Re: Starlight deflection predicted by Newtonian mechanics?
- From: "oriel36" <geraldkelleher@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: 2 Jan 2007 11:24:41 -0800
Starboard wrote:
I have a book called Modern Times and in it (page two), it mentions
that in May of 1919, Eddington set out to test Einstein's theory of
gravity by measuring the amount of starlight deflection produced by the
Sun; measurements he took during the Solar eclipse. The book states
that if Einstein was correct, that Eddington would measure 1.745
arc/sec starlight deflection - twice the amount provided by Newtonian
mechanics.
Deflection by Newtonian mechanics? My layman mind didn't think that
Newtonian mechanics produced any deflection of light.
You are correct -
"But by an Argument taken from the Aequations of the times of the
Eclipses of Jupiter's Satellites, it seems that Light is propagated in
time, spending in its passage from the Sun to us about seven Minutes of
time: And therefore I have chosen to define Rays and Refractions in
such general terms as may agree to Light in both cases." Newton
Roemer used the noon Equation of Time correction to reduce the natural
day to the 24 hour day in order to express the appearance of Io using
civil time but his entire work is entirely geometric and based ,like
Kepler,on making orbital comparisons between an orbitally moving Earth
and in Romer's case Jupiter.The Equation of Light is therefore an
astronomical adjustment derived from expressing the difference between
the anomalous motion of Io and its real motion in terms of finite
radiation.
It is fine to discuss refraction and reflections in terms of optics and
light passing through different mediums but that is all it is.I wish
people would pick up on solar radiation locally from the point of view
of axial rotation instead of trying to make sense of the Newtonian
nonsense -
"Some inequalities of time may arise from the Excentricities of the
Orbs of the Satellites; [etc.]... But this inequality has no respect to
the position of the Earth, and in the three interior Satellites is
insensible, as I find by computation from the Theory of their Gravity.
"
You are right that Newton refers to normal refraction of light without
any reference to his ballistic agenda but then again he could equally
say the opposite and vandalise Western astronomy in the process and so
it is in his followers to this day.
Most people are astronomers by living by the daily cycle of axial
rotation and the temperature variations of the annual orbital
cycle.Unfortunately a group emerged that live by a celestial sphere and
that is and never will be the realm of astronomers and astronomy.Maybe
this year it will be different.
None the less, perhaps the answer lies in that Newton's formula
F=G*(m'm"/r^2)
can be expressed as
m'a=G*(m'm"/r^2)
in which case m' cancel out both sides leaving
a=G*(m'/r^2).
From this, I guess it lends that the acceleration of a falling objectis independent of it's mass (the old feather and the hammer
experiment). Which I further guess could be extended to light. Light
must fall....Right??? Is it as simple as that?
Errol
Pasnola
.
- References:
- Starlight deflection predicted by Newtonian mechanics?
- From: Starboard
- Starlight deflection predicted by Newtonian mechanics?
- Prev by Date: Re: I'm want to beat this XT-12 vs. Lightbridge-12 horse a little longer.
- Next by Date: Re: Celestron Advanced GT/Nexstar RS-232?
- Previous by thread: Re: Starlight deflection predicted by Newtonian mechanics?
- Next by thread: "Bailly" (Lunar Obs. Report)
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
