Drexel dragonThe Math ForumDonate to the Math Forum

Search All of the Math Forum:

Views expressed in these public forums are not endorsed by Drexel University or The Math Forum.

Math Forum » Discussions » sci.math.* » sci.math

Replies: 3   Last Post: Nov 21, 2012 2:54 AM

Advanced Search

Back to Topic List Back to Topic List Jump to Tree View Jump to Tree View   Messages: [ Previous | Next ]
Pentcho Valev

Posts: 4,303
Registered: 12/13/04
Posted: Nov 20, 2012 7:48 AM
  Click to see the message monospaced in plain text Plain Text   Click to reply to this topic Reply

Steve Carlip: "It is well known that the deflection of light is twice that predicted by Newtonian theory; in this sense, at least, light falls with twice the acceleration of ordinary "slow" matter."

This implies that, in 1919, Eddington's results rejected the variation of the speed of light predicted by Newton's emission theory and confirmed the twice-as-great variation predicted by Einstein's general relativity. Is that true? Of course not. First, Eddington fudged the results - the effect was actually too small for him to have discerned. Second, forty years later, the Pound-Rebka experiment unequivocally showed that light falls with the acceleration of ordinary matter, as predicted by Newton's emission theory of light:

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..."

Pentcho Valev

Point your RSS reader here for a feed of the latest messages in this topic.

[Privacy Policy] [Terms of Use]

© The Math Forum 1994-2015. All Rights Reserved.