Gravitational Lensing : Eddington Experiment

You are a "fringe guy", since you admit that you do not understand the science, you comment on it anyway, and you write the dumbest things on the topic.

You may not realize how dumb the things are that you are writing, but they remain dumb.

Here's the question that you can't answer, for reasons obvious to us: What is the shape of a geodesic when there is no mass nearby?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

You are in the habit of accusing people and when confronted you run away...

......Your brain size is no bigger than those hidden string theory dimensions and you can surely have a fitting interaction with bricks (Your Brain-mates).

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

You are back with usual nonsense.

Won't you answer how and under what mechanism the mass tells Geodesic of yours to take a new shape ?

You are talking as if geodesic is somekind of thingie which you can bend or unbend......

To me the Dumbest thing is to believe that the time travel to past / future is possible. The dumbest thing is to tell the people that a point mass exists with infinite density and infinite spacetime curvature. The dumbest thing is to tell the people that space bends even though it is not a matter. The dumbest thing is to believe that GP-B proved the curvature of spacetime around earth. The dumbest thing is to believe that GW will be detected as ripples in the curvature of spacetime.

The only positive contribution of GR is that we learnt a lot of complex maths, tremendous progress in advanced tensor mathematics. There is no Physics in GR, there is no reality in GR. Before 2020 (twenty twenty) GR Physics will be wiped out...just a matter of 4-5 years.

 

Origin,

You are a dishonest man.....your post #123 is selective cut paste..read the full quote below, you dishonestly omitted the second line..


""""I am making a statement that in curved spacetime Newtonian Angle extrapolation to get the apparent position of star is bad. This kind of Newtonian Angle extrapolation is only possible if it is flat space.""""

 

There is, of course, a difference between straight lines and geodesics in a curved spacetime. But what matters is that a straight line may be, in some circumstances, namely for weak gravitational fields, a quite accurate approximation.

This is what is relevant here. One compares stars at night, that means, with their light rays far away from the Sun, with the situation when the Sun is quite close to the light ray. In the first case, a straight line is a sufficient approximation, for the accuracy which has been available at those times it was clearly sufficient. For the light rays near the Sun, it was no longer sufficient, and one had to compute geodesics.

 

That second line didn't somehow change the meaning of the first line. You said you didn't say that, but you did - who is dishonest again?

This is a silly statement.

This is an incorrect statement.

The extrapolation in the diagram is perfectly correct and the extrapolation is NOT in flat space.

 

Thats fair in general.

Not clear what you mean, but the fact is this deflection has made us see the start substantial away from its actual position due to vast distances involved, so it cannot be neglected.

Can you help me understand how two people will see each other in strong gravity. Will the observation be different if we asume reality to be a. curved spacetime b. Deflection of light in the flat space as background.

 

The extrapolation in the diagram is perfectly correct, and it proves flat space as background not curved spacetime....This is the point, hope you have understood now albeit belatedly.

If you are so knowledgeable on the subject, making such comments as silly and incorrect, then do a small exercise..

How the image of a background star (partially behind massive object) will form if

a. Curved spacetime is reality.
b. flat space is reality.

 

How it works is irrelevant. You are the person here making a claim that there can be no straight lines in GR. I was asking a very, very simple question that you first refused to answer, then claimed that you didn't know because you never studied the relevant science, and that you are now being very defensive about because you know that you look really stupid because everyone can see you failing this simple question that is directly relevant to your core position.

No. I am asking for a description of a geodesic in a spacetime region devoid of mass or its influence. You can't understand that, which makes us all know that you are a crank trying to attack science in order to make yourself look or feel smarter.

We all know that you are angry. But this doesn't change the ignorance that you reveal to everyone here. And, like other cranks, you would rather be angry than try to learn.

 

Comprehension problem, quite dumby character you are. If the local spacetime has curvature x, then you cannot have any meaningful arc line having curvature less than x. Corollary to this is if you have curved spacetime (Strong Gravity) then you cannot have meaningful Euclidean straightlines...

And why 'how it works' is irrelvant ? Because you don't know ?

Can you be that stupid ?

Learn to speak for yourself, be a man. I am not angry, I empathise with weak people like you.

 

What does this have to do with my question? What is the proper description of a geodesic not under the presence of matter?

It is irrelevant because you are making claims about the description of GR, not its mechanism. However, you demonstrate that you can't describe GR.

