objects, small fields, and
> >>>>>> velocities << c. So it does not apply to light.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> GR predicts that a massive particle moving past the sun with
> >>>>>> speed
> >>>>>>> 0.999999*c would be deflected approximately the same as a
> >>>>>>> light
> >>>>>> ray. A massive particle moving with speed < 0.001*c would be
> >>>>>> deflected approximately half as much as a light ray.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Tom Roberts
> >>>>> So you admit photons have mass and make them an exception to the
> >>>>> rule purely on experimental results without any physics cause.
> >>>> You REALLY need to learn how to read. I said no such thing, you're
> >>>> just making it up and attributing it to me.
> >>>>
> >>>> Tom Roberts
> >>> According to the mass-energy relationship, anything with energy has
> >>> mass,
> >> This is not true. Why do you just make stuff up and pretend it is true?
> >>> so photons must have mass.
> >> The current measurements of photon mass are consistent with zero, with
> >> an upper limit of 10^-18 eV.
> >>
> >> That is so incredibly small that any deviation between the actual vacuum
> >> speed of light and c (the invariant velocity of SR and GR) is completely
> >> unmeasurable, even over cosmic distances.
> >>
> >> Tom Roberts
>
> > How can anything with energy not have mass?
> Because for light, E=pc, where p is the momentum and c is the speed of
> light.
> > If photons have no mass, there is no way they would be affected by gravity.
> Gravity actually acts on energy, not just mass.
Momentum is the product of mass and velocity. Kindly tell me what examples you have of gravity acting on energy.

On 12/27/2023 6:23 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> On Wednesday, December 27, 2023 at 2:39:04 PM UTC-8, Volney wrote:
>> On 12/27/2023 2:41 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:

>>> How can anything with energy not have mass?

>> Because for light, E=pc, where p is the momentum and c is the speed of
>> light.

>>> If photons have no mass, there is no way they would be affected by gravity.

>> Gravity actually acts on energy, not just mass.

> Momentum is the product of mass and velocity.

For massive particles, that's true. Light has no mass.

> Kindly tell me what examples you have of gravity acting on energy.

Light. Specifically the eclipse starlight deviation, Einstein crosses,
black holes.

On Wednesday, December 27, 2023 at 8:38:42 PM UTC-8, Volney wrote:
> On 12/27/2023 6:23 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> > On Wednesday, December 27, 2023 at 2:39:04 PM UTC-8, Volney wrote:
> >> On 12/27/2023 2:41 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
>
> >>> How can anything with energy not have mass?
>
> >> Because for light, E=pc, where p is the momentum and c is the speed of
> >> light.
>
> >>> If photons have no mass, there is no way they would be affected by gravity.
>
> >> Gravity actually acts on energy, not just mass.
>
> > Momentum is the product of mass and velocity.
> For massive particles, that's true. Light has no mass.
> > Kindly tell me what examples you have of gravity acting on energy.
> Light. Specifically the eclipse starlight deviation, Einstein crosses,
> black holes.
Tom just said light has mass. How can light have momentum without mass when momentum is a product of mass and velocity?

On 12/27/2023 11:57 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> On Wednesday, December 27, 2023 at 8:38:42 PM UTC-8, Volney wrote:
>> On 12/27/2023 6:23 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
>>> On Wednesday, December 27, 2023 at 2:39:04 PM UTC-8, Volney wrote:
>>>> On 12/27/2023 2:41 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
>>
>>>>> How can anything with energy not have mass?
>>
>>>> Because for light, E=pc, where p is the momentum and c is the speed of
>>>> light.
>>
>>>>> If photons have no mass, there is no way they would be affected by gravity.
>>
>>>> Gravity actually acts on energy, not just mass.
>>
>>> Momentum is the product of mass and velocity.

>> For massive particles, that's true. Light has no mass.

>>> Kindly tell me what examples you have of gravity acting on energy.

