Re: On Light bending

From: Harry (harald.vanlintel_at_epfl.ch)
Date: 11/02/04 

Date: Tue, 2 Nov 2004 10:18:30 +0100

"John C. Polasek" <jpolasek@cfl.rr.com> wrote in message
news:gnkco0hf417o2nv3edf189028ldnckvcqv@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 1 Nov 2004 13:47:24 +0100, "Harry" <harald.vanlintel@epfl.ch>
> wrote:
SNIP

> >Exactly, he sketched a Huygens construction with different local
propagation
> >times of two parts of the wave front, resulting in bending.
SNIP
> >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.

Of course, we are all aware of that. However:

> 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.

Some other references claim with Einstein that it's half due to "Newtonian
attraction" and "space curvature".
I'm not sure to find a 1-to-1 match between Huyghens bending on the one hand
and on the other hand Newtonian attraction or "space curvature" or now your
"coordinate space dilation"....
I find it a bit confusing, to which does the Huygens effect correspond, if
to any?

> 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?

Indeed, it's old relativity. Einstein's starting point in 1911 was:
(c1-c2) dt = - dc/dn * dt , with dc/dn partial diff. and -dn identical to
your dr.

Harald

Relevant Pages