Photon Propagation : Straightline or Helix ?

[paddoboy]

So ? I will call that as a failed attempt. How does it help your point ?
Quite sick you are Paddoboy !!

No, I'm quite well and sane my friend. Of course it hurts being reminded of your many foolishness remarks and comments on this forum, such as you are never wrong, and that aLIGO and GP-B were fraudulent, and that BH's do not exist, and that you have had threads moved to the fringes, and then infracted: I can understand how ego deflating that must all be:
I can also understand that some of these claims are made just to "twitch my nose" or to inflame, and enrage others, but all that does is just add the childish immature touch to most of what you post.
My errors and sometimes laziness in what I post and as detailed by rpenner are accepted: But you obviously see any correction as a blight against what little credibility you already have, and then we get the predicted whinging.
The issue though is far more than just you and me: Other's also are awake to your agenda driven claims and attempts to deflate and deride modern science as I mentioned elsewhere.......They also then have to cop the same insults and childish posts from you directed at them.
So, tell me again, who is sick?

 

[The God]

For example, the orbit of the Earth in space is approximately a circle, a three-dimensional (closed) curve in space: the Earth returns every year to the same point in space. However, it arrives there at a different (later) time. The world line of the Earth is helical in spacetime (a curve in a four-dimensional space) and does not return to the same point.

And such comments are not limited to wiki alone, just google it, there are various references available for curved / helix path. So it is not an easy task to get along with the definition of straightline in GR, purely on non-mathematical approach.

 

[paddoboy]

And such comments are not limited to wiki alone, just google it, there are various references available for curved / helix path. So it is not an easy task to get along with the definition of straightline in GR, purely on non-mathematical approach.

It remains that any object will remain in a state of inertia and straight line motion, unless acted on by a force[Newtonian] or influenced by curved/warped/twisted/waved spacetime [GR]

I'll keep checking the annals of academia though.

 

[The God]

It remains that any object will remain in a state of inertia and straight line motion, unless acted on by a force[Newtonian] or influenced by curved/warped/twisted/waved spacetime [GR]

I'll keep checking the annals of academia though.

Wrong !! You have to explain what you mean by straightline here.......leave it. Its tough for you. Basics first. Read below.

and BTW what is "state of inertia" ? It is state of rest or state of motion or it could be state of inertial rest but there is nothing like state of inertia. And I am not twitching your nose here, I am just teaching you, you know one of my purposes...

 

[paddoboy]

Wrong !! You have to explain what you mean by straightline here.......leave it. Its tough for you. Basics first. Read below.

and BTW what is "state of inertia" ? It is state of rest or state of motion or it could be state of inertial rest but there is nothing like state of inertia. And I am not twitching your nose here, I am just teaching you, you know one of my purposes...

Not at all: And totally pedantic to say the least.
Let me re-enforce what I said.
Any body at rest or in motion [state of inertia if you like] will remain so unless acted on by a force: [Newtonian] or unless influenced by curved spacetime [GR]
Now you seem to be getting excited, so take a step back, stop being so anti establishment [because they are mostly right] take a disprin and have a good lay down.

 

[paddoboy]

the god linked the following.....
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_line said:
For example, the orbit of the Earth in space is approximately a circle, a three-dimensional (closed) curve in space: the Earth returns every year to the same point in space. However, it arrives there at a different (later) time. The world line of the Earth is helical in spacetime (a curve in a four-dimensional space) and does not return to the same point.

And such comments are not limited to wiki alone, just google it, there are various references available for curved / helix path. So it is not an easy task to get along with the definition of straightline in GR, purely on non-mathematical approach.

The point of debate and the first valid point you objected to was at post 4:

Everything moves through space in a straight line unless acted upon by a force.

you replied.......

This one needs rethinking on your part.......dig a bit deeper, you will know that, it is not the case.

That was followed by many examples from members including a mod re your actual intentions in the thread and moving the goal posts.
The following parrotized summary sums it up.......

