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

On Mon, 13 Jan 2025 18:54:29 +0000, Paul.B.Andersen 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 Δ."
>
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.
>
>

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.
>

Here are some quotes from Poor's summary: "The mathematical
formula, by which Einstein calculated his deflection of 1.75
seconds for light rays passing the edge of the sun, is a well known
and simple formula of physical optics";

>
Ah! So that's where you found the "refraction formula"! :-D
>
In 1930 Poor obviously knew 'The mathematical formula,
by which Einstein calculated his deflection of 1.75".'
>
This is the equation:  Θ = 4GM/Δ⋅c²

where:
Δ = the impact parameter, closest approach to Sun
c = speed of light in vacuum
G = gravitational constant
M = solar mass
In this case Δ = R, the radius of the Sun.
>
This is indeed "a well known and simple formula" and
since it is about physics and optics (light)
Poor called it a "formula of physical optics".
>
It has nothing to do with refraction, obviously.
>
Why did you think that Poor claimed it was about refraction? :-D
>
>

"Not a single one of the
fundamental concepts of varying time, or warped or twisted space,
of simultaneity, or of the relativity of motion is in any way involved
in Einstein's prediction of, or formulas for, the deflection of light";

>
Quite right.
Einstein's formula  Θ = 4GM/Δ⋅c² is a well known and simple formula
of physical optics which contains nothing about time dilation
or relativity of simultaneity.
>

"The many and elaborate eclipse expeditions have, therefore,
been given a fictitious importance. Their results can neither prove
nor disprove the relativity theory" (emphasis added) (Poor, 1930)." -

>
This was right(ish) in 1930.
>
The eclipse measurements are notorious imprecise,
and are now of historical interest only.
>
Many measurement (of EM-radiation NOT grazing the Sun) are performed:
>
https://paulba.no/paper/PPN_gamma_Hipparcos.pdf
https://paulba.no/paper/PPN_gamma_Cassini.pdf
https://paulba.no/paper/Shapiro_2004.pdf
https://paulba.no/paper/Fomalont.pdf
https://paulba.no/paper/PPN_gamma_Cassini_2.pdf
>
GR's prediction for the gravitational deflection of EM-radiation
is so thoroughly experimentally confirmed that you have to be
extremely ignorant not to accept it.
>

Paul says Poor's statement that Einstein used an optics formula is
ridiculous. Then he misconstrues, claiming this would have happened
after the actual measurements, which is nonsense. He used the optics
formula for his prediction.
Yes, Poor shows he used a refraction formula.
It is very ignorant to think that contradictory experiments that show
Newtonian and twice Newtonian prove relativity. The experiments have
proved nothing. Relativity is an ignorant pseudoscience comprised of
nothing but illogical and self-contradictory baseless claims. Mercury's
perihelion of relativity is based on the assumption that gravity can be
treated as electromagnetism. According to Britannica, this is now known
to be false because the unified field theory "failed." Galileo and
Eotvos showed everything, regardless of the mass or the substance, is
affected the same by gravity. Relativity has not disproved that. The
velocity of both waves and particles includes the relative velocity of
the observer, yet relativity irrationally denies this—pure lunacy.
Source:
"THE DEFLECTION OF LIGHT AS OBSERVED AT TOTAL SOLAR ECLIPSES" By CHARLES
LANE POOR
Poor gives an earlier paper by himself = "THE RELATIVITY DEFLECTION OF
LIGHT" Free pdf=
https://archive.org/download/sim_journal-of-the-royal-astronomical-society-of-canada_july-august-1927_21_6/sim_journal-of-the-royal-astronomical-society-of-canada_july-august-1927_21_6.pdf
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What is ridiculous is that the curving of space (reification fallacy)
can be added to Newtonian when the curving was allegedly the explanation
for Newtonian, making this redundant.
Einstein: “According to the theory half of this deflection is produced
by the Newtonian field of attraction of the sun, and the other half by
the geometrical modification (‘curvature’) of space caused by the sun.”
In this way Einstein doubled his money trumping Newton.
Maybe Einstein got the doubling from a mistaken reading of Soldner.
Einstein has stated that if two different forces strike you with the
same force, the effect will be the same! Pure genius! Poor quotes
Einstein's explanation of his equivalence principle: "'The effect of
gravitation upon ideal “clocks” and “measuring rods” at rest at a given
point in a gravitational field is identically the same as that caused by
a motion of the “clock” and “rod” through free space with a velocity
equal to that which they would have acquired had they fallen, under the
action of gravitation, from infinity to that point.'"
"THE DEFLECTION OF LIGHT AS OBSERVED AT TOTAL SOLAR ECLIPSES" By CHARLES
LANE POOR
"SUMMARY
The mathematical formula, by which Einstein calculated his predicted
deflection of 1".75
for light rays passing the edge of the SUD, is a well known and simple
formula of physical optics. In this formula he substituted an
hypothetical "retardation" of light in its passage
through a gravitational field; and this purely theoretical retardation
is the sole new concept
involved in the prediction. Not a single one of the fundamental concepts
of varying time, of
warped or twisted space, of simultaneity, or of the relativity of motion
is in any way involved
in Einstein's prediction of, or formulas for the deflection of light.
The many and elaborate
eclipse expeditions have, therefore, been given a fictitious importance.
Their results can neither prove, nor disprove the relativity theory: at
the best their results can prove that light is retarded by gravitational
action, and is retarded by a certain definite amount....The radial
components were then forced into a semblance of "exact accord with the
requirements of the Einstein theory" through an assumption written into
the methods and formulas of reduction: an assumption for which there is
not the slightest observational evidence. In fact the only evidence
available-the evidence furnished by independent check fields
photographed on the eclipse plates-would seem to show that this basic
assumption is utterly wrong.
The actual stellar displacements, if real, do not show the slightest
re~emblanceto the predicted Einstein deflections: they do not agree in
direction, in size 1 or in the rate of decrease with distance from the
sun. .. ..... "