Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!i2pn.org!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: Fri, 17 Jan 2025 19:45:21 +0000
Organization: novaBBS
Message-ID: <bfdbb2e37a0867d846c89b88bc341bc3@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> <67857215$0$28482$426a74cc@news.free.fr> <vm5kp2$2derv$1@dont-email.me> <503469a10182ea30de8e9ea94fc05f1c@www.novabbs.com> <vmbi55$3jseq$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="4067524"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="HcQFdl4zp4UQRQ9N18ivMn6Fl9V8n4SPkK4oZHLgYdQ";
User-Agent: Rocksolid Light
X-Rslight-Posting-User: a2f761a7401f13abeefca3440f16b2f27b708180
X-Rslight-Site: $2y$10$WfYwgfPP4UhrZr20onNmQOJugIFlpAlFuAsY1xULLUvyHgciuZjji
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Bytes: 2692
Lines: 23

On Thu, 16 Jan 2025 18:14:12 +0000, Paul.B.Andersen wrote:

> Den 15.01.2025 22:45, skrev LaurenceClarkCrossen:
>> "I interpreted this as that Einstein somehow had "fixed"
>> the predictions of GR to be in accordance with measurements
>> shown on some photographic plates.
>>
>> In other words, LaurenceClarkCrossen claim that Einstein
>> knew what the GR prediction should be to be in accordance
>> with measurements."
>
> Agree.
Paul: Above you seem to have attributed to me words I did not write.

 Your argument is that if the derivation was incorrect, how did it
amount to the same as the actual empirical findings? Laurence must be
saying that Einstein could magically predict the correct amount without
a correct derivation. However, one can correctly predict horse races
using astrology. That is not an accusation of rigging the race. That
would be luck if the derivation is wrong. The issue is the derivation.
How was the doubling derived? Huygens' principle is about refraction,
which would add refraction to Newtonian—granted that light has exhibited
a wave-particle duality. Does that give us a license to add the two
together?