Light follows geodesic paths in curved spacetime. That is well known.
We see that geodesical path as gravitational lensing.
The rotation of Earth and planets could also be said to be following geodesics in spacetime, explainable in simple Newtonian terms as a tussle between the pull of gravity by the parent star, and the straight line motion of the planet/Satellite.
The same could be said to apply to the motions of the stars around the galactic center: The stars try and maintain their straight line motion, while the pull of gravity from the SMBH at the center, keeps them in orbit.
Conversely they are simply following the same geodesic paths in curved spacetime as is light.
And a wiki link to trump your link.......
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geodesics_in_general_relativity
In general relativity, a geodesic generalizes the notion of a "straight line" to curved spacetime. Importantly, the world line of a particle free from all external, non-gravitational force, is a particular type of geodesic. In other words, a freely moving or falling particle always moves along a geodesic.

In general relativity, gravity can be regarded as not a force but a consequence of a curved spacetime geometry where the source of curvature is the stress–energy tensor(representing matter, for instance). Thus, for example, the path of a planet orbiting around a star is the projection of a geodesic of the curved 4-D spacetime geometry around the star onto 3-D space.

Here's another that I already supplied....
http://mathworld.wolfram.com/Geodesic.html
A geodesic is a locally length-minimizing curve. Equivalently, it is a path that a particle which is not accelerating would follow. In the plane, the geodesics are straight lines. On the sphere, the geodesics are great circles (like the equator). The geodesics in a space depend on the Riemannian metric, which affects the notions of distance and acceleration.

 

[The God]

The point of debate and the first valid point you objected to was at post 4:
Everything moves through space in a straight line unless acted upon by a force.

Origin is factually incorrect here, as straightline motion through space is possible even with non zero force. This point was later on taken up by Rpenner while responding to Fednish48, when he took up 3D Euclidean Space + time. It is amply clear that you have not understood the significance of Rpenner's that post.

The following parrotized summary sums it up.......

We see that geodesical path as gravitational lensing.

This is vague.

The rotation of Earth and planets could also be said to be following geodesics in spacetime, explainable in simple Newtonian terms as a tussle between the pull of gravity by the parent star, and the straight line motion of the planet/Satellite.
The same could be said to apply to the motions of the stars around the galactic center: The stars try and maintain their straight line motion, while the pull of gravity from the SMBH at the center, keeps them in orbit.

This is bad writing, conceptually incorrect too. what do you mean by stars try and maintain ? what do you mean by tussle between pull of gravity and the straightline motion of the planet. You have rightly admitted this as parrotized nonsense, rather an attempt to write the parrotized nonsense in your words. And if it is a tussle then it is no longer a straightline motion, You will never know that try and tussle would call for certain action, certain counter force ! What is that ? I suggest this orbital motion of planet under GR is a complex stuff, so pl do not try to offer your funny interpretation.

 

[paddoboy]

Origin is factually incorrect here, as straightline motion through space is possible even with non zero force. This point was later on taken up by Rpenner while responding to Fednish48, when he took up 3D Euclidean Space + time. It is amply clear that you have not understood the significance of Rpenner's that post.

Origin expressed a compressed view that all on this forum knew what he was on about, as opposed to your own smart arse goal post moving, less than credible OP.

This is vague.

No, its meaningful and factual to any reasonably thinking individual with no agenda to push.

This is bad writing, conceptually incorrect too. what do you mean by stars try and maintain ? what do you mean by tussle between pull of gravity and the straightline motion of the planet. You have rightly admitted this as parrotized nonsense, rather an attempt to write the parrotized nonsense in your words. And if it is a tussle then it is no longer a straightline motion, You will never know that try and tussle would call for certain action, certain counter force ! What is that ? I suggest this orbital motion of planet under GR is a complex stuff, so pl do not try to offer your funny interpretation.

Actually quite correct and quite understandable, again for anyone that has not approached the subject with an agenda as you obviously have, and as expressed by the other members that have taken part in debate.