>> Light. Specifically the eclipse starlight deviation, Einstein crosses,
>> black holes.

> Tom just said light has mass.

No, he did not. In fact he explicitly called you out for making stuff up
(light has mass) and attributing it to him.

> How can light have momentum without mass when momentum is a product of mass and velocity?

Again, that's the momentum of massive particles. Physicists deal with
4-momentum and how it translates to classical momentum these days. Do
try to keep up.

On Thursday, December 28, 2023 at 8:57:23 AM UTC-8, Volney wrote:
> On 12/27/2023 11:57 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> > On Wednesday, December 27, 2023 at 8:38:42 PM UTC-8, Volney wrote:
> >> On 12/27/2023 6:23 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> >>> On Wednesday, December 27, 2023 at 2:39:04 PM UTC-8, Volney wrote:
> >>>> On 12/27/2023 2:41 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> >>
> >>>>> How can anything with energy not have mass?
> >>
> >>>> Because for light, E=pc, where p is the momentum and c is the speed of
> >>>> light.
> >>
> >>>>> If photons have no mass, there is no way they would be affected by gravity.
> >>
> >>>> Gravity actually acts on energy, not just mass.
> >>
> >>> Momentum is the product of mass and velocity.
>
> >> For massive particles, that's true. Light has no mass.
>
> >>> Kindly tell me what examples you have of gravity acting on energy.
>
> >> Light. Specifically the eclipse starlight deviation, Einstein crosses,
> >> black holes.
>
> > Tom just said light has mass.
> No, he did not. In fact he explicitly called you out for making stuff up
> (light has mass) and attributing it to him.
> > How can light have momentum without mass when momentum is a product of mass and velocity?
> Again, that's the momentum of massive particles. Physicists deal with
> 4-momentum and how it translates to classical momentum these days. Do
> try to keep up.
He said it could have 10^-18 eV. In any case, if it doesn't have mass, then the consensus that it is affected by gravity is wrong because gravity only affects mass. Your referring to light as an example begs the question. 4-momentum is the pseudoscience of relativity. I don't slavishly adopt the foolishness of science by consensus. I am very impressed by the ignorance and stupidity of relativity. I am delighted that the accepted science is that it has no mass because I am sure it is not affected by gravity.

Volney wrote:

> On 12/26/2023 11:59 AM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
>> On Tuesday 26 December 2023 at 16:48:43 UTC+1, Tom Roberts wrote:
>>> Not true. We just know that Maciej Wozniak knows nothing about GPS,
>>> GR, or clocks.
>> Spitting and ravings won't help, poor fanatic trash. the "improper"
>> clocks of GPS will keep measuring t'=t, just like all serious clocks
>> always did.
>
> And once again, you got it back asswards. t'≠t is the whole reason why
> the master clock divisor on a GPS satellite is set to 9192631774.1 and
> not 9192631770.

not true, my dear friend. We all know 𝗵𝗼𝘄 𝗲𝘃𝗶𝗹 𝗻𝗮𝘀𝗮 𝗰𝗮𝗻 𝗯𝗲. They have a
switch, they turn on and off, 𝗹𝘆𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝘁𝗼 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗽𝘂𝗯𝗹𝗶c. Ie, they can 𝗿𝗲𝗺𝗼𝘁𝗲 𝗰𝗼𝗻𝘁𝗿𝗼𝗹 a
passenger airplane to crash 𝗶𝗻𝘁𝗼 𝗮 𝗯𝘂𝗶𝗹𝗱𝗶𝗻𝗴. See 9/11 𝗯𝘂𝗶𝗹𝗱𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝘀𝗲𝘃𝗲𝗻 and so on.
My friend. You are the best friend I have in Physics. Who else can do
those airplanes, if not nasa?? Use your brain, my friend.

