🚀 go-pugleaf

On Feb 6, 12:15�pm, Randy Poe <poespam-t...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Feb 6, 2:00 pm, Albertito <albertito1...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 6 feb, 18:54, Randy Poe <poespam-t...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Feb 6, 12:39 pm, Albertito <albertito1...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On 6 feb, 16:48, "Androcles" <Headmas...@Hogwarts.physics> wrote:
>
> > > > > <srp2...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> > > > >news:4695358e-db97-4485-94b4-06f417a451d4@i7g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> > > > > On 6 f�v, 02:34, Pentcho Valev <pva...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > >http://philipball.blogspot.com/2007/09/arthur-eddington-was-innocent-...
> > > > > > "With the technology then available, measuring the bending of
> > > > > > starlight was very challenging. And contrary to popular belief,
> > > > > > Newtonian physics did not predict that light would remain undeflected
> > > > > > - Einstein himself pointed out in 1911 that Newtonian gravity should
> > > > > > cause some deviation too. So the matter was not that of an all-or-
> > > > > > nothing shift in stars' positions, but hinged on the exact numbers."
>
> > > > > | Right.
>
> > > > > | Classical Newtonian mechanics predicts that light will bend with
> > > > > | twice the angle observed.
>
> > > > > How?
>
> > > > I'll tell you how. In order to see how newtonian gravity can
> > > > bend the trajectory of a photon, relativists fake it. They
> > > > magically tranform a photon with energy E into a particle
> > > > with mass m = E/2c^2, it is saying �half the mass in E = mc^2.
> > > > Then, relativists assume that particle passes by the massive
> > > > body from infinity travelling locally at c, and then they can
> > > > apply newtonian gravity to see how its trajectory is deflected
> > > > into a hyperbolic one. As a result there is a deflection angle
> > > > twice the observed one. A particle with mass m = E/c^2,
> > > > travelling locally at c from infinity, would be deflected in
> > > > the correct angle, under newtonian gravity.
>
> > > Why don't you do the Newtonian calculation before
> > > making this claim?
>
> > > � � � � � - Randy
>
> > The calculations have been already done by you relativists,http://www.theory.caltech.edu/people/patricia/obsertop.html
>
> Correct.
>
> > I'm only witness of that, and I see that if we double the mass
> > assumed for a photon we attain the correct answer.
>
> There are a great many assumptions in those
> equations which you are not aware of. You are trying
> to change the meaning of the symbols midstream.
>
> Here's what those orbital mechanics equations look like for
> planetary orbits:http://www.go.ednet.ns.ca/~larry/orbits/kepler.html
> Note that E is the sum of kinetic energy and potential
> energy. So what are you going to use for this E? Do
> you really want to use mc^2 and claim it's a Newtonian
> model?
>
> If you were doing Newtonian gravitation the way Newton
> did it to calculate the planetary orbits, you'd say
> the kinetic energy is (1/2)*mc^2, and the potential
> energy is -GMm/r. Then you'd find out that the mass m
> drops out, that is the parameter E/m = [c^2/2 - GM/r]
> does not depend on m.
>
> Let's start from the basics: What is the initial velocity,
> what is the acceleration, what is the result?
>
> Start out with a velocity c, mass m, distance R
> as it passes near mass M.
>
> The acceleration experienced by the mass m is
> GM/R^2. That is what you would apply to the velocity
> vector to get the change in velocity. It does not
> depend on m.
>
> Trajectories of small bodies through solar systems do
> not depend on mass.
>
> � � � � � � - Randy- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Well, you are also using the concept of absolute time if you say
this.  But according to scientists, they have proven that a clock in
S' will run slower than a clock in S, so my question is, What does
that do to Newton's equations?
If a clock in a satellite is running slower than a clock on earth,
then an astronaut in the satellite will compute his velocity to be
faster in an orbit around the earth than a scientist on earth would
compute it if they are both using Newton's equations and the concept
of absolute time, believing the two clocks agree with each other.  As
far as I can see, the concept of absolute time is a correct principle,
but you cannot keep track of it with clocks without making adjustments
for relative velocities.  In other words, a moving clock has to have
its rate adjusted in order to agree with a clock that is not moving,
so Newton's equations, as he used them, describe a system with clocks
that automatically adjust according to velocity within a gravitational
system to agree with a clock at the center of gravity.
    But since scientists say they have proven that a moving clock is
slower than a stationary one, that has to be figured into the
equations.
Robert B. Winn