🚀 go-pugleaf

On Feb 9, 10:38 am, rbwinn <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote:
> 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.

Garbled. But at any rate, in Newtonian physics we can write the
equation
    GMm/r^2 = d^2/dt^2 [m*x ]

and calculate the behavior of mass m in the presence of mass M.

>     All I asked was how a slower clock on the moon would apply to the
> equations.

Didn't you start this post with this statement:
"let's use pure Newtonian physics."?

There's no "slower clock on the moon" in pure Newtonian
physics.

> You people were the ones who said that a clock on the moon
> would be running slower.

Faster, actually. In the theory called GR. Not in
"pure Newtonian physics".

> Now you have all of these GPS satellites,
> etc.  How do the times on the clocks in those satellites relate to
> their orbits?

Well, that's a different question. Did you want to ask
a question about satellite orbits in GR or in Newtonian
mechanics? Don't say "Newtonian" and then ask a GR question.

I'm going to try to make an analogy with a subject you
might understand: welding. If I weld the left half of
a Mercedes-Benz to the right half of a Volkswagon Beetle,
and find this creates all sorts of problems, does this
tell me that the Benz is poorly designed?

OK, OK, let's just talk about the pure Benz and how
poorly it handles. I took my welded Benz-Beetle out
for a drive and found... what's that? That's not a pure
Benz anymore? What's wrong with you? I'm just trying
to ask you a question about handling of the Mercedes
Benz!

>      You keep claiming that the equations that Newton used are
> scripture of some kind.

No, I'm claiming that if you want to claim you're
doing Newtonian mechanics, you should be using the
Newtonian physics. If you want to throw something else
in there, you can certainly do it, there's no law against
it. But it's no longer Newtonian physics.

What, is the Mercedes Benz some holy grail that I'm
not allowed to weld onto? Was it created by St. Peter
or something? What's wrong with my welding job? Just
answer the question about why the handling of the
Mercedes is so bad, based on my experiments with
my welded vehicle!

> Kepler's number was just an approximation.

What number?

> It did not exactly match the orbit of anything from the start.

But Newton's equations matched the behavior astonishingly
well, and could even be extended to model the interaction
of multiple bodies with high accuracy. To the extent that
NASA still uses them, and so does every agency which
tracks the thousands of bits of spacecraft and rubble
traveling around the earth.

> It was
> just an average taken from the orbits that could be observed.

That's nice, but we were talking about Newton's theory,
not Kepler's. Newton explained Kepler's Laws, and also
in what way they are an approximation.

>       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.

If you ask me about Newton's equations, then those are
the equations I'm going to use. You've dragged both
pre-Newton and post-Newton science into this discussion.
Are you asking about Newton's equations or not?

What the hell is wrong with this Mercedes Benz
anyway? It's just a terrible car.

> You cannot use them any way except the way Newton did.

I can use them any way I want. And I can even change
them. But then I have to say they aren't Newton's
equations any more.

What's wrong with saying that? Why do you want to
change them and then pretend they're unchanged?
You want to explore the welded theory, let's do it.

             - Randy