Re: Newton: Photon falling from h meters increase its energy.

Paul.B.Andersen <relativity@paulba.no> wrote:

Den 13.01.2025 06:07, skrev LaurenceClarkCrossen:

"Soldner, Einstein, Gravitational Light Deflection and Factors of Two"
This paper gives an interesting discussion of Soldner's calculation.

This paper is written by Tilman Sauer in 2021.
 
In 1801 Johann Georg von Soldner calculated the Newtonian prediction
for the deflection of light grazing the Sun to be 0.84",
which is quite close to the correct value 0.875".
 
Sauer speculates if there are misprints in Soldner's calculation
so that his result should be a factor of two higher, that is 1.68"
which is quite close to Einstein's 1916 calculation 1.7".
(With somewhat better precision GR predicts 1.75")
 
If Soldner had calculated 1.68", he would be wrong.
The Newtonian prediction is  0.875".
 

 
And Einstein used a refraction formula to double the deflection=
"photographic plates?

 
How ridiculous! :-D
 
Einstein calculated the GR prediction 1.7" in 1916,
before any measurements of the deflection was made.
 
See:
https://paulba.no/paper/Foundation_of_GR.pdf
 
At the top of page 69:
 
  "We examine the curvature undergone by a ray of light passing
   by a mass M at the distance ?."
 
The calculation is shown on page 69 and the result is given
at the bottom of the page:
 
  "According to this, a ray of light going past the sun undergoes
   a deflexion of 1.7"."
 
So in 1916 nobody, including Einstein, knew what the correct
value was, because no measurements were ever made.

But it is a matter of record that Hilbert complimented Einstein
on the rapidity and cleverness with which he had derived
the correct value for the deflection of starlight
from the equations of general relativity.
(if only I could calculate like you...)
Hilbert certainly did not see any error in it or he would have said so.
Not surprising of course, because there isnt any.

Poor did, and he completely repudiated the
findings of Eddington. This should have given pause to any ethical
scientist.

 
Poor did what? Use a refraction formula to repudiate
Eddington's measurements? If Poor had done so,
wouldn't that have been to explain Eddington's measurements?
 
But of course Poor did no such thing. See below.

OTOH, copies (contact prints) of Eddington's plates were made in 1919,
and some of these were sent to other observarories
for independent remeasurement. No one found a different result.

The modern remeasurement, which fully vindicated Eddington (again!)
was made on one of those copies.

Jan