🚀 go-pugleaf

On May 10, 8:19 am, Pentcho Valev <pva...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On May 9, 4:54 pm, Tom Roberts <tjroberts...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in
> sci.physics.relativity:
>
>
>
> > mluttg...@orange.fr wrote:
> > > one can quibble 'ad nauseam'
> > > about the relativistic mass of the photon.
> > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass%E2%80%93energy_equivalence:
> > > "Even a single photon traveling in empty space has a relativistic
> > > mass, which is its energy divided by c2."
>
> > > One can quibble about such claim, but the relativistic mass
> > > m = E/c^2 = hNu/c^2 of the photon can be used to interpret
> > > results of a series of experiments, for instance those obtained
> > > by Pound & Rebka.
>
> > Certainly a photon has a non-zero "relativistic mass". Just remember
> > that "relativistic mass" does NOT refer to what we now mean by mass, but
> > rather is a synonym for ENERGY. The name "relativistic mass" is an
> > anachronism, coined in the past, before the subtleties were fully
> > understood; in the manner of textbooks it lives on in elementary
> > discussions.
>
> > Tom Roberts
>
> Honest Roberts why don't you abandon all those red herrings? Just
> choose between (1) and (2) below:
>
> (1) The photon behaves like all massive particles: in a gravitational
> field, its speed varies in accordance with Einstein's 1911 equation
> c'=c(1+V/c^2) given by Newton's emission theory of light:
>
> http://www.physlink.com/Education/AskExperts/ae13.cfm
> "So, it is absolutely true that the speed of light is not constant in
> a gravitational field [which, by the equivalence principle, applies as
> well to accelerating (non-inertial) frames of reference]. If this were
> not so, there would be no bending of light by the gravitational field
> of stars....Indeed, this is exactly how Einstein did the calculation
> in: 'On the Influence of Gravitation on the Propagation of Light,'
> Annalen der Physik, 35, 1911. which predated the full formal
> development of general relativity by about four years. This paper is
> widely available in English. You can find a copy beginning on page 99
> of the Dover book 'The Principle of Relativity.' You will find in
> section 3 of that paper, Einstein's derivation of the (variable) speed
> of light in a gravitational potential, eqn (3). The result is,
> c' = c0 ( 1 + V / c^2 )
> where V is the gravitational potential relative to the point where the
> speed of light c0 is measured."
>
> http://www.blazelabs.com/f-g-gcont.asp
> "So, faced with this evidence most readers must be wondering why we
> learn about the importance of the constancy of speed of light. Did
> Einstein miss this? Sometimes I find out that what's written in our
> textbooks is just a biased version taken from the original work, so
> after searching within the original text of the theory of GR by
> Einstein, I found this quote: "In the second place our result shows
> that, according to the general theory of relativity, the law of the
> constancy of the velocity of light in vacuo, which constitutes one of
> the two fundamental assumptions in the special theory of relativity
> and to which we have already frequently referred, cannot claim any
> unlimited validity. A curvature of rays of light can only take place
> when the velocity of propagation of light varies with position. Now we
> might think that as a consequence of this, the special theory of
> relativity and with it the whole theory of relativity would be laid in
> the dust. But in reality this is not the case. We can only conclude
> that the special theory of relativity cannot claim an unlimited domain
> of validity ; its results hold only so long as we are able to
> disregard the influences of gravitational fields on the phenomena
> (e.g. of light)." - Albert Einstein (1879-1955) - The General Theory
> of Relativity: Chapter 22 - A Few Inferences from the General
> Principle of Relativity-. Today we find that since the Special Theory
> of Relativity unfortunately became part of the so called mainstream
> science, it is considered a sacrilege to even suggest that the speed
> of light be anything other than a constant. This is somewhat
> surprising since even Einstein himself suggested in a paper "On the
> Influence of Gravitation on the Propagation of Light," Annalen der
> Physik, 35, 1911, that the speed of light might vary with the
> gravitational potential. Indeed, the variation of the speed of light
> in a vacuum or space is explicitly shown in Einstein's calculation for
> the angle at which light should bend upon the influence of gravity.
> One can find his calculation in his paper. The result is c'=c(1+V/c^2)
> where V is the gravitational potential relative to the point where the
> measurement is taken. 1+V/c^2 is also known as the GRAVITATIONAL
> REDSHIFT FACTOR."
>
> (2) The photon is more sensitive to gravity than ordinary massive
> particles: in a gravitational field, its speed varies in accordance
> with Einstein's 1915 (or 1955) equation c'=c(1+2V/c^2):
>
> http://www.speed-light.info/speed_of_light_variable.htm
> "Einstein wrote this paper in 1911 in German (download from:http://www.physik.uni-augsburg.de/annalen/history/einstein-papers/191...).
> It predated the full formal development of general relativity by about
> four years. You can find an English translation of this paper in the
> Dover book 'The Principle of Relativity' beginning on page 99; you
> will find in section 3 of that paper Einstein's derivation of the
> variable speed of light in a gravitational potential, eqn (3). The
> result is: c'=c0(1+phi/c^2) where phi is the gravitational potential
> relative to the point where the speed of light co is measured......You
> can find a more sophisticated derivation later by Einstein (1955) from
> the full theory of general relativity in the weak field
> approximation....For the 1955 results but not in coordinates see page
> 93, eqn (6.28): c(r)=[1+2phi(r)/c^2]c. Namely the 1955 approximation
> shows a variation in km/sec twice as much as first predicted in
> 1911."
>
> http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s6-01/6-01.htm
> "In geometrical units we define c_0 = 1, so Einstein's 1911 formula
> can be written simply as c=1+phi. However, this formula for the speed
> of light (not to mention this whole approach to gravity) turned out to
> be incorrect, as Einstein realized during the years leading up to 1915
> and the completion of the general theory. In fact, the general theory
> of relativity doesn't give any equation for the speed of light at a
> particular location, because the effect of gravity cannot be
> represented by a simple scalar field of c values. Instead, the "speed
> of light" at a each point depends on the direction of the light ray
> through that point, as well as on the choice of coordinate systems, so
> we can't generally talk about the value of c at a given point in a non-
> vanishing gravitational field. However, if we consider just radial
> light rays near a spherically symmetrical (and non- rotating) mass,
> and if we agree to use a specific set of coordinates, namely those in
> which the metric coefficients are independent of t, then we can read a
> formula analogous to Einstein's 1911 formula directly from the
> Schwarzschild metric. (...) In the Newtonian limit the classical
> gravitational potential at a distance r from mass m is phi=-m/r, so if
> we let c_r = dr/dt denote the radial speed of light in Schwarzschild
> coordinates, we have c_r =1+2phi, which corresponds to Einstein's 1911
> equation, except that we have a factor of 2 instead of 1 on the
> potential term."
>
> Pentcho Valev
> pva...@yahoo.com

