[General] relativistic mass
Dr. Albrecht Giese
genmail at a-giese.de
Fri Oct 9 03:56:19 PDT 2015
Hi Al, and All,
the greatest counter-evidence to the position of Ed Dowdy which I know
is the result of Lebach et al.. They have measured the light deflection
at the sun, and the result conforms to the theory (of Einstein or
equivalent ones, see further down) with an accuracy of 10^-4. This
excludes in my understanding any influence of a plasma layer around the
sun, because even if there would be plasma having this influence, there
could not be exactly the same result as from conventional theory by this
precision, and plasma could not even provide this reproducibility. Dowdy
normally refers to measurements of NASA but has never given a reference
to such measurements.
The deflection is, according to Einstein, caused by the curvature of
space-time around the sun. It can also be deduced in an alternative way.
The speed of light is reduced in the vicinity of an object. This causes
classical refraction. An according calculation has the same
analytical(!) result as the approach of Einstein. And it makes the
assumption plausible that the mass of the deflected object does not
influence this deflection/refraction.
One can go a step further and apply this refraction process to the
internal motion in elementary particles, the "Zitterbewegung". This
immediately results in Newton's law of gravity. And it also reproduces
the results of Einstein's General Relativity. And further it explains
the (weak) equivalence principle, the fact that any object has the same
gravitational acceleration independent of its mass. (In present main
stream physics this equivalence is called a mystery.)
The next question in this row: what is the cause of the reduction of the
speed of light. A plausible assumption is that the light like particles
affected here are influence by the exchange particles of other forces.
With this assumption gravity is not the force no. 4 but no force at all.
It is simply refraction.
Albrecht
Am 09.10.2015 um 09:40 schrieb af.kracklauer at web.de:
> Gentlemen:
> Is there counterevidence to Ed Dowdy's observation that there is NO
> light defection about the Sun for rays not passing through the corona
> where they must be diverted as plasma waves?
> *Gesendet:* Freitag, 09. Oktober 2015 um 06:24 Uhr
> *Von:* "Wolfgang Baer" <wolf at nascentinc.com>
> *An:* general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org
> *Betreff:* Re: [General] relativistic mass
> Has anyone ever measured the gravitational weight of light in a bottle?
> Does a hot hollow ball weigh more than a cold one?
>
> WOlf
> Dr. Wolfgang Baer
> Research Director
> Nascent Systems Inc.
> tel/fax 831-659-3120/0432
> E-mailwolf at NascentInc.com
> On 10/8/2015 3:51 PM, Adam K wrote:
>
> Hi Martin,
> Yes, general relativity. That link references the book I keep
> quoting in this discussion list, which is all about general
> relativity. Schrodinger introduces the basic idea and its
> consequences very lucidly.
> The origin of mass was always the sticking point of this theory,
> and was where Einstein focused his efforts for many decades. He
> called the representation of mass in the theory an /asylum
> ignorantiae/.
> Adam
> On Thu, Oct 8, 2015 at 3:05 PM, Mark, Martin van der
> <martin.van.der.mark at philips.com> wrote:
>
> Dear Adam K,
> Thank you for the quote, and isn't it a puzzling one? "The
> deflection is due to gravitation AND mass!!" Well that is one
> mass too many, in my opinion, but i think this should be
> interpreted as if not just Newtonion gravitation is working
> but, instead, general relativity (which includes corrections
> to the former).
> John D, i have not recently responded to your comments, but
> thank you very much indeed for the useful explanations
> combined with your great sense of humor! The helicopter one
> with not finding the hard bits actually made it physically
> impossible for me to hit the small keys on my phone for a while.
> Cheers!
> Very best regards, Martin
>
> Verstuurd vanaf mijn iPhone
>
> Op 8 okt. 2015 om 23:23 heeft "davidmathes8 at yahoo.com"
> <davidmathes8 at yahoo.com> het volgende geschreven:
>
> Adam
> For the light rays near the sun, wouldn't one need not
> just E & M fields. To identify the gravitational
> component,one would have to rigorous eliminate effects
> from the weak and strong forces as well.
> Also, there may be some value in considering Dirac's
> symmetric version of the Maxwell equations. In doing so,
> magnetism should be considered as a separate force, a
> fifth force if you will.
