Re: Bending of light not well authenticated

On 2 May 2005 22:36:37 -0700, xxein@xxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:

>John C. Polasek wrote:
>> On 25 Apr 2005 14:15:05 -0700, xxein@xxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >John C. Polasek wrote:
>> >> On Mon, 25 Apr 2005 09:11:42 -0500, Tom Roberts
>> ><tjroberts@xxxxxxxxxx>
>> >> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >John C. Polasek wrote:
>> >> >> I have not been able to find a really satisfactory derivation
>of
>> >> >> general relativity's 1.75" bending of the sun's rays. Of 6
>> >indexed
>> >> >> citations in MWT Gravitation as pages 184, 431, 679, 1011,
>1069,
>> >> >> 1104, none can be considered complete nor verifiable.
>> >> >
>> >> >I don't know what you mean by that.
>> >> >
>> >> >In any case, the usual reference for such tests is (I'm sure this
>is
>> >
>> >> >discussed, but have not looked):
>> >> >
>> >> > Will, _Theory_and_Experiment_in_Gravitational_Physics_
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >Tom ROberts tjroberts@xxxxxxxxxx
>> >> I don't have Will's text. A google search did not find a
>mathematical
>> >> explanation for the 1.75" deflection. The MTW derivations are
>flimsy
>> >> enough to warrant a "show your work" note if submitted as
>homework.
>> >> There is not enough content to verify the mathematics nor gain any
>> >> insight. It seems as if most people think half the angle is due to
>> >the
>> >> particle/gravity motif.
>> >>
>> >> It is surprising to me that this derivation, which established GR,
>is
>> >> not widely available as a download.
>> >> The professional journals require an expensive subscription. As an
>> >APS
>> >> member I am permitted to look only at Phys Rev D, where the topics
>> >are
>> >> not useful, and whose sheer novelty hints broadly at a theory that
>is
>> >> now only encouraging dead ends.
>> >>
>> >> John Polasek
>> >> http://www.dualspace.net
>> >> Mr. Dual Space
>> >>
>> >> If you have something to say, write an equation.
>> >> If you have nothing to say, write an essay
>> >
>> >xxein: Consider that light slows in its path and thusly experiences
>> >more time in gravity than otherwise thought. It slows because, in
>> >gravity, c^2 = path (or orbit) velocity^2 + escape velocity^2.
>After
>> >all, R = 3M for the least (R) stable orbit wrt black holes.
>> >
>> >You can believe/like it or not, but the math should give you the
>> >correct result.
>> >
>> >Btw, I see that you are cited in an article that was cited here. I
>> >really liked that article as a possibility (for the most part).
>> >Congratulations.
>>
>> You cited my total energy equation (x2) Eq. 9 in the gravity paper,
>> but in any case, for Sun the escape velocity of 616,000 m/s yields a
>> decrement in c of only 635 m/s, a totally negligible effect of 1 part
>> in 472,000.
>>
>> John Polasek
>> http://www.dualspace.net
>> Mr. Dual Space
>>
>> If you have something to say, write an equation.
>> If you have nothing to say, write an essay
>
>xxein: Please forgive a late reply.
>
>1:472000 replies to what? That is merely an instantaneous comparison
>of the "forces" at work at exact perihelion. What about the cumulative
>effect throughout the path?
>
>Besides, I don't think that you understand the conclusions that you
>must draw from your own theory. One of which is that the path is
>anistropic wrt the perihelion. To this I can agree.
>
>There are many consideration to be taken when propounding a theory in
>physics. You have hit upon the hidden side, but cannot seem to
>connect. You need a lot more seasoning despite the fact that your dual
>space has gained a certain popularity with some (names). But
>popularity does not make physics real, it only fortifies a belief. We
>have had beliefs in physics that lasted for hundreds of years, only to
>be shitcanned by new facts of discovery. But not all discovery
>survives a current belief.
>
>What we most likely end up with is a theory that is laden with past
>belief, of which, the belief is unfounded in light of re-examination
>with today's tech. But that simply means that today's tech fails to
>break the belief barrier. 2 forward and 2+-.1 back. The belief
>barrier is formidable.

xx:
Your idea of spending more time in gravity means that you believe that
light must fall due to gravity. (I say it doesn't). Well even if it
falls in gravity, thus already forming a curved path, then spending a
bit more time would not have much effect.

But your argument applies directly to the Shapiro effect (1964) where
Shapiro predicted that light passing near the Sun owuld take longer
than away. (Bouncing radar off Mars 200 usec). But light slowing down
has never been featured in any part of early relativity from 1916 to
1964 that I know of.

Shapiro's finding was a surprise and for a while they tried to "make
it work" with the idea of bending, But quadrature action has always
nearly negligible effect, so they finally interpreted time dilation to
mean a slowing of c, even though c has never been a candidate for
adjustment in the Schwarzschild metric. (Cough, cough, in the
distance).

There is a cute graphic (google Shapiro effect) but they go too far
when they talk of redshift due to gravitation on the round trip.
Gravitational redshift is observed only for light originating in the
gravity well, not passing through. Frequency maintains its initial
value forever and, yes, there's some temporary lambda stretching on
the way, but it comes back neutral.

Incidentally, quadrature addition of earth velocity v and light c have
totally negligible effect as shown by failure of Michelson Morley
experiment. (See Fig. 7 in my gravity paper on the website).

John Polasek
http://www.dualspace.net
.

Loading