Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!news.nk.ca!rocksolid2!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: clzb93ynxj@att.net (LaurenceClarkCrossen)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity
Subject: Re: Newton: Photon falling from h meters increase its energy.
Date: Tue, 14 Jan 2025 04:48:51 +0000
Organization: novaBBS
Message-ID: <12bd0d7e9afe2f6a02aa76ed9149adbb@www.novabbs.com>
References: <4af374770bb67b6951ef19c75b35fbad@www.novabbs.com> <1819b35cb5854fb7$83258$1308629$c2565adb@news.newsdemon.com> <17a125a3e75f42ff91ef08afdab4e0a9@www.novabbs.com> <1819b79e1aa58c97$89507$1329657$c2065a8b@news.newsdemon.com> <9e55d347a16ad439d5b2e75440ae1a6d@www.novabbs.com> <6782d853$0$28064$426a74cc@news.free.fr> <c2fdc44dd6b77812b78bd871c9bde8f3@www.novabbs.com> <4404fd8d88a2eacd658d92efeef4d6c2@www.novabbs.com> <vm3ncs$20493$1@dont-email.me> <7db98cab57f6050f8daf2f88b9bfdcdb@www.novabbs.com> <e61a2011de7dbcb68e105f2dfa60a148@www.novabbs.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="3512205"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="HcQFdl4zp4UQRQ9N18ivMn6Fl9V8n4SPkK4oZHLgYdQ";
User-Agent: Rocksolid Light
X-Rslight-Posting-User: a2f761a7401f13abeefca3440f16b2f27b708180
X-Rslight-Site: $2y$10$tnTGPu34nnkhUgFTbeILIedV0ZtCGhtLKNtR7U.iBqStQ8b0oPJu6
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Bytes: 5896
Lines: 116

On Tue, 14 Jan 2025 1:41:44 +0000, rhertz wrote:

> On Tue, 14 Jan 2025 0:36:33 +0000, LaurenceClarkCrossen wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>> "This is exactly double the value given in 1911, and this doubling
>> of values has given rise to many speculations, and to many and
>> varied explanations, on the part of the relativists.
>> An inspection of the formulas, which Einstein used, shows
>> exactly what he did and how he derived this result. The essential
>> factor in the formula is that for the rate of change of velocity
>> along the wave-front 6c, 6x ; and this is the only factor in which
>> any change can be made. All the other terms and factors of the
>> formula are always identically the same." - Poor = "THE RELATIVITY
>> DEFLECTION OF LIGHT!"
>
> Years ago, I posted that when Einstein published his 1915 paper on
> Mercury, he included a couple of paragraphs announcing that he doubled
> his 1911 value due to his work with GR.
>
> It's all on his 1915 paper, in a single line: Equation 7c.
>
>
>
> Einstein had it easy. He modified Newton's potential Φ = - GM/r for
> Φ = - GM/r (1 + B^2/r^2), in his equation (7c). This was in geometrical
> units.
>
> In physical units, Eq 7c is  Φ(r) = - GMm/r [1 + B^2/(mcr)^2]
>
> Long story short: In the same paper, and using this change, he managed
> to obtain Gerber's formula and 43" and, as a bonus, DOUBLED the
> gravitational potential on the formula for deflection of starlight, used
> in 1911.
>
> ψ(1911) = 1/c2 2GM/RS = 0.85 arcsec
> ψ(1915) = 2 x ψ(1911) = 1/c2 4GM/RS = 1.75 arcsec
>
> The key for this "magic prediction" is simple. The extra (1 + B^2/r^2)
> factor in Φ(r), in physical units, is [1 + B^2/(mcr)^2]
>
>
> B = mr2ω  is the constant angular momentum, under Newton's Law of
> Gravitation,
>
> so
>
> Φ(r) = - GMm/r (1 + r^2ω^2/c^2)
>
>
> He made Rs.ω = c at the perigee of the trajectory, at which the test
> particle has maximum speed.
>
> But it implies a variable speed of light, besides that "photons" have
> mass and suffer gravitational attraction.
>
> This is the Newtonian equation that Einstein seek, using 80% of the
> paper, before changing for a new Φ:
>
> m [r^2 (dɸ/dt)^2 + (dr/dt)^2]  - GMm/r = 2E  (E < 0, the total energy of
> the system, is CONSTANT).
>
> The above equations describe any elliptic, parabolic or hyperbolic
> orbit, and was used by Einstein TWICE:
>
> 1) To get the final expression of the advance of Mercury's perihelion in
> an orbit with e = 0.2025 and E < 0.
>
> 2) For the deflection of light, at the perigee of an hyperbolic
> trajectory of a photon, with r = Rs, e >> 1, E > 0.
>
> Einstein REFUSED to show his calculations for 2) and only presented the
> new value for deflection of light plus a lot of gobbledygook using GR.
> Astronomers and physicists from ALL OVER the world asked Einstein to
> present his calculations. Einstein NEVER delivered them.
>
> Why did Einstein refused to show his derivation? Because he had to
> explain:
>
> 1) The use of light as "quanta of energy" (A.K.A. photons) having mass m
> = hf/c^2.
>
> 2) The change of the bounded elliptic orbit of Mercury, with e = 0.2025
> into a highly eccentric hyperbolic orbit (e > 200,000), which passed by
> the Sun at its perigee (r = RS).
>
> 3) The angular momentum at the perigee, B(RS) = m.RS.c. In this way, the
> quotient between brackets of ψ(RS) became equal to 1, DOUBLING the
> gravitational potential.
>
> 4) Making the angular velocity of the photon at the orbit's perigee: c =
> RS. ωMAX, implied a VARIABLE SPEED OF LIGHT in the trajectory of the
> photon:
> c' = rω (only reaching c at r = RS).
>
> He had  a LOT OF THINGS to explain. And because of the above points, his
> ETERNAL SILENCE.
>
>
> So, his announcement in 1915 came to the fact that in the modified
> gravitational potential
>
> Φ(r) = - GMm/r (1 + r^2ω^2/c^2)
>
>
> he made r.ω = c, for which Φ(r_sun) = - GMm/r_sun (1 + 1).
>
> Doubling the potential when starlight graze the Sun's surface DOUBLED
> the 1911 Newtonian value, AT THE COST OF A VARIABLE SPEED OF LIGHT IN
> THAT POINT.
>
>
> He NEVER, EVER showed his calculations. That's why, in 1930, Poor was
> calling him (LITERALLY) a fraudulent crock.
Here is a response to Poor's 1926 article in 1929: THE RELATIVITY
DEFLECTION OF LIGHT By Robert J. Trumpler