Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #408202 > unrolled thread

Why Should Gravitational Mass Equal Inertial Mass?

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity

Contents

  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

Page 1 of 3  [1] 2 3  Next page →

#408202 — Why Should Gravitational Mass Equal Inertial Mass?

Newton showed that a feather fell to the ground in the same time as a 
lump of lead and concluded that gravitational mass must be equal to 
inertial mass. (It didn't actually show that at all)
That might be OK for gravity but consider the electrostatic equivalent.
A proton would fall towards a negatively charged object with twice the 
acceleration as an ionized H atom.
We know that Einstein's gravitation theory differs from Newton's in that 
a factor of two appears in much of the maths.(It was only added after he 
feared that experimental evidence proved his original equations wrong).

If it was ever shown that this 'two factor' did actually exist (a very 
unlikely scenario), that would only suggest that light's inertial mass 
was NOT equal to its gravitational mass. It behaves in gravity like the 
proton does in an electric field.

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#408223

"HGW... DSc." <hgw@....> writes:

>Newton showed that a feather fell to the ground in the same time as a 
>lump of lead and concluded that gravitational mass must be equal to 
>inertial mass. (It didn't actually show that at all)
>That might be OK for gravity but consider the electrostatic equivalent.
>A proton would fall towards a negatively charged object with twice the 
>acceleration as an ionized H atom.

Hahahahahaha!  Ralph, I want to hear this. What is the difference between
a proton and an ionized H atom?

I want to hear YOUR answer, Ralph, so don't try your usual bluster to
avoid answering the question.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#408325

On 08/02/17 00:35, Michael Moroney wrote:
> "HGW... DSc." <hgw@....> writes:
>
>> Newton showed that a feather fell to the ground in the same time as a
>> lump of lead and concluded that gravitational mass must be equal to
>> inertial mass. (It didn't actually show that at all)
>> That might be OK for gravity but consider the electrostatic equivalent.
>> A proton would fall towards a negatively charged object with twice the
>> acceleration as an ionized H atom.
>
> Hahahahahaha!  Henry, I want to hear this. What is the difference between
> a proton and an ionized H atom?
>
> I want to hear YOUR answer, Henry, so don't try your usual bluster to
> avoid answering the question.

I was obviously referring to its isotope Deuterium. Have you ever heard 
if the word 'isotope'?



-- 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#408327

Le 08/02/2017 à 02:27, HGW... DSc. a écrit :
> On 08/02/17 00:35, Michael Moroney wrote:
>> "HGW... DSc." <hgw@....> writes:
>>
>>> Newton showed that a feather fell to the ground in the same time as a
>>> lump of lead and concluded that gravitational mass must be equal to
>>> inertial mass. (It didn't actually show that at all)
>>> That might be OK for gravity but consider the electrostatic equivalent.
>>> A proton would fall towards a negatively charged object with twice the
>>> acceleration as an ionized H atom.
>>
>> Hahahahahaha!  Henry, I want to hear this. What is the difference between
>> a proton and an ionized H atom?
>>
>> I want to hear YOUR answer, Henry, so don't try your usual bluster to
>> avoid answering the question.
>
> I was obviously referring to its isotope Deuterium. Have you ever heard
> if the word 'isotope'?

Ralph Rabbidge at his best ;-p

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#408346

"HGW... DSc." <hgw@....> writes:

>On 08/02/17 00:35, Michael Moroney wrote:
>> "HGW... DSc." <hgw@....> writes:
>>
>>> Newton showed that a feather fell to the ground in the same time as a
>>> lump of lead and concluded that gravitational mass must be equal to
>>> inertial mass. (It didn't actually show that at all)
>>> That might be OK for gravity but consider the electrostatic equivalent.
>>> A proton would fall towards a negatively charged object with twice the
>>> acceleration as an ionized H atom.
>>
>> Hahahahahaha!  Ralph, I want to hear this. What is the difference between
>> a proton and an ionized H atom?
>>
>> I want to hear YOUR answer, Ralph, so don't try your usual bluster to
>> avoid answering the question.

>I was obviously referring to its isotope Deuterium. Have you ever heard 
>if the word 'isotope'?

