On 15 ene, 15:00, Dono wrote:
On Jan 15, 5:00 am, Albertito wrote:
crap snipped
I will show that there exists only a real
perihelion precession, that which is predicted by newtonian gravity.
Firstly, we have to see that a gravitational lensing is just a
refraction, that
Fermat's principle must hold for it.

remainder of crap also snipped

Albert****o,

1. Gravitational lensing is just another prediction of Einstein's
theory. You didn't know that? Apparently.

2. How come this "lensing" affects only Mercury and doesn't affect the
other planets? They all precess. Didn't you know that either?
Apparently, you despicable piece of ****.

Dunno****o, Dunno****o,

1.Gravitational lensing is just another prediction of newtonian
theory. You didn't know that? Apparently. It happens that
if you takes the energy of a photon being equivalent to
a particle travelling at c, with mass, as E=mc^2 says, you
can compute, under newtonian gravity, the deflection path
of that particle, But, it results that deflection angle is only
half
of that predicted by GR. So, it is clear that is not the suitable
method to compute the gravitational deflection of a photon.
If you consider the above equation (n = exp (2V_r/c^2)),
pointed out by me, you will get the suitable method to compute
gravitational lensing.

2. That lensing affects other planets, too. You only have to take
into
account that the source (planet) is located in a region with a
given
refractive index, n_0, and you, ****head, are located in a region
with
a refractive index, n_1. All you have to do is to compute the
minimized
path for a photon, from source to observer, along a medium which
exhibits graded refractive index, in each spatial point. Can you
do the
computation for that path integral, you despicable piece of
dunno****o,
apparently?.

On Jan 15, 7:35 am, Albertito still is,
after all this time a:
http://www.helinium.nl/trolltech.gif

Albertito wrote:
[... attempt to "explain" the precession of mercury's perihelion
via "gravitational lensing", or somesuch]

This does not make sense.

Yes, indeed, the speed of light near the sun is SLOWER than out here
near earth, when measured from earth [#]. You got the sign wrong, and
the equations you use are not really valid (e.g. they get the wrong
sign). We KNOW the sign (and the value) because it has been MEASURED --
look up "Shapiro time delay".

But even so, with either the correct or the wrong sign, this cannot
possibly introduce a precession in mercury's observed perihelion. The
delay in light is greatest for paths which graze the sun, and is quite
small except for paths that lie within a few arcseconds of the surface
of the sun -- the delay is a few microseconds out of several minutes for
such paths. Note that the effect applies to both sides of the sun --
mercury will appear to be delayed more and more as it approaches and
then disappears behind the sun, but "speeds back up" as it re-emerges
into view on the other side. The total delay is CONSTANT FOR EACH ORBIT,
and thus cannot possibly introduce a precession of the perihelion.

Note also this is an OPTICAL delay, and must be modeled that way -- the
planetary orbit is not affected -- mercury cannot possibly slow down and
speed up as such observations would suggest.

[#] Lest Pentco Valev go ballistic over this, remember
this is for a measurement over a NON-LOCAL path, and
there is no requirement that the speed of light be c
when measured over such a path. Indeed, GR predicts a
variation, and actual measurements agree with the
prediction to high accuracy (few parts per million, or
better, IIRC). When measured over a LOCAL path located
near the sun, GR predicts the value c (though such an
experiment appears to be infeasible at present).


Tom Roberts

"Tom Roberts" wrote in message
.. .
| Albertito wrote:
| [... attempt to "explain" the precession of mercury's perihelion
| via "gravitational lensing", or somesuch]
|
| This does not make sense.

Doesn't have to.

"This is PHYSICS, not math or logic, and "proof" is completely irrelevant."

Ref:
http://groups.google.co.uk/group/sci...99476a3340fd6a

****head Roberts.

On 15 ene, 15:46, Dono wrote:
On Jan 15, 7:35 am, Albertito still is,
after all this time a:http://www.helinium.nl/trolltech.gif

http://www.upload-images.net/imagen/e463f94a56.jpg

"Albertito" wrote in message
...
On 15 ene, 14:01, "Jeckyl" wrote:
"Albertito" wrote in message

...

