Path: csiph.com!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!news.quux.org!wilderland.ovh!ereborbbs.duckdns.org!eternal-september.org!nntp.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: The Starmaker Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity Subject: Re: Deflection of light, gravitational redshift Date: Sun, 27 Sep 2026 10:19:00 -0700 Organization: The Starmaker Organization Lines: 237 Message-ID: <6AB95004.5CAC@ix.netcom.com> References: <118bai1$2d1h2$1@dont-email.me> <18d612bb963570f5$47394$908382$c2065a8b@news.newsdemon.com> <118he1k$jdmi$1@dont-email.me> <18d635ea510f5b9b$77752$867271$c2265aab@news.newsdemon.com> <118iv1k$14fdh$1@dont-email.me> <18d68455580e2e9c$14432$1894729$4016de43@news.newsgroupdirect.com> <118m0a0$27n77$1@dont-email.me> <18d6d996dff7a048$21647$1943410$4296dcc3@news.newsgroupdirect.com> <118p4g8$3abpd$1@dont-email.me> <18d76af171589cc7$16919$1665202$4246dc13@news.newsgroupdirect.com> <1s1t1zj.1aqjp2918nbxjuN%nospam@de-ster.demon.nl> <18d76ff011a410e0$16927$1665202$4246dc13@news.newsgroupdirect.com> <1s1u3bb.11ujtjoeq1fggN%nospam@de-ster.demon.nl> <18d7b4cd2dee9dfa$152$2272267$4296dcc3@news.newsgroupdirect.com> <1s1waja.o5ctuphm0u4vN%nospam@de-ster.demon.nl> <18d86055ed9ae208$7040$2272267$4296dcc3@news.newsgroupdirect.com> <1194bbn$lcvd$1@gwaiyur.mb-net.net> <18d904306575c88f$599$2366380$4296dcc3@news.newsgroupdirect.com> <119a9s8$182fs$2@gwaiyur.mb-net.net> Reply-To: starmaker@ix.netcom.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Date: Sun, 27 Sep 2026 17:18:58 +0000 (UTC) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; logging-data="1666043"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19sa81dWoCcQMlMblGwOW/ZAnR6pCgXfLM="; posting-host="f00f324de37ce1888c6300a62e95505c" Cancel-Lock: sha1:vGXJibKNAdxaRVoLhrYA7GHX2T0= sha256:cqB4WqPtcqX0U0Pe3rEnyoGyBPW28Te/4F6WH+QEUQY= sha1:J7Av+/80MZwTKilTdKbgrEWol+M= sha256:/RTT+x5m6bD/seBStX7Xg9U96428h69bXsjJuhJ3Gxo= X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.04Gold (WinNT; U) X-Antivirus-Status: Clean X-Antivirus: Avast (VPS 260927-2, 09/27/2026), Outbound message Xref: csiph.com sci.physics.relativity:673818 Ross Finlayson wrote: > > On 09/26/2026 10:33 PM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: > > HenryWilson wrote: > >> On Fri, 25 Sep 2026 01:22:28 +0200, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: > >>> HenryWilson wrote: > >>>> On Wed, 23 Sep 2026 17:03:05 +0200, J. J. Lodder wrote: > >>>>> HenryWilson wrote: > >>>>>> On Tue, 22 Sep 2026 14:02:27 +0200, J. J. Lodder wrote: > >>>>>>> So you don't understand how experimental verification of theories is > >>>>>>> done, and should e done. > >>>>>>> You need a theoretical framework for that, > >>>>>> > >>>>>> You need the correct theoretical framework. > >>>>> > >>>>> Nonsense. Any relevant and consistent theoretical framework can be > >>>>> used to derive a prediction. > >>>>> (which may of course prove to be incorrect) > >>>>> Using GR throughout you arrive at a prediction that agrees with what > >>>>> is observed. > >>>>> > >>>>> Up to you to derive the observed GR redshift result by using 'Newton'. > >>>>> (or shout 'all faked and fudged' once more) > >>>> > >>>> According to GR, the claimed redshift of 'frequency' to compensate for > >>>> constant speed, is equivalent to 633m/s > >>> > >>> If by "GR redshift" you two mean "gravitational redshift", it has > >>> nothing to do with any constant speed. So you, "HenryWilson", have no > >>> clue. > >> > >> It has everything to do with Einstein's denial of variable speed. > > > > Einstein does not "deny variable speed". You have no idea what you are > > saying. > > > > To begin with, you have to say the speed /of what/ you are talking about > > for your statement to have a chance to make sense, let alone be correct. > > > >> You preach relativity but know nothing about it. > > > > No, you are arguing ambiguously