Photon Energy vs. Curved Space

[Dr. J]

When I was in college, my Physics professor showed that a photon passing a massive object was deflected. His method was simply to use the photon mass=E/c^2 and Newtons gravity formula. He claimed this was just additional evidence that Einstein's GR (curved space) was correct.

I saw it as evidence that curved space wasn't necessary.

If Newtons Gravity formula can deflect a photon why does everyone think light deflection proves GR??

What am I missing?

[Dr_Strangelove]

I once encountered that same explanation of light deflection.
The answer I got was that Newton's Law of Gravity applies to rest mass, not total (E/c^2).

My question is: How can we be sure Newton's Law of Gravity shouldn't be modified for total mass and not rest mass?

I once saw a paper online from a Canadian Physics professor, who showed that the precession of Mercury could be explained by using the total mass. When Mercury is closest to the sun (highest velocity) it has more mass and that is what causes the precession.

[MacM]

I once encountered that same explanation of light deflection.
The answer I got was that Newton's Law of Gravity applies to rest mass, not total (E/c^2).

My question is: How can we be sure Newton's Law of Gravity shouldn't be modified for total mass and not rest mass?

I once saw a paper online from a Canadian Physics professor, who showed that the precession of Mercury could be explained by using the total mass. When Mercury is closest to the sun (highest velocity) it has more mass and that is what causes the precession.


I find this curious. If that were true then two bowling balls (or particles) projected in a beam with some parallel path would merge gravitationally much faster. They don't seem to do that which would suggest that total mass has no gravitational component different than inertial mass.

I personally don't believe there is any mass component associated with velocity other than perhaps the kenetic conversion (not the input energy).

I think the illusion of relavistic mass is caused by a decrease of energy transfer efficiency (ete) when there is relative velocity between the propelling source and the propelled mass.

that is a rocket would not show the increasing energy requirement regardless of its velocity relative to anyother observer, hence no v = c limit; except when ete applies.

The issue would be to recognize that one cannot accelerate a mass faster than the propelling source. Since EM waves travel at 'c' in a vacuum it is obvious at a rudimentary level that you can propell nothing faster than 'c' using that method between a source and the mass.

The increasing difficultiy of accelerating the mass would have nothing to do with its mass actually increasing but the propelling energy being stored inspace behind the moving object. When slowing or stopping the mass that energy would catch up creating the illusion of increased momentum (just like a flywheel or field in space around a coil).

But during its free travels it wuld show no affect of having greater mass, i.e. - gravitational affects.

[geistkiesel]

The issue would be to recognize that one cannot accelerate a mass faster than the propelling source. Since EM waves travel at 'c' in a vacuum it is obvious at a rudimentary level that you can propell nothing faster than 'c' using that method between a source and the mass.



I see the intuitive flavor your statement I pared from your post MacM. Consider a huge line of railroad diesel engines with a total horsepower of 200,000 hp is moving at 50 mph. The mass center of the lface plate on the lead diesel engine strikes a ping pong ball suspended from a thin thread to a vel;octy > 50 mph. Very definitely forces can be generated that result in an accelerated object exceeding the speed of the applied force.

Particles moving at .99999c (50sc) can be manipulated by taking advantage of the energy stored in the intrinsic rigid structure of the accelerated particle. There is a variety of ways to accomplish this task not necessarily with the use of huge anunts of grossly and inefficiently applied energy. The task is to determine the resonant frequency of the accelerated particles. The technique would be to apply accelerating forces with an ever increasing frequency as determined by the fincreasing requency of the mass vibrational motion.

This would require a simple feed back control mechanism that slaves the particle motion to the forced instantaneous resonant frequency of the input field resulting in: The acceleration of resonant velocity by the input field (arvif).

Geistkiesel

[Dr_Strangelove]

I find this curious. If that were true then two bowling balls (or particles) projected in a beam with some parallel path would merge gravitationally much faster. They don't seem to do that which would suggest that total mass has no gravitational component different than inertial mass.


To increase the mass of a bowling ball by 1 part in a thousand would require a speed of 13,403,774 m/s. If we could measure the gravitational effect in one second the balls would have traveled 8,329 miles.

The entire experiment would have to be done in space.

[MacM]

To increase the mass of a bowling ball by 1 part in a thousand would require a speed of 13,403,774 m/s. If we could measure the gravitational effect in one second the balls would have traveled 8,329 miles.

The entire experiment would have to be done in space.

HeHe. I'm not going to bite on this one. It would be difficult to prove at this time either way. However, it is my understanding tha tthe accepted interpretation is that what is generally referred to as Relavistic Mass is actually nothing more than a mathematical extrapolation and that no affects of increased mass exist except the appearance of excess momentum.

That suggest more I think of the bifurcated and stored energy view where as relative velocity between the accelerated mass and the accelerating force becomes relavistic the enrgy transfer becomes less efficient at actually pushing the mass and is effectively stacking up behind the moving body to give it more effective momentum when trying to stop it.

[Dr_Strangelove]

I think that theories about mass and energy are much better formulated and tested than any theory of gravity.

I don't think it is unrealistic to assume that gravity acts on the total energy.

In my theory rest energy is just momentum in time divided by c. Adding a component of momentum along a space/time line merely adds to the momentum in the observers time direction.

The fact that photon paths and Mercurys precession can be explained with the assumption is more then interesting.

What is really astounding is that the physics establishment uses these sort of arguments to bolster GR, rather than challenge it.

[MacM]

I think that theories about mass and energy are much better formulated and tested than any theory of gravity.

I don't think it is unrealistic to assume that gravity acts on the total energy.

In my theory rest energy is just momentum in time divided by c. Adding a component of momentum along a space/time line merely adds to the momentum in the observers time direction.

The fact that photon paths and Mercurys precession can be explained with the assumption is more then interesting.

What is really astounding is that the physics establishment uses these sort of arguments to bolster GR, rather than challenge it.

Assuming that photons are truely massless except for their energy and they do have momentum which if were a measure of mass would effect gravity. If phtons were gravitated to each other light could not traverse the universe in parallel rays without coagulation.