sci.physics.relativity

On Feb 22, 6:21 am, "Josef Matz" wrote:
> "Eric Gisse" schrieb im Newsbeitragnews:f93d5e8b-9a8a-43f3-b1eb-227d69b37fcd@...> On Feb 21, 8:44 am, "Josef Matz" wrote:
> > > "Eric Gisse" schrieb im
>
> Newsbeitragnews:d8d4ade0-2ec9-422b-a2e0-851cbff35684@
> ...
>
>
>
>
>
> > > > On Feb 21, 7:20 am, "Josef Matz" wrote:
>
> > > > [...]
>
> > > > Why even reply? I asked for a derivation, not a "post the answer".
>
> > > What do you say that energy law is in 1st approx. identical with GR,
> saying
> > > that a photon changes frequency in a gravity field ?
>
> > > Is that nothing ?
>
> > Pretty much. The frequency of the photon is irrelevant to bending. You
> > don't actually derive the angle, or even try to - you just say "it
> > matches" and expect I'll accept what you say.
>
> Irrelevant ?

"irrelevant"


>
>
>
>
>
> > > You got all the fundamental equations decribing the problem of light
> bending
> > > with SR.
>
> > There is no light bending in SR since there is no gravity.
>
> There is no gravity in SR ? Of course the SR two body problem exits and was
> discussed formerly.

SR isn't a theory of interactions, nor is it a theory of gravity.

> But they used the wrong velocity independent masses in Newtons gravity law
> and got the wrong sign of mercury perihelion.

That's a new argument. I never cease to be amazed to see how
desperately folks like you are willing to be when it comes to making
up batshit insane arguments against relativity.

Now you have to explain why the masses of the planets as determined
through Kepler's 3rd law is wrong, and how astronomers have been
getting the sign of perihelion wrong for a hundred and fifty years,
and how YOU ARE THE ONLY ONE WHO KNOWS.

> Of course the explains in GR are the cause that this was not followed up.

Whatever that means. I have no idea what goes on in that rat maze of a
brain of yours.

>
> But GR is not consistent with anything. And you leave your best theories in
> baby shoes and telling people
> that is the truth.

No, you are a liar. Or you are stupid - I can't tell, to be honest.
Open up _Gravitation_ and look at the chapter on experimental tests,
and that book was published 35 years ago!

>
>
>
> > > Do you still doubt that Light bending as in GR comes out ?
>
> > No - why would I?
>
> Good.
>
>
>
> > > Josef Matz