Re: Photon Mass, Measuring Distance, and Mercury's orbit

From: Bjoern Feuerbacher (feuerbac_at_thphys.uni-heidelberg.de)
Date: 07/23/04 

Date: Fri, 23 Jul 2004 11:34:30 +0200

Mike Helland wrote:
> Eric Gisse <fsegg@uaf.edu> wrote in message news:<kgu0g01jbetlpfv8fjiq8caaraf3b365r6@4ax.com>...
>
>
>>>In the list of predictions that confirm General Relativity there are:
>>>
>>>1. Gravitational lensing
>>>2. Gravitaitonal red***
>>>3. Mercury's orbit
>>>
>>>To make Newton's theory match the observed results of these
>>>experiments, isn't it simple enough to assign mass to a photon?
>>
>>No.
>>
>>Massed exchange particles have very limited range. EM interactions go
>>out to infinity as far as we can see.
>
>
> Not trying to change the subject here, but this is quite an ironic
> statement.
>
> Based on the assumption that EM interactions go out to infinity
> requires that we must also assume that the universe is finite in size
> and age (the Big Bang theory).

Err, no, that does not follow at all. Why do you think so?

[snip]

>>I see you seem to prefer Newton, but accept GR/SR predict things that
>>Newton can't. Why are you keeping Newtonian ideas close by when they
>>obviously do not work?
>
>
> Take a look at new ideas of space and time in physics. For example,
> from Julian Barbour, among others, change is primary and time is
> something we deduce from it.

Who is Julian Barbour?

> If this is true then a system with lots of change means that we have a
> system with lots of time.

I suspect that either Barbour did not know what he was talking about,
or that you misrepresent him here. This does not make much sense.

> To me this adequately describes time
> dilation without Relativity. I think the assumption that space-time is
> a background, fixed or unfixed, for phenomena is unnecessary and
> problematic and should be removed.

If you can reproduce all of GR's prediction without such a "background",
feel free to show your calculations.

[snip]

Bye,
Bjoern

Quantcast