http://philipball.blogspot.com/2007/...t-this-is.html
"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."

However Budding Young Einsteins are taught in a different way:

http://pirsa.org/speaker/Lee_Smolin
Lee Smolin - ISSYP Keynote Session
Speaker(s): Lee Smolin
Abstract:
Date: 01/08/2007 - 1:00 pm

http://streamer.perimeterinstitute.c...c-4d44d3d16fe9
Lee Smolin: "Newton's theory predicts that light goes in straight
lines and therefore if the star passes behind the sun, we can't see
it. Einstein's theory predicts that light is bent...."

Pentcho Valev

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.

However Budding Young Einsteins are taught in a different way:

http://pirsa.org/speaker/Lee_Smolin
Lee Smolin - ISSYP Keynote Session
Speaker(s): Lee Smolin
Abstract:
Date: 01/08/2007 - 1:00 pm

http://streamer.perimeterinstitute.c...?peid=5f32739a...
Lee Smolin: "Newton's theory predicts that light goes in straight
lines and therefore if the star passes behind the sun, we can't see
it. Einstein's theory predicts that light is bent...."

Pentcho Valev


Agreed. Outright falsehood. Probably plain ignorance on the part
of this author.

André Michaud

On Feb 6, 5:33*pm, 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.

If you wish your analysis to be complete, you should discuss
Einstein's 1911 equation c'=c(1+V/c^2) showing how the speed of light
varies with the gravitational potential V. Note that c'=c(1+V/c^2) is
consistent with the gravitational redshift factor 1+V/c^2 confirmed
experimentally:

http://www.blazelabs.com/f-g-gcont.asp "The first confirmation of a
long range variation in the speed of light travelling in space came in
1964. Irwin Shapiro, it seems, was the first to make use of a
previously forgotten facet of general relativity theory -- that the
speed of light is reduced when it passes through a gravitational
field....Faced with this evidence, Einstein stated:"In the second
place our result shows that, according to the general theory of
relativity, the law of the constancy of the velocity of light in
vacuo, which constitutes one of the two fundamental assumptions in the
special theory of relativity and to which we have already frequently
referred, cannot claim any unlimited validity. A curvature of rays of
light can only take place when the velocity of propagation of light
varies with position."......Today we find that since the Special
Theory of Relativity unfortunately became part of the so called
mainstream science, it is considered a sacrilege to even suggest that
the speed of light be anything other than a constant. This is somewhat
surprising since even Einstein himself suggested in a paper "On the
Influence of Gravitation on the Propagation of Light," Annalen der
Physik, 35, 1911, that the speed of light might vary with the
gravitational potential. Indeed, the variation of the speed of light
in a vacuum or space is explicitly shown in Einstein's calculation for
the angle at which light should bend upon the influence of gravity.
One can find his calculation in his paper. The result is c'=c(1+V/c^2)
where V is the gravitational potential relative to the point where the
measurement is taken. 1+V/c^2 is also known as the GRAVITATIONAL
REDSHIFT FACTOR."

Note also that, by applying Einstein's equivalence principle, you can
prove that c'=c(1+V/c^2) is equivalent to c'=c+v, an equation given by
Newton's emission theory and showing how the speed of light varies
with v, the relative speed of the light source and the observer, in
the absence of a gravitational field.

Pentcho Valev


However Budding Young Einsteins are taught in a different way:

http://pirsa.org/speaker/Lee_Smolin
Lee Smolin - ISSYP Keynote Session
Speaker(s): Lee Smolin
Abstract:
Date: 01/08/2007 - 1:00 pm

http://streamer.perimeterinstitute.c...?peid=5f32739a....
Lee Smolin: "Newton's theory predicts that light goes in straight
lines and therefore if the star passes behind the sun, we can't see
it. Einstein's theory predicts that light is bent...."

Pentcho Valev


Agreed. Outright falsehood. Probably plain ignorance on the part
of this author.

André Michaud

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?

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.

André Michaud

On Feb 6, 1:34*am, 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."

However Budding Young Einsteins are taught in a different way:

http://pirsa.org/speaker/Lee_Smolin
Lee Smolin - ISSYP Keynote Session
Speaker(s): Lee Smolin
Abstract:
Date: 01/08/2007 - 1:00 pm

http://streamer.perimeterinstitute.c...?peid=5f32739a...
Lee Smolin: "Newton's theory predicts that light goes in straight
lines and therefore if the star passes behind the sun, we can't see
it. Einstein's theory predicts that light is bent...."

Pentcho Valev



History disagrees with the above comment by Smolin (assuming it was
quoted correctly):
http://backreaction.blogspot.com/200...on-at-sun.html

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.

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.

André Michaud

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.

On 6 fév, 10:52, Pentcho Valev wrote:
On Feb 6, 5:33 pm, 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.

If you wish your analysis to be complete, you should discuss
Einstein's 1911 equation c'=c(1+V/c^2) showing how the speed of light
varies with the gravitational potential V. Note that c'=c(1+V/c^2) is
consistent with the gravitational redshift factor 1+V/c^2 confirmed
experimentally:

http://www.blazelabs.com/f-g-gcont.asp"The first confirmation of a
long range variation in the speed of light travelling in space came in
1964. Irwin Shapiro, it seems, was the first to make use of a
previously forgotten facet of general relativity theory -- that the
speed of light is reduced when it passes through a gravitational
field....

This simply is impossible. From electromagnetic theory and
confirming observation, when em radiation moves deeper into
a gravity field, its energy increases but its velocity doesn't
change, and the opposite when radiation moves away from a
gravity field, its energy diminishes but its velocity remains
constant.

Doppler radars would not work even here on earth if this
was not the case, and they do work perfectly, based on
the underlying principle that the speed of light is
constant.

Faced with this evidence, Einstein stated:"In the second
place our result shows that, according to the general theory of
relativity, the law of the constancy of the velocity of light in
vacuo, which constitutes one of the two fundamental assumptions in the
special theory of relativity and to which we have already frequently
referred, cannot claim any unlimited validity. A curvature of rays of
light can only take place when the velocity of propagation of light
varies with position."......Today we find that since the Special
Theory of Relativity unfortunately became part of the so called
mainstream science, it is considered a sacrilege to even suggest that
the speed of light be anything other than a constant. This is somewhat
surprising since even Einstein himself suggested in a paper "On the
Influence of Gravitation on the Propagation of Light," Annalen der
Physik, 35, 1911, that the speed of light might vary with the
gravitational potential. Indeed, the variation of the speed of light
in a vacuum or space is explicitly shown in Einstein's calculation for
the angle at which light should bend upon the influence of gravity.
One can find his calculation in his paper. The result is c'=c(1+V/c^2)
where V is the gravitational potential relative to the point where the
measurement is taken. 1+V/c^2 is also known as the GRAVITATIONAL
REDSHIFT FACTOR."

Note also that, by applying Einstein's equivalence principle, you can
prove that c'=c(1+V/c^2) is equivalent to c'=c+v, an equation given by
Newton's emission theory and showing how the speed of light varies
with v, the relative speed of the light source and the observer, in
the absence of a gravitational field.

My analysis is complete. The verified invariance of the speed of
light has nothing to do with GR or even SR. It is an electromagnetic
property of em radiation.

Whatever Einstein or anyone else could have said to the contrary
reveals only partial understanding of electromagnetism at the time
of statement.

André Michaud