🚀 go-pugleaf

On Oct 28, 11:09 pm, Pentcho Valev <pva...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Oct 21, 11:25 pm, Tom Roberts <tjroberts...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in
> sci.physics:
>
>
>
> > Eric Gisse wrote:
> > > On Oct 20, 11:13 pm, 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.
>
> > > Note the word "credible". You acknowledge that there are observations,
> > > but you don't accept their validity.
>
> > There have been VLBI measurements of the deflection of microwaves by the
> > sun out to about 90 degrees from the sun. Such rays never approach the
> > sun close enough to be argued that the solar atmosphere deflected them,
> > as we know the composition of the vacuum between mercury and earth (we
> > have sampled it via spacecraft). These measurements confirm the
> > predictions of GR to high accuracy, and are among the strongest
> > validations of GR.
>
> As you probably suspect, Honest Roberts, those "strongest validations
> of GR" have something to do with the fact that the speed of light
> varies with the gravitational potential V. The problem is that
> Einstein has given two respective equations: 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 Roberts, you will have to give a straightforward answer to
> the following question: Are the "strongest validations of GR"
> 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
> Roberts!
>
> Pentcho Valev
> pva...@yahoo.com

Question;  are stars (like our sun) visually dark inside?

You'd think the stellar interior (say whatever’s within 0.99r) would
become mostly of UV or higher frequency photons (certainly hotter than
the outer photosphere), so visually dark seems likely.  Perhaps the
solar visual spectrum wouldn't happen until 1.01r or greater, and
solar IR a little beyond that.

Solar 1.01r = 6.94e5 km + 6.94e3 km = 6.947e5 km

Of what we visually detect as the outer photosphere may in fact not be
the solar photosphere surface.

A narrow bandpass of EUV(extreme UV) might suggest the solar surface
radius as being somewhat less than the visual photosphere radius.  In
TRACE observation format, our sun seems to have a semisolid though
extremely active surface.

http://www.cuodan.net/gallery/v/misc/byothers/astronomy/sun2_trace_uv.jpg.html
 http://trace.lmsal.com/POD/TRACEpodoverview.html (major download)

 ~ Brad Guth Brad_Guth Brad.Guth BradGuth BG / “Guth Usenet”
 http://www.alaskapublishing.com
 http://www.guarddogbooks.com