| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Y.Porat
Guest
|
 Posted: Tue Oct 21, 2008 7:00 am Post subject: Re: how does light (photon) escapes sun>s gravity? |
 |
|
On Oct 20, 2:16 pm, RP <no_mail_no_s...@yahoo.com> wrote:
[quote]Y.Porat wrote:
On Oct 20, 5:18am, RP
The Airy pattern found in what should be a shadow, is it
gravity that causes the beam to bend?
yes
So a penny with an Airy pattern formed behind it has a stronger
gravitational field than the Sun?
[/quote]
did i say that ??
--------
[quote]
FWIW, general relativity predicts a curvature of light twice as great
as that of a massive particle. So trying to attribute the bending of
light rays by the Sun to the mass of photons isn>t even correct in the
context of general relativity.
[/quote]
1 why told you that GR is right ??
2
justy stick it to your mind for once and for all that
THE PHOTON IS A SPECIAL **LIMIT **CASE!!**
soyou cant calculate its forces
or forces on it
with your old tools
IT NEEDS NEW TOOLOS AND NEW CALCULATIONS
GR people are lying is they clame that they did it by pure theory
they did it by adjustin the theory to the experimantal data !!
-----------
[quote]Also, refraction in a lense is due to interference effects.
interfeerance is a j abstarct say[/quote]
you have to be more specific
--------
The
[quote]inertia of electrons is involved, but there is no gratational light
bending involved.
????[/quote]
Different paths through the lense involve
[quote]differences in time lags, which are in turn due to absorpt/emission,
or IOW, the image formed by the lense is due to superposition of
seconary waves and constructive/destvuctive interference between
them,
[/quote]
so how is that proving
no mass to photons
i would say ir proves the opposite.
---------
exactly as I described in the last post. This is also the
[quote]mechanism for diffraction (double slit) .
[/quote]
----------------------
ATB
Y.Porat
------------------- |
|
| |
|
 Back to top |
Koobee Wublee
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 21, 2008 7:13 am Post subject: Re: how does light (photon) escapes sun>s gravity? |
|
|
On Oct 16, 6:41 am, Eric Gisse <jowr...@gmail.com> wrote:
[quote]On Oct 15, 10:42 pm, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...@gmail.com> wrote:
yet dont forget that the photon DEVIATES while passing
next to the sun
and it is because
THE PHOTON HAS MASS! (and attracted by suns gravitation)
2
Why does GR get the correct answer even though it assumes a massless
photon?
[/quote]
The 1919 expedition/experiment of solar eclipse carried out by
Eddington was flawed right from the very start. Since then, there
have been no credible experiments done to prove the twice-the-
Newtonian result in deflection of photons.
The Shapiro effect in photo delay is a very separate phenomenon. Try
not to confuse gravitational deflection and gravitational delay.
<shrug> |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Eric Gisse
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 21, 2008 7:28 am Post subject: Re: how does light (photon) escapes sun>s gravity? |
|
|
On Oct 20, 11:13 pm, Koobee Wublee <koobee.wub...@gmail.com> wrote:
[quote]On Oct 16, 6:41 am, Eric Gisse <jowr...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Oct 15, 10:42 pm, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...@gmail.com> wrote:
yet dont forget that the photon DEVIATES while passing
next to the sun
and it is because
THE PHOTON HAS MASS! (and attracted by suns gravitation)
2
Why does GR get the correct answer even though it assumes a massless
photon?
The 1919 expedition/experiment of solar eclipse carried out by
Eddington was flawed right from the very start. Since then, there
have been no credible experiments done to prove the twice-the-
Newtonian result in deflection of photons.
[/quote]
Note the word "credible". You acknowledge that there are observations,
but you don>t accept their validity.
This is why you are a crank.
[quote]
The Shapiro effect in photo delay is a very separate phenomenon. Try
not to confuse gravitational deflection and gravitational delay.
shrug[/quote] |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Y.Porat
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 24, 2008 6:01 pm Post subject: Re: how does light (photon) escapes sun>s gravity? |
|
|
On Oct 24, 2:50 pm, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
[quote]On Oct 24, 3:40 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Oct 23, 4:28 pm, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Oct 23, 2:28 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Oct 22, 3:05 pm, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Oct 22, 2:23 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Oct 21, 6:54 pm, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Oct 21, 9:57 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Oct 21, 2:14 pm, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Oct 21, 2:13 am, Koobee Wublee <koobee.wub...@gmail.com> wrote:
GR didnt predict it
it was fitting experimental data
to that theory
by trial and error
No sir. No other value could have come out of GR. There was no fitting
involved.
----------------
no fittings ??? (:-)
That>s right. It>s one of the remarkable things about a good physical
theory is that it can start with a simple abstract principle or two
and turn those into quantitatively accurate predictions without
fitting.
--------------------
ok it i svery good that you understood that those 'calculatio0nsand
wonderful
results area at the end of the day a trial and error process
i cal it fitting in
and if we do fitting in we can do it with the Newtonian physics !!
and that is why i started to take 'your' calculations
(weknow that it is not exactly 'your' (:-))
and check them one by one
and btw
thoug our discussion seems like a personal wratting
i think it is very important and interesting
and may will be unprecedented
and this discussion between us raises in my mind questions
that i never before bothers to thing about
and may be no one else as well ??or at least
not published.
so
i would lake to take the imput of 'your calculations
and examine it one by one :
---------------
1
i was asking
waht is that 'mass of the photon' in that 'Newtonian calculation'
that was leadid to a mistake of 200 %???
hoe could those experimentalsts know waht was 'mass'
of that tested photon that was curving next sun??
