On Feb 7, 4:35 am, wrote:
On 6 fév, 22:29, Eric Gisse wrote:



On Feb 6, 2:10 pm, wrote:

On 6 fév, 17:38, Eric Gisse wrote:

On Feb 6, 6:33 am, wrote:

On 6 fév, 02:34, Pentcho Valev wrote:

http://philipball.blogspot.com/2007/...-was-innocent-...
"With the technology then available, measuring the bending of
starlight was very challenging. And contrary to popular belief,
Newtonian physics did not predict that light would remain undeflected
- Einstein himself pointed out in 1911 that Newtonian gravity should
cause some deviation too. So the matter was not that of an all-or-
nothing shift in stars' positions, but hinged on the exact numbers."

Right.

Classical Newtonian mechanics predicts that light will bend with
twice the angle observed.

Relativistic Newtonian mechanics however predicts the correct
angle since it is now understood that only half a photon's energy
is sensitive to transverse interaction.

Uhhhhh....no. General relativity [is NOT "relativistic Newtonian
mechanics] makes the correct prediction

So does relativistic Newtonian mechanics, in perfect harmony
with Maxwell's theory.

A relativistic Newtonian mechanics is a contradiction in terms.

The fact is that general relativity makes the predictions about light
bending /without/ reference to Maxwell's equations or anything about
light /other/ than it traveling on a null path.

Any theory that predicts anything about light without reference
to electromagnetism and Maxwell can only be a mathematical patchwork
doomed to end up in file 13.

Where do you think the massless assumption came from?

You could, in theory, solve the field equations for a electromagnetic
stress-energy tensor with a plane wave solution. Good luck solving
that.


Is there a particular
reason you can't open up a textbook, see the derivation, repeat the
derivation, and compare with observation?

I have and have rejected the method. I have a much better integrated
one that can even explain the stuff that GR can't deal with.

If you still don't understand how GR can make the predictions it does
and that it doesn't assume the things you don't think it does, no, you
haven't.

Work on the mundane before you attack the subtle. If your theory can't
explain prosaic effects like perihelion precession, why would it
accurately explain whatever fringe effect you are focusing on this
time?


André Michaud