• The three classical tests of General Relativity.

    From Ned Latham@21:1/5 to All on Tue Apr 14 04:23:19 2020
    From http://www.einstein-online.info/spotlights/redshift_white_dwarfs

    "One of the three classical tests for general relativity is the
    gravitational redshift of light or other forms of electromagnetic
    radiation. However, in contrast to the other two tests - the
    gravitational deflection of light and the relativistic perihelion
    shift - you do not need general relativity to derive the correct
    prediction for the gravitational redshift. A combination of Newtonian
    gravity, a particle theory of light, and the weak equivalence
    principle (gravitating mass equals inertial mass) suffices. It is,
    therefore, perhaps best regarded as a test of that principle rather
    than as a test of general relativity."

    That last sentence must surely be a non-contentious way of saying
    that the gravitational red shift is not a definitive test of general relativity.

    The writer has apparently not considered that the same combination of
    factors applies also to the gravitational deflection of light, which
    implies that it too is not a definitive test of general relativity.

    With two of the three classical tests of GR thus seen as inconclusive,
    the question arises as to whether a similar combination could provide
    the correct prediction for the relativistic perihelion shift. At first
    glance, the idea would seem preposterous: a particle theory of light
    must surely eschew Lorentz transforms and Einstein's second postulate,
    and in that case an alternative way to the relationships implied by
    the gamma() factor must be found. But as it happens, there is one:
    postulating that gravity propagates through a field the energy of
    which varies as the gamma() factor gives us F = G M m / d² * gamma(v),
    which does indeed correctly predict the relativistic perihelion shift.

    And yes, the above *is* speculative, but if the math produces the
    correct prediction, can it be regarded as fanciful, or in some way illegitimate? Shouldn't we keep such alternatives in mind when theory
    is being tested?

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From margaretporat@gmail.com@21:1/5 to Ned Latham on Mon Jul 20 01:53:20 2020
    On Tuesday, April 14, 2020 at 12:23:26 PM UTC+3, Ned Latham wrote:
    From http://www.einstein-online.info/spotlights/redshift_white_dwarfs

    "One of the three classical tests for general relativity is the
    gravitational redshift of light or other forms of electromagnetic
    radiation. However, in contrast to the other two tests - the
    gravitational deflection of light and the relativistic perihelion
    shift - you do not need general relativity to derive the correct
    prediction for the gravitational redshift. A combination of Newtonian gravity, a particle theory of light, and the weak equivalence
    principle (gravitating mass equals inertial mass) suffices. It is,
    therefore, perhaps best regarded as a test of that principle rather
    than as a test of general relativity."

    That last sentence must surely be a non-contentious way of saying
    that the gravitational red shift is not a definitive test of general relativity.

    The writer has apparently not considered that the same combination of
    factors applies also to the gravitational deflection of light, which
    implies that it too is not a definitive test of general relativity.

    With two of the three classical tests of GR thus seen as inconclusive,
    the question arises as to whether a similar combination could provide
    the correct prediction for the relativistic perihelion shift. At first glance, the idea would seem preposterous: a particle theory of light
    must surely eschew Lorentz transforms and Einstein's second postulate,
    and in that case an alternative way to the relationships implied by
    the gamma() factor must be found. But as it happens, there is one: postulating that gravity propagates through a field the energy of
    which varies as the gamma() factor gives us F = G M m / d² * gamma(v),
    which does indeed correctly predict the relativistic perihelion shift.

    And yes, the above *is* speculative, but if the math produces the
    correct prediction, can it be regarded as fanciful, or in some way illegitimate? Shouldn't we keep such alternatives in mind when theory
    is being tested?

    ==========================
    it is all
    because
    ,mass is the creator of all forces
    including gravity !by some // unknown yet messengers'' it is ''popping out =================
    Y.P
    ====================

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)