from your own staggering ignorance. > > > >> Newton simply says light slow as it leaves the sun and loses KE. > > > > Newton wondered, but did not state anything, about light in that regard. > > As I indicated, the Newtonian interpretation of light with regard to > > gravitation was proposed by other people. But it does not work with the > > deflection of light, and only approximately regarding gravitational > > redshift: > > > > > > > > > > > >> Einstein accepted that light loses energy as it moves into weaker gravity > > > > He did not. That is not what general relativity says. Also, the term > > "weaker gravity" is pop-sci babble that does not make any sense. > > > > Instead, the fact that less proper time elapses closer to a center of > > mass, because the spacetime curvature is "stronger" there (for lack of a > > better term) than farther away from it, results in the fact that the > > frequency/wavelength of (monochrome) light that is emitted there is > > measured to be smaller/larger farther away (and larger/smaller closer to > > it). > > > > The spacetime around a spherically-symmetric mass distribution with > > total mass M can be described by the Schwarzschild metric (in natural > > units and Schwarzschild coordinates), > > > > ds² = −dτ² = −(1 − 2m∕r) dt² + (1 − 2m∕r)⁻¹ dr² + r² dΩ², > > m = G M∕c², > > dΩ² = dθ² + sin²(θ) dφ², > > > > where dτ is the infinitesimal elapsed proper time interval. > > > > At relative rest, dr = dΩ = 0: > > > > dτ² = (1 − 2m∕r) dt² ⇔ dτ = √(1 − 2m∕r) dt. > > > > This can be analyzed either in terms of the frequency f = 1/T of a > > periodic process or phenomenon with period T, > > > > f(r) ∝ 1∕dτ = (1∕dt) 1∕√(1 − 2m∕r) ∝ f(∞)∕√(1 − 2m∕r), > > > > where f(∞) would be the frequency at infinite distance from the center > > of mass (radius), as dt would be the infinitesimal proper time interval > > that elapses there; or wavelength > > > > λ(r) ∝ c dτ(r) = c dt √(1 − 2m∕r) ∝ λ(∞) √(1 − 2m∕r). > > > > Comparing the frequencies at different finite radii r₂ > r₁ yields > > > > f(r₂)∕f(r₁) = √(1 − 2m∕r₁)∕√(1 − 2m∕r₂) < 1. > > > > So the frequency at r₂ is smaller than at r₁. The frequency of reddish > > light is smaller than that of bluish light: > > > > > > > > So light is measured redshifted at r₂ when it is emitted at r₁, and > > blueshifted at r₁ when it is emitted at r₂. > > > > Similarly, comparing the wavelengths at those radii, respectively, yields > > > > λ(r₂)∕λ(r₁) = √(1 − 2m∕r₂)∕√(1 − 2m∕r₁) > 1. > > > > So the wavelength at r₂ is larger than at r₁. The wavelength of reddish > > light is larger than that of bluish light: Light is measured redshifted > > at r₂ when it is emitted at r₁, and blueshifted at r₁ when it is emitted > > at r₂. > > > > We observe gravitational blueshift when terrestrial artificial > > satellites above a certain orbital altitude, like GPS satellites, are > > sending radio signals towards the surface of Terra, and we observe > > gravitational redshift when light is emitted in the vicinity of objects > > with a large mass, like the star S2 that is orbiting the black hole > > Sgr A* near the center of the Milky Way: > > > > > > > > It is also how black holes -- which have been observed -- are black: > > light emitted from just outside their outer event horizons is > > "gravitationally" redshifted so much as to become invisible (for humans) > > and undetectable (indistinguishable from the CMB): > > > > > > > > All of this is observed /precisely/ as GR predicts it, NOT as a > > Newtonian interpretation would predict it. > > > > [Note that "gravitional redshift/blueshift" is just a convenient > > misnomer. The correct explanation for this phenomenon is NOT > > gravitation, but the curvature of spacetime. Gravitation is another > > consequence of that curvature, but otherwise _unrelated_ to > > "gravitational" redshift.] > > > >> but because it was not allowed to slow, he had to concoct the idea