🚀 go-pugleaf

On Feb 6, 7:29 pm, Eric Gisse <jowr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Feb 6, 2:10 pm, srp2...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 6 fév, 17:38, Eric Gisse <jowr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Feb 6, 6:33 am, srp2...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > > > 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.
>
> > > > Relativistic Newtonian mechanics however predicts the correct
> > > > angle since it is now understood that only half a photon's energy
> > > > is sensitive to transverse interaction.
>
> > > Uhhhhh....no. General relativity [is NOT "relativistic Newtonian
> > > mechanics] makes the correct prediction
>
> > So does relativistic Newtonian mechanics, in perfect harmony
> > with Maxwell's theory.
>
> A relativistic Newtonian mechanics is a contradiction in terms.
>
> The fact is that general relativity makes the predictions about light
> bending /without/ reference to Maxwell's equations or anything about
> light /other/ than it traveling on a null path. Is there a particular
> reason you can't open up a textbook, see the derivation, repeat the
> derivation, and compare with observation?
>
>
>
>
>
> > André Michaud- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Light falls.

Mitch Raemsch Twice Nobel Laureate 2008