In Newtonian physics, the path of an object in a gravitational field
is independent of its mass, and so setting the mass is simply not
required. The orbital path of a small stone and a moon, at the same
position and velocity, are identical in Newtonian physics. I>m shocked
that you did not know this.
---------------------
do you want to tell me that if a small astroid
will pass next earth with velocity v
and a big astroid will pass next to earth with velocity v
at the same distance from earth
their **curvature** next earth will be the same ??
Yes, indeed. This is what allows a 2 million kilogram Space Shuttle
stay in the same orbit as a 295 kg recon satellite. I>m shocked you
did not know this.
--------------------[/quote]
-no Sir we are talking about a mass
PASSING NEXT TO EARTH
not orbiting around it !!!
------------
[quote]
is it compatible even with 'your' GR ??
we are not talking bout ORBITING
we are talking about PASSING NEXT !!!
(i must admitt i even ddint think about it
it was intuitive to me even without 'thinking' about the details )
so??
the kinetic energy of a small mass
is not like that of a big mass
and for instance the resistance
in air of a big mass is not as that of a small one !!
-------------
2
waht was the distance according that 'Newtonian calculation'
that was taken into acound
ie distance between 'earths mass' and t eh[assing photon ??
There was a sample of many different ranges. And the gravitating
object was the sun, not the Earth, in the Eddington experiment. In
subsequent experiments, other gravitating bodies were used. You are
welcome to look up the details of the experiments yourself, rather
than asking them to be spoon-fed to you here. That is not
unreasonable, and it is the required practice of anyone working in
physics.
-----------------------
did **you** followed all those detailes and checked them
Yes, I>ve read all but two of the write-ups of the follow-up
experiments. I did exactly what I expect of you -- I went to the
library, I looked them up, I read them, I checked the work. This is
required of researchers.
----------------
i dont have alibrary[/quote]
i have at most the internet
---------------
and you answered no one my questions:
how many experiments to determine
the curvature next sun wwere done?
as far as i remember it needs spacial conditions like
finding a palce in which moon is screening sun
how do you call it eclipse ??
you dont get eclipses every day
and not at the same spot
from one such event to the next case
a lot of data is changing
so how do you make a smaple of it?
and it still remains a sample with
different results .
so the nice exact figures you quoted are :
'The bride is too beautiful' !!!
2
there are differences of air densities themperatures
diatances between earth and sun
3
the moon is in between
how is the mass of mone is counted
in all those cases( samples)
4
the conditions on sun are different
5
what are the wave lengths of photons?
6
and if a was an expert i could name much more
problems for accuracy
7
did you see my prove that the photon energy has mass??
in E=hf ??
how how do reconcile GR with photon having mass??
while Gr claimes photon does not have mass
8
the big fas at 1929 was not the exact curvature
calculations
(because they could not have the many samples a that days)
the big fass was hy the very 'fact* that they found light
curving next sun
because the parroting convention then was
that the photon has no mass
so the very fact that they found curvature
next sun was a 'sensation'
the solid paradigm at that time was that
the photon is massls
yet
no one (of the 'establishment' )coud imagine
the terrible simple notion that
*the photon is curving next sun
just because it has mass !!!!**
sono ne
and no one could not do a 'Newtonian' calculation
of mass curvature
because even now
the "Newtonian calculation is too complex
if you what to stick to reality !!
and i add to it:
dont do the 'clasical' newtonian calculation
we ahve to do a revised calculation like that
for instance
not to take the suns mass as concentrated in a point
but spread as it is in reality
iand that is far complicated
and to add yo it the moon mass and its location
etc etc
no one ever did it
because it was taken for granted that
there is no need for it
and last but not least
do you know good enough about the photon
properties
to be able to make predictions while
even hypothetically it has mass !!???
TIA
Y.Porat
----------------
[quote]or you are just crackparroting??
you talk about spoon feeding me
but i am sure you have to spoon feed yourself first !!
(i still refrain from saying that you are cheating !!!)
so it was a sample of MANY cases
what was the error margine of those cases??
do you know ar you are **blindly giving credit
and cracPARROTING ???
------------
and what was the exact distance of that photon from earth
was it abov sea ?? was it above some mountains
was it between the center of earth?
or may be was it between that photon and the face of the
iron core of earth??
or the distance to earths upper crust ??
what was the difraction inside air
waht was the temperature of aire there ??
and i guess we caould ask some other questions that are not yet in my
mind
or may be they ddint use (for the 'Newtonian calculation)
any mass at all fo r the photon??
and as a result concluded that there is no mass ?? (:-)
so please answer my questions
and i will answer yours
you asked if the very few percent between calculated and measured
is good enough for me/
I asked if it constituted 100% agreement scientifically. Yes or no?
my unswer is YES!!
((BUT !! a big 'but'!!)
that 'but' is in my above questions
and now it is your turn to answer those questions
and see if the error margins can be as you indicated !!
-----------------
so ????
