FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   PreferencesPreferences   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 
Forum index » Science and Technology » Physics » Electromagnetics
Newton ..with (n - 1), gives the EXACT answer.
Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 1 of 1 [2 Posts] View previous topic :: View next topic
Author Message
brian a m stuckless
science forum Guru


Joined: 31 Aug 2005
Posts: 2024

PostPosted: Mon May 01, 2006 3:53 pm    Post subject: Newton ..with (n - 1), gives the EXACT answer. Reply with quote
$$ Golden Boar wrote: >
Quote:
Why is the amount of bending of light
twice the value predicted by Newton's laws?
Is this because photons are gravitaionally attracted
twice as much as massive particles?

$$ The coup-GR didN'T know that Newton typically neglected M1 motion.
$$ [Clearly HOWEVER, this is NOT TRUE for ANY two more-SiMiLAR mass].

1. SR & GR ..no barycentre.
$$ SR had M1 at REST ..permanantly, in theory.
$$ GR didN'T have M1 at REST ..permanantly, in theory, as SR did.
$$ [ SR and GR ..*BOTH*, eliminate the *point-in-common* ].
$$ Newton ..with (n - 1), gives the EXACT answer.

2. SR & GR ..no ambient density.
$$ Note GR substitutes "SPACE-time curvature", in place of "ambient".
$$ [The bending of light is ACTUALLY "ambient gradient DiFFRACTiON"].
$$ [i.e. There is DiFFRACTiON. Therefore there is AMBiENT media].

3. SR & GR ..no test mass field.
$$ Note, where-as M1 had a field ..the TEST mass m1 HAD no "FiELD".
$$ [Therefore, TWO (2) photons *caN'T BE* attracted to EACH other].
$$ [This means in GR YOU HAVE to CHOOSE WHiCH one attracts others].

$$ Newton PROFOUNDLY simplified the n-body problem to just two (2).
$$ [THEN with (n - 1) CORRECTiNG Newton, ANOTHER body is included].
$$ [THEN with (n - 1) CORRECTiNG Newton, ANOTHER mass mS is added].

$$ SR & GR "linear" means "no barycentre". i.e. No CENTRO-symmetry.
$$ [From a political perspective ALL the talk is THEN of symmetry].

$$ GR with NO test field AND a GR-SUBSTiTUTED-ambient, is just WRONG.
$$ [Albeit, "predicting" the "correct" NUMBER after TWEAKiNG it ALL].

Re: Go-go NETSCAPE news < alt.science.nanotech > < WHY m1*v1=M1*v. >.
Re: A question about the bending of light.
Re: Newton ..with (n - 1), gives the EXACT answer. ..End of POST.
Back to top
Tom Ring
science forum addict


Joined: 06 Jan 2006
Posts: 57

PostPosted: Thu May 04, 2006 2:14 am    Post subject: Re: Newton ..with (n - 1), gives the EXACT answer. Reply with quote
brian a m stuckless wrote:

Quote:
$$ The coup-GR didN'T know that Newton typically neglected M1 motion.
$$ [Clearly HOWEVER, this is NOT TRUE for ANY two more-SiMiLAR mass].

1. SR & GR ..no barycentre.
$$ SR had M1 at REST ..permanantly, in theory.
$$ GR didN'T have M1 at REST ..permanantly, in theory, as SR did.
$$ [ SR and GR ..*BOTH*, eliminate the *point-in-common* ].
$$ Newton ..with (n - 1), gives the EXACT answer.

2. SR & GR ..no ambient density.
$$ Note GR substitutes "SPACE-time curvature", in place of "ambient".
$$ [The bending of light is ACTUALLY "ambient gradient DiFFRACTiON"].
$$ [i.e. There is DiFFRACTiON. Therefore there is AMBiENT media].

3. SR & GR ..no test mass field.
$$ Note, where-as M1 had a field ..the TEST mass m1 HAD no "FiELD".
$$ [Therefore, TWO (2) photons *caN'T BE* attracted to EACH other].
$$ [This means in GR YOU HAVE to CHOOSE WHiCH one attracts others].

$$ Newton PROFOUNDLY simplified the n-body problem to just two (2).
$$ [THEN with (n - 1) CORRECTiNG Newton, ANOTHER body is included].
$$ [THEN with (n - 1) CORRECTiNG Newton, ANOTHER mass mS is added].

$$ SR & GR "linear" means "no barycentre". i.e. No CENTRO-symmetry.
$$ [From a political perspective ALL the talk is THEN of symmetry].

$$ GR with NO test field AND a GR-SUBSTiTUTED-ambient, is just WRONG.
$$ [Albeit, "predicting" the "correct" NUMBER after TWEAKiNG it ALL].

Re: Go-go NETSCAPE news < alt.science.nanotech > < WHY m1*v1=M1*v. >.
Re: A question about the bending of light.
Re: Newton ..with (n - 1), gives the EXACT answer. ..End of POST.


BRIAN And MORE!!! s**t
Back to top
Google
Back to top
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 1 of 1 [2 Posts] View previous topic :: View next topic
The time now is Fri Jan 09, 2009 1:00 pm | All times are GMT
Forum index » Science and Technology » Physics » Electromagnetics
Jump to:  

Similar Topics
Topic Author Forum Replies Last Post
No new posts Newton discoveing calculus Dan in Philly Math 3 Fri Jul 21, 2006 2:25 am
No new posts An exact 1-D summation challenge - 10... Vladimir Bondarenko Math 3 Mon Jul 10, 2006 2:06 am
No new posts An exact simplification challenge - 8 Vladimir Bondarenko Math 9 Sat Jul 08, 2006 6:06 pm
No new posts Answer this question Porat Golden Boar Relativity 1 Fri Jul 07, 2006 4:05 pm
No new posts 1 m = 3.280839395 ft. Is this exact? TCL Math 14 Wed Jul 05, 2006 9:19 pm

Loans | Duwayne Burnside | Internet Advertising | Bankruptcy | Loans
Copyright © 2004-2005 DeniX Solutions SRL
Other DeniX Solutions sites: Electronics forum |  Medicine forum |  Unix/Linux blog |  Unix/Linux documentation |  Unix/Linux forums


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group

[ Time: 0.1495s ][ Queries: 16 (0.0774s) ][ GZIP on - Debug on ]