-------------------
why do you talk so much
while you can do it much shorter??!!

it all starts withthe morons that
ddint knew thaT
the photon has mass!!
while you get it it becomes   alas
so simle that it deprives nasses of professors  of physics
from their  endless mumbling jobs..
so we are here harmingtheir income
go it ??

so simce the photon has mass
them while next to sunh it curves
**as any mass do * while attracted by another mass

sothose amthematics fuckers crooks wil tell you
'but the Newtinian calcualtions gives you
a result that is twice   from measured

big deal  !!
the photon is a limit case even amthematically while moving at c
so the fuckers cant immagine that
for a limit cases
a correction  muxt be done to the
**quantitative rersuly**
IT IS BY NO WAY A CONRADICTION TO
THE QUANTITATIVE CONCELT
just to the quantitative one
so
take your fucken calculations
and fit them to  the experimental
results thats all  !!
and you get it new and rigth
and much more compatible with the basics
of physics
--------
no much different than the
fucken idiotic GR theory about
curved space  did  !!
that also did nothing but
fitting the basics of that  theory to the  experimental results
anyone who does not realize it
is either an idiot physicist
or a crook !!
or both of them !!
ps
th e  photn is an exception to the rule
that no mass can reach c
it is a   limit case !!!

ATB
Y.Porat
--------------------------------