----------
(do you know that in our village there is a say:
'THE BRIDE IS TOO BEAUTIFUL' ............. (:-)
TIA
Y.Porat
------------------------[/quote] |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
PD
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 24, 2008 7:42 pm Post subject: Re: how does light (photon) escapes sun>s gravity? |
|
|
On Oct 24, 1:11 pm, Dave Typinski <nos...@nospam.net> wrote:
[quote]On Fri, 24 Oct 2008 05:50:57 -0700 (PDT), PD
TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Oct 24, 3:40 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...@gmail.com> wrote:
[snip]
do you want to tell me that if a small astroid
will pass next earth with velocity v
and a big astroid will pass next to earth with velocity v
at the same distance from earth
their **curvature** next earth will be the same ??
Yes, indeed. This is what allows a 2 million kilogram Space Shuttle
stay in the same orbit as a 295 kg recon satellite.
=80
That>s gonna need one heck of a launch vehicle!
While your example holds, note that the shuttle is 2 million kg on the
launch pad; only about 4% of that mass ends up in orbit. With its
three main engines installed, the airframe mass of the shuttle is
about 77,000 kg.
--
Dave Typinski
[/quote]
Thanks for the correction! So noted. |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
RustyJames
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 24, 2008 7:53 pm Post subject: Re: how does light (photon) escapes sun>s gravity? |
|
|
On Oct 24, 12:42 pm, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
[quote]On Oct 24, 1:11 pm, Dave Typinski <nos...@nospam.net> wrote:
On Fri, 24 Oct 2008 05:50:57 -0700 (PDT), PD
TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Oct 24, 3:40 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...@gmail.com> wrote:
[snip]
do you want to tell me that if a small astroid
will pass next earth with velocity v
and a big astroid will pass next to earth with velocity v
at the same distance from earth
their **curvature** next earth will be the same ??
Yes, indeed. This is what allows a 2 million kilogram Space Shuttle
stay in the same orbit as a 295 kg recon satellite.
=80
That>s gonna need one heck of a launch vehicle!
While your example holds, note that the shuttle is 2 million kg on the
launch pad; only about 4% of that mass ends up in orbit. With its
three main engines installed, the airframe mass of the shuttle is
about 77,000 kg.
--
Dave Typinski
Thanks for the correction! So noted.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
[/quote]
we are not talking bout ORBITING
we are talking about PASSING NEXT !!!
(i must admitt i even ddint think about it
it was intuitive to me even without 'thinking' about the details )
so??
all trajectorys are in orbit around some form of gravations so we are
talking about orbiting as eliptical as they my be unless their
trajectory is halted even were ever they stop or change their sill in
an orbit if you think about it can you give me a senario where their
not I would like to correct my path of thinking if so |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
PD
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 24, 2008 7:54 pm Post subject: Re: how does light (photon) escapes sun>s gravity? |
|
|
On Oct 24, 1:01 pm, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...@gmail.com> wrote:
[quote]On Oct 24, 2:50 pm, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Oct 24, 3:40 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Oct 23, 4:28 pm, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Oct 23, 2:28 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Oct 22, 3:05 pm, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Oct 22, 2:23 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Oct 21, 6:54 pm, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Oct 21, 9:57 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Oct 21, 2:14 pm, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Oct 21, 2:13 am, Koobee Wublee <koobee.wub...@gmail.com> wrote:
GR didnt predict it
it was fitting experimental data
to that theory
by trial and error
No sir. No other value could have come out of GR. There was no fitting
involved.
----------------
no fittings ??? (:-)
That>s right. It>s one of the remarkable things about a good physical
theory is that it can start with a simple abstract principle or two
and turn those into quantitatively accurate predictions without
fitting.
--------------------
ok it i svery good that you understood that those 'calculatio0nsand
wonderful
results area at the end of the day a trial and error process
i cal it fitting in
and if we do fitting in we can do it with the Newtonian physics !!
and that is why i started to take 'your' calculations
(weknow that it is not exactly 'your' (:-))
and check them one by one
and btw
thoug our discussion seems like a personal wratting
i think it is very important and interesting
and may will be unprecedented
and this discussion between us raises in my mind questions
that i never before bothers to thing about
and may be no one else as well ??or at least
not published.
so
i would lake to take the imput of 'your calculations
and examine it one by one :
---------------
1
i was asking
waht is that 'mass of the photon' in that 'Newtonian calculation'
that was leadid to a mistake of 200 %???
hoe could those experimentalsts know waht was 'mass'
of that tested photon that was curving next sun??
In Newtonian physics, the path of an object in a gravitational field
is independent of its mass, and so setting the mass is simply not
required. The orbital path of a small stone and a moon, at the same
position and velocity, are identical in Newtonian physics. I>m shocked
that you did not know this.
---------------------
do you want to tell me that if a small astroid
will pass next earth with velocity v
and a big astroid will pass next to earth with velocity v
at the same distance from earth
their **curvature** next earth will be the same ??
Yes, indeed. This is what allows a 2 million kilogram Space Shuttle
stay in the same orbit as a 295 kg recon satellite. I>m shocked you
did not know this.
--------------------
-no Sir we are talking about a mass
PASSING NEXT TO EARTH
not orbiting around it !!!
[/quote]
Same force of gravity at work. Newtonian gravity predicts all sorts of
conic section trajectories, including ellipses, circles and passing-
near hyperbolas. Same statement holds. I>m shocked you don>t know this
either.
[quote]------------
is it compatible even with 'your' GR ??
we are not talking bout ORBITING
we are talking about PASSING NEXT !!!
