🚀 go-pugleaf

On Feb 7, 11:11 am, Albertito <albertito1...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 7 feb, 14:55, Randy Poe <poespam-t...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> > Thus the only theory which predicts deflection of photons
> > in gravitational fields (to date) is GR. Are we agreeing
> > on this?
>
> Yes, GR tries to predict deflection of photons, and it works
> nearly fine :-)

Where does it fail in predicting deflection of
photons?

> > If so, I can't figure out what anti-relativistic stance
> > you're trying to make.
>
> Are you seeing in my stance any anti-relativist fashion?.

Yes. Since you've been on the newsgroup. In practically
every post.

> I only say that newtonian gravity can't address bosons,
> and that it is not correct claiming that newtonian gravity
> predicts half the correct deflection angle. Even for W(+),
> W(-) and Z bosons, which have mass, newtonian gravity
> can't predict their respective deflection angles. Bosons
> are outside the domain of applicability of newtonian gravity.

Why do you declare this? Newtonian gravity predicts
the interaction of masses. What is special about these
masses that makes them exempt?

> > > Therefore,
> > > newtonian gravity gives no answers to questions
> > > concerning photons.
>
> > Unless you assume gravitational mass which is nonzero.
>
> > Once you do, you get a deflection which is half the
> > GR prediction.
>
> No. It is clear that gravity behaves differently for fermions
> that for bosons (included bosons with nonzero mass).

It is clear from what? Show your reasoning. By
"Newtonian gravity" you still seem to have something
other than F = GMm/r^2 in mind, since that is silent on
fermions, bosons, or any property other than mass.

> > What YOU stated was that the deflection depends on the
> > assumed mass. It does not.
>
> > YOU are the one claiming that a Newtonian calculation
> > is possible which will show deflection, if you assume
> > the right mass. Are you backing off of that?
>
> No, I only said that if you can say that newtonian
> gravity predicts half the correct angle, then I could
> also say that newtonian gravity can predict the correct
> angle if you assume the right mass for a fake photon.

Ah... finally we get to an assertion about Newtonian
gravity. So the answer is "Yes", not "No". You claim
that you could do a Newtonian prediction with a different
mass and get a different deflection. Or by saying
"can predict the correct angle" you don't really
mean getting a different answer from "half the correct
angle".

Once again, you are saying that if you change the
mass, you'll get a different angle. Yes?

Fine. The answer is No. Not in standard Newtonian
mechanics. There is nothing about the trajectory
of small masses near large ones which depends on the
small mass.

What you are talking about is the parameter E/m,
the ratio of total energy (kinetic plus gravitational
potential) to mass.

In Newtonian mechanics, KE = 0.5*mv^2. So there is
no possible ratio E/m except [0.5*v^2 - GM/r], a
quantity which you will note does not depend on m.

Now, what you are REALLY claiming is that if we use
E/m = c^2, then the "Newtonian" prediction would be
a different angle. Look at the web page you cited
again.

On that I certainly agree. But that's not Newtonian
mechanics. You are using a non-Newtonian expression
for KE. If you use Newtonian mechanics, then E/m = c^2
for any mass moving at c. And if you don't change
E/m, then what happens to those formulas you were
looking at?

I tried to get you to see this by talking about
planetary orbits. The orbital parameters of a satellite
around the earth, or of a planet around the sun, do
NOT depend on the mass of the satellite/planet. You
won't get a different trajectory by changing mass.

             - Randy
> > > Even if
> > > it were found out that photons have mass, newtonian
> > > gravity would still remain without answers for them,
> > > because they would still be bosons.
>
> > ???
>
> > And where are you getting this from?
>
> This should need a new dedicated thread to
> explain you where :-) . But, I'll give you a clue.
> Pauli exclusion principle.

Your hint fails. Newtonian gravity is silent on the
Pauli exclusion principle, as Pauli is silent on
gravitational potential between two masses. There
is no relation between these things.

If you think otherwise, state why. In a new thread
if you like.

But one small sanity check: Do you really think it
should be called "Newtonian mechanics" if it includes
the Pauli exclusion principle?

            - Randy