🚀 go-pugleaf

On 6 fév, 16:36, "Androcles" <Headmas...@Hogwarts.physics> wrote:
> <srp2...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:4cec669b-7209-44ab-bfc8-ee056347995a@j78g2000hsd.googlegroups.com...
> 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.
>
> 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

I see. Standing dephased pi/2.

Does not accomodate real physical quantum localization.

In the 3-spaces model, the dephasing is 180 and 2 orthogonal
spaces allow the electromagnetic oscillation while a 3rd
orthogonal space (normal space) harbor the directed energy
sustaining the motion of the oscillating half.

> 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.

This is where we differ. In relativistic Newtonian, if you
travel alongside the bullet, it can only mean that you have
sufficient energy in the forward motion yourself to be
able to travel alongside the moving bullet.

In the underlying 3-spaces model, the energy is not relative
but has physical existence. The energy of the speeding bullet
does not diminish as your own increases to catch up with it.

>
> > 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

In the 3-spaces model, this is because its velocity sustaining
energy also falls to 1

For photons, acceleration only increases the total quantum
of energy. Does not affect the equilibrium velocity, which
is c.

> Therefore the mass or (mass equivalent) is irrelevant.

Yes.

> > 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.

Right. My bad.

André Michaud

> | 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.