🚀 go-pugleaf

On 7 fév, 13:26, Eric Gisse <jowr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Feb 7, 4:35 am, srp2...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
>
> > On 6 fév, 22:29, Eric Gisse <jowr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Feb 6, 2:10 pm, srp2...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > > > On 6 fév, 17:38, Eric Gisse <jowr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > On Feb 6, 6:33 am, srp2...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > > > > > 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.
>
> > > > > > Relativistic Newtonian mechanics however predicts the correct
> > > > > > angle since it is now understood that only half a photon's energy
> > > > > > is sensitive to transverse interaction.
>
> > > > > Uhhhhh....no. General relativity [is NOT "relativistic Newtonian
> > > > > mechanics] makes the correct prediction
>
> > > > So does relativistic Newtonian mechanics, in perfect harmony
> > > > with Maxwell's theory.
>
> > > A relativistic Newtonian mechanics is a contradiction in terms.
>
> > > The fact is that general relativity makes the predictions about light
> > > bending /without/ reference to Maxwell's equations or anything about
> > > light /other/ than it traveling on a null path.
>
> > Any theory that predicts anything about light without reference
> > to electromagnetism and Maxwell can only be a mathematical patchwork
> > doomed to end up in file 13.
>
> Where do you think the massless assumption came from?

From ignorance of the nature of electromagnetic energy.

> You could, in theory, solve the field equations for a electromagnetic
> stress-energy tensor with a plane wave solution. Good luck solving
> that.

The Copenhagen community's moto:

Why make things simple when you can make them complicated ?

> > > Is there a particular
> > > reason you can't open up a textbook, see the derivation, repeat the
> > > derivation, and compare with observation?
>
> > I have and have rejected the method. I have a much better integrated
> > one that can even explain the stuff that GR can't deal with.
>
> If you still don't understand how GR can make the predictions it does
> and that it doesn't assume the things you don't think it does, no, you
> haven't.
>
> Work on the mundane before you attack the subtle. If your theory can't
> explain prosaic effects like perihelion precession, why would it
> accurately explain whatever fringe effect you are focusing on this
> time?

You are so disconnected Eric that it edges on unconsciousness.

Why don't you wake up.

André Michaud