On May 8, 7:02 pm, Steve Carlip wrote in sci.physics.relativity:
> david wrote:
> > It would seem that even Newtonian mechanics predicts that light will
> > follow a curved path in the presence of a gravitational field. If
> > that's not obvious, think about the following thought experiment. If
> > we shoot a bullet perfectly horizontally from, say, six feet above the
> > ground, and simultaneously drop a stone from six feet above the
> > ground, we know that they will hit the ground at the same time. So
> > just consider what would happen if we were to shoot the bullet at the
> > speed of light; it would still hit the ground at the same time as the
> > stone, according to Newtonian mechanics. So a particle of light should
> > do the same.
>
> That's right. This deflection was first computed by Soldner in a paper
> published in 1803.
>
> [...]
>
> > So this leads to a couple of possibly troubling questions. First of
> > all, why were physicists surprised by Einstein's prediction that the
> > path of light would bend in a gravitational field (after all, even
> > Newtonian mechanics predicts that it would)?
>
> I don't think this was ever seen as being particularly surprising, though
> it's less obvious what to expect in a wave theory of light. It's your
> second question that's the key:
>
> > But more importantly,
> > is there a difference between what would be predicted by the
> > differential equation as described in the above paragraph and what is
> > predicted by general relativity, and are experimental measurements of
> > the bending of light by the sun accurate enough to distinguish between
> > the two predictions?
>
> General relativity predicts a deflection that's twice the Newtonian amount.
> Current measurements use Very Long Baseline Interferometry to measure
> the deflection of radio waves from quasars, and are accurate to a tenth of
> a percent or better, so distinguishing the Newtonian and relativistic
> predictions is easy.
>
> Steve Carlip

Sooner or later, Honest Carlip, you and your brothers Einsteinians will have to explain which prediction, the Newtonian or the relativistic (giving "a deflection that's twice the Newtonian amount"), is consistent with the gravitational redshift factor 1+V/c^2 experimentally confirmed by Pound and Rebka:

http://groups.google.com/group/fr.sci.physique/msg/449b66e152b76430

Pentcho Valev
pvalev@yahoo.com

On May 9, 4:54 pm, Tom Roberts wrote in sci.physics.relativity:
> mluttg...@orange.fr wrote:
> > one can quibble 'ad nauseam'
> > about the relativistic mass of the photon.
> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass%E2%80%93energy_equivalence:
> > "Even a single photon traveling in empty space has a relativistic
> > mass, which is its energy divided by c2."
>
> > One can quibble about such claim, but the relativistic mass
> > m = E/c^2 = hNu/c^2 of the photon can be used to interpret
> > results of a series of experiments, for instance those obtained
> > by Pound & Rebka.
>
> Certainly a photon has a non-zero "relativistic mass". Just remember
> that "relativistic mass" does NOT refer to what we now mean by mass, but
> rather is a synonym for ENERGY. The name "relativistic mass" is an
> anachronism, coined in the past, before the subtleties were fully
> understood; in the manner of textbooks it lives on in elementary
> discussions.
>
> Tom Roberts

Honest Roberts why don't you abandon all those red herrings? Just choose between (1) and (2) below:

(1) The photon behaves like all massive particles: in a gravitational field, its speed varies in accordance with Einstein's 1911 equation c'=c(1+V/c^2) given by Newton's emission theory of light:

http://www.physlink.com/Education/AskExperts/ae13.cfm
"So, it is absolutely true that the speed of light is not constant in a gravitational field [which, by the equivalence principle, applies as well to accelerating (non-inertial) frames of reference]. If this were not so, there would be no bending of light by the gravitational field of stars....Indeed, this is exactly how Einstein did the calculation in: 'On the Influence of Gravitation on the Propagation of Light,' Annalen der Physik, 35, 1911. which predated the full formal development of general relativity by about four years. This paper is widely available in English. You can find a copy beginning on page 99 of the Dover book 'The Principle of Relativity.' You will find in section 3 of that paper, Einstein's derivation of the (variable) speed of light in a gravitational potential, eqn (3). The result is,
c' = c0 ( 1 + V / c^2 )
where V is the gravitational potential relative to the point where the speed of light c0 is measured."

http://www.blazelabs.com/f-g-gcont.asp
"So, faced with this evidence most readers must be wondering why we learn about the importance of the constancy of speed of light. Did Einstein miss this? Sometimes I find out that what's written in our textbooks is just a biased version taken from the original work, so after searching within the original text of the theory of GR by Einstein, I found this quote: "In the second place our result shows that, according to the general theory of relativity, the law of the constancy of the velocity of light in vacuo, which constitutes one of the two fundamental assumptions in the special theory of relativity and to which we have already frequently referred, cannot claim any unlimited validity. A curvature of rays of light can only take place when the velocity of propagation of light varies with position. Now we might think that as a consequence of this, the special theory of relativity and with it the whole theory of relativity would be laid in the dust. But in reality this is not the case. We can only conclude that the special theory of relativity cannot claim an unlimited domain of validity ; its results hold only so long as we are able to disregard the influences of gravitational fields on the phenomena (e.g. of light)." - Albert Einstein (1879-1955) - The General Theory of Relativity: Chapter 22 - A Few Inferences from the General Principle of Relativity-. Today we find that since the Special Theory of Relativity unfortunately became part of the so called mainstream science, it is considered a sacrilege to even suggest that the speed of light be anything other than a constant. This is somewhat surprising since even Einstein himself suggested in a paper "On the Influence of Gravitation on the Propagation of Light," Annalen der Physik, 35, 1911, that the speed of light might vary with the gravitational potential. Indeed, the variation of the speed of light in a vacuum or space is explicitly shown in Einstein's calculation for the angle at which light should bend upon the influence of gravity. One can find his calculation in his paper. The result is c'=c(1+V/c^2) where V is the gravitational potential relative to the point where the measurement is taken. 1+V/c^2 is also known as the GRAVITATIONAL REDSHIFT FACTOR."

