🚀 go-pugleaf

<srp2inc@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:6ba03bd0-12cf-4b68-a7e7-0b84a3e036c6@i12g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
On 6 f�v, 12:15, "Androcles" <Headmas...@Hogwarts.physics> wrote:
> <srp2...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:9e602017-6b46-4986-8dc3-352c0109f267@e6g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> On 6 f�v, 11:48, "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?
>
> | 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
| "�ber den Einflu� 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)

The equivalent mass of a photon is  m = 2E/c^2, from which
one might surmise the gravitational deflection, should one know
the energy.

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.
 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.