On Feb 7, 5:08 am, Albertito wrote:
On 6 feb, 20:10, Randy Poe wrote:



On Feb 6, 2:57 pm, Albertito wrote:

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.

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.

Right. Unless you assume it has mass, as people did
long before Einstein.

Once you do, the path is independent of whatever
mass you assume, just as any Newtonian path is.

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).

What point are you trying to make? If the photon
truly has no mass (as we believe) then the Newtonian
model says it won't be deflected. Therefore gravitational
lensing won't happen.

To claim that a theory predicts a photon will
not be deflected and to claim photons are outside
the domain of applicability of a theory are not
the same claim. Photons are outside the domain of
applicability of newtonian gravity.

If massless. This is part of the standard model and would
certainly upset a lot of modern physics if false, but
it's still a caveat in all your statements, an assumption
you're making.

Thus the only theory which predicts deflection of photons
in gravitational fields (to date) is GR. Are we agreeing
on this?

If so, I can't figure out what anti-relativistic stance
you're trying to make.

Therefore,
newtonian gravity gives no answers to questions
concerning photons.

Unless you assume gravitational mass which is nonzero.

Once you do, you get a deflection which is half the
GR prediction.

What YOU stated was that the deflection depends on the
assumed mass. It does not.

YOU are the one claiming that a Newtonian calculation
is possible which will show deflection, if you assume
the right mass. Are you backing off of that?

Newtonian gravity is concerned
with neutral bulk matter, not with bosons.

Newtonian gravity is concerned with anything with
mass.

Even if
it were found out that photons have mass, newtonian
gravity would still remain without answers for them,
because they would still be bosons.

???

And where are you getting this from?

So what's your point? Are you backing off your claim
that the evil relativists goofed on the Newtonian
calculation and if they did it right, Newtonian
gravity would predict the correct deflection?

Because that seems to contradict this post.

- Randy

On 7 feb, 14:55, Randy Poe wrote:
On Feb 7, 5:08 am, Albertito wrote:



On 6 feb, 20:10, Randy Poe wrote:

On Feb 6, 2:57 pm, Albertito wrote:

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.

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.

Right. Unless you assume it has mass, as people did
long before Einstein.

Once you do, the path is independent of whatever
mass you assume, just as any Newtonian path is.

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).

What point are you trying to make? If the photon
truly has no mass (as we believe) then the Newtonian
model says it won't be deflected. Therefore gravitational
lensing won't happen.

To claim that a theory predicts a photon will
not be deflected and to claim photons are outside
the domain of applicability of a theory are not
the same claim. Photons are outside the domain of
applicability of newtonian gravity.

If massless. This is part of the standard model and would
certainly upset a lot of modern physics if false, but
it's still a caveat in all your statements, an assumption
you're making.

Thus the only theory which predicts deflection of photons
in gravitational fields (to date) is GR. Are we agreeing
on this?

Yes, GR tries to predict deflection of photons, and it works
nearly fine :-)


If so, I can't figure out what anti-relativistic stance
you're trying to make.

Are you seeing in my stance any anti-relativist fashion?.
I only say that newtonian gravity can't address bosons,
and that it is not correct claiming that newtonian gravity
predicts half the correct deflection angle. Even for W(+),
W(-) and Z bosons, which have mass, newtonian gravity
can't predict their respective deflection angles. Bosons
are outside the domain of applicability of newtonian gravity.


Therefore,
newtonian gravity gives no answers to questions
concerning photons.

Unless you assume gravitational mass which is nonzero.

Once you do, you get a deflection which is half the
GR prediction.

No. It is clear that gravity behaves differently for fermions
that for bosons (included bosons with nonzero mass).

What YOU stated was that the deflection depends on the
assumed mass. It does not.

YOU are the one claiming that a Newtonian calculation
is possible which will show deflection, if you assume
the right mass. Are you backing off of that?

No, I only said that if you can say that newtonian
gravity predicts half the correct angle, then I could
also say that newtonian gravity can predict the correct
angle if you assume the right mass for a fake photon.

Newtonian gravity is concerned
with neutral bulk matter, not with bosons.

Newtonian gravity is concerned with anything with
mass.


No. Newtonian gravity is not concerned with bosons,
regardless they are massless or not.

Even if
it were found out that photons have mass, newtonian
gravity would still remain without answers for them,
because they would still be bosons.

???

And where are you getting this from?


This should need a new dedicated thread to
explain you where :-) . But, I'll give you a clue.
Pauli exclusion principle.

