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,
Einstein's claim that light is affected twice Newtonian jettison's Galileo's and Eotvos' experimental scientific advances.

More than that, the historiography of the subject would have us believe Einstein embraced Galileo and Eotvos, building on their work. This is absolutely false.

On Monday, December 25, 2023 at 11:51:31 AM UTC-8, 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,
> Einstein's claim that light is affected twice Newtonian jettison's Galileo's and Eotvos' experimental scientific advances.

Dumbfuck,

Light has no mass.

On Monday, December 25, 2023 at 11:57:15 AM UTC-8, Dono. wrote:
> On Monday, December 25, 2023 at 11:51:31 AM UTC-8, 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,
> > Einstein's claim that light is affected twice Newtonian jettison's Galileo's and Eotvos' experimental scientific advances.
> Dumbfuck,
>
> Light has no mass.
Then gravity wouldn't affect it, silly fool!

On Monday, December 25, 2023 at 11:57:15 AM UTC-8, Dono. wrote:
> On Monday, December 25, 2023 at 11:51:31 AM UTC-8, 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,
> > Einstein's claim that light is affected twice Newtonian jettison's Galileo's and Eotvos' experimental scientific advances.
> Dumbfuck,
>
> Light has no mass.
I know, space is bent by gravity twice as much as everything else in the universe but space doesn't have mass! Ha! Silly fool!

On Monday, December 25, 2023 at 2:01:59 PM UTC-8, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> On Monday, December 25, 2023 at 11:57:15 AM UTC-8, Dono. wrote:
> > On Monday, December 25, 2023 at 11:51:31 AM UTC-8, 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,
> > > Einstein's claim that light is affected twice Newtonian jettison's Galileo's and Eotvos' experimental scientific advances.
> > Dumbfuck,
> >
> > Light has no mass.

> Then gravity wouldn't affect it,

Dumbfuck,

Gravity affects massless particles, like the photons.

On 12/25/2023 5:56 PM, Dono. wrote:
> On Monday, December 25, 2023 at 2:01:59 PM UTC-8, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
>> On Monday, December 25, 2023 at 11:57:15 AM UTC-8, Dono. wrote:
>>> On Monday, December 25, 2023 at 11:51:31 AM UTC-8, 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,
>>>> Einstein's claim that light is affected twice Newtonian jettison's Galileo's and Eotvos' experimental scientific advances.
>>> Dumbfuck,
>>>
>>> Light has no mass.
>
>
>> Then gravity wouldn't affect it,
>
> Dumbfuck,
>
> Gravity affects massless particles, like the photons.

What doesn't gravity affect?

On Monday, December 25, 2023 at 4:17:38 PM UTC-8, whodat wrote:
> On 12/25/2023 5:56 PM, Dono. wrote:
> > On Monday, December 25, 2023 at 2:01:59 PM UTC-8, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> >> On Monday, December 25, 2023 at 11:57:15 AM UTC-8, Dono. wrote:

> >>> Dumbfuck,
> >>>
> >>> Light has no mass.
> >
> >
> >> Then gravity wouldn't affect it,
> >
> > Dumbfuck,
> >
> > Gravity affects massless particles, like the photons.
> What doesn't gravity affect?

Affects even dumbfucks

On Monday, December 25, 2023 at 3:56:24 PM UTC-8, Dono. wrote:
> On Monday, December 25, 2023 at 2:01:59 PM UTC-8, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> > On Monday, December 25, 2023 at 11:57:15 AM UTC-8, Dono. wrote:
> > > On Monday, December 25, 2023 at 11:51:31 AM UTC-8, 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,
> > > > Einstein's claim that light is affected twice Newtonian jettison's Galileo's and Eotvos' experimental scientific advances.
> > > Dumbfuck,
> > >
> > > Light has no mass.
>
>
> > Then gravity wouldn't affect it,
> Dumbfuck,
>
> Gravity affects massless particles, like the photons.
By bending massless space twice as much as gravity affects everything else.

Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:

> On Monday, December 25, 2023 at 3:56:24 PM UTC-8, Dono. wrote:
>> On Monday, December 25, 2023 at 2:01:59 PM UTC-8, Laurence Clark
>> > > Light has no mass.
>> > Then gravity wouldn't affect it,
>> Dumbfuck, Gravity affects massless particles, like the photons.
>
> By bending massless space twice as much as gravity affects everything
> else.

of course is nonsense. That's why my probability amplitude distribution
based my "𝗢𝗻 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗗𝗶𝘃𝗲𝗿𝗴𝗲𝗻𝘁 𝗠𝗮𝘁𝗲𝗿 𝗼𝗳 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗠𝗼𝘃𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗞𝗼𝗲𝗿𝗽𝗲𝗿𝘀 𝗠𝗼𝗱𝗲𝗹" must be correct.
If the 𝗾𝘂𝗮𝗻𝘁𝘂𝗺_𝗽𝗵𝘆𝘀𝗶𝗰𝘀 is correct, then my 𝗗𝗶𝘃𝗲𝗿𝗴𝗲𝗻𝘁_𝗠𝗮𝘁𝗲𝗿 must be also
correct. Thanks, you are great.

𝗨𝗸𝗿𝗮𝗶𝗻𝗲_𝗮𝗰𝗰𝘂𝘀𝗲𝘀_𝗡𝗲𝘄_𝗬𝗼𝗿𝗸_𝗧𝗶𝗺𝗲𝘀_𝗼𝗳_‘𝘄𝗼𝗿𝗸𝗶𝗻𝗴_𝗳𝗼𝗿_𝘁𝗵𝗲_𝗞𝗿𝗲𝗺𝗹𝗶𝗻’
The Western journalists have been “recruited” by Moscow, Kiev claims
https://r%74.com/russia/589676-kiev-new-york-times-allegation/

Ukrainians actually believe what gets printed in the New York Times?!?
....They're even stupider than I thought...

LOL the west and their vassals are stuck in a feedback loop. 'everything
is Russia's fault!'

that country called Ukraine is a disgrace run by liars and thieves

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

On Tuesday 26 December 2023 at 07:09:40 UTC+1, 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.

And with the advent of GPS we now know that GR shit
has nothing in common with real clocks, real observers
or real anything.

On 12/26/23 1:37 AM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> On Tuesday 26 December 2023 at 07:09:40 UTC+1, 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.
>
> 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.

Tom Roberts

On Tuesday 26 December 2023 at 16:48:43 UTC+1, Tom Roberts wrote:
> On 12/26/23 1:37 AM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> > On Tuesday 26 December 2023 at 07:09:40 UTC+1, 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.
> >
> > 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.

On 12/25/2023 6:39 PM, Dono. wrote:
> On Monday, December 25, 2023 at 4:17:38 PM UTC-8, whodat wrote:
>> On 12/25/2023 5:56 PM, Dono. wrote:
>>> On Monday, December 25, 2023 at 2:01:59 PM UTC-8, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
>>>> On Monday, December 25, 2023 at 11:57:15 AM UTC-8, Dono. wrote:
>
>>>>> Dumbfuck,
>>>>>
>>>>> Light has no mass.
>>>
>>>
>>>> Then gravity wouldn't affect it,
>>>
>>> Dumbfuck,
>>>
>>> Gravity affects massless particles, like the photons.
>> What doesn't gravity affect?
>
> Affects even dumbfucks

I have to wonder whether or not you ever listen to yourself.

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.

On Tuesday 26 December 2023 at 21:28:04 UTC+1, 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.

And do you still believe that setting a clock to your 9192631770
ISO idiocy is some "Newton mode"? You're such an agnorant idiot,
stupid Mike, even considering the average of your insane church.
Anyway, ask your guru Tom, your moronic Shit is predicting
clocks of GPS counting 9192631770, not 9192631774. Good
bye, The Shit.