On Thursday, December 28, 2023 at 8:57:23 AM UTC-8, Volney wrote:
> On 12/27/2023 11:57 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> > On Wednesday, December 27, 2023 at 8:38:42 PM UTC-8, Volney wrote:
> >> On 12/27/2023 6:23 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> >>> On Wednesday, December 27, 2023 at 2:39:04 PM UTC-8, Volney wrote:
> >>>> On 12/27/2023 2:41 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> >>
> >>>>> How can anything with energy not have mass?
> >>
> >>>> Because for light, E=pc, where p is the momentum and c is the speed of
> >>>> light.
> >>
> >>>>> If photons have no mass, there is no way they would be affected by gravity.
> >>
> >>>> Gravity actually acts on energy, not just mass.
> >>
> >>> Momentum is the product of mass and velocity.
>
> >> For massive particles, that's true. Light has no mass.
>
> >>> Kindly tell me what examples you have of gravity acting on energy.
>
> >> Light. Specifically the eclipse starlight deviation, Einstein crosses,
> >> black holes.
>
> > Tom just said light has mass.
> No, he did not. In fact he explicitly called you out for making stuff up
> (light has mass) and attributing it to him.
> > How can light have momentum without mass when momentum is a product of mass and velocity?
> Again, that's the momentum of massive particles. Physicists deal with
> 4-momentum and how it translates to classical momentum these days. Do
> try to keep up.
So light is a particle without mass that dislodges electrons?

On 12/28/2023 4:37 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> On Thursday, December 28, 2023 at 8:57:23 AM UTC-8, Volney wrote:
>> On 12/27/2023 11:57 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
>>> On Wednesday, December 27, 2023 at 8:38:42 PM UTC-8, Volney wrote:
>>>> On 12/27/2023 6:23 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
>>>>> On Wednesday, December 27, 2023 at 2:39:04 PM UTC-8, Volney wrote:
>>>>>> On 12/27/2023 2:41 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>> How can anything with energy not have mass?
>>>>
>>>>>> Because for light, E=pc, where p is the momentum and c is the speed of
>>>>>> light.
>>>>
>>>>>>> If photons have no mass, there is no way they would be affected by gravity.
>>>>
>>>>>> Gravity actually acts on energy, not just mass.
>>>>
>>>>> Momentum is the product of mass and velocity.
>>
>>>> For massive particles, that's true. Light has no mass.
>>
>>>>> Kindly tell me what examples you have of gravity acting on energy.
>>
>>>> Light. Specifically the eclipse starlight deviation, Einstein crosses,
>>>> black holes.
>>
>>> Tom just said light has mass.

>> No, he did not. In fact he explicitly called you out for making stuff up
>> (light has mass) and attributing it to him.

>>> How can light have momentum without mass when momentum is a product of mass and velocity?

>> Again, that's the momentum of massive particles. Physicists deal with
>> 4-momentum and how it translates to classical momentum these days. Do
>> try to keep up.

> So light is a particle without mass that dislodges electrons?

Yes, because photons have energy and momentum. Again, do try to keep up.

