On Feb 6, 9:39*am, Albert****o

I'll tell you how. In order to see how newtonian gravity can
bend the trajectory of a photon, relativists fake it. They
magically tranform a photon with energy E into a particle
with mass m = E/2c^2, it is saying *half the mass in E = mc^2.
Then, relativists assume that particle passes by the massive
body from infinity travelling locally at c, and then they can
apply newtonian gravity to see how its trajectory is deflected
into a hyperbolic one.

No, little ****, the relativists don't do any of the above idiocies
you attribute to them.
Right now, you are just a little ****, when you grow up you will be a
big ****, like Kobee-Wublee for example.

On 6 feb, 18:30, Dono wrote:
On Feb 6, 9:39 am, Albert****o

I'll tell you how. In order to see how newtonian gravity can
bend the trajectory of a photon, relativists fake it. They
magically tranform a photon with energy E into a particle
with mass m = E/2c^2, it is saying half the mass in E = mc^2.
Then, relativists assume that particle passes by the massive
body from infinity travelling locally at c, and then they can
apply newtonian gravity to see how its trajectory is deflected
into a hyperbolic one.

No, little ****, the relativists don't do any of the above idiocies
you attribute to them.
Right now, you are just a little ****, when you grow up you will be a
big ****, like Kobee-Wublee for example.

dunno****o dunno****o still the same ****o,
you punky
http://www.upload-images.net/imagen/58a516b007.jpg

On Feb 6, 12:39 pm, Albertito wrote:
On 6 feb, 16:48, "Androcles" wrote:



wrote in message

...
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.

How?

I'll tell you how. In order to see how newtonian gravity can
bend the trajectory of a photon, relativists fake it. They
magically tranform a photon with energy E into a particle
with mass m = E/2c^2, it is saying half the mass in E = mc^2.
Then, relativists assume that particle passes by the massive
body from infinity travelling locally at c, and then they can
apply newtonian gravity to see how its trajectory is deflected
into a hyperbolic one. As a result there is a deflection angle
twice the observed one. A particle with mass m = E/c^2,
travelling locally at c from infinity, would be deflected in
the correct angle, under newtonian gravity.

Why don't you do the Newtonian calculation before
making this claim?

- Randy

On Feb 6, 10:41*am, Albert****o

No, little ****, the relativists don't do any of the above idiocies
you attribute to them.
Right now, you are just a little ****, when you grow up you will be a
big ****, like Kobee-Wublee for example.

I see, you are ALREADY a BIG ****.
Sorry for downgrading you to little ****. :-)

On 6 feb, 18:54, Randy Poe wrote:
On Feb 6, 12:39 pm, Albertito wrote:



On 6 feb, 16:48, "Androcles" wrote:

wrote in message

....
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.

How?

I'll tell you how. In order to see how newtonian gravity can
bend the trajectory of a photon, relativists fake it. They
magically tranform a photon with energy E into a particle
with mass m = E/2c^2, it is saying half the mass in E = mc^2.
Then, relativists assume that particle passes by the massive
body from infinity travelling locally at c, and then they can
apply newtonian gravity to see how its trajectory is deflected
into a hyperbolic one. As a result there is a deflection angle
twice the observed one. A particle with mass m = E/c^2,
travelling locally at c from infinity, would be deflected in
the correct angle, under newtonian gravity.

Why don't you do the Newtonian calculation before
making this claim?

- Randy

The calculations have been already done by you relativists,
http://www.theory.caltech.edu/people.../obsertop.html
I'm only witness of that, and I see that if we double the mass
assumed for a photon we attain the correct answer.

On Feb 6, 1:54 pm, Randy Poe wrote:
On Feb 6, 12:39 pm, Albertito wrote:



On 6 feb, 16:48, "Androcles" wrote:

wrote in message

....
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.

How?

I'll tell you how. In order to see how newtonian gravity can
bend the trajectory of a photon, relativists fake it. They
magically tranform a photon with energy E into a particle
with mass m = E/2c^2, it is saying half the mass in E = mc^2.
Then, relativists assume that particle passes by the massive
body from infinity travelling locally at c, and then they can
apply newtonian gravity to see how its trajectory is deflected
into a hyperbolic one. As a result there is a deflection angle
twice the observed one. A particle with mass m = E/c^2,
travelling locally at c from infinity, would be deflected in
the correct angle, under newtonian gravity.

Why don't you do the Newtonian calculation before
making this claim?

I'll give you a hint: When you have a mass moving
under the influence of a much heavier mass (say, a
planet moving under the influence of the sun, or
a moon moving around the planet), does anything in
the orbit depend on the mass of the lighter object?

That is, if the moon's mass were half what it is,
would it have a different path around the earth?

If you started a satellite in orbit around the
earth, and another satellite with half the mass in
the same starting orbit, would they continue in
the same orbit?

If you fire a projectile from a gun, and then
another with the same initial velocity but half
the mass, does it follow a different path (neglecting
air resistance)?

Once you've pondered that, decide whether you really
believe that two particles with different mass but
the same starting trajectory as they approach the
sun follow different paths.

- Randy

On Feb 6, 11:00*am, Albert****o wrote:


The calculations have been already done by you relativists,http://www.theory.caltech.edu/people.../obsertop.html
I'm only witness of that, and I see that if we double the mass
assumed for a photon we attain the correct answer.


Dumb****,

In the link you cited, do you see the naive Newtonian approach?
Do you see the relativitic approach?
Do you see the difference, you despicable pile of dung?