All of us know that GR is a 'wonderful' theory which can predict with
'amazing' accuracy the extra Mercury's perihelion precession,
among other 'phenomena'.

An we all know that your 'posts' are a load of 'rubbish'

All of you relativists need this sort of rubbish-crap-fertilizer
to make your brains more healthful, escaping from the blind
alley where GR has confined you, ****head.

Yes .. they are amusing.. and they do make one think .. its good exercise to
refute nonsense.

"Androcles" wrote in message
o.uk...

"Albertito" wrote in message
...
| On 15 ene, 14:01, "Jeckyl" wrote:
| "Albertito" wrote in message
|
|
...
|
| All of us know that GR is a 'wonderful' theory which can predict
with
| 'amazing' accuracy the extra Mercury's perihelion precession,
| among other 'phenomena'.
|
| An we all know that your 'posts' are a load of 'rubbish'
|
| All of you relativists need this sort of rubbish-crap-fertilizer
| to make your brains more healthful, escaping from the blind
| alley where GR has confined you, ****head.
|
Fecal Jeckyl can't read, he's just another idiot troll.

[sarcasm]Sorry .. did you type in some letters there? Shame I can't read
them[/sarcasm]

On Jan 15, 8:14 am, Tom Roberts wrote:

Yes, indeed, the speed of light near the sun is SLOWER than out here
near earth, when measured from earth [#]. You got the sign wrong, and
the equations you use are not really valid (e.g. they get the wrong
sign). We KNOW the sign (and the value) because it has been MEASURED --
look up "Shapiro time delay".

But even so, with either the correct or the wrong sign, this cannot
possibly introduce a precession in mercury's observed perihelion. The
delay in light is greatest for paths which graze the sun, and is quite
small except for paths that lie within a few arcseconds of the surface
of the sun -- the delay is a few microseconds out of several minutes for
such paths. Note that the effect applies to both sides of the sun --
mercury will appear to be delayed more and more as it approaches and
then disappears behind the sun, but "speeds back up" as it re-emerges
into view on the other side. The total delay is CONSTANT FOR EACH ORBIT,
and thus cannot possibly introduce a precession of the perihelion.

Note also this is an OPTICAL delay, and must be modeled that way -- the
planetary orbit is not affected -- mercury cannot possibly slow down and
speed up as such observations would suggest.

So, you agree that any observation should not affect the geometry.
However, embracing the field equations, you are allowing the momentum
tensor to affect the geometry. Since each observer observes a
different momentum, effectively the field equations are allowing an
observer to play God. So, please stop being a hypocrite here. Oh, I
forgot your magic wand. After writing the momentum matrix, just say
'abracadabra' and witness the matrix becomes a tensor. In doing so,
the matrix being observer dependent before now becomes observer
independent. Do you really embrace this nonsense?

[#] Lest Pentco Valev go ballistic over this, remember
this is for a measurement over a NON-LOCAL path, and
there is no requirement that the speed of light be c
when measured over such a path. Indeed, GR predicts a
variation, and actual measurements agree with the
prediction to high accuracy (few parts per million, or
better, IIRC). When measured over a LOCAL path located
near the sun, GR predicts the value c (though such an
experiment appears to be infeasible at present).

The field equations and their derivations allow NO room to have the
speed of light varies from point to point. So, your statement above
is not accurate. shrug

"Koobee Wublee" wrote in message ...
On Jan 15, 8:14 am, Tom Roberts wrote:

Yes, indeed, the speed of light near the sun is SLOWER than out here
near earth, when measured from earth [#]. You got the sign wrong, and
the equations you use are not really valid (e.g. they get the wrong
sign). We KNOW the sign (and the value) because it has been MEASURED --
look up "Shapiro time delay".