On Thursday, December 28, 2023 at 8:13:20 PM UTC-8, Volney wrote:
> On 12/28/2023 4:37 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> > On Thursday, December 28, 2023 at 8:57:23 AM UTC-8, Volney wrote:
> >> On 12/27/2023 11:57 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> >>> On Wednesday, December 27, 2023 at 8:38:42 PM UTC-8, Volney wrote:
> >>>> On 12/27/2023 6:23 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> >>>>> On Wednesday, December 27, 2023 at 2:39:04 PM UTC-8, Volney wrote:
> >>>>>> On 12/27/2023 2:41 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>>>> How can anything with energy not have mass?
> >>>>
> >>>>>> Because for light, E=pc, where p is the momentum and c is the speed of
> >>>>>> light.
> >>>>
> >>>>>>> If photons have no mass, there is no way they would be affected by gravity.
> >>>>
> >>>>>> Gravity actually acts on energy, not just mass.
> >>>>
> >>>>> Momentum is the product of mass and velocity.
> >>
> >>>> For massive particles, that's true. Light has no mass.
> >>
> >>>>> Kindly tell me what examples you have of gravity acting on energy.
> >>
> >>>> Light. Specifically the eclipse starlight deviation, Einstein crosses,
> >>>> black holes.
> >>
> >>> Tom just said light has mass.
>
> >> No, he did not. In fact he explicitly called you out for making stuff up
> >> (light has mass) and attributing it to him.
>
> >>> How can light have momentum without mass when momentum is a product of mass and velocity?
>
> >> Again, that's the momentum of massive particles. Physicists deal with
> >> 4-momentum and how it translates to classical momentum these days. Do
> >> try to keep up.
>
> > So light is a particle without mass that dislodges electrons?
> Yes, because photons have energy and momentum. Again, do try to keep up.
Your confusing disagreeing with misunderstanding. Do try not to be a mindless devotee.

On Thursday, December 28, 2023 at 8:13:20 PM UTC-8, Volney wrote:
> On 12/28/2023 4:37 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> > On Thursday, December 28, 2023 at 8:57:23 AM UTC-8, Volney wrote:
> >> On 12/27/2023 11:57 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> >>> On Wednesday, December 27, 2023 at 8:38:42 PM UTC-8, Volney wrote:
> >>>> On 12/27/2023 6:23 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> >>>>> On Wednesday, December 27, 2023 at 2:39:04 PM UTC-8, Volney wrote:
> >>>>>> On 12/27/2023 2:41 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>>>> How can anything with energy not have mass?
> >>>>
> >>>>>> Because for light, E=pc, where p is the momentum and c is the speed of
> >>>>>> light.
> >>>>
> >>>>>>> If photons have no mass, there is no way they would be affected by gravity.
> >>>>
> >>>>>> Gravity actually acts on energy, not just mass.
> >>>>
> >>>>> Momentum is the product of mass and velocity.
> >>
> >>>> For massive particles, that's true. Light has no mass.
> >>
> >>>>> Kindly tell me what examples you have of gravity acting on energy.
> >>
> >>>> Light. Specifically the eclipse starlight deviation, Einstein crosses,
> >>>> black holes.
> >>
> >>> Tom just said light has mass.
>
> >> No, he did not. In fact he explicitly called you out for making stuff up
> >> (light has mass) and attributing it to him.
>
> >>> How can light have momentum without mass when momentum is a product of mass and velocity?
>
> >> Again, that's the momentum of massive particles. Physicists deal with
> >> 4-momentum and how it translates to classical momentum these days. Do
> >> try to keep up.
>
> > So light is a particle without mass that dislodges electrons?
> Yes, because photons have energy and momentum. Again, do try to keep up.
Is heat slowed by gravity when it leaves the Sun? I do not think so.

On Tuesday 26 December 2023 at 20:28:04 UTC, Volney wrote:
> On 12/26/2023 11:59 AM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> > On Tuesday 26 December 2023 at 16:48:43 UTC+1, Tom Roberts wrote:
> >> On 12/26/23 1:37 AM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
>
> >>> And with the advent of GPS we now know that GR shit
> >>> has nothing in common with real clocks, real observers
> >>> or real anything.
> >> Not true. We just know that Maciej Wozniak knows nothing about GPS, GR,
> >> or clocks.
> >
> > Spitting and ravings won't help, poor fanatic trash. the
> > "improper" clocks of GPS will keep measuring t'=t, just
> > like all serious clocks always did.
> And once again, you got it back asswards. t'≠t is the whole reason why
> the master clock divisor on a GPS satellite is set to 9192631774.1 and
> not 9192631770.
4.1? I get 4.2 using Pauls method from his website.
1.000000000457 × 9192661770= 9192661774.2

On 12/27/23 1:41 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> How can anything with energy not have mass?

