🚀 go-pugleaf

On Jun 7, 8:57 pm, xxein <xx...@comcast.net> wrote:
> On Jun 7, 7:24 am, Pentcho Valev <pva...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> xxein:  I'm on your side and I hope you can understand this (what I am
> writing about).  I also hope you are a competent mathematician or have
> access to one who is not tarnished by the present ridiculousness of
> the Einstein babble.
>
> By various means and measures, we can determine some things about
> light and it's speed in a gravitational space.  But a lot of things
> are simply derived from theories.  Working up the ladder to a complete
> and a true physical understanding is almost impossible.  I
> specifically refer to Eddington's 1921 'confirmation'.  And I agree it
> should not be confirmed by his 'bogus' measurement.  (I will have a
> lot of 'buts').
>
> I don't believe in just authorative theory.  As lousy in math that I
> am, a certain physical logic should prevail over a math.  OK?
>
> We get some things right and some things wrong (but how can we
> tell?).  How do we seperate the math from the physical logic?  No one
> really can.  But there are many clues.  We just don't realize them.
>
> For instance:   We derive from math that light can only circularly
> orbit a black hole at a distance of 3M.  Otherwise it will either
> spiral in or escape.  What is the magic of 3M?  If you take the
> Keppler orbit velocity and the escape velocity due to gravity, square
> them and then add them together, you get c^2.  It is simple yet prone
> to simple error.  (I make simple errors with this all the time).  This
> is how you do it, if you can follow it.
>
> A close guess is that the mass of our sun is 1476.68511216172 meters
> of mass.  (Meters of mass is G/c^2).  If it were a black hole, light
> could orbit it at 3 x 1476.68511216172 meters.  The escape velocity
> (ev) is 244779516.944918 m/s at 3M.  The Keppler orbit velocity (ov)
> is 173085256.327319 m/s.  ev^2 + ov^2 is c^2.
>
> With simple vectors (and the resultant), you can see that light was
> slower than c while orbiting and that the vector sum is exactly c.
> Now, what does this mean?
>
> It means that light travels at c but c of what kind of 'space'?  Is
> the space moving also?
>
> In the end (and this is where the math gets deep).  Eddington showed
> that Newtonian gravitation could be interpreted to predict half the
> shift predicted by Einstein.  Now you can get a clue as to why.
>
> And now you can get a clue of how light takes twice the lightpath
> predicted by Newton.  It is not the light path, however, it is the
> light's speed.  It actually bends more than the curvature of Newtonian
> but takes longer to reach us than the Newtonian idea of lightspeed
> because of the ov-ev vectors.
>
> I'll let you stew on that until you find a competent math wiz.  But
> that is only a piece of the puzzle.  There are so many things that
> come together that it almost scares me.
>
> What's ev at the Earth's surface?  What is it's timerate?  What would
> be the timerate (compared to us at the surface) of a GPS satellite?
> It all comes together in a way that was/is not yet envisioned.
>
> There is a lot of the physic (that we misinterpret) to learn.
>
> But I'm done for tonight's lecture.

Call it deductive applied physics, plus always be ready and willing to
revise.

Whenever there’s no great harm intended, try out new interpretations
just to see if there’s anything of value to behold.

 ~ BG