Every photon will follow the straightest path possible in curved/warped twisted spacetime. That is all this argument is about. The god is playing games and has already been warned.......
Last edited:
Photon Propagation : Straightline or Helix ?
- Thread starter The God
- Start date
Again, Citation needed paddoboy.
Please provide "quoted" passages from Posts Authored by me that support your ^^above quoted^^ Ad Hominem assertion.
Thats why I said lack of understanding !
Take a bigger circle on the surface of the earth.....From point A to point B on this circle (say these points are not diametrically opposite, hope you understand that)...then AB can be traversed, either on the shorter path or on the longer path. Now can you say that the longer path is not the geodesic ? Just visualise and respond...do not just do blind copy paste.
In the following image all photons propagate in a straight line at c from their rotating sources to the observer. Were the observer to stay absolutely stationary wrt the center of mass of the rotating sources, the sources continued to emit photons during one complete rotation and there is nothing that distorts or blocks the in transit photons, all the photons shown would arrive at the observer during the next complete rotation. Were the observer to move after the observation these paths would still exist at the time of the observation.
This isn't a geodesic, the space is Euclidean and these photon paths exist between the source(s) and observer in real time at the time of the observation.
The photons propagate in a straight line although their combined paths follow a helix.
Good one !
But the GR definition of straightline line makes you accept even the helical locus as straightline....well, thats how it is ? There was absolutely no need to do so...they could have termed this as something else.
As I have written earlier, in flat spacetime, an accelerated particle can traverse the straightline....even though definition will call it as non straightline...
Moreover any path having larger curvature than the photons, can be traversed under suitable external force...so the definition of straightline needs recalibration. IMO the path followed by the light bwetween two points should be termed as straightline, anything else shall be non-straightline. Take for example, two points A and B, in flat spacetime the photon can traverse A and B like Euclidean straightline (least geomterical path), but in curved space time A and B cannot be covered by photon by least geomterical path, so the photon path must be a concave (dome shape) path....that should be the straightline. Any path having lesser curvature is ruled out, and any path having larger curvature should be non straightline curve.......I see it most logical and reasonable definition.
Are you denying you said it?
If so, once again, welcome to the logic and reasonability of the scientific method and peer review. Glad you do approve, at least that's a starting point.
Yes, you write much on cosmology none of it credible...None of it supported by either a mathematical construct or any reputable reference.
Just your say so.
Every photon will follow the straightest path possible in curved/warped twisted spacetime. Which obviously is the shortest.
Paddoboy,
You are incorrigible...
You admit that longer arc AB is also geodesic, and still in the very next post you say that geodesic is the shortest.
This is trolling and foolishness coupled with that.
And you have quoted this Rpenner red post 3 times, does that make your stand better ? You want to win a point by telling me that Rpenner questioned me or my threads were consigned to cesspool or I have anti mainstream agenda....is that your argument ?
You are incorrigible...
You admit that longer arc AB is also geodesic, and still in the very next post you say that geodesic is the shortest.
This is trolling and foolishness coupled with that.
And you have quoted this Rpenner red post 3 times, does that make your stand better ? You want to win a point by telling me that Rpenner questioned me or my threads were consigned to cesspool or I have anti mainstream agenda....is that your argument ?
Your obvious dislike for cut n pastes is understandable...You have the same dislike for reputable E-Mails invalidating your rather precarious position re cosmology.
Of course they will continue if and when I find necessary and see fit.
Your question is really so easy to answer, I'm rather astounded that you think it somehow invalidates the concept that a geodesic is the shortest possible path.
Photons of course are emitted with momentum...you understand that?
Obviously the direction that momentum is in will be the geodesic taken. No other recourse is possible.
Both paths are geodesics. see previous post.
Better luck on your next endeavour.
ps: When you start acting reasonable and answer questions and supply links to support your nonsense, I'll consider to stop reminding the forum of your threads that have been cesspooled and sent to pseudoscience: Not a good look.
Yes right, AB (short) and AB (long) both are geodesics...
So don't ever say that geodesic in curved spacetime is the shortest path; keep learning !!
Stop obfuscating old friend! Light most certainly travels in geodesics, or the shortest possible path.
Please research the word "possible" Got it?
That's the whole point. And why such people need confronting when they are dearly begging for it. Obviously an agenda is at hand, and this has been exposed.
One can "understand" to some extent when a person has a beef against one aspect of cosmology, but when they go from the sublime to the ridiculous, claiming all of cosmology is wrong, claiming reputable experiments are fraudulent, and that they are cosmology's saviour, then people such as this, are using this forum as their vehicle, and I believe they need refuting whenever necessary and at all opportunities.
Sure obviously they are also doing it to get a raise out of people, but sometimes that must be over looked for the better good.
Or that action be taken.
I'm sorry such confrontations upset people.
So...for the third time, paddoboy...
Citation needed.
Please provide "quoted" passages from Posts Authored by me that support your ^^above quoted^^ Ad Hominem assertion.
You have made these spurious allegations that you, twice so far, refuse to support.
Any and all Readers of this Forum are well aware of what you are doing.
By failing to Cite any passages from Posts authored by me, that fully support your allegations, you are tacitly admitting that you are intentionally Posting False statements simply to cast aspersions upon and intended to defame another Member of SciForums.
So...again...for the third time, paddoboy...
Citation needed.
Please provide "quoted" passages from Posts Authored by me that support your ^^above quoted^^ Ad Hominem assertion.
exchemist
Valued Senior Member
Reported for trolling - exactly the kind of nitpicking and deliberate obtuseness I forecast at the start.
Incorrect use of singular and plural. For a sphere, they are the same geodesic. For a lumpy Earth there may be more than one "short" route and more than one "long" route in that there may be nearby geodesics from A that diverge because they are headed in different directions but ultimately converge at B. We have space-time examples of this where the gravity of galaxies bends space time so that a single distant quasar can appear as distorted images in four or more nearby places in the sky.
so then, why do you even use the word " interpret(and other forms of this word) " in general and endlessly?
we are well aware of your pathetic shenanigans also. as for your citation request, give me a moment to find one of the many.
...
be patient-- there are at least a thousand of your post to go through. it is funny, because like i have already mentioned, you know for sure paddoboy's claim is 100% accurate and correct--you just assumed that no one would go through all of the 1k post to do so, but again, i am working on it-- be patient.