Farsight crapped on this thread If the mods moved Farsight's own thread to 'Alternative Theories' for the very same content as his peddling or carpetbagging here, then his posts should be struck-off this thread for the same reason. To get this thread moved,can I ask people to post crap... Please post your crap now...Who's going to be the first crapper starting with post two.
Yes. See Ned Wright's deflection and delay of light. He says Einstein first predicted the "Newtonian" deflection, then doubled it. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Yes. The Newtonian deflection applies to matter. I explained this in a previous thread, taking note of the wave nature of matter, you simplify an electron to light going round a square path. Only the horizontals bend. Only half the path. So light is affected twice as much as matter. Yes and no. Note that Ned Wright says this: "In a very real sense, the delay experienced by light passing a massive object is responsible for the deflection of the light". And note chapter 22 of the Einstein book where he says this: "In the second place our result shows that, according to the general theory of relativity, the law of the constancy of the velocity of light in vacuo, which constitutes one of the two fundamental assumptions in the special theory of relativity and to which we have already frequently referred, cannot claim any unlimited validity. A curvature of rays of light can only take place when the velocity of propagation of light varies with position. Now we might think that as a consequence of this, the special theory of relativity and with it the whole theory of relativity would be laid in the dust." The translation gives word velocity, but as Don Koks said on Baez, Einstein meant speed. Space suffers a geometrical modification in that its metrical qualities are altered, this alteration diminishing with distance. But the curvature is in quotes, it isn't actually a curvature of space. See Baez re "not the curvature of space, but of spacetime. The distinction is crucial". If space was curved, a thrown ball would trace the same arc regardless of its speed. Instead it's a curvature in the geometrical modification. Imagine you’ve placed a whole lot of light-clocks in an equatorial slice through the Earth and the surrounding space. When you plot all the clock rates, your plot resembles the Riemann curvature depiction: Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Note that you measured those clock rates, so it’s a curvature in your "metric". And we're taking measurements around the Earth, so it's a "geo-metric" curvature.
To be clear, Wright does not say that Einstein doubled the Newtonian prediction, Wright says, correctly, that Einstein came up with a new prediction. That prediction is based on, as Einstein indicates, the "curvature" of spacetime. This doesn't make any sense as a part of physics. Newtonian gravity accelerates a body independent of its mass. It is the force that is applied that depends on mass. So one can calculate the acceleration on light even though the force is 0. This is a falsehood that Farsight tries to peddle on many message boards and in his self-published book. In truth, the curvature of spacetime necessitates a change in speed depending on the system of coordinates that one uses to measure speed. The change to the geometry of spacetime covered in GR indicates what the speed will end up being in any given system of coordinates. This, too, is Farsight fantasy.
Yes it does. The wave nature of matter is not in doubt. We can diffract electrons. You simplify falling matter to a square of light with bent horizontals like so: Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! In Opticks query 30 Newton said "Are not gross bodies and light convertible into one another?" And in queries 20 he said "Doth not this aethereal medium in passing out of water, glass, crystal, and other compact and dense bodies in empty spaces, grow denser and denser by degrees, and by that means refract the rays of light not in a point, but by bending them gradually in curve lines?" So you can see how the square above makes sense as part of Newtonian physics. What you said however, doesn't make sense. It's no falsehood. Einstein said light curves because the speed of light varies with position. Not because spacetime is curved. Nimbus: do your own research, and think for yourself.
We are not talking about the wave nature of matter, nor about "electrons" as you wrote above. Nor are we in pre-school drawing with crayons. We are discussing physics. So either show us physics or go away. Optiks Query 30 is part of the alchemichal hypotheses that Newton considered but could not figure out how to work into his science. They play no role in his scientific results. Please learn some physics rather than spout your fantasies. You should read the passage quoted in the OP again, Einstein says explicitly that light bends because of spacetime curvature.
You really don't understand this at all, do you PhysBang? Einstein said light curves because of the geometrical modification. Spacetime curvature relates to the tidal force, the second derivative of potential. But light curves when the first derivative of potential is non-zero. Note my example above of how to depict Riemann curvature uses light clocks running at different rates. And there's no time flowing in those clocks. Just light, moving.
Farsight, you can't actually calculate the trajectory of anything, so you're opinion on these matter will be ignored until you learn how.
You know something krash, his crapped on this thread and using the pages of his self published book as bogpaper.
You started a thread asking some physics questions, I gave some physics answers, with references, and I'm the only one who did. If you don't like that that's up to you.
People reject your physics answers because they are clearly your own fantasy, Farsight. We all know that you cherry-pick both quotations and citations and that you, either through incompetence or malice, do not tell they entire truth about your quotations and your citations. We all know that rather than learn how to do physics, you would rather be here pretending to be a physics expert.
Emphasis added by myself. It fits Martin Gardner's crackpot criterion #1: "He considers himself a genius."
I also notice Martin Gardner's crackpot criterion #2: "He regards his colleagues, without exception, as ignorant blockheads." Farsight has also complained that various forums have been reduced to "physics-free zones" by their admins, and that fits #3: "He believes himself unjustly persecuted and discriminated against." Argument by word drool. One ought to work out the math. I have done so, and the result is \( \theta = \frac{2GM}{b} \left( \frac{1}{v^2} + \frac{\gamma}{c^2} \right) \) where θ is the deflection angle, G is the Newtonian gravitational constant, M is the deflecting object's mass, b is the flying-by object's impact parameter, v is its velocity, γ is a Parametrized Post-Newtonian parameter, and c is the speed of light in a vacuum. GR predicts γ = 1, while most alternatives predict values different from 1. Tests of that parameter are good enough to rule out every GR alternative except those where γ can be adjusted to be arbitrarily close to 1. In the parentheses, the first term is from the time-time component of the space-time metric and the second one from the space-space components of the space-time metric. This is using coordinates that are a first-order departure from coordinates that give manifest flatness.
Your result is wrong. Light bends and matter falls down because the speed of light varies with position. You can't have a fixed c in the expression. And what's this as ignorant blockheads? I don't regard my colleagues as ignorant blockheads. Nor do I regard myself as some genius. But yes, some forums are physics-free zones. They are patrolled by "moderators" who give free rein to abusive trolls, and who censor genuine discussion. As for the crackpot quips, I'm not one. I refer to Ned Wright and Don Koks and Einstein and Baez. If you're suggesting they're all crackpots, be my guest. Then we can perhaps talk about your multiverse theories.
Farsight exists in a physics-free zone. His "genuine discussion" seems to me to be a suspension of reason in favor of arm-waving, ridiculous assumptions and hot air.
Then why does Einstein use a fixed c in all of his equations? This gets back to my earlier question to you: if all you are doing is interpreting, what part of the actual physics are you interpreting? So far your answer has been to either dodge the question or, perhaps because you didn't realize what you were saying, admit that your ideas do not show up anywhere in the physics. So, Farsight, can you please show us the correct Newtonian and Farsight-Relativity predictions for the deflection of light? Without pictures but with numbers that we could use to gather evidence through measurement?
He doesn't. No. Like I've said previously, I've been giving you the interpretation and the understanding. The maths you know about doesn't get scrapped. See for example this: \(\left(\frac{1}{r^2} \frac{dr}{d\phi}\right)^2 = \left(\frac{E}{L}\right)^2 - \left(1 - \frac{2M}{r}\right) \frac{1}{r^2}\)
