Re: On Light bending
From: John C. Polasek (jpolasek_at_cfl.rr.com)
Date: 11/01/04
- Next message: Uncle Al: "Re: Invariant Galilean Transformations (FAQ) On All Laws"
- Previous message: Uncle Al: "Re: Unknown Functions & Einstein's Incompetence"
- In reply to: Harry: "Re: On Light bending"
- Next in thread: Bill Hobba: "Re: On Light bending"
- Reply: Bill Hobba: "Re: On Light bending"
- Reply: Harry: "Re: On Light bending"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Mon, 01 Nov 2004 15:29:53 GMT
On Mon, 1 Nov 2004 13:47:24 +0100, "Harry" <harald.vanlintel@epfl.ch>
wrote:
>
>"Randy M. Dumse" <rmd@newmicros.com> wrote in message
>news:khohd.119$QK5.3718@eagle.america.net...
>> "Harry" <harald.vanlintel@epfl.ch> wrote in message
>> news:4185f7ca$1@epflnews.epfl.ch...
>> > In the 1911 paper he didn't make the statement that light "falls" as a
>> > particle (which is erroneous), but to the contrary he used the
>> > Huyghens principle for wave bending, basing himself on decreased
>> > light speed near to the sun (and I can be sure because it's lying on
>> > my desk...).
>
>[Correction: it's maybe exaggerated to state, as I did, that the "falling"
>view is erroneous, but IMO it's an inaccurate and possibly misleading
>description.]
>
>> That's pretty fascinating, Harald. I readily admit I have not read this
>> paper, nor many of the period between the introduction of SR and the
>> conclusion with GR. I have relied on the word of others, and the
>> inference from his comments in Relativity (and I beleive at least one
>> other similar statement, iirc) about "half 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".
>
>Indeed, I have seen that quoted too from Einstein's later work, but it's not
>in contradiction with the above.
>With the Huyghens principle, the gravitational field gradient causes the
>light bending towards the sun.
>
>> If he used Huyghens principle, then he found the "time" portion of the
>> deflection first, as you suggest
>
>Exactly, he sketched a Huygens construction with different local propagation
>times of two parts of the wave front, resulting in bending.
>But he drew the gravitational field as a straight line.
>
>> (which quite puts "on its ear" the
>> verbal descriptions of the matter I've been taught). In his paper, does
>> he say anything about his motivation?
>
>Oh yes, it was a logical consequence from his equation that light speed is a
>function of gravitational potential (height).
>And he simply stated that the same differential equation can be found using
>the equivalence principle.
>
>Harald
>
The Huyghens refractive effect will only give half the deviation. The
other half comes from coordinate space dilation. It is the same double
effect required to get the advance in the perihelion. And this comes
from using both terms of the Schwarzschild metric.
A Newtonian drop would imply that energy as well as mass are affected
by gravity, which I believe needs to be abandoned as a tenet of
relativity.
Doesn't the derivation from the Huyghens effect require you to employ
an expression for a gradient dc/dr? Would that be new relativity?
If you have something to say, write an equation.
If you have nothing to say, write an essay
- Next message: Uncle Al: "Re: Invariant Galilean Transformations (FAQ) On All Laws"
- Previous message: Uncle Al: "Re: Unknown Functions & Einstein's Incompetence"
- In reply to: Harry: "Re: On Light bending"
- Next in thread: Bill Hobba: "Re: On Light bending"
- Reply: Bill Hobba: "Re: On Light bending"
- Reply: Harry: "Re: On Light bending"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
