🚀 go-pugleaf

On May 18, 7:37 pm, carlip-nos...@physics.ucdavis.edu wrote in
sci.physics.relativity:
> mluttg...@orange.fr wrote:
> > Do you accept the calculation of light deflection
> > given in the following paper?
> > Newtonian gravitational deflection of light revisited
> > arXiv: physics/0508030v4 [physics. gen- ph] 17 Apr 2009
> > (http://xxx.if.usp.br/abs/physics/0508030)
>
> It looks right (though of course it doesn't start at the
> beginning; equation (5) for eccentricity is derived from
> Newton's laws).

Honest Carlip, any clever teacher in Einsteiniana should immediately
draw the attention of sillier brothers to the following text:

http://xxx.if.usp.br/PS_cache/physics/pdf/0508/0508030v4.pdf
"Einstein’s first calculation of the gravitational deflection of
light, in 1911 (see [4], for a historical account and scientific
references), was performed using the Equivalence Principle and the
equivalent mass-energy of a photon. The calculation yielded δNG. Only
in his second calculation, published in 1916, where he included the
effect of space-time curvature, he obtained a value twice as large as
his first calculation, i.e., δGR [4]."

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."

Pentcho Valev
pvalev@yahoo.com