Simple -- energy and mass are different quantities. Moreover, the
mass of a given object is invariant, while its energy is frame
dependent.

(BTW this is no different from Newtonian mechanics, in
which the kinetic energy of an object is CLEARLY frame
dependent, while mass is CLEARLY intrinsic to the object.)

You REALLY need to learn basic physics.

In SR and GR, a given object has a given 4-momentum. Its mass is the
norm of its 4-mometum, its energy is the time component of its
4-momentum, and its (3-)momentum is the 3 spatial components of its
4-momentum; here all components are projected onto the desired (locally)
inertial frame.

(Here "locally" is required in GR but not in SR; "3-" is
required in SR and GR but not Newtonian mechanics.)

So a photon can have zero mass if its energy is equal to its
(3-)momentum (c=1), and still have nonzero energy and nonzero (3-)momentum.

> If photons have no mass, there is no way they would be affected by
> gravity.

This is simply not true. But one does need to use GR to model gravity.

> Everything about relativity is pure fiction. There is no fourth
> spatial dimension except in the minds of the stupid and gullible,
> and time is not a spatial dimension.

This is just your ignorance and stupidity talking -- time is indeed not
a spatial dimension, it is a TEMPORAL dimension of spaceTIME.

Other nonsense written by you in this thread:

> Tom just said light has mass.

I NEVER said that. You need to stop making stuff up and attributing it
to me.

> if [a photon doesn't have mass, then the consensus that it is
> affected by gravity is wrong because gravity only affects mass.

This is just plain false. The consensus among physicists is that gravity
affects all types of energy. For the simple reason that it is observed
to do so, and GR models this appropriately and accurately.

> 4-momentum is the pseudoscience of relativity.

No, it's just that you are so comprehensively ignorant and outrageously
stupid that you do not understand much of anything about modern physics
(or about classical physics, either).

Tom Roberts

On Wednesday, December 27, 2023 at 11:41:52 AM UTC-8, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> On Wednesday, December 27, 2023 at 6:36:48 AM UTC-8, Tom Roberts wrote:
> > On 12/27/23 6:12 AM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> > > On Tuesday, December 26, 2023 at 1:42:10 PM UTC-8, Tom Roberts
> > > wrote:
> > >> On 12/26/23 3:30 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> > >>> On Monday, December 25, 2023 at 10:09:40 PM UTC-8, Tom Roberts
> > >>> wrote:
> > >>>> On 12/25/23 1:51 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> > >>>>> Because Galileo found that all objects, regardless of mass,
> > >>>>> are affected the same by gravity, and Eotvos found all
> > >>>>> objects are affected the same regardless of the material,
> > >>>> Yes. With the advent of GR we now know that the first is only
> > >>>> approximately valid for tiny objects, small fields, and
> > >>>> velocities << c. So it does not apply to light.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> GR predicts that a massive particle moving past the sun with
> > >>>> speed
> > >>>>> 0.999999*c would be deflected approximately the same as a
> > >>>>> light
> > >>>> ray. A massive particle moving with speed < 0.001*c would be
> > >>>> deflected approximately half as much as a light ray.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Tom Roberts
> > >>> So you admit photons have mass and make them an exception to the
> > >>> rule purely on experimental results without any physics cause.
> > >> You REALLY need to learn how to read. I said no such thing, you're
> > >> just making it up and attributing it to me.
> > >>
> > >> Tom Roberts
> > > According to the mass-energy relationship, anything with energy has
> > > mass,
> > This is not true. Why do you just make stuff up and pretend it is true?
> > > so photons must have mass.
> > The current measurements of photon mass are consistent with zero, with
> > an upper limit of 10^-18 eV.
> >
> > That is so incredibly small that any deviation between the actual vacuum
> > speed of light and c (the invariant velocity of SR and GR) is completely
> > unmeasurable, even over cosmic distances.
> >
> > Tom Roberts
> How can anything with energy not have mass?

