🚀 go-pugleaf

On 6 fév, 18:03, "Androcles" <Headmas...@Hogwarts.physics> wrote:
> <srp2...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:de3fc74d-67c4-40e0-b4e0-879181e1df3d@j20g2000hsi.googlegroups.com...
> On 6 fév, 16:36, "Androcles" <Headmas...@Hogwarts.physics> wrote:
>
>
>
> > <srp2...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> >news:4cec669b-7209-44ab-bfc8-ee056347995a@j78g2000hsd.googlegroups.com...
> > On 6 fév, 15:04, "Androcles" <Headmas...@Hogwarts.physics> wrote:
>
> > > <srp2...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> > >news:6ba03bd0-12cf-4b68-a7e7-0b84a3e036c6@i12g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> > > On 6 fév, 12:15, "Androcles" <Headmas...@Hogwarts.physics> wrote:
>
> > > > <srp2...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> > > >news:9e602017-6b46-4986-8dc3-352c0109f267@e6g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> > > > On 6 fév, 11:48, "Androcles" <Headmas...@Hogwarts.physics> wrote:
>
> > > > > <srp2...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> > > > >news:4695358e-db97-4485-94b4-06f417a451d4@i7g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> > > > > On 6 fév, 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?
>
> > > > | Lapsus. Its the reverse.
>
> > > > | I meant to write half the angle observed. and for corrected
> > > > | relativistic
> > > > | Newtonian, the angle is twice that of classical Newtonian, as is
> > > > | observed.
>
> > > > Ok, but my real question is how does classical Newtonian mechanics
> > > > prophesy that light will bend at all? It does, I'm wondering if you,
> > > > Eddington or Einstein knows how.
>
> > > | They certainly did since Einstein did the calculation himself.
> > > | And I do too.
>
> > > | Explained summarily, to proceed, for the requirements of
> > > | calculation he converted the energy of a photon to its
> > > | equivalent mass (m=E/c^2) and proceeded to calculate
> > > | the deflection of theoretical "masses" for visible light
> > > | photons as they grazed the Sun mass.
>
> > > | This gave half the deflection angle that was later observed.
>
> > > | His calculations are in a paper from 1911 titled
> > > | "Über den Einfluß der Schwerkraft auf die Ausbreitung
> > > | des Lichter"
>
> > > | He later 1915 corrected the figures and obtained the
> > > | right deflection (twice that of classical Newtonian).
>
> > > | However, the same correct deflection angle can easily
> > > | be obtained from upgraded relativistic Newtonian,
> > > | something that has never been documented, since the
> > > | 1919 Eddington et al. observation was specifically
> > > | meant to prove the superiority of GR over classical
> > > | mechanics.
>
> > > | Just like the community never considered confirming
> > > | atomic clock speeding up with altitude with parallel
> > > | mechanical clocks experiments.
>
> > > | They were not looking for the truth, but to prove
> > > | a point.
>
> > > Androcles' third law:
> > >  For every photon there is an equal and opposite rephoton.
> > >  http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/rephoton.gif
> > > (from Newton's third law and Huygens's wave superposition,
> > > photons have direction and come in pairs)
>
> > | My view is de Broglie's on photons. I see them as complex
> > | standing harmonic oscillators in motion, with only half
> > | their energy oscillating electromagnetically. The other
> > | half is is oriented in the direction of motion and is
> > | thus impervious to transverse force interaction.
>
> > Whilst I concur with "harmonic oscillators in motion"
> >  http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/AC/AC.gif
> >  http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/AC/Photon.gif
> >  http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/photon.gif
>
> | I see. Standing dephased pi/2.
>
> Of course... the magnetic field cannot be zero at the same
> time as the electric field or energy would not be conserved.
> E = -dB/dt

In 3D + time classical wave theory yes. But with 9D + time
it is perfectly possible. In fact, the only possibility turns
out to be pi dephasing to accomodate the full em oscillation
for localized em events.

> | Does not accomodate real physical quantum localization.
>
> "If the facts don't fit the theory, change the facts." - Einstein.
> I don't care about your real physical quantum localization, that
> means nothing. Energy is conserved.

Of course energy is conserved.

