🚀 go-pugleaf

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.

> 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.

> 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.

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.

André Michaud