🚀 go-pugleaf

On Feb 6, 11:54�am, 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- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Well, going back to the astronaut with his slower clock, it appears to
me that he would come up with a different gravitational constant than
the observer on earth because the velocity of the satellite relative
to earth would be faster according to his clock.
Robert B. Winn