> David
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> *From:* Adam K <afokay at gmail.com>
> *To:* Nature of Light and Particles - General
> Discussion <general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>
> *Sent:* Thursday, October 8, 2015 12:41 PM
> *Subject:* Re: [General] relativistic mass
> With the danger of producing the impression that I
> have only read one book, Martin I thought you would
> enjoy this quote:
> /The deflection of light rays that pass near the sun
> is not a purely gravitational phenomenon, it is due to
> the fact that an electromagnetic field possesses
> energy and momentum, hence also mass./
> From page 1, here:
> http://strangebeautiful.com/other-texts/schrodinger-st-struc.pdf
>
> Adam
> On Thu, Oct 8, 2015 at 12:33 PM, Mark, Martin van der
> <martin.van.der.mark at philips.com> wrote:
>
> Dear Andrew,
> The paper "light is heavy" is no more, and no
> less, than a supposedly didactic and the only
> consistent explanation of special relativity and
> its consequences. Most important points are that
> there are some confusions:
> 1) mass is not matter
> 2) energy is equivalent, exactly the same as,
> mass: E=mc^2
> 3) light is massive, both in the inertial and
> gravitational sense, as is obvious from experiment
> 4) the greatest confusion is about light being
> massless, which indeed it would be if it
> couldn't/didn't move. The whole point is that
> light is always moving at the speed of light, so
> it is a non-existing limit.
>
> Weighing a box with a molecular gas, or that of a
> "photon" gas give the same kind of result: the
> gravitational mass of the gas plus the weight of
> the box. Light is gravitationally deflected by
> large masses, experimentally. Light carries
> momentum and energy.
>
> There is nothing new in what i say, it is
> consistent with Einsteinian relativity an
> represents the vision of Herman weyl too, and many
> others
>
> Best, Martin
>
> Verstuurd vanaf mijn iPhone
>
> > Op 8 okt. 2015 om 19:52 heeft Andrew Meulenberg
> <mules333 at gmail.com> het volgende geschreven:
> >
> > Dear Martin,
> >
> > In your "Light is Heavy" you state:
> >
> > "In the case of light, the rest mass is zero,
> but the gravitational mass equals the inertial
> mass, which is identical to the relativistic mass."
> >
> > Do you have any reference for my contention that
> the relativistic mass of particles is bound
> EM-radiation?
> >
> > In the case of electron/positron annihilation,
> restmass is converted to relativistic mass & then
> to radiation. However, I do not know of any text
> or paper that identifies relativistic mass as
> bound EM-radiation. Your statement is close to that.
> >
> > Andrew
> > _______________________________________________
> > If you no longer wish to receive communication
> from the Nature of Light and Particles General
> Discussion List at martin.van.der.mark at philips.com
> <martin.van.der.mark at philips.com>
> > <a
> href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/martin.van.der.mark%40philips.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1">
> > Click here to unsubscribe
> > </a>
>
> ________________________________
> The information contained in this message may be
> confidential and legally protected under
> applicable law. The message is intended solely for
> the addressee(s). If you are not the intended
> recipient, you are hereby notified that any use,
> forwarding, dissemination, or reproduction of this
> message is strictly prohibited and may be
> unlawful. If you are not the intended recipient,
> please contact the sender by return e-mail and
> destroy all copies of the original message.
> _______________________________________________
> If you no longer wish to receive communication
> from the Nature of Light and Particles General
> Discussion List at afokay at gmail.com <afokay at gmail.com>
> <a
> href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/afokay%40gmail.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1">
>
>
>
> Click here to unsubscribe
> </a>
>
> _______________________________________________
> If you no longer wish to receive communication from
> the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion
> List at davidmathes8 at yahoo.com <davidmathes8 at yahoo.com>
> <a
> href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/davidmathes8%40yahoo.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1">
> Click here to unsubscribe
> </a>
>
> _______________________________________________
> If you no longer wish to receive communication from the
> Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at
> martin.van.der.mark at philips.com
> <a
> href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/martin.van.der.mark%40philips.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1">
> Click here to unsubscribe
> </a>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature
> of Light and Particles General Discussion List at afokay at gmail.com
> <a
> href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/afokay%40gmail.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1">
> Click here to unsubscribe
> </a>
>
> _______________________________________________
> If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List atWolf at nascentinc.com
> <a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/wolf%40nascentinc.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1">
> Click here to unsubscribe
> </a>
>
>
> _______________________________________________ If you no longer wish
> to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles
> General Discussion List at af.kracklauer at web.de Click here to
> unsubscribe
> <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/af.kracklauer%40web.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at phys at a-giese.de
> <a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/phys%40a-giese.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1">
> Click here to unsubscribe
> </a>
---
Diese E-Mail wurde von Avast Antivirus-Software auf Viren geprüft.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20151009/c30d56cd/attachment.htm>
More information about the General
mailing list