(i must admitt i even ddint think about it
it was intuitive to me even without 'thinking' about the details )
so??
the kinetic energy of a small mass
is not like that of a big mass
and for instance the resistance
in air of a big mass is not as that of a small one !!
-------------
2
waht was the distance according that 'Newtonian calculation'
that was taken into acound
ie distance between 'earths mass' and t eh[assing photon ??
There was a sample of many different ranges. And the gravitating
object was the sun, not the Earth, in the Eddington experiment. In
subsequent experiments, other gravitating bodies were used. You are
welcome to look up the details of the experiments yourself, rather
than asking them to be spoon-fed to you here. That is not
unreasonable, and it is the required practice of anyone working in
physics.
-----------------------
did **you** followed all those detailes and checked them
Yes, I>ve read all but two of the write-ups of the follow-up
experiments. I did exactly what I expect of you -- I went to the
library, I looked them up, I read them, I checked the work. This is
required of researchers.
----------------
i dont have alibrary
i have at most the internet
[/quote]
That>s still serviceable but you>ll likely have to pay a fee for
access to some articles.
Effort to travel to a library, or cost to pay for access on the
internet -- your choice.
No one is obligated to mine it for you and then spoonfeed it to you
for free.
[quote]---------------
and you answered no one my questions:
how many experiments to determine
the curvature next sun wwere done?
[/quote]
I know of at least seven.
[quote]
as far as i remember it needs spacial conditions like
finding a palce in which moon is screening sun
how do you call it eclipse ??
[/quote]
No you don>t need that. It was used by Eddington but there are other
methods available to accomplish the same purpose.
[quote]you dont get eclipses every day
and not at the same spot
from one such event to the next case
a lot of data is changing
so how do you make a smaple of it?
and it still remains a sample with
different results .
so the nice exact figures you quoted are :
'The bride is too beautiful' !!!
2
there are differences of air densities themperatures
diatances between earth and sun
[/quote]
That>s correct, and those are either corrected for (by determining the
size of their effect by other means) or included in the experimental
error. In the experiments mentioned, the experimental error is known
to be small compared to the measured effect. Science is a
*quantitative* business. All of these things you are fretting about
have *numerical sizes* attached to them. It is the business of the
experimenter to determine what those numerical sizes of these effects
are. That>s why experimental results are quoted both with a signal
value and a value of the experimental error -- there is considerable
work and attention devoted to getting at both. I>m even more stunned
that you do not know this -- when I was a student and how I taught
students, this was an essential skill practiced even by beginners. Did
you never take a freshman science class where this was taught?
[quote]
3
the moon is in between
how is the mass of mone is counted
in all those cases( samples)
[/quote]
That is included in the calculations. Read the papers.
[quote]4
the conditions on sun are different
[/quote]
The size of the effect of those variations is included in the quoted
errors. Read the papers.
[quote]5
what are the wave lengths of photons?
[/quote]
Those are quoted in the papers. Read the papers.
[quote]
6
and if a was an expert i could name much more
problems for accuracy
[/quote]
You have this notion that no experimental result is believable because
you can think of a zillion factors that might confound the results. It
is the business of the experimenter to catalog all those factors and
estimate the size of those effects on the experimental result. That>s
what>s done in producing a number for the experimental error. You are
saying that you do not believe any quoted experimental error because
you can think of factors that you>re not sure have been accounted for.
If you want to know the size of the factors accounted for, then READ
THE PAPERS for yourself.
[quote]
7
did you see my prove that the photon energy has mass??
in E=hf ??
how how do reconcile GR with photon having mass??
while Gr claimes photon does not have mass
8
the big fas at 1929 was not the exact curvature
calculations
(because they could not have the many samples a that days)
the big fass was hy the very 'fact* that they found light
curving next sun
because the parroting convention then was
that the photon has no mass
so the very fact that they found curvature
next sun was a 'sensation'
the solid paradigm at that time was that
the photon is massls
yet
no one (of the 'establishment' )coud imagine
the terrible simple notion that
*the photon is curving next sun
just because it has mass !!!!**
sono ne
and no one could not do a 'Newtonian' calculation
of mass curvature
because even now
the "Newtonian calculation is too complex
if you what to stick to reality !!
and i add to it:
dont do the 'clasical' newtonian calculation
we ahve to do a revised calculation like that
for instance
not to take the suns mass as concentrated in a point
but spread as it is in reality
iand that is far complicated
and to add yo it the moon mass and its location
etc etc
no one ever did it
because it was taken for granted that
there is no need for it
and last but not least
do you know good enough about the photon
properties
to be able to make predictions while
even hypothetically it has mass !!???
TIA
Y.Porat
----------------
or you are just crackparroting??
you talk about spoon feeding me
but i am sure you have to spoon feed yourself first !!
(i still refrain from saying that you are cheating !!!)
so it was a sample of MANY cases
what was the error margine of those cases??
do you know ar you are **blindly giving credit
and cracPARROTING ???
------------
and what was the exact distance of that photon from earth
was it abov sea ?? was it above some mountains
was it between the center of earth?
or may be was it between that photon and the face of the
iron core of earth??
or the distance to earths upper crust ??
what was the difraction inside air
waht was the temperature of aire there ??
and i guess we caould ask some other questions that are not yet in my
mind
or may be they ddint use (for the 'Newtonian calculation)
any mass at all fo r the photon??
and as a result concluded that there is no mass ?? (:-)
so please answer my questions
and i will answer yours
you asked if the very few percent between calculated and measured
is good enough for me/
I asked if it constituted 100% agreement scientifically. Yes or no?
my unswer is YES!!
