🚀 go-pugleaf

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
pvalev@yahoo.com