🚀 go-pugleaf

On May 31, 6:27 am, Pentcho Valev <pva...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> In 1911 Einstein says the analogy between the speed of photons and the
> speed of cannonballs is straightforward - the former varies with the
> gravitational potential as Newton's emission theory of light predicts.
> In the final version of Einstein's general relativity the analogy
> remains - both speeds are variable - but the speed of photons is more
> variable than the speed of cannonballs.
>
> Stephen Hawking, the Albert Einstein of our generation, implicitly
> rejects Einstein's general relativity by claiming that there can be no
> analogy between photons and cannonballs because the speed of light is
> constant in a gravitational field:
>
> http://www.amazon.com/Brief-History-Time-Stephen-Hawking/dp/0553380168
> Stephen Hawking, "A Brief History of Time", Chapter 6:
> "Under the theory that light is made up of waves, it was not clear how
> it would respond to gravity. But if light is composed of particles,
> one might expect them to be affected by gravity in the same way that
> cannonballs, rockets, and planets are.....In fact, it is not really
> consistent to treat light like cannonballs in Newtons theory of
> gravity because the speed of light is fixed. (A cannonball fired
> upward from the earth will be slowed down by gravity and will
> eventually stop and fall back; a photon, however, must continue upward
> at a constant speed...)"
>
> Hawking goes even further: the speed of light cannot vary with the
> gravitational potential because the Michelson-Morley experiment has
> proved it is constant:
>
> http://www.hawking.org.uk/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&i...
> Stephen Hawking: "Interestingly enough, Laplace himself wrote a paper
> in 1799 on how some stars could have a gravitational field so strong
> that light could not escape, but would be dragged back onto the star.
> He even calculated that a star of the same density as the Sun, but two
> hundred and fifty times the size, would have this property. But
> although Laplace may not have realised it, the same idea had been put
> forward 16 years earlier by a Cambridge man, John Mitchell, in a paper
> in the Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society. Both Mitchell
> and Laplace thought of light as consisting of particles, rather like
> cannon balls, that could be slowed down by gravity, and made to fall
> back on the star. But a famous experiment, carried out by two
> Americans, Michelson and Morley in 1887, showed that light always
> travelled at a speed of one hundred and eighty six thousand miles a
> second, no matter where it came from. How then could gravity slow down
> light, and make it fall back."
>
> One of Hawking's brothers in Einsteiniana, John Norton, implicitly
> contradicts Hawking by teaching that the Michelson-Morley experiment
> has confirmed the variability of the speed of light as postulated by
> Newton's emission theory of light:
>
> http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/archive/00001743/02/Norton.pdf
> John Norton: "Einstein regarded the Michelson-Morley experiment as
> evidence for the principle of relativity, whereas later writers almost
> universally use it as support for the light postulate of special
> relativity......THE MICHELSON-MORLEY EXPERIMENT IS FULLY COMPATIBLE
> WITH AN EMISSION THEORY OF LIGHT THAT CONTRADICTS THE LIGHT
> POSTULATE."
>
> Up until recently Einstein's, Hawking's and Norton's teachings made
> the scientific community sing "Divine Einstein" and go into
> convulsions. Now that it is evident to everybody that theoretical
> physics is dead, the scientific community does not give a sh-t about
> any teaching.
>
> Pentcho Valev
> pva...@yahoo.com

What is the nonzero mass of a given photon?

 ~ BG