🚀 go-pugleaf

On Jan 19, 7:29 am, Tom Roberts wrote:
> Dieter Heidorn wrote:

> > In his 1911 work "Über den Einfluss der Schwerkraft auf die Ausbreitung
> > des Lichtes", Annalen der Physik 35 (1911); translated: "On the
> > Influence of Gravitation on the Propagation of Light" Einstein uses the
> > equivalence principle to derive the relation for gravitational red-shift
> > nu_1 = nu_2 (1 + V/c^2)
> >  From this he concluded that the speed of light must vary according to
> > c = c_0 (1 + V/c^2)
> > Using this equation Einstein derives a relation for the deflection angle
> > for light passing the sun (1911):
> > alpha = 2 GM / (c^2 R)
> > This is wrong by a factor 2. [...]
>
> Yes. When I said the second equation above was approximately correct, I
> meant only for measurements of speed using distant standards.

Hmmm.  It sounds like you are trying to retract your absurd
statement.  If GR allows the speed of light to vary according to each
point in space, the following equation brought up by several
individuals is accurate to the first order effect.  The second order
is at least 5 orders of magnitude smaller.

c = c0 (1 - U)

Where

**  U = G M / c^2 / r

> I did not
> consider the further elaboration of it to an invalid result for the
> deflection of light by the sun.

As a professional experimental physicist, I would expect you to
qualify any experimental results thoroughly.  Yet, you have chosen to
embrace Eddington's dishonest and very questionable interpretation to
the deflection angles during a solar eclipse.

> The approximation used for speeds is not
> good enough for angles, because as you point out (and is well known),
> spatial curvature enters into the latter.

Yes, modeling the speed of light accurate down to one in at least 5
orders of magnitude does not agree with the deflection angle
worshipped by the physicists since then.  This should serve as an
alarm to establish a contradictory prediction within GR.  Yet, it is
just swept under the rug.  The physicists in the meantime just do a
lot of pretending.