🚀 go-pugleaf

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.