Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #408543

Re: Why Should Gravitational Mass Equal Inertial Mass?

From	"HGW... DSc." <hgw@....>
Newsgroups	sci.physics.relativity
Subject	Re: Why Should Gravitational Mass Equal Inertial Mass?
Date	2017-02-09 20:01 +1100
Organization	Aioe.org NNTP Server
Message-ID	<o7hb5p$6fm$1@gioia.aioe.org> (permalink)
References	<o7c2ul$scu$1@gioia.aioe.org> <o7fvor$rsg$1@news.albasani.net>

Show all headers | View raw

On 09/02/17 07:40, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
> On 07.02.2017 10:10, HGW... DSc. wrote:
>> We know that Einstein's gravitation theory differs from Newton's in that
>> a factor of two appears in much of the maths.
>
> Nonsense.
> There is no "factor of two" difference in "most of the maths".
> Quite the contrary, in "Einstein's gravitation theory"
> Albert Einstein:
> THE FOUNDATION OF THE GENERAL THEORY OF RELATIVITY
> https://paulba.no/paper/Foundation_of_GR.pdf
> paragraph 21 is called:
>    "Newtons Theory as a First Approximation"
> Since Newton's theory at this time was experimentally
> confirmed within the precision of the measurements
> of a lot of experiments, GR would be wrong if it
> "differs from Newton's in that a factor of two
> appears in much of the maths".
>
> But the prediction of GR and Newtonian gravitation for gravitational
> deviation of EM-radiation differ by a factor of two.
> And as you know, experiments show that GR's predictions are spot on,
> while Newton's theory misses by a factor of two, which falsifies
> Newtonian gravitation.
>
> https://paulba.no/paper/PPN_gamma_Hipparcos.pdf
> https://paulba.no/paper/PPN_gamma_Cassini.pdf
> https://paulba.no/paper/Shapiro_2004.pdf
> https://paulba.no/paper/GravDeflection.pdf
> https://paulba.no/paper/Fomalont.pdf
> https://paulba.no/paper/PPN_gamma_Cassini_2.pdf
>
>> (It was only added after he
>> feared that experimental evidence proved his original equations wrong).
>
> Nonsense!
> Einstein calculated the gravitational deflection of light in 1911:
> Albert Einstein:
> ON THE INFLUENCE OF GRAVITATION ON THE PROPAGATION OF LIGHT
> https://paulba.no/paper/Einstein_1911.pdf
>   page 108:
>   <<
>     A ray of light going past the Sun would accordingly
>     undergo deflection to the amount 0.83 seconds of arc.
>   >>
> which is the same prediction as by Newton's gravitation.
>
> At this time no "Einstein's gravitation theory" (GR) existed,
> and Einstein and Newton got it wrong by the same reason,
> they didn't consider the curvature of spacetime.

'Spacetime' does not exist and saying it is curved (just to make light 
speed always c) simply makes you look like an idiot.

> Einstein didn't 'add a factor of two' because he "feared
> that experimental evidence proved his original equations wrong."
> Why would he? In 1911 he had no reason to think that his calculation
> was wrong because no experiments on gravitational deflection
> of light was ever done.
>
> GR came in 1915.
> Albert Einstein:
> THE FOUNDATION OF THE GENERAL THEORY OF RELATIVITY
> https://paulba.no/paper/Foundation_of_GR.pdf
>   page 199:
>   <<
>     .., a ray of light going past the Sun undergoes
>     a deflection of 1.7"; ..
>   >>
> Which we now know is the correct prediction.

Who knows that? Nobody has verified it. In fact not one aspect of 
Einstein's theories has been verified.

> Note that at this time, there was still no experimental
> evidence for what the deflection should be.
> So Einstein never 'added a factor of two' to
> "his original [1911] equations" to make the prediction
> in accordance with experimental evidence,
> this simply was what "Einstein's gravitation theory" GR
> predicted, and it isn't possible to manipulate this
> prediction in any way.

This is one of your more amusing messages. You don't seem to know what 
you should say, largely because Eddington's faked result is now public 
knowledge. You seem to be saying there IS a factor of two 'sometimes' 
but there isn't one when it convenient to leave it out. Nobody knows the 
correct answer but YOU have been supporting the silly theory for many 
years. It isn't a theory at all, is it Paul?






