Calculation of Soldner
in [Physics]
|
Prev: Harry Reid says climate legislation shelved for this session.
Next: Scientific American and all Liberal Media oWned by consWervative promote BP's cap&trade (circa Waxman's '91 bill)
From: Vladimir Kirov on 24 Jul 2010 11:26 German mathematician Zoldner has settled an invoice for a deviation of a ray of light in the field of the Sun for corpuscular light. It has appeared in 2 times less observed. I consider that Soldner has counted incorrectly and the result should be in 4 times more. To whom it is interesting, I can show an error of Soldner or find her. Calculations of Zoldnera are in en.wikipedia.
From: Helmut Wabnig hwabnig on 24 Jul 2010 12:20 On Sat, 24 Jul 2010 08:26:29 -0700 (PDT), Vladimir Kirov <vldmr.krv(a)gmail.com> wrote: >German mathematician Zoldner has settled an invoice for a deviation of >a ray of light in the field of the Sun for corpuscular light. It has >appeared in 2 times less observed. >I consider that Soldner has counted incorrectly and the result should >be in 4 times more. >To whom it is interesting, I can show an error of Soldner or find her. >Calculations of Zoldnera are in en.wikipedia. Soldner was a man. You cannot find her. He has been dead for a while and you can only find his grave. http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johann_Georg_von_Soldner "2 times less" is impossible, not only in English, but in every language on this world. "4 times more" is not correct grammatically, but wrong in physics anyway. The correct value is "2 times" the Soldner number, as shown by Einstein. I hope, someone will comment on why Einstein first published the wrong number, (== equivalent to Soldner), and later had to correct that. w.
From: Vladimir Kirov on 24 Jul 2010 15:23 Helmut Wabnig: > On Sat, 24 Jul 2010 08:26:29 -0700 (PDT) >He has been dead for a while and you can only find his grave. > > http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johann_Georg_von_Soldner Ðrticle in en/de.wikipedia I read. Whence I know calculation? > "2 times less" is impossible, > not only in English, but in every language on this world. Read once again a article. Regrettably, article ne on all languages. > > "4 times more" is not correct grammatically, > but wrong in physics anyway. As You may confirm such for corpuscular ray a light? Regrettably, english grammatics I ne much well know. > > The correct value is "2 times" the Soldner number, > as shown by Einstein. > > I hope, someone will comment on why Einstein first published > the wrong number, (== equivalent to Soldner), > and later had to correct that. > > w. Ne will give.
From: Vladimir Kirov on 25 Jul 2010 06:36
For those who was interested by this message in addition I will inform that Soldner in the calculations http://de.wikisource.org/wiki/Ueber_die_Ablenkung_eines_Lichtstrals_von_seiner_geradlinigen_Bewegung Makes a mistake and asserts that [[a constant]] C=cR=v where c - [[the velocity of light]] though it is clear that <math> r^2 d\phi </ math> corresponds to the area of a rectangular triangle <math> Rrsin \phi </math> which legs of a triangle cdt and R and the integration constant should equal C=cR/2. This error does not influence the further conclusion of formulas, but the final corner of a deviation will be equal not 2gR/c^2, and 8gR/c^2. |