So what's your point? Are you backing off your claim
that the evil relativists goofed on the Newtonian
calculation and if they did it right, Newtonian
gravity would predict the correct deflection?

Because that seems to contradict this post.

No, see above

On Feb 7, 11:11 am, Albertito wrote:
On 7 feb, 14:55, Randy Poe wrote:

Thus the only theory which predicts deflection of photons
in gravitational fields (to date) is GR. Are we agreeing
on this?

Yes, GR tries to predict deflection of photons, and it works
nearly fine :-)

Where does it fail in predicting deflection of
photons?

If so, I can't figure out what anti-relativistic stance
you're trying to make.

Are you seeing in my stance any anti-relativist fashion?.

Yes. Since you've been on the newsgroup. In practically
every post.

I only say that newtonian gravity can't address bosons,
and that it is not correct claiming that newtonian gravity
predicts half the correct deflection angle. Even for W(+),
W(-) and Z bosons, which have mass, newtonian gravity
can't predict their respective deflection angles. Bosons
are outside the domain of applicability of newtonian gravity.

Why do you declare this? Newtonian gravity predicts
the interaction of masses. What is special about these
masses that makes them exempt?

Therefore,
newtonian gravity gives no answers to questions
concerning photons.

Unless you assume gravitational mass which is nonzero.

Once you do, you get a deflection which is half the
GR prediction.

No. It is clear that gravity behaves differently for fermions
that for bosons (included bosons with nonzero mass).

It is clear from what? Show your reasoning. By
"Newtonian gravity" you still seem to have something
other than F = GMm/r^2 in mind, since that is silent on
fermions, bosons, or any property other than mass.

What YOU stated was that the deflection depends on the
assumed mass. It does not.

YOU are the one claiming that a Newtonian calculation
is possible which will show deflection, if you assume
the right mass. Are you backing off of that?

No, I only said that if you can say that newtonian
gravity predicts half the correct angle, then I could
also say that newtonian gravity can predict the correct
angle if you assume the right mass for a fake photon.

Ah... finally we get to an assertion about Newtonian
gravity. So the answer is "Yes", not "No". You claim
that you could do a Newtonian prediction with a different
mass and get a different deflection. Or by saying
"can predict the correct angle" you don't really
mean getting a different answer from "half the correct
angle".

Once again, you are saying that if you change the
mass, you'll get a different angle. Yes?

Fine. The answer is No. Not in standard Newtonian
mechanics. There is nothing about the trajectory
of small masses near large ones which depends on the
small mass.

What you are talking about is the parameter E/m,
the ratio of total energy (kinetic plus gravitational
potential) to mass.

In Newtonian mechanics, KE = 0.5*mv^2. So there is
no possible ratio E/m except [0.5*v^2 - GM/r], a
quantity which you will note does not depend on m.

Now, what you are REALLY claiming is that if we use
E/m = c^2, then the "Newtonian" prediction would be
a different angle. Look at the web page you cited
again.

On that I certainly agree. But that's not Newtonian
mechanics. You are using a non-Newtonian expression
for KE. If you use Newtonian mechanics, then E/m = c^2
for any mass moving at c. And if you don't change
E/m, then what happens to those formulas you were
looking at?

I tried to get you to see this by talking about
planetary orbits. The orbital parameters of a satellite
around the earth, or of a planet around the sun, do
NOT depend on the mass of the satellite/planet. You
won't get a different trajectory by changing mass.

- Randy
Even if
it were found out that photons have mass, newtonian
gravity would still remain without answers for them,
because they would still be bosons.

???

And where are you getting this from?

This should need a new dedicated thread to
explain you where :-) . But, I'll give you a clue.
Pauli exclusion principle.

Your hint fails. Newtonian gravity is silent on the
Pauli exclusion principle, as Pauli is silent on
gravitational potential between two masses. There
is no relation between these things.

If you think otherwise, state why. In a new thread
if you like.

But one small sanity check: Do you really think it
should be called "Newtonian mechanics" if it includes
the Pauli exclusion principle?

- Randy

wrote in message
...
On 6 fév, 18:03, "Androcles" wrote:
wrote in message

...
On 6 fév, 16:36, "Androcles" wrote:



wrote in message

...
On 6 fév, 15:04, "Androcles" wrote:

wrote in message

...
On 6 fév, 12:15, "Androcles" wrote:

wrote in message

...
On 6 fév, 11:48, "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?

| Lapsus. Its the reverse.

| I meant to write half the angle observed. and for corrected
| relativistic
| Newtonian, the angle is twice that of classical Newtonian, as is
| observed.