((BUT !! a big 'but'!!)
that 'but' is in my above questions
and now it is your turn to answer those questions
and see if the error margins can be as you indicated !!
-----------------
so ????
----------
(do you know that in our village there is a say:
'THE BRIDE IS TOO BEAUTIFUL' ............. (:-)
TIA
Y.Porat
------------------------[/quote] |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Dave Typinski
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 24, 2008 11:11 pm Post subject: Re: how does light (photon) escapes sun>s gravity? |
|
|
On Fri, 24 Oct 2008 05:50:57 -0700 (PDT), PD
<TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> wrote:
[quote]
On Oct 24, 3:40 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...@gmail.com> wrote:
[snip]
do you want to tell me that if a small astroid
will pass next earth with velocity v
and a big astroid will pass next to earth with velocity v
at the same distance from earth
their **curvature** next earth will be the same ??
Yes, indeed. This is what allows a 2 million kilogram Space Shuttle
stay in the same orbit as a 295 kg recon satellite.
[/quote]
=80
That>s gonna need one heck of a launch vehicle!
While your example holds, note that the shuttle is 2 million kg on the
launch pad; only about 4% of that mass ends up in orbit. With its
three main engines installed, the airframe mass of the shuttle is
about 77,000 kg.
--
Dave Typinski |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Y.Porat
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 25, 2008 4:49 am Post subject: Re: how does light (photon) escapes sun>s gravity? |
|
|
On Oct 24, 9:54 pm, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
[quote]On Oct 24, 1:01 pm, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Oct 24, 2:50 pm, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Oct 24, 3:40 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Oct 23, 4:28 pm, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Oct 23, 2:28 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Oct 22, 3:05 pm, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Oct 22, 2:23 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Oct 21, 6:54 pm, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Oct 21, 9:57 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Oct 21, 2:14 pm, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Oct 21, 2:13 am, Koobee Wublee <koobee.wub...@gmail.com> wrote:
GR didnt predict it
it was fitting experimental data
to that theory
by trial and error
No sir. No other value could have come out of GR. There was no fitting
involved.
----------------
no fittings ??? (:-)
That>s right. It>s one of the remarkable things about a good physical
theory is that it can start with a simple abstract principle or two
and turn those into quantitatively accurate predictions without
fitting.
--------------------
ok it i svery good that you understood that those 'calculatio0nsand
wonderful
results area at the end of the day a trial and error process
i cal it fitting in
and if we do fitting in we can do it with the Newtonian physics !!
and that is why i started to take 'your' calculations
(weknow that it is not exactly 'your' (:-))
and check them one by one
and btw
thoug our discussion seems like a personal wratting
i think it is very important and interesting
and may will be unprecedented
and this discussion between us raises in my mind questions
that i never before bothers to thing about
and may be no one else as well ??or at least
not published.
so
i would lake to take the imput of 'your calculations
and examine it one by one :
---------------
1
i was asking
waht is that 'mass of the photon' in that 'Newtonian calculation'
that was leadid to a mistake of 200 %???
hoe could those experimentalsts know waht was 'mass'
of that tested photon that was curving next sun??
In Newtonian physics, the path of an object in a gravitational field
is independent of its mass, and so setting the mass is simply not
required. The orbital path of a small stone and a moon, at the same
position and velocity, are identical in Newtonian physics. I>m shocked
that you did not know this.
---------------------
do you want to tell me that if a small astroid
will pass next earth with velocity v
and a big astroid will pass next to earth with velocity v
at the same distance from earth
their **curvature** next earth will be the same ??
Yes, indeed. This is what allows a 2 million kilogram Space Shuttle
stay in the same orbit as a 295 kg recon satellite. I>m shocked you
did not know this.
--------------------
-no Sir we are talking about a mass
PASSING NEXT TO EARTH
not orbiting around it !!!
Same force of gravity at work. Newtonian gravity predicts all sorts of
conic section trajectories, including ellipses, circles and passing-
near hyperbolas. Same statement holds. I>m shocked you don>t know this
either.
------------
is it compatible even with 'your' GR ??
we are not talking bout ORBITING
we are talking about PASSING NEXT !!!
(i must admitt i even ddint think about it
it was intuitive to me even without 'thinking' about the details )
so??
the kinetic energy of a small mass
is not like that of a big mass
and for instance the resistance
in air of a big mass is not as that of a small one !!
-------------
2
waht was the distance according that 'Newtonian calculation'
that was taken into acound
ie distance between 'earths mass' and t eh[assing photon ??
There was a sample of many different ranges. And the gravitating
object was the sun, not the Earth, in the Eddington experiment. In
subsequent experiments, other gravitating bodies were used. You are
welcome to look up the details of the experiments yourself, rather
than asking them to be spoon-fed to you here. That is not
unreasonable, and it is the required practice of anyone working in
physics.
-----------------------
did **you** followed all those detailes and checked them
Yes, I>ve read all but two of the write-ups of the follow-up
experiments. I did exactly what I expect of you -- I went to the
library, I looked them up, I read them, I checked the work. This is
required of researchers.
----------------
i dont have alibrary
i have at most the internet
That>s still serviceable but you>ll likely have to pay a fee for
access to some articles.