Why does it have to have mass? Do you know what "energy" and "mass"
mean in physics? I don't mean just relativistic physics.

> If photons have no mass, there is no way they would be affected by gravity.

Why not? In GR gravity is coupled to the entire energy-momentum tensor, not
just its 00-component.

> Everything about relativity is pure fiction.

No more and no less than any other theory in physics.

> There is no fourth spatial dimension except in the minds of the stupid and gullible,

Likewise, there are no phase space dimensions in Hamiltonian mechanics (19th century), yet
it's used all the time. For N particles you need a (2N+1)-dimensional phase space. As the system
evolves, the content of this phase space behaves like an incompressible fluid in 2N+1 dimensions.
Yet I don't see you getting all worked up against it. Not to mention quantum theories which are
much more bizarre than anything in relativity.

> and time is not a spatial dimension.

Relativity does not say time is a spatial dimension. It simply treats time the same way it's
treated in pre-relativity mechanics: a degree of freedom.

Stop wasting your time on this. It's not your thing.

--
Jan

On 12/28/2023 11:39 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> On Thursday, December 28, 2023 at 8:13:20 PM UTC-8, Volney wrote:
>> On 12/28/2023 4:37 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:

>>> So light is a particle without mass that dislodges electrons?

>> Yes, because photons have energy and momentum. Again, do try to keep up.

> Is heat slowed by gravity when it leaves the Sun? I do not think so.

All photons from the sun move at c.

There is a redshift of infrared photons which decreases their frequency
very slightly.

On 12/28/2023 11:29 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> On Thursday, December 28, 2023 at 8:13:20 PM UTC-8, Volney wrote:
>> On 12/28/2023 4:37 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:

>>> So light is a particle without mass that dislodges electrons?

>> Yes, because photons have energy and momentum. Again, do try to keep up.

> Your confusing disagreeing with misunderstanding. Do try not to be a mindless devotee.

To you it must be the same thing. Anything you can't understand you
disagree with it and claim it to be false, rather than learn about it.

On Friday 29 December 2023 at 19:19:41 UTC+1, Tom Roberts wrote:
> On 12/27/23 1:41 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> > How can anything with energy not have mass?
> Simple -- energy and mass are different quantities. Moreover, the
> mass of a given object is invariant, while its energy is frame
> dependent.
>
> (BTW this is no different from Newtonian mechanics, in
> which the kinetic energy of an object is CLEARLY frame
> dependent, while mass is CLEARLY intrinsic to the object.)
>
> You REALLY need to learn basic physics.

Yeah! Learn, that we're FORCED!!! To THE BEST WAY!!!!

