🚀 go-pugleaf

On May 21, 3:30 pm, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On May 20, 8:52 pm, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On May 19, 7:22 pm, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On May 19, 12:05 pm, Pentcho Valev <pva...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > Then the clever teacher should explain: "Brothers Einsteinans,
> > > > Einstein's 1911 calculation based on Newton's emission theory of light
> > > > was wrong/correct and inconsistent/consistent with the gravitational
> > > > redshift factor 1+V/c^2, Einstein's 1916 calculation was correct/wrong
> > > > and consistent/inconsistent with the gravitational redshift factor 1+V/
> > > > c^2, but in any case the speed of light in a gravitational field is
> > > > VARIABLE. So those who teach you that the speed of light in a
> > > > gravitational field is constant are by no means clever teachers."
>
> > > You know, Pentcho, at some point you should take responsibility for
> > > your own confusion -- and CORRECT it -- rather than pinning the blame
> > > on teachers for your confusion. It's really not a big deal. It happens
> > > to students every day that they misunderstand something that their
> > > teacher said, and you don't find them spending their lifetimes
> > > expressing their outrage at their teachers for their misunderstanding.
>
> > > PD
>
> > ------------------------
> > what is misunderstanding  by knowing that
> > the photon has mass
> > from say the formulas  E=hf
> > and therefore bends next to the sun
>
> Because Newtonian physics DOES predict that *qualitatively*, just like
> you do. But, as has been pointed out to you repeatedly, *qualitative*
> is not enough. The Newtonian prediction is *quantitatively* wrong.
> Which is enough to say that it is just plain wrong, even
> *qualitatively*.
>
>
>
> > may be it is the misunderstanding of
> > parrot teachers that waist the precious
> > human resources by THEIR  misunderstandings ???
> > what is the misunderstanding by   un  derstanding that the photon is
> >  a limit case OF A MASS
> > that moves at c  ???
>
> > and people why misunderstand
> > and consider themselves as understanding
> > all physics
> > and then blaming others for misunderstandings  !!
> > that is inmany cases much wrong than misunderstanding
> > that is
> > **dishonesty **!!!
>
> > Y.Porat
> > -----------------------------
>
> > -----------------

and i indicate dto youmany times that:

the photon is an exception case
*a limit case***
an exception case must be treated
specifically and has some changes
from the extrapolation technique:
(and i have to mention you as well
that any physics formula has
8its limits of validation))
so  the exception case need at our case  to be calculated specifucally
to  that case
it is to be fitted to the experimental data
(and dont you be shocked from my claim of fitting formulas to data
because **that is what GR did as well **
now thejob of fitting the results to Newton and light data
ias not as 'traomatic' or disturbing
as you see it
because it is you youself that
admitted that  **qualitatively* it fits the dtata
the additional fitting that is needed is only
**quantitatively **
(not a colplete different approach
physically)
2
the big advantage   of douin gmu ssuggestion is
THAT IT DOES NOT NEED
TO INVENT NEW REVOLUTIONARY  (NOT TO SAY
FANTASTIC ) NEW LAWS OF PHYSICS
 it fits the basics (ideplogic) of the 'old physics)
and that is IMHO a great advantage
3
as far as i heard the difference
between the 'Newtonian calculation and GR calculation is
quantitatively about  2  times magnitude
that is not a fantastic difference

provided as i said
the need to invent new lawas of physics
is a much worse situation !!
4
such thing will fit waht we know
from anotrher experinetal formula

E=hf of which it comes that
the photon energy has mass
and in that case we avoid anothe 'need' to invent a new kind of mass
- 'relativistic mass'
so Mr PD
i consider you a rational physicist
just consider all the above
and try to
**get out of   the box **!
if many people like you will join that understanding-- we can open a
new era of advance !!!
(just being able to calculate
physics phenonena
**is not good enough** for advance

we must try and understand better and closer to the *real
cuases *of that phenomenon
btw
 i  dont have to remind you that i agree with SR  !!!

ATB
Y.Porat
----------------------
in advance of physics