Two "points" are very painfully obvious.[1] Inflated ego and delusions of Grandeur.
[2] A fanatical desire to invalidate accepted science, driven by religious undertones.
Gravitational Lensing : Eddington Experiment
- Thread starter The God
- Start date
Two "points" are very painfully obvious.[1] Inflated ego and delusions of Grandeur.
[2] A fanatical desire to invalidate accepted science, driven by religious undertones.
Why the apparent path follows straightline, when Euclidean straightlines are non-existent in curved spacetime?
How can old notion of Gravity be invoked in the curved spacetime? You made a statement without realising the import of it.
In fact thats the conclusion, that Eddington Experiment (Gravitational Lensing) disproves curved spacetime; rather than proving GR, it debunks GR. In Newtonian Gravity deflection of light is envisaged (albeit deflection values are less than what GR predicts...the resolution lies somewhere else not in curved spacetime concept of GR), that means in Newtonian Gravity ('old notion' of yours) we can have lensing and straightline extrapolation can be done. But we CANNOT do straightline extrapolation in curved spacetime and we cannot have lensing in GR.
The sinister aspect is that the experiment which was termed as thumping evidence of GR around a century ago, actually debunks GR.
This is incorrect. I have no delusion of Grandeur, I am.
This is partly correct. I have a desire to get rid of accepted but problemtic aspects on prevalent theories. Nothing fanatical and nothing religious.
Enjoy.....till you breath.
If you were half as smart as you pretend to be, you would not be posting and admitting to such stupidity.
Alright then, have a good day.
You have two problems that need attention.....
[1] Inflated ego and delusions of Grandeur.
[2] A fanatical desire to invalidate accepted science, driven by religious undertones.
Until you do overcome those "inadequacies" you'll be viewed by most here as "Hans Christian Andersen"
[with apologies to all my Danish friends]
You have two problems that need attention.....
[1] Inflated ego and delusions of Grandeur.
[2] A fanatical desire to invalidate accepted science, driven by religious undertones.
Until you do overcome those "inadequacies" you'll be viewed by most here as "Hans Christian Andersen"
[with apologies to all my Danish friends]
Again name calling.....Can't you post something without abuses, why are you so insecure that you have to invoke others also in every post? Fight with your abilities, do not piggyback or do not seek support everytime.
I am sorry, you have not even understood the point, you are just babbling. On the other hand Origin is insisting that image formation on straightline extrapolation is due to old notion of gravity, which is erroneous argument. In a curved spacetime, curved geodesics are termed as straightline and they are the natural path of the light, Euclidean straightlines have no existence, so any such extension or extrapolation is incorrect...The geometry of optics in curved spacetime is not same as that in flat spacetime......There must be some sound reason for using straightlines in curved spacetime, if you are aware, please share.
I too am curious if there is anyone who could help you understand something so trivially obvious, but I don't think they can. You seem unable to learn at all - it is really odd.
There is a very thin line between trivial and profound....its a matter of understanding. You see the otherwise trivial solution (division by zero) of GR equations gave us the most profound and intriguing concept of Black Hole.
You refuse to understand a simple point that in a curved spacetime there is no existence of Euclidean straight lines, people argue that light follows the curved path without any change in speed as that path is the straightline for light, if curved path is the only path for light then what is the significance of Euclidean straightlines in Curved spacetime? Can you answer that?
I am not arguing Gravitational lenses, they are there, but they are only possible if we have flat spacetime all around, they cannot be visible in GR. Let me suggest you a thought experiment and a prediction....If we stand on the surface of a Neutron Star, then we will see an object kept at a distance away from us disfigured but at the same location (in case curved Spacetime is reality)...but we will see this object up in the sky if it is flat spacetime. In this case there is no Gravitational Lensing due to any massive object, the geodesics are curved so there is no question of image formation in cruved spacetime...but in case it is flat spacetime, then *corrected Newtonian bending of light by Gravity will ensure image in a straightline despite source light is bent.
This is interesting that our visual perception will go kaput in extreme Gravitation due to bending of light, we cannot see anything directly...all images.
* Some problems with the deviation predicted by Newtonian. It is half as compared to observed.
IMO there is something wrong with you. The diagram under discussion was printed in newspapers around the world so readers could easily understand that this experiment supported GR. You look at the same diagram and somehow think it refutes GR. It is rather sad.
The idea that this in your mind this diagram refutes GR is just mind boggling (and sad).
IMO there is something wrong with you. The diagram under discussion was printed in newspapers around the world so readers could easily understand that this experiment supported GR. You look at the same diagram and somehow think it refutes GR. It is rather sad.
The idea that this in your mind this diagram refutes GR is just mind boggling (and sad).
But the cause of this " lensing " is not so much gravity but the corona of the sun.
River your goofy ideas are only going confuse The God more.
Goofy is it ; where is it that the corona of the Sun couldn't bend the light from a star behind the Sun ? It simply hasn't been considered origin .
So you seriously think you are the first one to ever realize that the light passed through the corona?
News flash, you are not.
http://www.madsci.org/posts/archives/1999-09/938625579.As.r.html
So you seriously think you are the first one to ever realize that the light passed through the corona?
News flash, you are not.
http://www.madsci.org/posts/archives/1999-09/938625579.As.r.html
Interesting this snipit;
What's left after this
difference is accounted for is the bending due to the Sun's gravity. A
messy problem, but I believe it works.
/I believe it works \; I have a problem with this statement
Not at all. You yourself have admitted to what I have labelled you with.
You have claimed that you "clown around" although I see that clowning as a red herring to escape having to admit you are wrong.
You have claimed that you "never" make a mistake or are in error in science, which reflects on your self appraised delusions of grandeur, and of course the obvious fact that as evidenced on this forum, and this thread, that you are continually and constantly wrong.
And finally you have hidden behind your religious convictions until recent times, and coupling that with the inane posts and arguments you put [as in this thread] could explain this collection of God like qualities you seem to abide yourself with, as is the case with most fanatical God botherers.
Sure I have.....
The line of sight simply follows the geodesic path of curved spacetime and we see the illusionary concept of a straight line. :shrug:
You are unable to accept a logical explanation due to your previously closeted agenda.
But as always if you believe you have something concrete, follow the tried and true scientific methodology and get appropriate peer review.
Might see you at next years Nobel awards...
The highlighted text above is somewhat facetious, but your inability to adhere to that enforces my claim that what you are suggesting is entirely bunkum and totally unsupported.
And of course as all reasonably sensible logical people realize, no invalidation or new theory of physics and/or GR will ever be born or created on forums such as this, that by there very nature are open to any Tom, Dick and Harry. [clowns, cranks, and pseudoscientists]
Is that so?
Well how do you explain other verified and validated scenarios of spacetime bending, warping and twisting by planets, BH's and DM that do not have coronas?
I don't know. You are the kind of person to be almost completely ignorant yet to also prance around with extreme arrogance.
You have demonstrated you don't understand this topic, yet you insult everyone who tries to help you.
So being rude to you may be the correct response.
On the other hand, you have a mental deficiency, perhaps even to the point that you have an illness that should see treatment. I don't want you to suffer, even if your illness makes you lash out at others.
Refer to post # 56 then we will continue .