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. 


Thread Tools  Display Modes 
#1




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...rmms2/627496
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 217, 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? See more he https://twitter.com/pentcho_valev Pentcho Valev 
Ads 
#2




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 PoundRebkaSnider experiment), which implies that gravitational time dilation does not exist: University of Illinois at UrbanaChampaign: "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 196065 by Pound, Rebka, and Snider at Harvard University..." http://www.einsteinonline.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 manysided 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 More he https://twitter.com/pentcho_valev Pentcho Valev 
Thread Tools  
Display Modes  


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 