On Friday 29 December 2023 at 18:19:41 UTC, Tom Roberts wrote:
> On 12/27/23 1:41 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> > How can anything with energy not have mass?
> Simple -- energy and mass are different quantities. Moreover, the
> mass of a given object is invariant, while its energy is frame
> dependent.
>
> (BTW this is no different from Newtonian mechanics, in
> which the kinetic energy of an object is CLEARLY frame
> dependent, while mass is CLEARLY intrinsic to the object.)
>
> You REALLY need to learn basic physics.
>
> In SR and GR, a given object has a given 4-momentum. Its mass is the
> norm of its 4-mometum, its energy is the time component of its
> 4-momentum, and its (3-)momentum is the 3 spatial components of its
> 4-momentum; here all components are projected onto the desired (locally)
> inertial frame.
>
> (Here "locally" is required in GR but not in SR; "3-" is
> required in SR and GR but not Newtonian mechanics.)
>
> So a photon can have zero mass if its energy is equal to its
> (3-)momentum (c=1), and still have nonzero energy and nonzero (3-)momentum.
> > If photons have no mass, there is no way they would be affected by
> > gravity.
> This is simply not true. But one does need to use GR to model gravity.
> > Everything about relativity is pure fiction. There is no fourth
> > spatial dimension except in the minds of the stupid and gullible,
> > and time is not a spatial dimension.
> This is just your ignorance and stupidity talking -- time is indeed not
> a spatial dimension, it is a TEMPORAL dimension of spaceTIME.
>
> Other nonsense written by you in this thread:
> > Tom just said light has mass.
> I NEVER said that. You need to stop making stuff up and attributing it
> to me.
>
> > if [a photon doesn't have mass, then the consensus that it is
> > affected by gravity is wrong because gravity only affects mass.
> This is just plain false. The consensus among physicists is that gravity
> affects all types of energy. For the simple reason that it is observed
> to do so, and GR models this appropriately and accurately.
> > 4-momentum is the pseudoscience of relativity.
> No, it's just that you are so comprehensively ignorant and outrageously
> stupid that you do not understand much of anything about modern physics
> (or about classical physics, either).
>
>
Regarding GPS and Relativity... I noticed a paper, cited below from NIST,
which says that the on board satelitte oscillator broadcasts at 10.23 MHz.
(Not to 10229999.99543Mhz as normally assumed.) This is also confirmed
by a former NASA GPS engineer Larry Ortega who concurs that ,contrary
to common assumption, the on board sat clocks are NOT preset to
10229999.99543Hz
But rather set to 10.23 Mhz and instead corrected every 24 hours
from the ground.

Time and Frequency Measurements Using the Global Positioning System
Michael A. Lombardi, Lisa M. Nelson, Andrew N. Novick,
Victor S. Zhang
National Institute of Standards and Tech
“The GPS satellites broadcast on two carrier frequencies: L1 at 1575.42 MHz, and L2 at 1227.6 MHz. Each satellite broadcasts a spread-spectrum waveform, called a pseudo- random noise (PRN) code on L1 and L2, and each satellite is identified by the PRN code it transmits. There are two types of PRN codes. The first type is a coarse acquisition (C/A) code with a chip rate of 1023 chips per millisecond. The second type is a precision (P) code with a chip rate of 10230 chips per millisecond. The C/A code is broadcast on L1, and the P code is broadcast on both L1 and L2.”

Larry Ortega Former NASA chief engineer:
“The short answer is the the first clocks on the first GPS satellites were not synchronized. In fact, it’s no different today. “

Den 30.12.2023 14:22, skrev Lou:
>>
> Regarding GPS and Relativity... I noticed a paper, cited below from NIST,
> which says that the on board satelitte oscillator broadcasts at 10.23 MHz.
> (Not to 10229999.99543Mhz as normally assumed.) This is also confirmed
> by a former NASA GPS engineer Larry Ortega who concurs that ,contrary
> to common assumption, the on board sat clocks are NOT preset to
> 10229999.99543Hz
> But rather set to 10.23 Mhz and instead corrected every 24 hours
> from the ground.
>

You have been told before:

On Wednesday, 15 November 2023 at 18:20:28 UTC, Paul B. Andersen wrote:

> The correction is specified in the
> "INTERFACE SPECIFICATION DOCUMENT" for GPS:
>
> https://www.gps.gov/technical/icwg/IS-GPS-200N.pdf
>
> From 3.3.1.1 Frequency Plan:
> "The carrier frequencies for the L1 and L2 signals shall be
> coherently derived from a common frequency source within the SV.
> The nominal frequency of this source -- as it appears to an observer
> on the ground -- is 10.23 MHz. The SV carrier frequency and clock
> rates -- as they would appear to an observer located in the SV --
> are offset to compensate for relativistic effects. The clock rates
> are offset by Δf/f = -4.4647E-10, equivalent to a change in the
> P-code chipping rate of 10.23 MHz offset by a Δf = -4.5674E-3 Hz.
> This is equal to 10.2299999954326 MHz."
>
> SV = space vehicle, satellite.

--
Paul

https://paulba.no/