> that didn't stop you from labelling 90% of something else on its own
Correct. "90% of everything is crap" guideline suggests that encountering crap should not be a surprise. So when I saw crappy claims in that video -- I was not surprised.
> Isn't it obvious then that the light can't escape a black hole not because gravity pulls on it as a particle of some weight?
I do not understand what you are asking.
1) Light cannot escape gravity because gravity pulls on it as a particle. 2) It is not obvious. 3) I still do not see the connection between that talk about the curvature and why light cannot escape.
> like any object with a mass, redefines the meaning of what a straight line is
Ok. But how does it prove that gravitational impact on light should not be considered separately from gravitational impact on mass?
Re: Light vs neutrons - aren't all that different?
Correct.
"90% of everything is crap" guideline suggests that encountering crap should not be a surprise.
So when I saw crappy claims in that video -- I was not surprised.
> Isn't it obvious then that the light can't escape a black hole not because gravity pulls on it as a particle of some weight?
I do not understand what you are asking.
1) Light cannot escape gravity because gravity pulls on it as a particle.
2) It is not obvious.
3) I still do not see the connection between that talk about the curvature and why light cannot escape.
> like any object with a mass, redefines the meaning of what a straight line is
Ok.
But how does it prove that gravitational impact on light should not be considered separately from gravitational impact on mass?