gravitational bending of light, surprising?

On May 8, 7:02*pm, Steve Carlip wrote in sci.physics.relativity:
david wrote:
It would seem that even Newtonian mechanics predicts that light will
follow a curved path in the presence of a gravitational field. *If
that's not obvious, think about the following thought experiment. *If
we shoot a bullet perfectly horizontally from, say, six feet above the
ground, and simultaneously drop a stone from six feet above the
ground, we know that they will hit the ground at the same time. So
just consider what would happen if we were to shoot the bullet at the
speed of light; *it would still hit the ground at the same time as the
stone, according to Newtonian mechanics. So a particle of light should
do the same.

That's right. *This deflection was first computed by Soldner in a paper
published in 1803.

[...]

So this leads to a couple of possibly troubling questions. *First of
all, why were physicists surprised by Einstein's prediction that the
path of light would bend in a gravitational field (after all, even
Newtonian mechanics predicts that it would)? *

I don't think this was ever seen as being particularly surprising, though
it's less obvious what to expect in a wave theory of light. *It's your
second question that's the key:

But more importantly,
is there a difference between what would be predicted by the
differential equation as described in the above paragraph and what is
predicted by general relativity, and are experimental measurements of
the bending of light by the sun accurate enough to distinguish between
the two predictions?

General relativity predicts a deflection that's twice the Newtonian amount.

On May 9, 2:47*am, Pentcho Valev wrote:

Dear P. V.: Since "photons" are just clusters of IOTAs (the smallest
energy units of the ether), and since 'energy' (alone) has no mass,
then gravity can never bend light! The following link explains why.
— NoEinstein —

Light rays don’t travel on ballistic curves.
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.p...d941d2b2e80002

On May 8, 7:02*pm, Steve Carlip wrote in sci.physics.relativity:

david wrote:
It would seem that even Newtonian mechanics predicts that light will
follow a curved path in the presence of a gravitational field. *If
that's not obvious, think about the following thought experiment. *If
we shoot a bullet perfectly horizontally from, say, six feet above the
ground, and simultaneously drop a stone from six feet above the
ground, we know that they will hit the ground at the same time. So
just consider what would happen if we were to shoot the bullet at the
speed of light; *it would still hit the ground at the same time as the
stone, according to Newtonian mechanics. So a particle of light should
do the same.

That's right. *This deflection was first computed by Soldner in a paper
published in 1803.

[...]

So this leads to a couple of possibly troubling questions. *First of
all, why were physicists surprised by Einstein's prediction that the
path of light would bend in a gravitational field (after all, even
Newtonian mechanics predicts that it would)? *

I don't think this was ever seen as being particularly surprising, though
it's less obvious what to expect in a wave theory of light. *It's your
second question that's the key:

But more importantly,
is there a difference between what would be predicted by the
differential equation as described in the above paragraph and what is
predicted by general relativity, and are experimental measurements of
the bending of light by the sun accurate enough to distinguish between
the two predictions?

General relativity predicts a deflection that's twice the Newtonian amount.
Current measurements use Very Long Baseline Interferometry to measure
the deflection of radio waves from quasars, and are accurate to a tenth of
a percent or better, so distinguishing the Newtonian and relativistic
predictions is easy.

Steve Carlip

Sooner or later, Honest Carlip, you and your brothers Einsteinians
will have to explain which prediction, the Newtonian or the
relativistic (giving "a deflection that's twice the Newtonian
amount"), is consistent with the gravitational redshift factor 1+V/c^2
experimentally confirmed by Pound and Rebka:

http://groups.google.com/group/fr.sc...9b66e152b76430

Pentcho Valev
- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

NoEinstein wrote:
On May 9, 2:47 am, Pentcho Valev wrote:
Dear P. V.: Since "photons" are just clusters of IOTAs (the smallest
energy units of the ether), and since 'energy' (alone) has no mass,
then gravity can never bend light! The following link explains why.
— NoEinstein —

Light rays don’t travel on ballistic curves.
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.p...d941d2b2e80002

In essence then, are you are claiming that light travels in an
independent (possibly absolute) frame? That is an interesting assertion
and I'd be interested in how it might relate to the claim that light (in
a vacuum) always travels at the same speed regardless of the speed of
the originating source.

On May 10, 3:47*pm, John J wrote:
NoEinstein wrote:
On May 9, 2:47 am, Pentcho Valev wrote:
Dear P. V.: *Since "photons" are just clusters of IOTAs (the smallest
energy units of the ether), and since 'energy' (alone) has no mass,
then gravity can never bend light! *The following link explains why.
— NoEinstein —

Light rays don’t travel on ballistic curves.
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.p...d/thread/c3d7a...

In essence then, are you are claiming that light travels in an
independent (possibly absolute) frame? That is an interesting assertion
and I'd be interested in how it might relate to the claim that light (in
a vacuum) always travels at the same speed regardless of the speed of
the originating source.

It is no mere assertion. About 100 years
of electromagnetism supports it.

What is the Interstellar Medium?
http://espg.sr.unh.edu/ism/what1.html

Propagation in a dielectric medium
http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teachin...es/node98.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Sitt...tar_experiment
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_space

Sue...

On May 9, 12:47*am, Pentcho Valev wrote:
On May 8, 7:02*pm, Steve Carlip wrote in sci.physics.relativity:





david wrote:
It would seem that even Newtonian mechanics predicts that light will
follow a curved path in the presence of a gravitational field. *If
that's not obvious, think about the following thought experiment. *If
we shoot a bullet perfectly horizontally from, say, six feet above the
ground, and simultaneously drop a stone from six feet above the
ground, we know that they will hit the ground at the same time. So
just consider what would happen if we were to shoot the bullet at the
speed of light; *it would still hit the ground at the same time as the
stone, according to Newtonian mechanics. So a particle of light should
do the same.

That's right. *This deflection was first computed by Soldner in a paper
published in 1803.

[...]

So this leads to a couple of possibly troubling questions. *First of
all, why were physicists surprised by Einstein's prediction that the
path of light would bend in a gravitational field (after all, even
Newtonian mechanics predicts that it would)? *

I don't think this was ever seen as being particularly surprising, though
it's less obvious what to expect in a wave theory of light. *It's your
second question that's the key:

But more importantly,
is there a difference between what would be predicted by the
differential equation as described in the above paragraph and what is
predicted by general relativity, and are experimental measurements of
the bending of light by the sun accurate enough to distinguish between
the two predictions?

General relativity predicts a deflection that's twice the Newtonian amount.
Current measurements use Very Long Baseline Interferometry to measure
the deflection of radio waves from quasars, and are accurate to a tenth of
a percent or better, so distinguishing the Newtonian and relativistic
predictions is easy.

Steve Carlip

Sooner or later, Honest Carlip, you and your brothers Einsteinians
will have to explain which prediction, the Newtonian or the
relativistic (giving "a deflection that's twice the Newtonian
amount"), is consistent with the gravitational redshift factor 1+V/c^2
experimentally confirmed by Pound and Rebka:

http://groups.google.com/group/fr.sc...9b66e152b76430

Pentcho Valev
- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I thought the three were as follows:

1. Physics for white people.

2. Physics for black people.

3. Physics for everyone else.

W : (