Mr. Bwanika,
First, I am not aware that the relativity theory has been suggested "as a grand theory of everything", though I am aware of efforts to fashion, if you will, a unifying theory. However, I'd like to know the particular source(s) of that suggestion so I could familiarize myself with it.
Second, I'd think that the dual nature of light is fairly well established, as shown in many standard college physics textbooks.
Third, it would seem to me that for gravity to 'bend' anything, that anything would have to possess a physical quantity known as mass -- hence the dual nature of light. Again any standard college physics textbooks can help here.
Finally, could you attempt to answer those questions I posed to Mr. Potosi?
----Original Message Follows----
From: "dbbwanika db" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: SV: ugnet_: "GENERAL THEORY OF RELATIVITY" is 'Bichupuli Science'
Date: Thu, 5 Dec 2002 11:06:14 +0100
Mw. Ssemakula
There is defintely a problem with the relativity theory as a grand theory of everything - and it can't be when one brings in the wave, light theory. what is the difference between the two (light and waves) ?
Indeed this is what this theory wants to captured with a pigeon holed Newtonian mechanics.
Gravity bending light without a clear defination of what light or wave particles are, is very problematic indeed. At least waves could be bend before physic come to light but if we were to argue that light particles are waves then there is no big deal in the theory but practically.
bwanika
> Mr. Potosi,
>
> I cann't make heads or tails of the gibbersih you wrote. Exactly what
> part(s) of the article do you have a problem with?
>
> Conversely, what part(s) of Einstein's work (that you have read or read
> about or otherwise familiar with) do you have a problem with and why?
>
> By the way, what do you consider to be his seminal ideas?
>
> ps:
>
> Mr. Stephen Hawking's 1999 "Person Of The Century: A Brief History of
> Relativity What is it? How does it work? Why does it change everything?
> An
> easy primer by the world's most famous living physicist" is an
> accessible
> starting point. As is his "A Brief History of Time" .
>
> One who has the intestinal fortitude and intellectual wherewithal to
> wade
> through things like tensor calculus, etc, might find A. Einstein's 1956
> "The Meaning of Relativity" (6th ed.) a bit more fun.
>
> ----Original Message Follows----
> From: "Mitayo Potosi" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: ugnet_: "GENERAL THEORY OF RELATIVITY" is 'Bichupuli Science'
> Date: Tue, 03 Dec 2002 18:10:37 +0000
>
>
> The inner Einstein
>
> http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&u=usnews/20021202/ts_usnews
> /the
> _inner_einstein
>
> Gravity and acceleration are intimately related, according to the 1916
>
> general theory of relativity.
> Gravity
> is basically a warping of space-time, so a
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
>
> This is definetely 'Bichupuli Science'.
>
> See Bro SSemakula, SEE ?
>
> You SEE. I told you this before.
>
> This garbage New York Times again talks about:-
>
> "GENERAL THEORY OF RELATIVITY"
>
> If they cant get it right let them not try, for Gods sake!!
>
> Brothers and sisters, there is nothing like that.
> There has never been a GENERAL theory of anything
>
> May be 'Inflationary Cosmology' comes close but a few
> weeks ago this NEW YORK Times was messing this up too!!
>
>
> There is only The Theory of GENERAL RELATIVITY,
> and The Theory of SPECIAL RELATIVITY.
>
> i.e. accelerated and un-accelerated Reference frames.
>
> Brother Ssemakula, again, we have to be careful about this
> 'Science' from Newspapers.
>
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> "Ivinicus factus sum veritabem diceus." ( I have become an enemy for
> speaking the truth ) St Paul!
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> Mitayo Potosi
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >From: "J Ssemakula" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >Subject: ugnet_: news
> >Date: Tue, 03 Dec 2002 16:40:16 +0000
> >
>
>
__________
bwanika
