🚀 go-pugleaf

On Feb 9, 6:37 am, Randy Poe <poespam-t...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Feb 9, 5:29 am, rbwinn <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > 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.
>
> If I'm doing a Newtonian calculation, I do it with Newtonian
> physics.
>
> > 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?
>
> Whatever it does (and I have no interest in your nonsense),
> the result is not Newtonian physics. Call it something else.
> If you want to ask, "what does pure Newtonian physics predict"
> then the answer is done with Newtonian physics, not some
> hybrid.
>
>               - Randy- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Well, OK, Randy, let's use pure Newtonian physics.  Newton is sitting
under a tree trying to figure out the orbit of the moon, and an apple
falls and hits him on the head.  So Newton remembers Galileo's
experiment with the two different size rocks on the leaning tower or
Pisa and decides that the moon is falling toward the earth at a rate
that keeps it always at the same altitude.  So he uses Kepler's
equation for the radius of an orbit and figures the force required.
    All I asked was how a slower clock on the moon would apply to the
equations.  You people were the ones who said that a clock on the moon
would be running slower.  Now you have all of these GPS satellites,
etc.  How do the times on the clocks in those satellites relate to
their orbits?
     You keep claiming that the equations that Newton used are
scripture of some kind.  Kepler's number was just an approximation.
It did not exactly match the orbit of anything from the start.  It was
just an average taken from the orbits that could be observed.
      Maybe if clock time was used instead of absolute time, Kepler's
calculation of the orbits would be closer, maybe it would be less
accurate.  I have no way of determining any of this.  I have no time
to run an experiment of that kind.  I have to work every day welding.
      So I ask a scientist.  No, Newton's equations are scripture.
You cannot use them any way except the way Newton did.  OK, I do not
want to get into an argument with you over your religion.  Just go
ahead and use Newton's equations the same way he did.  He used
absolute time.  According to him, a clock in a satellite would read
the same as a clock on earth.
      I don't want to get you all irrational over something like this.
Robert B. Winn