No, Ralph, you don't get to lie that way, Ralph Malcolm.  Ralph, you wrote
"hydrogen", not "deuterium", Ralph Malcolm Rabbidge.  Ralph, as you know,
deuterium is only 0.0115% of natural hydrogen on earth, Ralph, so an
ionized hydrogen atom is simply going to be a proton more than 99.9% of
the time, Liar Ralph Rabbidge.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#408383

On 2/7/2017 7:27 PM, HGW... DSc. wrote:
> On 08/02/17 00:35, Michael Moroney wrote:
>> "HGW... DSc." <hgw@....> writes:
>>
>>> Newton showed that a feather fell to the ground in the same time as a
>>> lump of lead and concluded that gravitational mass must be equal to
>>> inertial mass. (It didn't actually show that at all)
>>> That might be OK for gravity but consider the electrostatic equivalent.
>>> A proton would fall towards a negatively charged object with twice the
>>> acceleration as an ionized H atom.
>>
>> Hahahahahaha!  Henry, I want to hear this. What is the difference between
>> a proton and an ionized H atom?
>>
>> I want to hear YOUR answer, Henry, so don't try your usual bluster to
>> avoid answering the question.
>
> I was obviously referring to its isotope Deuterium. Have you ever heard
> if the word 'isotope'?

Oh, OBVIOUSLY.

LOL.


-- 
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#408226

On Tuesday, February 7, 2017 at 2:10:47 AM UTC-7, HGW... DSc. wrote:
>
> Newton showed that a feather fell to the ground in the same time as a 
> lump of lead and concluded that gravitational mass must be equal to 
> inertial mass. (It didn't actually show that at all)
> That might be OK for gravity but consider the electrostatic equivalent.
> A proton would fall towards a negatively charged object with twice the 
> acceleration as an ionized H atom.

So now we clearly see that Ralphie-boy's physics education is missing-
in-action.  An ionized hydrogen atom IS a proton.  Abysmally-stupid
Ralphie-boy should put on his dunce cap and shut up.

> We know that Einstein's gravitation theory differs from Newton's in that 
> a factor of two appears in much of the maths. (It was only added after he 
> feared that experimental evidence proved his original equations wrong).

> If it was ever shown that this 'two factor' did actually exist (a very 
> unlikely scenario), that would only suggest that light's inertial mass 
> was NOT equal to its gravitational mass.  It behaves in gravity like the 
> proton does in an electric field.

:-))))

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#408292

On Monday, February 6, 2017 at 11:10:47 PM UTC-10, HGW... DSc. wrote:
> Newton showed that a feather fell to the ground in the same time as a 
> lump of lead and concluded that gravitational mass must be equal to 
> inertial mass. (It didn't actually show that at all)
> That might be OK for gravity but consider the electrostatic equivalent.
> A proton would fall towards a negatively charged object with twice the 
> acceleration as an ionized H atom.
> We know that Einstein's gravitation theory differs from Newton's in that 
> a factor of two appears in much of the maths.(It was only added after he 
> feared that experimental evidence proved his original equations wrong).
> 
> If it was ever shown that this 'two factor' did actually exist (a very 
> unlikely scenario), that would only suggest that light's inertial mass 
> was NOT equal to its gravitational mass. It behaves in gravity like the 
> proton does in an electric field.

No experiment has shown an electron to cause gravity. 
Electrons have an inertial mass and no experiment has shown that
electrons fall at a rate determined by gravity at 9.8 meter/second^2.

Electrons do not have an equivalence principle in that sense.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#408293

On 2/7/2017 4:50 PM, Alan Folmsbee wrote:
> On Monday, February 6, 2017 at 11:10:47 PM UTC-10, HGW... DSc. wrote:
>> Newton showed that a feather fell to the ground in the same time as a
>> lump of lead and concluded that gravitational mass must be equal to
>> inertial mass. (It didn't actually show that at all)
>> That might be OK for gravity but consider the electrostatic equivalent.
>> A proton would fall towards a negatively charged object with twice the
>> acceleration as an ionized H atom.
>> We know that Einstein's gravitation theory differs from Newton's in that
>> a factor of two appears in much of the maths.(It was only added after he
>> feared that experimental evidence proved his original equations wrong).
>>
>> If it was ever shown that this 'two factor' did actually exist (a very
>> unlikely scenario), that would only suggest that light's inertial mass
>> was NOT equal to its gravitational mass. It behaves in gravity like the
>> proton does in an electric field.
>
> No experiment has shown an electron to cause gravity.
> Electrons have an inertial mass and no experiment has shown that
> electrons fall at a rate determined by gravity at 9.8 meter/second^2.