Ok, but my real question is how does classical Newtonian mechanics
prophesy that light will bend at all? It does, I'm wondering if you,
Eddington or Einstein knows how.

| They certainly did since Einstein did the calculation himself.
| And I do too.

| Explained summarily, to proceed, for the requirements of
| calculation he converted the energy of a photon to its
| equivalent mass (m=E/c^2) and proceeded to calculate
| the deflection of theoretical "masses" for visible light
| photons as they grazed the Sun mass.

| This gave half the deflection angle that was later observed.

| His calculations are in a paper from 1911 titled
| "Über den Einfluß der Schwerkraft auf die Ausbreitung
| des Lichter"

| He later 1915 corrected the figures and obtained the
| right deflection (twice that of classical Newtonian).

| However, the same correct deflection angle can easily
| be obtained from upgraded relativistic Newtonian,
| something that has never been documented, since the
| 1919 Eddington et al. observation was specifically
| meant to prove the superiority of GR over classical
| mechanics.

| Just like the community never considered confirming
| atomic clock speeding up with altitude with parallel
| mechanical clocks experiments.

| They were not looking for the truth, but to prove
| a point.

Androcles' third law:
For every photon there is an equal and opposite rephoton.
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonde...k/rephoton.gif
(from Newton's third law and Huygens's wave superposition,
photons have direction and come in pairs)

| My view is de Broglie's on photons. I see them as complex
| standing harmonic oscillators in motion, with only half
| their energy oscillating electromagnetically. The other
| half is is oriented in the direction of motion and is
| thus impervious to transverse force interaction.

Whilst I concur with "harmonic oscillators in motion"
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/AC/AC.gif
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonde.../AC/Photon.gif
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/photon.gif

| I see. Standing dephased pi/2.

Of course... the magnetic field cannot be zero at the same
time as the electric field or energy would not be conserved.
E = -dB/dt

| In 3D + time classical wave theory yes.

Fine, that's the world I live in.


| But with 9D + time

Go away, crank, go live in your 9D universe.

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

On Feb 7, 4:28 am, wrote:
On 7 fév, 01:27, "Timo A. Nieminen" wrote:



On Wed, 6 Feb 2008, wrote:
On 6 fév, 17:38, Eric Gisse wrote:
On Feb 6, 6:33 am, wrote:

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.

OK, I'll bite. What is "relativistic Newtonian mechanics"? How is it in
perfect harmony with Maxwell's theory? To clarify, do you mean _Maxwell's_
theory, or do you mean modern classical electrodynamics?

I mean Maxwell's wave theory.

The point is that Maxwell's theory can be seamlessly expanded,
contrary to belief, from a disregarded de Broglie hypothesis,
to directly describe localized photons and by linking it with
classical Newton, to also describe localized massive particles,
moving or not.

No, it can't. Maxwell's equations are incompatible with all of quantum
theory.

I'll gladly revise my opinion when you show a published work
supporting your assertions. You were kind enough to insist on only
published works when complaining that nobody has tested GR's
predictions with a mechanical clock - it's only fair.

But I'll settle for anything that contains the math. And by "math" I
mean ALL FOUR of Maxwell's equations.


Now as to what it is, this media couldn't possibly allow full
explanation. but as an example, if you correct Newton's classical
kinetic energy equation to correctly include the energy he could
know nothing about and that goes into relativistic mass increase
and if you convert it to its correct exponential form, you then
end up with an equation that allows calculating the complete
range of possible velocities, from zero for massive particles
at rest to c for free photons not associated with massive
particles.

A hopeful set of words that doesn't have the requisite mathematics
anywhere nearby.


Here is a generalized form of this equation

f(x)=c [sqrt(4ax + x^2)) / (2a - x)]

where

f(x) = velocity
a = rest energy of a massive particle (electron)
x = any energy you wish to associate to the electron.

If you set a to zero (so no massive particle is involved)
you end up with only the free energy, and velocity c

If you set x to zero (no added energy), you end up
with velocity zero for the massive particle.

This is called a "dispersion relation". Would you care to show how you
derive this?


Any value of x other than zero will restitute the
correct relativistic velocity of the massive particle.

From this equation you can even derive another similar
equation that allows calculating f(x) from the wavelength
only and also the gamma factor to link up with SR's equations.

Ordinary Newtonian mechanics is in perfect harmony
with Maxwell's theory,

You must be kidding!

Explain to me how straight k=1/2 mv^2 is in harmony with
Maxwell's theory.