--

Thread

Why Should Gravitational Mass Equal Inertial Mass? "HGW... DSc." <hgw@....> - 2017-02-07 20:10 +1100
  Re: Why Should Gravitational Mass Equal Inertial Mass? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-02-07 13:35 +0000
    Re: Why Should Gravitational Mass Equal Inertial Mass? "HGW... DSc." <hgw@....> - 2017-02-08 12:27 +1100
      Re: Why Should Gravitational Mass Equal Inertial Mass? Python <python@python.invalid> - 2017-02-08 02:35 +0100
      Re: Why Should Gravitational Mass Equal Inertial Mass? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-02-08 04:00 +0000
      Re: Why Should Gravitational Mass Equal Inertial Mass? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-08 08:43 -0600
  Re: Why Should Gravitational Mass Equal Inertial Mass? Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-02-07 05:45 -0800
  Re: Why Should Gravitational Mass Equal Inertial Mass? Alan Folmsbee <omnilobe@gmail.com> - 2017-02-07 14:50 -0800
    Re: Why Should Gravitational Mass Equal Inertial Mass? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-07 16:53 -0600
      Re: Why Should Gravitational Mass Equal Inertial Mass? "HGW... DSc." <hgw@....> - 2017-02-09 05:40 +1100
    Re: Why Should Gravitational Mass Equal Inertial Mass? "HGW... DSc." <hgw@....> - 2017-02-08 12:30 +1100
      Re: Why Should Gravitational Mass Equal Inertial Mass? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-08 08:44 -0600
        Re: Why Should Gravitational Mass Equal Inertial Mass? "HGW... DSc." <hgw@....> - 2017-02-09 05:41 +1100
          Re: Why Should Gravitational Mass Equal Inertial Mass? Alan Folmsbee <omnilobe@gmail.com> - 2017-02-08 10:55 -0800
            Re: Why Should Gravitational Mass Equal Inertial Mass? "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-02-08 11:14 -0800
            Re: Why Should Gravitational Mass Equal Inertial Mass? "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-02-08 13:23 -0800
              Re: Why Should Gravitational Mass Equal Inertial Mass? alsor@interia.pl - 2017-02-08 17:39 -0800
                Re: Why Should Gravitational Mass Equal Inertial Mass? "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-02-08 17:54 -0800
  Re: Why Should Gravitational Mass Equal Inertial Mass? "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2017-02-08 21:40 +0100
    Re: Why Should Gravitational Mass Equal Inertial Mass? "HGW... DSc." <hgw@....> - 2017-02-09 20:01 +1100
      Re: Why Should Gravitational Mass Equal Inertial Mass? "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2017-02-09 13:03 +0100
        Re: Why Should Gravitational Mass Equal Inertial Mass? "HGW... DSc." <hgw@....> - 2017-02-10 17:47 +1100
          Re: Why Should Gravitational Mass Equal Inertial Mass? Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-02-10 09:31 -0600
            Re: Why Should Gravitational Mass Equal Inertial Mass? "HGW... DSc." <hgw@....> - 2017-02-11 12:32 +1100
              Re: Why Should Gravitational Mass Equal Inertial Mass? pnalsing@gmail.com - 2017-02-10 19:08 -0800
              Re: Why Should Gravitational Mass Equal Inertial Mass? Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-02-10 22:37 -0600
                Re: Why Should Gravitational Mass Equal Inertial Mass? "HGW... DSc." <hgw@....> - 2017-02-12 08:38 +1100
          Re: Why Should Gravitational Mass Equal Inertial Mass? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-02-10 18:06 +0000
            Re: Why Should Gravitational Mass Equal Inertial Mass? "HGW... DSc." <hgw@....> - 2017-02-11 12:33 +1100
              Re: Why Should Gravitational Mass Equal Inertial Mass? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-02-11 06:16 +0000
                Re: Why Should Gravitational Mass Equal Inertial Mass? "HGW... DSc." <hgw@....> - 2017-02-12 08:42 +1100
                Re: Why Should Gravitational Mass Equal Inertial Mass? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-02-12 06:07 +0000
                Re: Why Should Gravitational Mass Equal Inertial Mass? "HGW... DSc." <hgw@....> - 2017-02-13 20:31 +1100
                Re: Why Should Gravitational Mass Equal Inertial Mass? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-02-13 16:31 +0000
                Re: Why Should Gravitational Mass Equal Inertial Mass? "HGW... DSc." <hgw@....> - 2017-02-14 08:45 +1100
                Re: Why Should Gravitational Mass Equal Inertial Mass? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-02-14 02:42 +0000
                Re: Why Should Gravitational Mass Equal Inertial Mass? "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2017-02-14 20:44 +0100
                Re: Why Should Gravitational Mass Equal Inertial Mass? "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-02-14 12:23 -0800
                Re: Why Should Gravitational Mass Equal Inertial Mass? "HGW... DSc." <hgw@....> - 2017-02-19 11:50 +1100
                Re: Why Should Gravitational Mass Equal Inertial Mass? Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-02-18 21:08 -0800
  Re: Why Should Gravitational Mass Equal Inertial Mass? John Heath <heathjohn2@gmail.com> - 2017-02-09 05:43 -0800

csiph-web