http://positron.ucr.edu/publications/2002/2002canwemeasurethegravitationalfreefallofcoldrydbergstatepositronium.pdf

>
> Electrons do not have an equivalence principle in that sense.
>


-- 
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#408421

On 08/02/17 09:53, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> On 2/7/2017 4:50 PM, Alan Folmsbee wrote:

>>
>> No experiment has shown an electron to cause gravity.
>> Electrons have an inertial mass and no experiment has shown that
>> electrons fall at a rate determined by gravity at 9.8 meter/second^2.
>
> http://positron.ucr.edu/publications/2002/2002canwemeasurethegravitationalfreefallofcoldrydbergstatepositronium.pdf

Only a desperate dingleberry would read about such an pre-doomed 
experiment let alone attempt to perform one.

>> Electrons do not have an equivalence principle in that sense.
>>
>
>


-- 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#408326

On 08/02/17 09:50, Alan Folmsbee wrote:
> On Monday, February 6, 2017 at 11:10:47 PM UTC-10, HGW... DSc. wrote:

>> That might be OK for gravity but consider the electrostatic equivalent.
>> A proton would fall towards a negatively charged object with twice the
>> acceleration as an ionized H atom.
>> We know that Einstein's gravitation theory differs from Newton's in that
>> a factor of two appears in much of the maths.(It was only added after he
>> feared that experimental evidence proved his original equations wrong).
>>
>> If it was ever shown that this 'two factor' did actually exist (a very
>> unlikely scenario), that would only suggest that light's inertial mass
>> was NOT equal to its gravitational mass. It behaves in gravity like the
>> proton does in an electric field.
>
> No experiment has shown an electron to cause gravity.

Nobody suggested it did.
You have missed the point altogether.

> Electrons have an inertial mass and no experiment has shown that
> electrons fall at a rate determined by gravity at 9.8 meter/second^2.
>
> Electrons do not have an equivalence principle in that sense.

I was not talking about electrons falling in  gravity. I was using the 
analogy of an electron falling in an electrostatic field.

Get it now?
>


-- 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#408384

On 2/7/2017 7:30 PM, HGW... DSc. wrote:
> On 08/02/17 09:50, Alan Folmsbee wrote:
>> On Monday, February 6, 2017 at 11:10:47 PM UTC-10, HGW... DSc. wrote:
>
>>> That might be OK for gravity but consider the electrostatic equivalent.
>>> A proton would fall towards a negatively charged object with twice the
>>> acceleration as an ionized H atom.
>>> We know that Einstein's gravitation theory differs from Newton's in that
>>> a factor of two appears in much of the maths.(It was only added after he
>>> feared that experimental evidence proved his original equations wrong).
>>>
>>> If it was ever shown that this 'two factor' did actually exist (a very
>>> unlikely scenario), that would only suggest that light's inertial mass
>>> was NOT equal to its gravitational mass. It behaves in gravity like the
>>> proton does in an electric field.
>>
>> No experiment has shown an electron to cause gravity.
>
> Nobody suggested it did.
> You have missed the point altogether.
>
>> Electrons have an inertial mass and no experiment has shown that
>> electrons fall at a rate determined by gravity at 9.8 meter/second^2.
>>
>> Electrons do not have an equivalence principle in that sense.
>
> I was not talking about electrons falling in  gravity. I was using the
> analogy of an electron falling in an electrostatic field.

What does "no experiment has shown that electrons fall at a rate 
DETERMINED BY GRAVITY at 9.8 meter/second^2" mean to you?

