🚀 go-pugleaf

On Oct 29, 11:42 pm, Pentcho Valev <pva...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Oct 21, 11:10 pm, carlip-nos...@physics.ucdavis.edu wrote in
> sci.physics:
>
>
>
> > In sci.physics Koobee Wublee <koobee.wub...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > [...]
>
> > > The 1919 expedition/experiment of solar eclipse carried out by
> > > Eddington was flawed right from the very start.  Since then, there
> > > have been no credible experiments done to prove the twice-the-
> > > Newtonian result in deflection of photons.
>
> > Shapiro et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 92 (2004) 121101: 2500 24-hour
> >     observing sessions, involving 87 VLBI sites and 541 radio sources;
> >     GR deflection confirmed to .04%
>
> > Lebach et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 75 (1995) 1439: VLBI measurements
> >     of two radio sources over a 10-day period;  GR deflection confirmed
> >     to .1%
>
> > Froeschle et al., Proceedings from the Hipparcos Venice ???97 Symposium
> >    (ESA, Noordwijk, Netherlands, 1997): optical measurements with the
> >    Hipparcos satellite; GR deflection confirmed to .3%
>
> > Would you like more?
>
> > Steve Carlip
>
> That's quite enough Honest Carlip but your brother Honest Tom Roberts
> did not answer an important question and now it is your turn. The
> problem is that Einstein has given two equations showing how the speed
> of light varies with the gravitational potential V: c'=c(1+V/c^2),
> Einstein's 1911 equation, and c'=c(1+2V/c^2), his final decision:
>
> 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."
>
> Now, Honest Carlip, you will have to give a straightforward answer to
> the following question: Are the experimental results you refer to
> consistent with Einstein's 1911 equation c'=c(1+V/c^2) or are they
> consistent with Einstein's final equation c'=c(1+2V/c^2)?
>
> Einstein zombie world is desperately waiting for your answer Honest
> Carlip!
>
> Pentcho Valev
> pva...@yahoo.com

Getting photons away from a massive stars is a problem, especially as
that density of stellar mass becomes a white dwarf.

Btw,  what exactly are those same photons doing inside of that star?

At what radius do these photons start trying to leave a star? (0.1r or
1.1r?)

Perhaps in stead, is the interior of a star dark?

 ~ BG