Den 14.01.2025 01:21, skrev LaurenceClarkCrossen:
On Mon, 13 Jan 2025 18:54:29 +0000, Paul.B.Andersen wrote:
Den 13.01.2025 06:07, skrev LaurenceClarkCrossen:
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
>
Why don't you read what you are responding to ?
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.
This is Poor's statement:
"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"
Poor is _obviously_ referring to Einstein's equation in his
1916 paper "The Foundation of the General Theory of Relativity"
This is the equation: Θ = 4GM/Δ⋅c²
This is what Paul says about Poor's statement:
'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".'
Poor's statement isn't ridiculous at all.
Yes, Poor shows he used a refraction formula.
But this statement of yours is indeed ridiculous.
From whence have you got the idiotic idea that the equation
Θ = 4GM/Δ⋅c² is a "refraction formula"?
It is a gravitational deflection formula.
"refraction" is the phenomenon that light is bent when it passes
through a medium with varying density (air, water, glass).
"gravitational deflection" is the phenomenon that light is bent
when in passes a gravitating mass.
Since both are about bending of light beams, both
"refraction formulas" and "gravitational deflection formulas"
can be called "formulas of physical optics".
But it doesn't matter what you call the equation.
It is a _fact_ that GR predicts that the gravitational deflection
of EM-radiation is Θ = 4GM/Δ⋅c².
GR's prediction for the gravitational deflection of EM-radiation
is now so thoroughly experimentally confirmed that you have to be
extremely ignorant not to accept it.
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.
Your opinion of GR is irrelevant.
Only experimental evidence can falsify a theory.
Experiments have shown that GR correctly predicts how light
is gravitational deflected.
So gravitational deflection does not falsify GR,
and thus confirms GR.
It doesn't prove GR, though. Theories of physics can't be proved.
Mercury's
perihelion of relativity is based on the assumption that gravity can be
treated as electromagnetism.
Nonsense!
GR predicts that if the Sun and Mercury were the only bodies in
the universe, then the perihelion advance of Mercury would be:
42.98"/century (at Epoch J2000)
"Electromagnetism" has nothing to do with it.
It is gravitation only.
See 3.2 in:
https://paulba.no/pdf/GRPerihelionAdvance.pdfAccording to Britannica, this is now known
to be false because the unified field theory "failed."
Britannica does certainly not say that GR's prediction
for the perihelion advance of Mercury is false.
Quite the contrary!
That Einstein failed to make "the unified field theory"
is common knowledge. (Nobody has succeeded.)
Galileo and
Eotvos showed everything, regardless of the mass or the substance, is
affected the same by gravity. Relativity has not disproved that.
Quite right.
According to SR/GR, gravitational mass is the same as inertial mass.
What was your point?
The
velocity of both waves and particles includes the relative velocity of
the observer, yet relativity irrationally denies this—pure lunacy.
What are you trying to say?
Do you mean that the velocity of a wave or particle relative to
the observer includes the velocity of the observer?
Please explain.
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.'"
How confused is it possible to be? :-D
So you claim that according to Einstein, the equivalence principle
is that a clock which is stationary in a gravitational field
is affected the same way as a free falling clock!
(None of the clocks are affected in any way, they tick at their
normal rate.)
--------------------
Please answer the following question:
You are in a room.
In the middle of the room an accelerometer is hanging in a string
from the ceiling.
You see the accelerometer shows 1 g acceleration towards the ceiling.
Is the room accelerating at 1 g far from the Earth and other
gravitating masses, or is it stationary on the ground?
You have ignored the question before.
Will you do it again?
Why?
-- Paulhttps://paulba.no/
Newton: Photon falling from h meters increase its energy.
Re: Newton: Photon falling from h meters increase its energy.