André Mchaud

although not with modern classical EM.
--
Timo Nieminen - Home page:http://www.physics.uq.edu.au/people/nieminen/
E-prints:http://eprint.uq.edu.au/view/person/...,_Timo_A..html
Shrine to Spirits:http://www.users.bigpond.com/timo_nieminen/spirits.html

On 7 fév, 13:26, Eric Gisse wrote:
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?

From ignorance of the nature of electromagnetic energy.

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

The Copenhagen community's moto:

Why make things simple when you can make them complicated ?

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?

You are so disconnected Eric that it edges on unconsciousness.

Why don't you wake up.

André Michaud

On 7 fév, 13:30, Eric Gisse wrote:
On Feb 7, 4:28 am, wrote:



On 7 fév, 01:27, "Timo A. Nieminen" wrote:

On Wed, 6 Feb 2008, wrote:
On 6 fév, 17:38, Eric Gisse wrote:
On Feb 6, 6:33 am, wrote:

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.

OK, I'll bite. What is "relativistic Newtonian mechanics"? How is it in
perfect harmony with Maxwell's theory? To clarify, do you mean _Maxwell's_
theory, or do you mean modern classical electrodynamics?

I mean Maxwell's wave theory.

The point is that Maxwell's theory can be seamlessly expanded,
contrary to belief, from a disregarded de Broglie hypothesis,
to directly describe localized photons and by linking it with
classical Newton, to also describe localized massive particles,
moving or not.

No, it can't. Maxwell's equations are incompatible with all of quantum
theory.

As I said, you are so disconnected with reality.

Perfect Copenhagen physicist material. Carry on.

I'll gladly revise my opinion when you show a published work
supporting your assertions. You were kind enough to insist on only
published works when complaining that nobody has tested GR's
predictions with a mechanical clock - it's only fair.

How can you be so conceited as to think that I care whether or
not you revise whatever opinion you have ?

Just go your merry way blissfully believing anything you want.

But I'll settle for anything that contains the math. And by "math" I
mean ALL FOUR of Maxwell's equations.

You will have to settle with vacuum.

Like all orthodoxes, you will have to wait till your kids explain
the stuff out to you from their intro physics refs. As more than
once occurred in the past, the occidental physics community
will be the last to try and play catch up when this blows over.

Now as to what it is, this media couldn't possibly allow full
explanation. but as an example, if you correct Newton's classical
kinetic energy equation to correctly include the energy he could
know nothing about and that goes into relativistic mass increase
and if you convert it to its correct exponential form, you then
end up with an equation that allows calculating the complete
range of possible velocities, from zero for massive particles
at rest to c for free photons not associated with massive
particles.

A hopeful set of words that doesn't have the requisite mathematics
anywhere nearby.

Not for your eyes, that's for sure.

Here is a generalized form of this equation

f(x)=c [sqrt(4ax + x^2)) / (2a - x)]

where

f(x) = velocity
a = rest energy of a massive particle (electron)
x = any energy you wish to associate to the electron.

If you set a to zero (so no massive particle is involved)
you end up with only the free energy, and velocity c

If you set x to zero (no added energy), you end up
with velocity zero for the massive particle.

This is called a "dispersion relation". Would you care to show how you
derive this?

Please don't make me laugh too loud. My ribs hurt enough already
from the excess snow shoveling I had to do lately.

As you said, you will have to wait till formal publication,
since peer pressure prevents any orthodox to even even think
of stuff not formally published.

This is called the classical kinetic energy equation upgraded
to relativistic status.

Ok, I'll be candid. I just plucked it out of my back
pocket... or not! Maybe I just plucked it out of thin air.

André Michaud

Any value of x other than zero will restitute the
correct relativistic velocity of the massive particle.

From this equation you can even derive another similar
equation that allows calculating f(x) from the wavelength
only and also the gamma factor to link up with SR's equations.

Ordinary Newtonian mechanics is in perfect harmony
with Maxwell's theory,

You must be kidding!

Explain to me how straight k=1/2 mv^2 is in harmony with
Maxwell's theory.

André Mchaud

although not with modern classical EM.
--
Timo Nieminen - Home page:http://www.physics.uq.edu.au/people/nieminen/
E-prints:http://eprint.uq.edu.au/view/person/...,_Timo_A..html
Shrine to Spirits:http://www.users.bigpond.com/timo_nieminen/spirits.html

On Feb 7, 10:51 am, wrote:
[...}

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?

From ignorance of the nature of electromagnetic energy.

Wrong, try again.

1) Solid research places error bars on photon mass at the 10^-17 eV
level. Consistent with zero.
2) Maxwell's equations have no mass coupling.
3) Proca's equations - Maxwell's equations for a massive photon - are
distinctly different from Maxwell's equations.