Yeah, it is pretty stupid to expect you to answer a simple question about your own claims. What is the proper description of a geodesic not under the presence of matter?

 

Yes, the deflection near the Sun cannot be neglected. The deflection far away from the Sun is, instead, small enough to be neglected. The stars we see at the night seem to be on the same places, independent of the position of the Sun, as long as it is far enough so that we can see the star at night.

I would say similar to looking through some strange magnifying glass. The observation will be in no way different, because you can describe them with the same mathematical equations. And this equation is a simple second-order wave equation \(\partial_m (a^{mn}(x,t)\partial_n) \varphi(x,t)=0\). The only difference are the words we use to name these coefficients \( (a^{mn}(x,t)\). Or we name them "spacetime metric", or we give them names associated with the relevant properties of some medium which deflects the light, and name the coordinates x,t "flat space background".

 

This is as close to admitting he is wrong as anyone will ever get.
What happens now is a side track or red herring, to avoid the issue and having to admit he is wrong entirely.
This is evident in the next post by our delusional, less than competent friend......

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

The above also obviously is an example used by most cranks to try and provoke anger by using "shock and awe" tactics.
The above is also an example of what he claimed in another thread that was shifted to pseudoscience.

Another example above of how cranks will avoid or side step admitting that they are wrong.

Notice how the crank approach softens somewhat when confronted with damning evidence to show he is wrong...his claim goes from being "wrong" to bad physics". Of course it is not bad physics, it is fact and the claim by our friend is just another example of his agenda.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

The hypocrisy and irony is glaringly obvious and needs no further comment.

Then the anger and childish dummy spitting remarks surface once again...as above.

Well most would accept its validity, but with you that is rather difficult.
And of course it is in reply to your incorrect assumption that follows......

Perhaps you should have heeded your own advice before your continued anti science rant as above.

There is plenty of reputable material on the net but it all refutes your claim.
I have listed 4 or 5 references covering gravitational lensing.

 

It's true, absolutely.
And while its also true that they laughed at Galileo, they also laughed at Bozo the clown.

It's arse...or as North Americans may prefer, ass, and obviously the substance of your rant is just another cop out, evidenced by your performances in this thread, [and the opposition from all others] and your performances, [and similar opposition by all others] in previous threads that have been shifted to the fringes.

 

Nice pile you got there. Mind if I talk to it?

 

Sure, I give up.

 

My statement is supported by the following reputable reference.....
http://www.astronoo.com/en/articles/gravitational-lenses.html
Gravitational lenses
Gravitational lenses or gravitational mirage

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Automatic translationCategory: light and photons
Updated June 01, 2013
In astrophysics, an illusion that astronomers are familiar with is the gravitational lens or gravitational mirage.
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

As I previously said my dear friend, the worst mistake you have made in starting another anti science rant, is not taking your own advice in the first sentence of the OP thus...........

and here's another.......
http://w.astro.berkeley.edu/~cpma/3/sci.am.wambsganss.grav.lensing.pdf
CRAZY ILLUSIONS can be created by the power of gravity. Objects can be multiplied manyfold—as in this case of a certain magazine’s logo acted on by a computer program that simulates the effect of gravity on light. Or they can be magnified and mangled—like the galaxies distorted by the galaxy cluster Abell 2218 (opposite page). The large yellowish galaxies belong to the cluster; the thin bluish curves are the images of galaxies five to 10 times farther away from us.
To many people, the universe seems like a hall of mirrors—filled with objects that are beyond bizarre and phenomena that challenge our very understanding of reality. Little do they realize how apt this metaphor is. The skies are riddled with fun-house illusions:
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

 

I understand that you are clueless on this and your 'point' is completely and utterly wrong.

Of course the star must warp space for the object to be seen.

Now you can say (again), "then you can't extrapolate a straight line in curved space".

And I will say (again), "of course you can because the extrapolated line is showing the apparent light path not the actual light path".

And then your head will explode, because (for some inexplicable reason) that too difficult for you to follow.

 

Origin / Paddoboy

You have pasted this diagram multiple times, this shows your utter ignorance and confirms that you are defending something without knowing the details........your ignorance is pathetic and despite that you are acting as if know all about GL..


The deflection Angle as per Newtonian = 0.85 arcseconds or so.
The deflection Angle as per GR = 1.75 arcseconds or so.

Despite my post arguing about validity of Newtonian Angle in curved spacetime, you continued with your silly abuses.....