In relativity "s" is for "spin"
For everyone's edification, I hereby share relativity explaining how
light is affected twice as much as everything else, flouting Galileo & Eotvos.
"Are Photons Massless or Massive?"
= "Since the photon is a spin-1 particle, according to this new
equation, Eg^2= s^2p^2c^2 + mi^2c^4 , it follows that, s = 2 , for the photon. In Section 10, it will become clear when we analysis the motion
of star light (electromagnetic waves) that this fact that for a photon
we must have, s = 2 , if Newtonian gravitation is to stand-up to the
eclipse measurements of the Solar gravitational bending of star light.
This fact on its it own—i.e., the fact that for a photon we must have, s
= 2 ; explains the missing factor “2” in the gravitational bending of light angle in Newtonian gravitation. We take this as a notable
achievement of the theory of the Curved Spacetime Dirac Equations
presented in the readings [14]-[16], in that this theory has been able
to furnish a missing piece of a great puzzle. It is an achievement in
much the same way that Professor Paul Dirac [17] [18]’s equation
furnished the puzzle of the gyromagnetic ratio of the electron (see e.g.
[16] on how the Dirac equation solved the
gyromagnetic ratio of the electron)."
On 2024-06-28 18:29:02 +0000, LaurenceClarkCrossen said:
In relativity "s" is for "spin"
For everyone's edification, I hereby share relativity explaining how
light is affected twice as much as everything else, flouting Galileo &
Eotvos.
"Are Photons Massless or Massive?"
= "Since the photon is a spin-1 particle, according to this new
equation, Eg^2= s^2p^2c^2 + mi^2c^4 , it follows that, s = 2 , for the
photon. In Section 10, it will become clear when we analysis the motion
of star light (electromagnetic waves) that this fact that for a photon
we must have, s = 2 , if Newtonian gravitation is to stand-up to the
eclipse measurements of the Solar gravitational bending of star light.
This fact on its it own—i.e., the fact that for a photon we must have, s >> = 2 ; explains the missing factor “2” in the gravitational bending of
light angle in Newtonian gravitation. We take this as a notable
achievement of the theory of the Curved Spacetime Dirac Equations
presented in the readings [14]-[16], in that this theory has been able
to furnish a missing piece of a great puzzle. It is an achievement in
much the same way that Professor Paul Dirac [17] [18]’s equation
furnished the puzzle of the gyromagnetic ratio of the electron (see e.g.
[16] on how the Dirac equation solved the
gyromagnetic ratio of the electron)."
Relativity is a theory about nature.
conventions
such as meaning of "s".
In relativity "s" is for "spin"
For everyone's edification, I hereby share relativity explaining how
light is affected twice as much as everything else, flouting Galileo & Eotvos.
Experimental evidence confirms GR while Newton's gravitation
is falsified.
How is light affected twice as much by gravity as everything else,
according to relativity? According to Galileo and Eotvos, everything is affected the same by gravity regardless of mass or material. How does relativity "spin" this discrepancy (to use a colloquialism)?
How is light affected twice as much by gravity as everything else,
according to relativity? According to Galileo and Eotvos, everything is affected the same by gravity regardless of mass or material. How does relativity "spin" this discrepancy (to use a colloquialism)?
On 2024-06-29 18:10:03 +0000, LaurenceClarkCrossen said:
How is light affected twice as much by gravity as everything else, according to relativity? According to Galileo and Eotvos, everything is affected the same by gravity regardless of mass or material. How does relativity "spin" this discrepancy (to use a colloquialism)?
The speed of an object determines how long the object is close enough
to a more massive object that it is significantly deflected. Light is
faster that anything else so it is deflected less than anything else
(if passing the massive object at the same distance).
A small object like a single atom can be accelerated to a speed that
is only slightly less than the speed of light. Unfortunately a single
atom is so easily lost that it has not yet been pssible to observe how
much it is deflected by a massibe body. General Relativity predicts
that it is deflected nearly as much as light.
Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> wrote:
On 2024-06-29 18:10:03 +0000, LaurenceClarkCrossen said:
How is light affected twice as much by gravity as everything else,
according to relativity? According to Galileo and Eotvos, everything is
affected the same by gravity regardless of mass or material. How does
relativity "spin" this discrepancy (to use a colloquialism)?
The speed of an object determines how long the object is close enough
to a more massive object that it is significantly deflected. Light is
faster that anything else so it is deflected less than anything else
(if passing the massive object at the same distance).
A small object like a single atom can be accelerated to a speed that
is only slightly less than the speed of light. Unfortunately a single
atom is so easily lost that it has not yet been pssible to observe how
much it is deflected by a massibe body. General Relativity predicts
that it is deflected nearly as much as light.
Indeed. It is very unkind of the universe
not to provide steady point sources of relativistic particles,
Incorrect. Relativity says light is affected twice as much as anything
else going the same speed, that is, twice Newtonian.