> | In the 3-spaces model, the dephasing is 180 and 2 orthogonal
> | spaces allow the electromagnetic oscillation while a 3rd
> | orthogonal space (normal space) harbor the directed energy
> | sustaining the motion of the oscillating half.
>
> Then your model is wrong.

Fine. Your loss.

André Michaud

> > inasmuch as a spinning bullet has energy in the spin and
> > energy of forward motion, I cannot agree to the ratio 1/2.
> > If one travels alongside the spinning bullet then it has no energy
> > of forward motion (which is necessarily relative) but retains
> > its energy of spin.
>
> | This is where we differ. In relativistic Newtonian, if you
> | travel alongside the bullet, it can only mean that you have
> | sufficient energy in the forward motion yourself to be
> | able to travel alongside the moving bullet.
>
> We certainly do differ, I have no idea what "relativistic Newtonian" is.
> In the real world I can spin a top while sitting in my chair, but I
> certainly have enough energy to travel alongside it as it goes around
> the Sun.
>
> | In the underlying 3-spaces model, the energy is not relative
> | but has physical existence. The energy of the speeding bullet
> | does not diminish as your own increases to catch up with it.
>
> A brick on a shelf has enough energy to break your toe, but
> not if you happen to be in the attic with the shelf below you.
> Energy is relative.
>
>
>
>
>
> > > The equivalent mass of a photon is  m = 2E/c^2,
>
> > Yes. Obvious and perfectly explained by relativistic Newtonian.
>
> > > from which one might surmise the gravitational deflection,
> > > should one know the energy.
>
> > | Since it invariantly amounts to half the full quantum,
> > | we always know the energy that maintains the velocity.
>
> > BUT!....
> > An object falling in a gravitational field accelerates alongside
> > an object with the same mass or twice that mass.
> > A photon of mass 2 will curve exactly the same as a photon
> > of mass 1
>
> | In the 3-spaces model, this is because its velocity sustaining
> | energy also falls to 1
>
> KE = 1/2mv^2, v is relative, hence energy is relative.
> More correctly, KE = 1/2mv^2.cos(phi).
> A bullet traveling away from you can do no work on
> your body and is therefore harmless. cos(pi) = -1
> To reverse the bullet, first you must stop it, absorbing its
> energy in (say) compressing a spring, and then give it back.
>
> The energy of the cordite is converted to the KE of the bullet,
> converted again to compress the spring and then converted
> back into the KE of the bullet which is then absorbed as
> heat tearing in hole in you.
>  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HjYJTs4I5uY
>
> | For photons, acceleration only increases the total quantum
> | of energy. Does not affect the equilibrium velocity, which
> | is c.
>
> Acceleration is rate of change of velocity by definition.
> Only in crackpot relativity does light travel at 2AB/(t'A-tA) = c,
> both ways at once.
>    http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/figures/img7.gif
>
> > Therefore the mass or (mass equivalent) is irrelevant.
>
> | Yes.
>
>
>
> > > However,
> > >  http://ww2010.atmos.uiuc.edu/(Gh)/guides/mtr/fw/gifs/coriolis.mov
> > > Riding the Earth, you, Eddington and Einstein (who didn't bother
> > > to look anyway, the only one that did is Eddington who obtained ONE
> > > suitable photograph)  are observers on the roundabout. The light has
> > > to curve. From simple trigonometry, the deflection has to be ~v/c.
>
> > | This does not take into account that the permanent half-half
> > | equilibrium of the photons energy (directed half plus oscillating
> > | inert half) continuously takes up the slack so that v can equal no
> > | other velocity than c.
>
> > You've misunderstood, v is the velocity of the Earth at right-angles
> > to the direction of the light and is approximately 0.0001c.
> > sin(v/c) ~= v/c for small angles. This has nothing to do with the
> > intrinsic oscillation, it is strictly the Coriolis effect.
>
> Right. My bad.
>
> André Michaud
>
> > | Any energy added adds to both halves and any energy expended
> > | subtracts from both halves.
>
> > | This is what the de Broglie photon structure reveals.
>
> > >  A star in the direction of the Earth's travel will show no aberration,
> > > a star at right angles will show maximum aberration. The observed
> > > star close to the sun has to be identified in daylight and there is
> > > further curvature as a result of refraction in Earth's atmosphere.
>
> > | Agreed.