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

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

Den 13.01.2025 21:05, skrev J. J. Lodder:

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

Den 13.01.2025 06:07, skrev LaurenceClarkCrossen:

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

 
I interpreted this as that Einstein somehow had "fixed"
the predictions of GR to be in accordance with measurements
shown on some photographic plates.
 
In other words, LaurenceClarkCrossen claim that Einstein
knew what the GR prediction should be to be in accordance
with measurements.
 

>
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.

 
Here I meant "correct" as "in accordance with measurements".

I know. You are a naive empiricist. (unlike Einstein)

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.
 

 
I expressed myself a bit clumsy.
Of course Einstein gave the correct GR prediction.

And the point of it was (for Mercury also)
that there are no free parameters in the theory.

But nobody had at the time made any measurements,
so nobody knew if the predictions of GR would be in accordance
with measurements.

So it goes, with great new theories.
They make you look boldly where none has looked before.

Point being that  LaurenceClarkCrossen's claim that Einstein
had "cooked" the GR prediction is nonsense.

Of course.
Such 'cooking' would also be practically impossible.
It is not possible to measure the deflection directly.
One needs to measure several star positions in the field,
and do -a lot- of sine/cosine arithmetic.

It is not obvious how one should mismeasure many star positions
in order to arrive quantitatively at some desired result.
And, as said already, copies of the plates were distributed,
and others reproduced the measurements and computations.
A modern remeasurement, using more stars and computer power
also vindicated Eddington,

Jan