>
> Get it now?
>>
>
>


-- 
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#408422

On 09/02/17 01:44, Odd Bodkin wrote:

>>> Electrons have an inertial mass and no experiment has shown that
>>> electrons fall at a rate determined by gravity at 9.8 meter/second^2.
>>>
>>> Electrons do not have an equivalence principle in that sense.
>>
>> I was not talking about electrons falling in  gravity. I was using the
>> analogy of an electron falling in an electrostatic field.
>
> What does "no experiment has shown that electrons fall at a rate
> DETERMINED BY GRAVITY at 9.8 meter/second^2" mean to you?

It means that you are too stupid to understand what my OP was all about.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#408424

On Wednesday, February 8, 2017 at 8:41:54 AM UTC-10, HGW... DSc. wrote:
> On 09/02/17 01:44, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> 
> >>> Electrons have an inertial mass and no experiment has shown that
> >>> electrons fall at a rate determined by gravity at 9.8 meter/second^2.
> >>>
> >>> Electrons do not have an equivalence principle in that sense.
> >>
> >> I was not talking about electrons falling in  gravity. I was using the
> >> analogy of an electron falling in an electrostatic field.
> >
> > What does "no experiment has shown that electrons fall at a rate
> > DETERMINED BY GRAVITY at 9.8 meter/second^2" mean to you?
> 
> It means that you are too stupid to understand what my OP was all about.

The Doctor of Sc. wrote, " light's inertial mass 
was NOT equal to its gravitational mass. It behaves 
in gravity like the proton does in an electric field. "

You believe the photon has mass, but you reject any other
aspect of mass being discussed. That mistake about mass is common.
Mass is not energy.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#408426

Alan Folmsbee


You believe the photon has mass, but you reject any other 
aspect of mass being discussed. That mistake about mass is common. 
Mass is not energy. 

Mass is more likely equivalent to Entropy 
A Quanta Mass is equivalent to a quanta of energy bound outside of use in the system

A photon travels a c by the same mechanisms the buoyancy of a bubble in a liquid medium rises at a constant speed. 

Velocity in a medium controlled by the properties of the fluid medium, inertial density, elasticity, viscosity 

http://physics.info/buoyancy/summary.shtml

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#408449

1/((4pi)^2*((299792458^2/9.9830599)^0.5) = G

(2GM)/c^2 = radius
G ..... Newtons
c^2 .... kilograms & Joules

((G * 9.98306 ) c^2)

1 / (((4 * pi)^2) * (((299792458^2) / 9.9830599)^0.5)) = 6.67408e-11

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#408495

W dniu środa, 8 lutego 2017 22:23:49 UTC+1 użytkownik David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller napisał:
> 1/((4pi)^2*((299792458^2/9.9830599)^0.5) = G
> 
> (2GM)/c^2 = radius
> G ..... Newtons
> c^2 .... kilograms & Joules
> 
> ((G * 9.98306 ) c^2)
> 
> 1 / (((4 * pi)^2) * (((299792458^2) / 9.9830599)^0.5)) = 6.67408e-11

where is the phi - the fantastic golden ratio: 1.618... ?

Oh! I know that:

G = phi * G/phi.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#408498

On Wednesday, February 8, 2017 at 7:39:56 PM UTC-6, al...@interia.pl wrote:
> W dniu środa, 8 lutego 2017 22:23:49 UTC+1 użytkownik David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller napisał:
> > 1/((4pi)^2*((299792458^2/9.9830599)^0.5) = G
> > 
> > (2GM)/c^2 = radius
> > G ..... Newtons
> > c^2 .... kilograms & Joules
> > 
> > ((G * 9.98306 ) c^2)
> > 
> > 1 / (((4 * pi)^2) * (((299792458^2) / 9.9830599)^0.5)) = 6.67408e-11
> 
> where is the phi - the fantastic golden ratio: 1.618... ?
> 
> Oh! I know that:
> 
> G = phi * G/phi.

((e * cos(137035.9991232535539893 radians)) - 1) = phi

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#408445

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.

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.

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.

-- 
Paul

https://paulba.no/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#408543

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?






-- 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 1 of 3  [1] 2 3  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity

csiph-web