Incorrect. Relativity says light is affected twice as much as anything
else going the same speed, that is, twice Newtonian.
Den 01.07.2024 00:44, skrev LaurenceClarkCrossen:
Incorrect. Relativity says light is affected twice as much as anything
else going the same speed, that is, twice Newtonian.
Let's see how the General Theory of Relativity [GR] predicts
how "light and anything else" is affected by gravitation:
See equation (2) in:
https://paulba.no/pdf/GravitationalDeflection.pdf
This equation shows GR's prediction for how a particle
(photon or massive particle) is accelerated by a mass M (e.g. Sun).
So GR predicts that "light and anything else" is affected
in exactly the same way. But the gravitational acceleration
depends on the particle's velocity relative to the gravitating mass M.
If the velocity is transverse to the radius vector (r in the equation)
then we have the transverse acceleration of the particle:
lim (dv/dt) ≈ -2GM/r² when v -> c (twice Newtonian prediction)
This means that when a photon or a cosmic ray moving
close to c passes a massive object (like the Sun), then
the gravitational deflection predicted by GR is twice
the deflection predicted by Newton.
lim (dv/dt) ≈ -GM/r² when v -> 0 (equal Newtonian prediction)
This means that when a particle (or other small object like
a space vehicle), is passing a massive object (like a planet)
at a speed much lower than c, then the gravitational deflection
predicted by GR is equal to the deflection predicted by Newton.
Experimental evidence confirms GR while Newton's gravitation
is falsified.
On 07/01/2024 01:10 PM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
LaurenceClarkCrossen <clzb93ynxj@att.net> wrote:
Incorrect. Relativity says light is affected twice as much as anything
else going the same speed, that is, twice Newtonian.
Relatvity tells us that nothing else is going at the same speed,
Jan
Relativity says that SR is local.
The idea that information cannot go faster than light, basically
has that the light-like is free information itself.
Yet, light is local, and an extra-local configuration of experiment,
can make it so that in theories where a "guide lode" is arranged
in the middle of two distant bodies, and either distant body
moves, the guide lode moves, because the geodesy is always
current everywhere, which can be detected the image of the
guide lode, before the image of the distant body.
Everybody knows that in the Solar System, the "System of the World",
that the gradient of the force of gravity points at the source,
not the image. Its constant (constantly current) evaluation of
the geodesy is reflected in the entire geodesy, not as limited
by the light-like, which is just free propagation of information,
of images, or films.
The geodesy and its governance of GR, is always current.
Relativity and Quantum Mechanics both need better understanding
of superclassical models of flow and flux and continuum mechanics.
On 07/01/2024 01:10 PM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
LaurenceClarkCrossen <clzb93ynxj@att.net> wrote:
Incorrect. Relativity says light is affected twice as much as anything
else going the same speed, that is, twice Newtonian.
Relatvity tells us that nothing else is going at the same speed,
Jan
Relativity says that SR is local.
The idea that information cannot go faster than light, basically
has that the light-like is free information itself.
Yet, light is local,
On 07/02/2024 12:35 AM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> wrote:
On 07/01/2024 01:10 PM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
LaurenceClarkCrossen <clzb93ynxj@att.net> wrote:
Incorrect. Relativity says light is affected twice as much as anything >>>>> else going the same speed, that is, twice Newtonian.
Relatvity tells us that nothing else is going at the same speed,
Jan
Relativity says that SR is local.
The idea that information cannot go faster than light, basically
has that the light-like is free information itself.
Yet, light is local,
Where did you pick up that piece of misinformation?
Jan
Einstein says so, and, "Relativity of Simultaneity is non-local",
and, "SR is local" is something at least I've arrived at since
quite a few years ago.
Einstein defines two different milieus for "Space-Time",
the "spatial" for GR and "spacial" for SR.
On 07/02/2024 12:35 AM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> wrote:
On 07/01/2024 01:10 PM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
LaurenceClarkCrossen <clzb93ynxj@att.net> wrote:
Incorrect. Relativity says light is affected twice as much as anything >>>> else going the same speed, that is, twice Newtonian.
Relatvity tells us that nothing else is going at the same speed,
Jan
Relativity says that SR is local.
The idea that information cannot go faster than light, basically
has that the light-like is free information itself.
Yet, light is local,
Where did you pick up that piece of misinformation?
Jan
Einstein says so, and, "Relativity of Simultaneity is non-local",
and, "SR is local" is something at least I've arrived at since
quite a few years ago.
Einstein defines two different milieus for "Space-Time",
the "spatial" for GR and "spacial" for SR.
Gobbledygook ++Kookfight!!!!!!
Sysop: | Keyop |
---|---|
Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
Users: | 365 |
Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
Uptime: | 73:18:23 |
Calls: | 7,775 |
Calls today: | 1 |
Files: | 12,911 |
Messages: | 5,749,959 |