🚀 go-pugleaf

On May 9, 12:47 am, Pentcho Valev <pva...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On May 8, 7:02 pm, Steve Carlip wrote in sci.physics.relativity:
>
>
>
>
>
> > david <david_lawrence_pe...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > It would seem that even Newtonian mechanics predicts that light will
> > > follow a curved path in the presence of a gravitational field.  If
> > > that's not obvious, think about the following thought experiment.  If
> > > we shoot a bullet perfectly horizontally from, say, six feet above the
> > > ground, and simultaneously drop a stone from six feet above the
> > > ground, we know that they will hit the ground at the same time. So
> > > just consider what would happen if we were to shoot the bullet at the
> > > speed of light;  it would still hit the ground at the same time as the
> > > stone, according to Newtonian mechanics. So a particle of light should
> > > do the same.
>
> > That's right.  This deflection was first computed by Soldner in a paper
> > published in 1803.
>
> > [...]
>
> > > So this leads to a couple of possibly troubling questions.  First of
> > > all, why were physicists surprised by Einstein's prediction that the
> > > path of light would bend in a gravitational field (after all, even
> > > Newtonian mechanics predicts that it would)?  
>
> > I don't think this was ever seen as being particularly surprising, though
> > it's less obvious what to expect in a wave theory of light.  It's your
> > second question that's the key:
>
> > > But more importantly,
> > > is there a difference between what would be predicted by the
> > > differential equation as described in the above paragraph and what is
> > > predicted by general relativity, and are experimental measurements of
> > > the bending of light by the sun accurate enough to distinguish between
> > > the two predictions?
>
> > General relativity predicts a deflection that's twice the Newtonian amount.
> > Current measurements use Very Long Baseline Interferometry to measure
> > the deflection of radio waves from quasars, and are accurate to a tenth of
> > a percent or better, so distinguishing the Newtonian and relativistic
> > predictions is easy.
>
> > Steve Carlip
>
> Sooner or later, Honest Carlip, you and your brothers Einsteinians
> will have to explain which prediction, the Newtonian or the
> relativistic (giving "a deflection that's twice the Newtonian
> amount"), is consistent with the gravitational redshift factor 1+V/c^2
> experimentally confirmed by Pound and Rebka:
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/fr.sci.physique/msg/449b66e152b76430
>
> Pentcho Valev
> pva...@yahoo.com- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

I thought the three were as follows:

1. Physics for white people.

2. Physics for black people.

3. Physics for everyone else.

W : (