On Feb 6, 2:00 pm, Albertito wrote:
On 6 feb, 18:54, Randy Poe wrote:



On Feb 6, 12:39 pm, Albertito wrote:

On 6 feb, 16:48, "Androcles" wrote:

wrote in message

....
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.

How?

I'll tell you how. In order to see how newtonian gravity can
bend the trajectory of a photon, relativists fake it. They
magically tranform a photon with energy E into a particle
with mass m = E/2c^2, it is saying half the mass in E = mc^2.
Then, relativists assume that particle passes by the massive
body from infinity travelling locally at c, and then they can
apply newtonian gravity to see how its trajectory is deflected
into a hyperbolic one. As a result there is a deflection angle
twice the observed one. A particle with mass m = E/c^2,
travelling locally at c from infinity, would be deflected in
the correct angle, under newtonian gravity.

Why don't you do the Newtonian calculation before
making this claim?

- Randy

The calculations have been already done by you relativists,http://www.theory.caltech.edu/people.../obsertop.html

Correct.

I'm only witness of that, and I see that if we double the mass
assumed for a photon we attain the correct answer.

There are a great many assumptions in those
equations which you are not aware of. You are trying
to change the meaning of the symbols midstream.

Here's what those orbital mechanics equations look like for
planetary orbits:
http://www.go.ednet.ns.ca/~larry/orbits/kepler.html
Note that E is the sum of kinetic energy and potential
energy. So what are you going to use for this E? Do
you really want to use mc^2 and claim it's a Newtonian
model?

If you were doing Newtonian gravitation the way Newton
did it to calculate the planetary orbits, you'd say
the kinetic energy is (1/2)*mc^2, and the potential
energy is -GMm/r. Then you'd find out that the mass m
drops out, that is the parameter E/m = [c^2/2 - GM/r]
does not depend on m.

Let's start from the basics: What is the initial velocity,
what is the acceleration, what is the result?

Start out with a velocity c, mass m, distance R
as it passes near mass M.

The acceleration experienced by the mass m is
GM/R^2. That is what you would apply to the velocity
vector to get the change in velocity. It does not
depend on m.

Trajectories of small bodies through solar systems do
not depend on mass.

- Randy

On 6 feb, 19:15, Randy Poe wrote:
On Feb 6, 2:00 pm, Albertito wrote:



On 6 feb, 18:54, Randy Poe wrote:

On Feb 6, 12:39 pm, Albertito wrote:

On 6 feb, 16:48, "Androcles" wrote:

wrote in message

...
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.

How?

I'll tell you how. In order to see how newtonian gravity can
bend the trajectory of a photon, relativists fake it. They
magically tranform a photon with energy E into a particle
with mass m = E/2c^2, it is saying half the mass in E = mc^2.
Then, relativists assume that particle passes by the massive
body from infinity travelling locally at c, and then they can
apply newtonian gravity to see how its trajectory is deflected
into a hyperbolic one. As a result there is a deflection angle
twice the observed one. A particle with mass m = E/c^2,
travelling locally at c from infinity, would be deflected in
the correct angle, under newtonian gravity.

Why don't you do the Newtonian calculation before
making this claim?

- Randy

The calculations have been already done by you relativists,http://www.theory.caltech.edu/people.../obsertop.html

Correct.

I'm only witness of that, and I see that if we double the mass
assumed for a photon we attain the correct answer.

There are a great many assumptions in those
equations which you are not aware of. You are trying
to change the meaning of the symbols midstream.

Here's what those orbital mechanics equations look like for
planetary orbits:http://www.go.ednet.ns.ca/~larry/orbits/kepler.html
Note that E is the sum of kinetic energy and potential
energy. So what are you going to use for this E? Do
you really want to use mc^2 and claim it's a Newtonian
model?

If you were doing Newtonian gravitation the way Newton
did it to calculate the planetary orbits, you'd say
the kinetic energy is (1/2)*mc^2, and the potential
energy is -GMm/r. Then you'd find out that the mass m
drops out, that is the parameter E/m = [c^2/2 - GM/r]
does not depend on m.

Let's start from the basics: What is the initial velocity,
what is the acceleration, what is the result?

Start out with a velocity c, mass m, distance R
as it passes near mass M.

The acceleration experienced by the mass m is
GM/R^2. That is what you would apply to the velocity
vector to get the change in velocity. It does not
depend on m.

Trajectories of small bodies through solar systems do
not depend on mass.

- Randy

It's simpler than that. Under newtonian gravity you never
can say that a photon is predicted to be deflected by twice
the correct angle, because under newtonian gravity photons
can't be addressed at all, only bodies with mass. You never
can fake a photon to behave as a particle with non-zero mass,
that's unphysical. If you do fake a photon to behave so, then
you attain a particle with mass travelling at c, which is impossible
under your assumptions (i.e nothing with mass can travel at c).

"Albertito" wrote in message
...
On 6 feb, 16:48, "Androcles" wrote:
wrote in message

...
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.

How?

| I'll tell you how. In order to see how newtonian gravity can
| bend the trajectory of a photon, relativists fake it. They
| magically tranform a photon with energy E into a particle
| with mass m = E/2c^2, it is saying half the mass in E = mc^2.
| Then, relativists assume that particle passes by the massive
| body from infinity travelling locally at c, and then they can
| apply newtonian gravity to see how its trajectory is deflected
| into a hyperbolic one. As a result there is a deflection angle
| twice the observed one. A particle with mass m = E/c^2,
| travelling locally at c from infinity, would be deflected in
| the correct angle, under newtonian gravity.

See my reply to Andre.