🚀 go-pugleaf

"Albertito" <albertito1992@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:2d490532-d50e-4844-87de-3e344d32a38c@e25g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
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.

See my reply to Andre.