If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

 Light Tangent to Earth's Surface Curves as per Einstein or as per Newton?
 Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

## Light Tangent to Earth's Surface Curves as per Einstein or as per Newton?

#1
April 7th 21, 11:49 PM posted to sci.astro
 Pentcho Valev external usenet poster Posts: 8,050
Light Tangent to Earth's Surface Curves as per Einstein or as per Newton?

Question: "If a light beam is sent tangent across earth would it curve at 9..8 m/s^2?" https://physics.stackexchange.com/qu...rm-m-s2/627496

MY ANSWER: "Yes the light beam would curve at 9.8 m/s^2, as per Newton's theory":
"To see why a deflection of light would be expected, consider Figure 2-17, which shows a beam of light entering an accelerating compartment. Successive positions of the compartment are shown at equal time intervals. Because the compartment is accelerating, the distance it moves in each time interval increases with time. The path of the beam of light, as observed from inside the compartment, is therefore a parabola. But according to the equivalence principle, there is no way to distinguish between an accelerating compartment and one with uniform velocity in a uniform gravitational field. We conclude, therefore, that A BEAM OF LIGHT WILL ACCELERATE IN A GRAVITATIONAL FIELD AS DO OBJECTS WITH REST MASS. For example, near the surface of Earth light will fall with acceleration 9.8 m/s^2." http://web.pdx.edu/~pmoeck/books/Tipler_Llewellyn.pdf

AN EINSTEINIAN'S ANSWER: "Yes it will curve, but not at 9.8 m/s^2 as predicted by Newton's theory. Its curvature will be twice that value as predicted by General Relativity."

Who is right?

Pentcho Valev
#2
April 8th 21, 01:08 PM posted to sci.astro
 Pentcho Valev external usenet poster Posts: 8,050
Light Tangent to Earth's Surface Curves as per Einstein or as per Newton?

"Any sign that general relativity is wrong...would revolutionize physics." https://science.sciencemag.org/content/371/6525/116

It is OBVIOUSLY WRONG. The speed of light falling in gravity varies as per Newton (proved by the Pound-Rebka-Snider experiment), which implies that gravitational time dilation does not exist:

University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign: "Consider a falling object. ITS SPEED INCREASES AS IT IS FALLING. Hence, if we were to associate a frequency with that object the frequency should increase accordingly as it falls to earth. Because of the equivalence between gravitational and inertial mass, WE SHOULD OBSERVE THE SAME EFFECT FOR LIGHT. So lets shine a light beam from the top of a very tall building. If we can measure the frequency shift as the light beam descends the building, we should be able to discern how gravity affects a falling light beam. This was done by Pound and Rebka in 1960. They shone a light from the top of the Jefferson tower at Harvard and measured the frequency shift. The frequency shift was tiny but in agreement with the theoretical prediction. Consider a light beam that is travelling away from a gravitational field. Its frequency should shift to lower values. This is known as the gravitational red shift of light." https://courses.physics.illinois.edu...re13/L13r.html

Albert Einstein Institute: "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. [...] The gravitational redshift was first measured on earth in 1960-65 by Pound, Rebka, and Snider at Harvard University..." http://www.einstein-online.info/spot...te_dwarfs.html

"We conclude, therefore, that A BEAM OF LIGHT WILL ACCELERATE IN A GRAVITATIONAL FIELD AS DO OBJECTS WITH REST MASS. For example, near the surface of Earth light will fall with acceleration 9.8 m/s^2." http://web.pdx.edu/~pmoeck/books/Tipler_Llewellyn.pdf

R. V. Pound and J. L. Snider, Effect of Gravity on Gamma Radiation: "It is not our purpose here to enter into the many-sided discussion of the relationship between the effect under study and general relativity or energy conservation. It is to be noted that no strictly relativistic concepts are involved and the description of the effect as an "apparent weight" of photons is suggestive. The velocity difference predicted is identical to that which a material object would acquire in free fall for a time equal to the time of flight." http://virgo.lal.in2p3.fr/NPAC/relat...iers/pound.pdf

Pentcho Valev

 Thread Tools Display Modes Linear Mode

 Posting Rules You may not post new threads You may not post replies You may not post attachments You may not edit your posts vB code is On Smilies are On [IMG] code is On HTML code is Off
 Forum Jump User Control Panel Private Messages Subscriptions Who's Online Search Forums Forums Home Space Science     Space Science Misc     News     Space Shuttle     Space Station     Science     Technology     Policy     History Astronomy and Astrophysics     Astronomy Misc     Amateur Astronomy     CCD Imaging     Research     FITS     Satellites     Hubble     SETI Others     Astro Pictures     Solar     UK Astronomy     Misc About SpaceBanter     About this forum

 Similar Threads Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post Speed of Light in Gravity: Newton, Not Einstein Pentcho Valev Astronomy Misc 2 July 21st 20 08:30 AM FALLING LIGHT IN THE WORLDS OF NEWTON AND EINSTEIN Pentcho Valev Astronomy Misc 0 November 13th 14 08:25 AM SPEED OF LIGHT : NEWTON RIGHT, EINSTEIN WRONG Pentcho Valev Astronomy Misc 4 July 12th 14 12:05 PM SPEED OF LIGHT IN GRAVITY : NEWTON, NOT EINSTEIN Pentcho Valev Astronomy Misc 1 October 23rd 13 06:58 PM FALLING LIGHT OBEYS NEWTON, NOT EINSTEIN Pentcho Valev Astronomy Misc 3 September 23rd 13 06:32 AM

All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:25 PM.