(2) The photon is more sensitive to gravity than ordinary massive particles: in a gravitational field, its speed varies in accordance with Einstein's 1915 (or 1955) equation c'=c(1+2V/c^2):

http://www.speed-light.info/speed_of_light_variable.htm
"Einstein wrote this paper in 1911 in German (download from:http://www.physik.uni-augsburg.de/annalen/history/einstein-papers/1911_35_898-908.pdf). It predated the full formal development of general relativity by about four years. You can find an English translation of this paper in the Dover book 'The Principle of Relativity' beginning on page 99; you will find in section 3 of that paper Einstein's derivation of the variable speed of light in a gravitational potential, eqn (3). The result is: c'=c0(1+phi/c^2) where phi is the gravitational potential relative to the point where the speed of light co is measured......You can find a more sophisticated derivation later by Einstein (1955) from the full theory of general relativity in the weak field approximation....For the 1955 results but not in coordinates see page 93, eqn (6.28): c(r)=[1+2phi(r)/c^2]c. Namely the 1955 approximation shows a variation in km/sec twice as much as first predicted in 1911."

http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s6-01/6-01.htm
"In geometrical units we define c_0 = 1, so Einstein's 1911 formula can be written simply as c=1+phi. However, this formula for the speed of light (not to mention this whole approach to gravity) turned out to be incorrect, as Einstein realized during the years leading up to 1915 and the completion of the general theory. In fact, the general theory of relativity doesn't give any equation for the speed of light at a particular location, because the effect of gravity cannot be represented by a simple scalar field of c values. Instead, the "speed of light" at a each point depends on the direction of the light ray through that point, as well as on the choice of coordinate systems, so we can't generally talk about the value of c at a given point in a non-vanishing gravitational field. However, if we consider just radial light rays near a spherically symmetrical (and non- rotating) mass, and if we agree to use a specific set of coordinates, namely those in which the metric coefficients are independent of t, then we can read a formula analogous to Einstein's 1911 formula directly from the Schwarzschild metric. (...) In the Newtonian limit the classical gravitational potential at a distance r from mass m is phi=-m/r, so if we let c_r = dr/dt denote the radial speed of light in Schwarzschild coordinates, we have c_r =1+2phi, which corresponds to Einstein's 1911 equation, except that we have a factor of 2 instead of 1 on the potential term."

Pentcho Valev
pvalev@yahoo.com

Sorry, both option 1 and 2 are based on photons being massive and particles. Photons are bosons. All bosons are forces.

1) Mass is wrong. You cannot remove the dimensions of an object. Mass is not zero dimension density. Mass does not equal density.

2) Photons are the expression of a baryon. The photon explains to other baryons how hot the original baryon is. Using Planck's spectral equations.
A) u(v,T)= (8pi*h*v^3)/(C^3)*(1/(e^(hv/kT)-1)
where: v= frequency
k= Boltzman constant
h= Planck's constant

B) u(lambda,T) = (8pi*hC)/(lambda^5)*(1/(e^(hC/lambda*k*T)-1)
where: lambda = wavelength

A photon uses both of these equations to describe the energy information of the photon. They are a checksum to protect against data loss. This occurs when a photon is split (Reiter). If the photon wave is split. The receiving electron can still calculate the Temp of the original baryon.

A photons vector can change under extreme conditions. These conditions are when a great magnetic field compresses dark matter. Photons usually vibrate through the structure of dark matter unimpeded. But when a magnetic field is so strong it compresses the dark matter so much that it pushes or cuts a photon.

This is fully explained at
http://aaronsreality.blogspot.com

aaron

On May 18, Steve Carlip wrote in sci.physics.relativity:
> mluttg...@orange.fr wrote:
> > Do you accept the calculation of light deflection
> > given in the following paper?
> > Newtonian gravitational deflection of light revisited
> > arXiv: physics/0508030v4 [physics. gen- ph] 17 Apr 2009
> > http://xxx.if.usp.br/abs/physics/0508030)
>
> It looks right (though of course it doesn't start at the
> beginning; equation (5) for eccentricity is derived from
> Newton's laws).

Honest Carlip, any clever teacher in Einsteiniana should immediately draw the attention of sillier brothers to the following text:

http://xxx.if.usp.br/PS_cache/physics/pdf/0508/0508030v4.pdf
"Einsteins first calculation of the gravitational deflection of light, in 1911 (see [4], for a historical account and scientific references), was performed using the Equivalence Principle and the equivalent mass-energy of a photon. The calculation yielded äNG. Only in his second calculation, published in 1916, where he included the effect of space-time curvature, he obtained a value twice as large as his first calculation, i.e., äGR [4]."

Then the clever teacher should explain: "Brothers Einsteinans, Einstein's 1911 calculation based on Newton's emission theory of light was wrong/correct and inconsistent/consistent with the gravitational redshift factor 1+V/c^2, Einstein's 1916 calculation was correct/wrong and consistent/inconsistent with the gravitational redshift factor 1+V/c^2, but in any case the speed of light in a gravitational field is VARIABLE. So those who teach you that the speed of light in a gravitational field is constant are by no means clever teachers."

Pentcho Valev
pvalev@yahoo.com

Gravitational bending of light was calculated bei Soldner allready in 1801. It looks as if Einstein would have copied this work.

http://de.wikisource.org/wiki/Ueber_die_Ablenkung_eines_Lichtstrals_von_seiner_geradlinigen_Bewegung

Intense gravity produces a heavy atmosphere around a dense stellar object. It is this material that refracts the light. No magic involved.