🚀 go-pugleaf

<srp2inc@gmail.com> wrote in message 
news:4cec669b-7209-44ab-bfc8-ee056347995a@j78g2000hsd.googlegroups.com...
On 6 f�v, 15:04, "Androcles" <Headmas...@Hogwarts.physics> wrote:
> <srp2...@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)

| 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.

Whilst I concur with "harmonic oscillators in motion"
  http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/AC/AC.gif
  http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/AC/Photon.gif
  http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/photon.gif

inasmuch as a spinning bullet has energy in the spin and
energy of forward motion, I cannot agree to the ratio 1/2.
If one travels alongside the spinning bullet then it has no energy
of forward motion (which is necessarily relative) but retains
its energy of spin.

> 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.

BUT!....
An object falling in a gravitational field accelerates alongside
an object with the same mass or twice that mass.
A photon of mass 2 will curve exactly the same as a photon
of mass 1. Therefore the mass or (mass equivalent) is irrelevant.

> 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.

You've misunderstood, v is the velocity of the Earth at right-angles
to the direction of the light and is approximately 0.0001c.
sin(v/c) ~= v/c for small angles. This has nothing to do with the
intrinsic oscillation, it is strictly the Coriolis effect.

| 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.

Andr� Michaud