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

The Copenhagen community's moto:

Why make things simple when you can make them complicated ?

You were the one bitching about me giving the simple answer. In the
optics limit, Maxwell's equations do not matter so long as waves
travel along null paths.

If you want the exact answer, yea it's gonna be complicated.
Pretending it isn't is dishonest.


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?

You are so disconnected Eric that it edges on unconsciousness.

Why don't you wake up.

Why don't you prove your ability before making sweeping claims about
the physics community?


André Michaud

On Feb 7, 11:13 am, wrote:
On 7 fév, 13:30, Eric Gisse wrote:



On Feb 7, 4:28 am, wrote:

On 7 fév, 01:27, "Timo A. Nieminen" wrote:

On Wed, 6 Feb 2008, wrote:
On 6 fév, 17:38, Eric Gisse wrote:
On Feb 6, 6:33 am, wrote:

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.

OK, I'll bite. What is "relativistic Newtonian mechanics"? How is it in
perfect harmony with Maxwell's theory? To clarify, do you mean _Maxwell's_
theory, or do you mean modern classical electrodynamics?

I mean Maxwell's wave theory.

The point is that Maxwell's theory can be seamlessly expanded,
contrary to belief, from a disregarded de Broglie hypothesis,
to directly describe localized photons and by linking it with
classical Newton, to also describe localized massive particles,
moving or not.

No, it can't. Maxwell's equations are incompatible with all of quantum
theory.

As I said, you are so disconnected with reality.

Perfect Copenhagen physicist material. Carry on.

I'll gladly revise my opinion when you show a published work
supporting your assertions. You were kind enough to insist on only
published works when complaining that nobody has tested GR's
predictions with a mechanical clock - it's only fair.

How can you be so conceited as to think that I care whether or
not you revise whatever opinion you have ?

Just go your merry way blissfully believing anything you want.

But I'll settle for anything that contains the math. And by "math" I
mean ALL FOUR of Maxwell's equations.

You will have to settle with vacuum.

Like all orthodoxes, you will have to wait till your kids explain
the stuff out to you from their intro physics refs. As more than
once occurred in the past, the occidental physics community
will be the last to try and play catch up when this blows over.

Now as to what it is, this media couldn't possibly allow full
explanation. but as an example, if you correct Newton's classical
kinetic energy equation to correctly include the energy he could
know nothing about and that goes into relativistic mass increase
and if you convert it to its correct exponential form, you then
end up with an equation that allows calculating the complete
range of possible velocities, from zero for massive particles
at rest to c for free photons not associated with massive
particles.

A hopeful set of words that doesn't have the requisite mathematics
anywhere nearby.

Not for your eyes, that's for sure.



Here is a generalized form of this equation

f(x)=c [sqrt(4ax + x^2)) / (2a - x)]

where

f(x) = velocity
a = rest energy of a massive particle (electron)
x = any energy you wish to associate to the electron.

If you set a to zero (so no massive particle is involved)
you end up with only the free energy, and velocity c

If you set x to zero (no added energy), you end up
with velocity zero for the massive particle.

This is called a "dispersion relation". Would you care to show how you
derive this?

Please don't make me laugh too loud. My ribs hurt enough already
from the excess snow shoveling I had to do lately.

As you said, you will have to wait till formal publication,
since peer pressure prevents any orthodox to even even think
of stuff not formally published.


You were the one being all butthurt about there not being an explicit
publication about mechanical clocks testing relativity, I'm just
returning the favor. Irritating, isn't it?

This is called the classical kinetic energy equation upgraded
to relativistic status.

In other words, you are using special relativity else you are being
internally inconsistent if you mix SR and Newton.


Ok, I'll be candid. I just plucked it out of my back
pocket... or not! Maybe I just plucked it out of thin air.

André Michaud

Any value of x other than zero will restitute the
correct relativistic velocity of the massive particle.

From this equation you can even derive another similar
equation that allows calculating f(x) from the wavelength
only and also the gamma factor to link up with SR's equations.

Ordinary Newtonian mechanics is in perfect harmony
with Maxwell's theory,

You must be kidding!

Explain to me how straight k=1/2 mv^2 is in harmony with
Maxwell's theory.

André Mchaud

although not with modern classical EM.
--
Timo Nieminen - Home page:http://www.physics.uq.edu.au/people/nieminen/
E-prints:http://eprint.uq.edu.au/view/person/...,_Timo_A..html
Shrine to Spirits:http://www.users.bigpond.com/timo_ni.../spirits..html