"Evicting Einstein"

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Jim</i>
<br />There is no need for the lecture in dynamics to determine weather or not light has mass. Either light has mass or it has none. If light has mass then the gravity of the sun will cause the beam of light to bend-right? That is all I was asking so lets keep this simple.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">However, reality is not that simple.

If light is a particle, then gravity will force it to bend (by exactly half of the observed amount) whether it has mass or not.

If light is a wave, then it is unaffected by gravitational force, but can be made to bend (by exactly the observed amount) by the mechanism of refraction, assuming only that gravity causes a density gradient in the medium carrying the light wave (a medium that we call "elysium").

So the question of whether light has mass or not becomes the question of whether light is a particle or a wave. And the experimental answer is that light is a wave. Waves do not have the property of "mass", but waves are in a medium made of particles oscillating in place, and those constituent particles (named "elysons") have mass. However, there is no relation between the mass of an elyson and the momentum carried by lightwaves. -|Tom|-

What method is used to determine the bending is exactly half the observed amount? This is a very interesting fact and I wonder if it is linked to other effects that are observed. It is a detail that I need to study more. Even if a wave model is used for light it must still account for the mass in that energy and matter are equivalent and light is energy.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Jim</i>
<br />What method is used to determine the bending is exactly half the observed amount?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">The method is simple calculation of the trajectory of a particle of any mass moving at or near the speed of light past the Sun's limb, using Newton's law of gravity. The calculated amount of path bending by the Sun's gravity is half the observed amount. That is why it was a big deal when Einstein predicted twice that amount of bending, and Eddington seemed to confirm Einstein's prediction by observations at the 1918 solar eclipse.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Even if a wave model is used for light it must still account for the mass in that energy and matter are equivalent and light is energy.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">As I said, waves are part of a medium with constituents, and those constituents have mass. But it makes no sense to speak of the "mass of a wave". Think of ocean waves. The wave has energy and momentum, so the part that hits you can knock you over. But the wave itself might go on for miles. Where would you cut it off to measure a mass? -|Tom|-

What really is in play in the calculation is the r/R factor that is also used to compute tides. The use of r/R seems to work sort of well to solve math problems but does it connect to real events? Why would gravity bend light only at the point of nearest approch to the offending mass? It seems to me the gravity of the offending mass would have an effect at any point along the path of the light. The use of factors gives only an approximation. Nothing is revealed about what causes the bending.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Jim</i>
<br />What really is in play in the calculation is the r/R factor that is also used to compute tides. The use of r/R seems to work sort of well to solve math problems but does it connect to real events?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Central forces usually vary with 1/R^2. But potentials vary with 1/R. See :Gravitational force vs. gravitational potential" at metaresearch.org/cosmology/gravity/gravity.asp (where you can aslo get a free PowerPoint viewer if you don't have one) for other examples of how force and potential have different physical effects.

Remember that in MM, force is transmitted by graviton impacts, whereas potential is another name for aether or elysium, the medium that carries light waves.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Why would gravity bend light only at the point of nearest approch to the offending mass?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">That isn't true. The bending is continuous along the trajectory. We measure the total bending from infinity to infinity along the trajectory.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">The use of factors gives only an approximation. Nothing is revealed about what causes the bending.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">What causes the bending is refraction, and refraction requires the 1/R factor. Nobody is making this stuff up. It is all an interplay between theory and observation. -|Tom|-

[Jim] "Why would gravity bend light only at the point of nearest approch to the offending mass?"

I'm curious to know: where did you get this idea?

===

[Jim] "It seems to me the gravity of the offending mass would have an effect at any point along the path of the light."

This is of course what actually happens (with the effect being strongest at the point of closest approach). I've never seen a text book or other type of serious discussion of this issue that said anything that would suggest otherwise. Thus my curiosity.

Regards,
LB