that > >> light possesses a 'frequency' that decreases and so make h.nu smaller. > > > > Light is experimentally confirmed to be describable as an > > electromagnetic wave, and like every wave it has a frequency and a > > wavelength: > > > > > > > > Newton's corpuscular theory was falsified by the fact that light slows > > down in a medium, measured by Foucault in 1850. The wave theory of > > light was confirmed, and the corpuscular theory falsified, by the > > interference pattern in Young's double-slit experiment. Maxwell > > postulated light as an electromagnetic wave in 1864. Hertz confirmed > > electromagnetic waves experimentally in 1888. Marconi used that in 1894 > > to invent wireless telegraphy. Based on that, Reginald Fessenden and > > others realized public radio transmissions by 1920. After World War II > > terrestrial television was invented, and so on, until today's wireless > > networks and satellite communication. > > > > See also: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You are not just 110 years, but 176 years (!) behind current knowledge. > > > >> [crackpot fantasies] > > > > Radio is experimentally confirmed to be electromagnetic radiation > because it interacts with the electrical and magnetic fields. > > Light is experimentally confirmed to _not_ interact with the electrical > and magnetic fields, though of course there are many junctions due > structures the opto-electronic and so on, similarly for heat radiation > the thermionic and plain incandescent. > > So, there are a variety of kinds of _energy_ and _radiation_. Then, > the "electromagnetic spectrum" is just a chance sort of occurrence > usually given to the quantum theory where frequency and wavelength > make to define, given a definition of a "quantum" or "particle" of > energy, that that's given how much energy it is. > > So, light and radio their propagation equations as forms of radiation > are much alike, yet not completely, since light is alike "pure > diffraction" and making for things like "Arago/Poisson spot", > while, radio does not. Furthermore, light's "signal" as "image" > is due decoherence of light, while radio's is the opposite. > > This is well known as that two people in visual range can see each other > uninterferedly, while if they attempt to radio at the same time > that occurs interferedly, just like talking over each other. > > The bandwidth multiplexing is just a complicated coordinated > usually temperature-compensated phase-loop-locked protocol, > readily ruined by random electromagnetic noise, yet never light. > > Then, heat radiation under the infra-red, and Roentgen or X-rays > above the ultra-violet, these are also different forms of radiation, > with their junctions and their accounts of propagation simply as > alike rays in waves, again, not-so-much "electromagnetic" at all. > > So, energy in the entelechy, and radiation (rays) and their accounts > as waves as being "geometrical", then have that the "optical" and > its accounts of "aberration" (or "illusion") belong to the properly > "optical". > > Rutherford is a great theorist and theoretician. > > O.W. Richardson gives three different accounts of the infinitesimal > analysis about energy and radiation and resultingly the changes, > not just one. > > The Newtonian can be retro-fitted with a "spurious factor of 2" > by common treatments and approaches like "the path integral's", > it's rather simple. > > For "space-time" to "curve" and thus "contain" things, the "things" > define the "curve", so, that's either a constant violation of energy > everywhere doing work for free, or, it isn't (and, it doesn't). The curvature of time...curve-time. Between 12:o'clock and 1:o'clock there is a curve a u-turn the speed of light is curved. -- The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable, to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable, and challenge the unchallengeable.