But even so, with either the correct or the wrong sign, this cannot
possibly introduce a precession in mercury's observed perihelion. The
delay in light is greatest for paths which graze the sun, and is quite
small except for paths that lie within a few arcseconds of the surface
of the sun -- the delay is a few microseconds out of several minutes for
such paths. Note that the effect applies to both sides of the sun --
mercury will appear to be delayed more and more as it approaches and
then disappears behind the sun, but "speeds back up" as it re-emerges
into view on the other side. The total delay is CONSTANT FOR EACH ORBIT,
and thus cannot possibly introduce a precession of the perihelion.

Note also this is an OPTICAL delay, and must be modeled that way -- the
planetary orbit is not affected -- mercury cannot possibly slow down and
speed up as such observations would suggest.

So, you agree that any observation should not affect the geometry.
However, embracing the field equations, you are allowing the momentum
tensor to affect the geometry. Since each observer observes a
different momentum, effectively the field equations are allowing an
observer to play God. So, please stop being a hypocrite here. Oh, I
forgot your magic wand. After writing the momentum matrix, just say
'abracadabra' and witness the matrix becomes a tensor. In doing so,
the matrix being observer dependent before now becomes observer
independent. Do you really embrace this nonsense?

Never mind, we embrace your fabulous stupidity:
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/di...surdClaim.html
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/di...agrangian.html
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/di...LonelyTop.html
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/di...SmellHere.html
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/di...woMetrics.html
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/di...ffGeoAero.html
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/di...latSphere.html
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/di...rentzTale.html
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/di...s/SRBogus.html
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/di...easonLaws.html
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/di...agrangian.html
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/di.../LosingIt.html
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/di...elativity.html
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/di...Potential.html
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/di...WhatWrong.html




[#] Lest Pentco Valev go ballistic over this, remember
this is for a measurement over a NON-LOCAL path, and
there is no requirement that the speed of light be c
when measured over such a path. Indeed, GR predicts a
variation, and actual measurements agree with the
prediction to high accuracy (few parts per million, or
better, IIRC). When measured over a LOCAL path located
near the sun, GR predicts the value c (though such an
experiment appears to be infeasible at present).

The field equations and their derivations allow NO room to have the
speed of light varies from point to point. So, your statement above
is not accurate. shrug

See [#], but replace one idiot (Poncho Valve) with another idiot
(Koobee Wublee).

Dirk Vdm

On Jan 16, 3:25 am, "Dirk Van de moortel" dirkvandemoor...@More-SperM-
Please.hotmail.com wrote:
"Koobee Wublee" wrote:

So, you agree that any observation should not affect the geometry.
However, embracing the field equations, you are allowing the momentum
tensor to affect the geometry. Since each observer observes a
different momentum, effectively the field equations are allowing an
observer to play God. So, please stop being a hypocrite here. Oh, I
forgot your magic wand. After writing the momentum matrix, just say
'abracadabra' and witness the matrix becomes a tensor. In doing so,
the matrix being observer dependent before now becomes observer
independent. Do you really embrace this nonsense?

Never mind, we embrace your fabulous stupidity:
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/di...surdClaim.html
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/di...PrivateLagrang...
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/di...LonelyTop.html
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/di...SmellHere.html
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/di...woMetrics.html
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/di...ffGeoAero.html
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/di...latSphere.html
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/di...rentzTale.html
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/di...s/SRBogus.html
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/di...easonLaws.html
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/di.../NewLagrangian....
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/di.../LosingIt.html
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/di...AerospaceRelat...
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/di...Potential.html
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/di...WhatWrong.html

If these represent stupidity, why are you embracing them?

The field equations and their derivations allow NO room to have the
speed of light varies from point to point. So, your statement above
is not accurate. shrug

See [#], but replace one idiot (Poncho Valve) with another idiot
(Koobee Wublee).

VD mootrel is proven to be a malicious troll who is also a nitwit, a
usurper, and a liar. He is still stuck in SR. It is no wonder that
he is so bitter about other's achievements.