Effort to travel to a library, or cost to pay for access on the
internet -- your choice.
No one is obligated to mine it for you and then spoonfeed it to you
for free.
---------------
and you answered no one my questions:
how many experiments to determine
the curvature next sun wwere done?
I know of at least seven.
as far as i remember it needs spacial conditions like
finding a palce in which moon is screening sun
how do you call it eclipse ??
No you don>t need that. It was used by Eddington but there are other
methods available to accomplish the same purpose.
you dont get eclipses every day
and not at the same spot
from one such event to the next case
a lot of data is changing
so how do you make a smaple of it?
and it still remains a sample with
different results .
so the nice exact figures you quoted are :
'The bride is too beautiful' !!!
2
there are differences of air densities themperatures
diatances between earth and sun
That>s correct, and those are either corrected for (by determining the
size of their effect by other means) or included in the experimental
error. In the experiments mentioned, the experimental error is known
to be small compared to the measured effect. Science is a
*quantitative* business. All of these things you are fretting about
have *numerical sizes* attached to them. It is the business of the
experimenter to determine what those numerical sizes of these effects
are. That>s why experimental results are quoted both with a signal
value and a value of the experimental error -- there is considerable
work and attention devoted to getting at both. I>m even more stunned
that you do not know this -- when I was a student and how I taught
students, this was an essential skill practiced even by beginners. Did
you never take a freshman science class where this was taught?
3
the moon is in between
how is the mass of mone is counted
in all those cases( samples)
That is included in the calculations. Read the papers.
4
the conditions on sun are different
The size of the effect of those variations is included in the quoted
errors. Read the papers.
5
what are the wave lengths of photons?
Those are quoted in the papers. Read the papers.
6
and if a was an expert i could name much more
problems for accuracy
You have this notion that no experimental result is believable because
you can think of a zillion factors that might confound the results. It
is the business of the experimenter to catalog all those factors and
estimate the size of those effects on the experimental result. That>s
what>s done in producing a number for the experimental error. You are
saying that you do not believe any quoted experimental error because
you can think of factors that you>re not sure have been accounted for.
If you want to know the size of the factors accounted for, then READ
THE PAPERS for yourself.
7
did you see my prove that the photon energy has mass??
in E=hf ??
how how do reconcile GR with photon having mass??
while Gr claimes photon does not have mass
8
the big fas at 1929 was not the exact curvature
calculations
(because they could not have the many samples a that days)
the big fass was hy the very 'fact* that they found light
curving next sun
because the parroting convention then was
that the photon has no mass
so the very fact that they found curvature
next sun was a 'sensation'
the solid paradigm at that time was that
the photon is massls
yet
no one (of the 'establishment' )coud imagine
the terrible simple notion that
*the photon is curving next sun
just because it has mass !!!!**
sono ne
and no one could not do a 'Newtonian' calculation
of mass curvature
because even now
the "Newtonian calculation is too complex
if you what to stick to reality !!
and i add to it:
dont do the 'clasical' newtonian calculation
we ahve to do a revised calculation like that
for instance
not to take the suns mass as concentrated in a point
but spread as it is in reality
iand that is far complicated
and to add yo it the moon mass and its location
etc etc
no one ever did it
because it was taken for granted that
there is no need for it
and last but not least
do you know good enough about the photon
properties
to be able to make predictions while
even hypothetically it has mass !!???
TIA
Y.Porat
----------------
or
...
read more »- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
[/quote]
-----------------
Mr PD
you can hand wave your hands
all day and night
**but what can you do if there is a mathematiccal prove that
THE PHOTON HAS MASS!!
it is hidden in the
E=hf
I CANT SPOON FEED YOU HUMDREDS
OF TIMES TO MAKE YOU UNDERSTAND IT
and teach you how a physics formula
is created built and used !!!
it is a mathematical prove !!!!
so you can twist and hand wave
but you have to take it as a mathematical prove
not a twisted 'experimental observation
that is involved in** hundreds** of
field ' factors including in it
so you will have no choice
but to addapt youself to
'photon having mass***
and just telling you
what a crackparroter you are
if you come by hook and croook
to the 'rersult of''
'photon does not have mass'!!
which is in contradiction to the super
experimental fact that
E=hf !!!!
so now fold up your sleeves
(you or others )
and find a way to prove it experimentally!!
that curvature of light next to the sun is
BECAUSE THE PHOTON HAS MASS!!
'no mass no real physics !!'
you will realize that iron rule
soon at the LHC while trying to find
the Higgs bosons *and a like **
and satrt some new good useful physics
ATB
Y.Porat
---------------- |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Y.Porat
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 25, 2008 9:30 am Post subject: Re: how does light (photon) escapes sun>s gravity? |
|
|
On Oct 24, 9:54 pm, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
[quote]On Oct 24, 1:01 pm, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Oct 24, 2:50 pm, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Oct 24, 3:40 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Oct 23, 4:28 pm, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Oct 23, 2:28 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Oct 22, 3:05 pm, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Oct 22, 2:23 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Oct 21, 6:54 pm, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Oct 21, 9:57 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Oct 21, 2:14 pm, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Oct 21, 2:13 am, Koobee Wublee <koobee.wub...@gmail.com> wrote:
GR didnt predict it
it was fitting experimental data
to that theory
by trial and error
No sir. No other value could have come out of GR. There was no fitting
involved.
