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 00:36:33 +0000
Organization: novaBBS
Message-ID: <7db98cab57f6050f8daf2f88b9bfdcdb@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>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="3489409"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="HcQFdl4zp4UQRQ9N18ivMn6Fl9V8n4SPkK4oZHLgYdQ";
User-Agent: Rocksolid Light
X-Rslight-Posting-User: a2f761a7401f13abeefca3440f16b2f27b708180
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
X-Rslight-Site: $2y$10$MB7WGPJ3DVIIBm1E3vI1NeaG5Tubg/btLHbGGw79lcIBrwvsDpd.q
Bytes: 6200
Lines: 123

On Mon, 13 Jan 2025 18:54:29 +0000, Paul.B.Andersen wrote:

> Den 13.01.2025 06:07, skrev LaurenceClarkCrossen:
>> "Soldner, Einstein, Gravitational Light Deflection and Factors of Two"
>> This paper gives an interesting discussion of Soldner's calculation.
> This paper is written by Tilman Sauer in 2021.
>
> In 1801 Johann Georg von Soldner calculated the Newtonian prediction
> for the deflection of light grazing the Sun to be 0.84",
> which is quite close to the correct value 0.875".
>
> Sauer speculates if there are misprints in Soldner's calculation
> so that his result should be a factor of two higher, that is 1.68"
> which is quite close to Einstein's 1916 calculation 1.7".
> (With somewhat better precision GR predicts 1.75")
>
> If Soldner had calculated 1.68", he would be wrong.
> The Newtonian prediction is  0.875".
>
>>
>> And Einstein used a refraction formula to double the deflection=
>> "photographic plates?
>
> How ridiculous! :-D
>
> Einstein calculated the GR prediction 1.7" in 1916,
> before any measurements of the deflection was made.
>
> See:
> https://paulba.no/paper/Foundation_of_GR.pdf
>
> At the top of page 69:
>
>   "We examine the curvature undergone by a ray of light passing
>    by a mass M at the distance Δ."
>
> The calculation is shown on page 69 and the result is given
> at the bottom of the page:
>
>   "According to this, a ray of light going past the sun undergoes
>    a deflexion of 1.7"."
>
> So in 1916 nobody, including Einstein, knew what the correct
> value was, because no measurements were ever made.
>
>
>> Poor did, and he completely repudiated the
>> findings of Eddington. This should have given pause to any ethical
>> scientist.
>
> Poor did what? Use a refraction formula to repudiate
> Eddington's measurements? If Poor had done so,
> wouldn't that have been to explain Eddington's measurements?
>
> But of course Poor did no such thing. See below.
>
>> Here are some quotes from Poor's summary: "The mathematical
>> formula, by which Einstein calculated his deflection of 1.75
>> seconds for light rays passing the edge of the sun, is a well known
>> and simple formula of physical optics";
>
> Ah! So that's where you found the "refraction formula"! :-D
>
> In 1930 Poor obviously knew 'The mathematical formula,
> by which Einstein calculated his deflection of 1.75".'
>
> This is the equation:  Θ = 4GM/Δ⋅c² 

> where:
> Δ = the impact parameter, closest approach to Sun
> c = speed of light in vacuum
> G = gravitational constant
> M = solar mass
> In this case Δ = R, the radius of the Sun.
>
> This is indeed "a well known and simple formula" and
> since it is about physics and optics (light)
> Poor called it a "formula of physical optics".
>
> It has nothing to do with refraction, obviously.
>
> Why did you think that Poor claimed it was about refraction? :-D
>
>
>> "Not a single one of the
>> fundamental concepts of varying time, or warped or twisted space,
>> of simultaneity, or of the relativity of motion is in any way involved
>> in Einstein's prediction of, or formulas for, the deflection of light";
>
> Quite right.
> Einstein's formula  Θ = 4GM/Δ⋅c² is a well known and simple formula
> of physical optics which contains nothing about time dilation
> or relativity of simultaneity.
>
>> "The many and elaborate eclipse expeditions have, therefore,
>> been given a fictitious importance. Their results can neither prove
>> nor disprove the relativity theory" (emphasis added) (Poor, 1930)." -
>
> This was right(ish) in 1930.
>
> The eclipse measurements are notorious imprecise,
> and are now of historical interest only.
>
> Many measurement (of EM-radiation NOT grazing the Sun) are performed:
>
> https://paulba.no/paper/PPN_gamma_Hipparcos.pdf
> https://paulba.no/paper/PPN_gamma_Cassini.pdf
> https://paulba.no/paper/Shapiro_2004.pdf
> https://paulba.no/paper/Fomalont.pdf
> https://paulba.no/paper/PPN_gamma_Cassini_2.pdf
>
> GR's prediction for the gravitational deflection of EM-radiation
> is so thoroughly experimentally confirmed that you have to be
> extremely ignorant not to accept it.
>
"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!"