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
Use of the word "advent" acknowledges you are idol-worshipping nitwit Einstein.
I know that light is affected by gravity Newtonian or not all.
You have not given a physics cause for twice Newtonian. You only assert it.
There is no good reason why high speeds would result in a different effect of gravity.
Since it is not Newtonian, it must be refraction.

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.

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

On 12/25/2023 9:57 PM, Neil Lim wrote:
>
> 𝗨𝗸𝗿𝗮𝗶𝗻𝗲_𝗮𝗰𝗰𝘂𝘀𝗲𝘀_𝗡𝗲𝘄_𝗬𝗼𝗿𝗸_𝗧𝗶𝗺𝗲𝘀_𝗼𝗳_‘𝘄𝗼𝗿𝗸𝗶𝗻𝗴_𝗳𝗼𝗿_𝘁𝗵𝗲_𝗞𝗿𝗲𝗺𝗹𝗶𝗻’
> The Western journalists have been “recruited” by Moscow, Kiev claims
> https://r%74.com/russia/589676-kiev-new-york-times-allegation/
>
> Ukrainians actually believe what gets printed in the New York Times?!?
> ...They're even stupider than I thought...
>
> LOL the west and their vassals are stuck in a feedback loop. 'everything
> is Russia's fault!'
>

Why should Russians give a damn what some "New York Times" says, or what
Ukraine says about it?

See, you haven't waken up, Hanson. If your ass represents Russians, then
Russians are still in a deep sleep. And you are advertising it!..

On 12/26/2023 4:10 PM, Physfitfreak wrote:
> On 12/25/2023 9:57 PM, Neil Lim wrote:
>>
>>   𝗨𝗸𝗿𝗮𝗶𝗻𝗲_𝗮𝗰𝗰𝘂𝘀𝗲𝘀_𝗡𝗲𝘄_𝗬𝗼𝗿𝗸_𝗧𝗶𝗺𝗲𝘀_𝗼𝗳_‘𝘄𝗼𝗿𝗸𝗶𝗻𝗴_𝗳𝗼𝗿_𝘁𝗵𝗲_𝗞𝗿𝗲𝗺𝗹𝗶𝗻’
>> The Western journalists have been “recruited” by Moscow, Kiev claims
>> https://r%74.com/russia/589676-kiev-new-york-times-allegation/
>>
>> Ukrainians actually believe what gets printed in the New York Times?!?
>> ...They're even stupider than I thought...
>>
>> LOL the west and their vassals are stuck in a feedback loop. 'everything
>> is Russia's fault!'
>>
>
> Why should Russians give a damn what some "New York Times" says, or what
> Ukraine says about it?

Russia is at full blown war. No holds barred, right?

>
> See, you haven't waken up, Hanson. If your ass represents Russians, then
> Russians are still in a deep sleep. And you are advertising it!..
>
>
>

On 12/26/2023 6:17 PM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
> Russia is at full blown war. No holds barred, right?

I don't know. Doesn't look like it.

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
Why get angry? Most people would recognize a polite inquiry and not get offended. Getting offended easily is the mark of a stupid person. An open and honest person would clarify the issue being addressed. You defend relativity like an ideology is defended. Why aren't you above board? Are you saying photons have or do not have mass? Why hide your position?

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, so photons must have mass. According to the mass-velocity relationship, anything with mass must become infinitely massive at the speed of light, so photons cannot have mass. Then which is true?

On Tuesday 26 December 2023 at 22:42:10 UTC+1, Tom Roberts wrote:

> >> 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.

And that it will be nothing. According to your Shit
light [in vacuum] takes always straight/geodesic
paths.
Poincare in 1905 was trying to explain your bunch
of idiots that there is no sense in fighting Euclid,
that it's stupid and EG will stay in use because it's
simply the best. Should have listened to him
instead your idiot guru.