----------------
no fittings ??? (:-)
--------------------
ok it i svery good that you understood that those 'calculatio0nsand
wonderful
results area at the end of the day a trial and error process
i cal it fitting in
and if we do fitting in we can do it with the Newtonian physics !!
and that is why i started to take 'your' calculations
(weknow that it is not exactly 'your' (:-))
and check them one by one
and btw
thoug our discussion seems like a personal wratting
i think it is very important and interesting
and may will be unprecedented
and this discussion between us raises in my mind questions
that i never before bothers to thing about
and may be no one else as well ??or at least
not published.
so
i would lake to take the imput of 'your calculations
and examine it one by one :
---------------
1
i was asking
waht is that 'mass of the photon' in that 'Newtonian calculation'
that was leadid to a mistake of 200 %???
hoe could those experimentalsts know waht was 'mass'
of that tested photon that was curving next sun??
In Newtonian physics, the path of an object in a gravitational field
is independent of its mass, and so setting the mass is simply not
required. The orbital path of a small stone and a moon, at the same
position and velocity, are identical in Newtonian physics. I>m shocked
that you did not know this.
---------------------
do you want to tell me that if a small astroid
will pass next earth with velocity v
and a big astroid will pass next to earth with velocity v
at the same distance from earth
their **curvature** next earth will be the same ??
Yes, indeed. This is what allows a 2 million kilogram Space Shuttle
stay in the same orbit as a 295 kg recon satellite. I>m shocked you
did not know this.
--------------------
-no Sir we are talking about a mass
PASSING NEXT TO EARTH
not orbiting around it !!!
Same force of gravity at work. Newtonian gravity predicts all sorts of
conic section trajectories, including ellipses, circles and passing-
near hyperbolas. Same statement holds. I>m shocked you don>t know this
either.
------------
is it compatible even with 'your' GR ??
we are not talking bout ORBITING
we are talking about PASSING NEXT !!!
(i must admitt i even ddint think about it
it was intuitive to me even without 'thinking' about the details )
so??
the kinetic energy of a small mass
is not like that of a big mass
and for instance the resistance
in air of a big mass is not as that of a small one !!
-------------
2
not to take the suns mass as concentrated in a point
but spread as it is in reality
iand that is far complicated
and to add yo it the moon mass and its location
etc etc
no one ever did it
because it was taken for granted that
there is no need for it
and last but not least
do you know good enough about the photon
properties
to be able to make predictions while
even hypothetically it has mass !!???
TIA
Y.Porat
----------------
or
...
read more »- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
[/quote]
--------------------
i rtesponded but i cant see it on
so here it is again in short:
Mr PD
you can hand wave all day and night
but it want help you
i proved mathematically based on the super experimental formula
E=hf
that the mass of the photon is hidden
in the h factor
and i am not going to spoon feed you
the 101 time
how a physics formula is built and used
if you still didnt get it
gp to a basic physics teacher
that will tweach you again
how a physics formula is built and used
so
th e energy of the photon has mass
and if it has mass
it curves next to sun
BECUSE IT HAS MASS
and not because stupid curved space time
all your calculations are one big bluff
because it is nothing but fitting in
data to 'your fromulas and calculations
the experimental data that you bring
is hand wavings and chating
because it invloves hundreds of unknown factors about real situation
of
a photon passing next sun
so the beter way is to
calculate the curvature of that passing photon
on base of photons mass
though itis exteremaly diffucult
if you dont delude youself
about the real comkplexity of the problem!!
2
**no mass no real physics !!**
you will realize it soon or much later
depnd on your intelligence and integrity
in the LHC
looking for Higgs Bosons and other nonsense
spookies
ATB
Y.Porat
----------------------------------- |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
glird
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 26, 2008 5:19 pm Post subject: Re: how does light (photon) escapes sun>s gravity? |
|
|
On Oct 23, 2:51 am, Sam Wormley <sworml...@mchsi.com> wrote:
[quote]Koobee Wublee wrote:
On Oct 22, 10:06 pm, Sam Wormley wrote:
Koobee Wublee wrote:
You can deny the Aether all you want. At the end of the day, the
Aether is still all around you. <shrug
What Aether?
The medium that allows light to propagate. <shrug
What properties?
Massless, chargeless. <shrug
Are there any measurable properties?
[/quote]
That depends on how you measure them.
For instance,
the density of the luminiferous materail is variable; but to
measure that variable density requires that you understand
its affects. On "massless" matter it has no affect. On atomic
matter it is measurable as the "weight" per body embedded
in it.
Yes, Sam, a "gravitational field" is a density gradient in the
overall material. "Weight" is its affect when summed with
the intrinsic density gradients of embedded atoms; which
are made of that very same matter.
no, Sam, although the weight of different bodies is different
in a given g-field, that does NOT mean that the density gradient
is also different per each different body. It simply means that
the intrinsic density gradient is different per such body,
which is WHY the weight differs. For example, 3 = .1211 isn>t
equal to 4 + .1211 nor to 2 + .1211, even though d = .1211 is
the value of grad d of the wider g-field. |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
glird
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 26, 2008 5:56 pm Post subject: Re: how does light (photon) escapes sun>s gravity? |
|
|
On Oct 25, 5:30 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...@gmail.com> wrote:
[quote]i proved mathematically based on the super experimental formula E=hf
that the mass of the photon is hidden in the h factor
[/quote]
In the "h factor", the mass of this quantum of action IS part of its
value;
which is: h = 2pir m c'; where m is the weight of an electron
moving at c'
in an orbital path with a radius of 2pir. However, once that quantity
emits, its
mass (quantity of matter) immediately dissipates and the
"photon" (which is
the quantity of energy per bit of radiating light), has no weight
until it reacts
with another atom.
