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 04:19:33 +0000
Organization: novaBBS
Message-ID: <18532fc0f3db0b3612c347d9c0aee2bd@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="3509533"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="HcQFdl4zp4UQRQ9N18ivMn6Fl9V8n4SPkK4oZHLgYdQ";
User-Agent: Rocksolid Light
X-Rslight-Posting-User: a2f761a7401f13abeefca3440f16b2f27b708180
X-Rslight-Site: $2y$10$5G2Hd0fLP6CI1xdXXOuGCuCPgoph6Vm6sxezafy8kEbGF8hvr01ii
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Bytes: 6940
Lines: 132

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.
You find the same thing with Mercury as Poor found with the eclipse.
They just cooked it up. The "theory" of relativity makes no such
prediction.
"But this result, so obtained, does not represent
the curvature of the actual path of the ray by the sun; it represents
a fictitious curvature as measured from a moving origin of
coordinates. Eddington’s result is neither mathematically correct, nor
in accord with the basic assumptions of relativity in regard to
the propagation of light. If Einstein’s assumptions be correct, that
the actual velocities of rays passing through a given point in space
are different, if it be true, as both Einstein and Eddington state, that
the actual velocity of a radial ray at any point is less than
that of a transverse ray, passing through that point, then by no
trick of changing origins of coordinates, by no possible mathematical
means, can these two different velocities be made the same.
From all this it would appear to be clear that Einstein made an
error in mathematical computation, when in his “Foundation of
the General Theory of Relativity” he gave the figure 1”.70 for the...."