[quote]... so the energy of the photon has mass
and if it has mass it curves next to the sun
BECAUSE IT HAS MASS
and not because of stupid curved space time
[/quote]
"Curved space time" is a mathemaical model of a variable density
material,
in which lengths and rates of events are a function of the density per
point.
If you want to understand that, go to the new newsgroup,
"metaphysics",
em=nroll as a member, and post your questions there.
glird |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 27, 2008 9:43 pm Post subject: Re: how does light (photon) escapes sun>s gravity? |
|
|
In sci.physics Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> wrote:
[quote]On Oct 21, 2:10 pm, carlip-nos...@physics.ucdavis.edu wrote:
In sci.physics Koobee Wublee wrote:
The 1919 expedition/experiment of solar eclipse carried out by
Eddington was flawed right from the very start. Since then, there
have been no credible experiments done to prove the twice-the-
Newtonian result in deflection of photons.
Shapiro et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 92 (2004) 121101: 2500 24-hour
observing sessions, involving 87 VLBI sites and 541 radio sources;
GR deflection confirmed to .04%
Lebach et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 75 (1995) 1439: VLBI measurements
of two radio sources over a 10-day period; GR deflection confirmed
to .1%
Froeschle et al., Proceedings from the Hipparcos Venice 1997 Symposium
(ESA, Noordwijk, Netherlands, 1997): optical measurements with the
Hipparcos satellite; GR deflection confirmed to .3%
Would you like more?
Yes, please provide me with a link instead of these references only
accessible to your inner circle.
[/quote]
I>m confused. When you wrote, "Since then, there have been no credible
experiments done to prove the twice-the-Newtonian result in deflection
of photons," did you really mean, "I haven>t actually read any of the
results of experiments since then"? If so, it didn>t come out right.
If you can>t get to a library that carries Phys. Rev. Lett. (probably the
leading journal in physics -- any university will have it, and your local
public library can almost certainly get a copy on loan), what, exactly,
gives you the qualification to speak about the results of experiments
since 1919?
Steve Carlip |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Y.Porat
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 28, 2008 4:12 am Post subject: Re: how does light (photon) escapes sun>s gravity? |
|
|
On Oct 26, 7:56 pm, glird <gl...@aol.com> wrote:
[quote]On Oct 25, 5:30 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...@gmail.com> wrote:
i proved mathematically based on the super experimental formula E=hf
that the mass of the photon is hidden in the h factor
In the "h factor", the mass of this quantum of action IS part of its
value;
which is: h = 2pir m c'; where m is the weight of an electron
moving at c'
in an orbital path with a radius of 2pir. However, once that quantity
emits, its
mass (quantity of matter) immediately dissipates and the
"photon" (which is
the quantity of energy per bit of radiating light), has no weight
until it reacts
with another atom.
... so the energy of the photon has mass
and if it has mass it curves next to the sun
BECAUSE IT HAS MASS
and not because of stupid curved space time
"Curved space time" is a mathemaical model of a variable density
material,
in which lengths and rates of events are a function of the density per
point.
If you want to understand that, go to the new newsgroup,
"metaphysics",
em=nroll as a member, and post your questions there.
glird
[/quote]
----------------
i am not interested in metaphysics i am interestedin
PHYSICS !! (:-)
evn not too much in Voodo religions (:-)
keep well
Y.Porat
---------------------------------- |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Y.Porat
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 28, 2008 3:18 pm Post subject: Re: how does light (photon) escapes sun>s gravity? |
|
|
On Oct 27, 11:43 pm, carlip-nos...@physics.ucdavis.edu wrote:
[quote]In sci.physics Koobee Wublee <koobee.wub...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Oct 21, 2:10 pm, carlip-nos...@physics.ucdavis.edu wrote:
In sci.physics Koobee Wublee wrote:
The 1919 expedition/experiment of solar eclipse carried out by
Eddington was flawed right from the very start. Since then, there
have been no credible experiments done to prove the twice-the-
Newtonian result in deflection of photons.
Shapiro et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 92 (2004) 121101: 2500 24-hour
observing sessions, involving 87 VLBI sites and 541 radio sources;
GR deflection confirmed to .04%
Lebach et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 75 (1995) 1439: VLBI measurements
of two radio sources over a 10-day period; GR deflection confirmed
to .1%
Froeschle et al., Proceedings from the Hipparcos Venice 1997 Symposium
(ESA, Noordwijk, Netherlands, 1997): optical measurements with the
Hipparcos satellite; GR deflection confirmed to .3%
Would you like more?
Yes, please provide me with a link instead of these references only
accessible to your inner circle.
I>m confused. When you wrote, "Since then, there have been no credible
experiments done to prove the twice-the-Newtonian result in deflection
of photons,"
-------------------[/quote]
anyone who will tell you that he calculated photon deflection
next to sun
according 'photon has mass'
is either
a moron an idiot or a crook
do you know why ?
because
1
it was proven that the photon has mass
2
such a calculation is a hundred times more complicated
than any moron or crook or a sucker CAN DO !!!
ATB
Y.Porat
--------------------------- |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
|
