Einstein the supreme bungler - why Theory of General Relativity is bollocks
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: Witness the physical effect as matter converts to aether
Next: Einstein the supreme bungler - why Theory of General Relativityis bollocks
From: Koobee Wublee on 21 Jun 2010 00:56 On Jun 20, 5:58 pm, Arindam Banerjee wrote: > Good morning, all honest folk. Is this the same Ari some Indian dude who thinks that India has been raped to the bones by the British empire is the best thing for India? > The "proof" for General Relativity is the famous solar eclipse > experiement. [mundane knowledge snipped] > > And indeed that was shown to be the case! [and more icing on the cake snipped] It was shown so indirectly to be the case. <shrug> > Lots of mathematical mumbo-jumbo > leading to the supposed existence of black holes, followed in due > course. The black holes are the manifestations of a particular solution to the set of field equations in vacuum that are static, spherically symmetric, and asymptotically flat. There are plenty of vacuum solutions that are static, spherically symmetric, and asymptotically flat and also degenerate into Newtonian results that do not manifest black holes. So, it helps if one actually tries to study the field equations. Hey, don't feel so bad that you did not. All self-styled physicists did not either. <shrug> > But what was really happening? The light from the stars bent in the > atmosphere extending way beyond the rim of the Sun, due to the simple > process of refraction. [...] Not quite. Newtonian mechanics also allows photons to be deflected at half of GR's geometric result, but that is so if photons are treated like a classical particle with no speed limit. Since then, electromagnetism has been characterized in which light as waves cannot possibly be deflected by a gravitational mass. However, with the advent of electromagnetism, the Aether must exist where a gravitational mass is capable of manifesting a true gravitational lens with the speed of light increasing if moving away from the gravitational mass. You can then apply Snell's law to obtain the same Newtonian deflected amount. <shrug> The 1919 expeditions led by Eddington did not have the technology required in the precision to determine the photon deflection. As one of the fist Einstein Dingleberries, Eddington basically concluded GR's (namely the Schwarzschild metric only) favor without analyzing the data any further. Modern determination of photon deflection calls out for time delay which is the difference in time between a straight path versus a deflected path. So, if the Schwarzschild metric gives two nibbles of deflection in geometry, the expected time delay would be also two nibbles since the deflected path is longer by also two nibbles over the straight path. Thus, by detecting time delay, one can indirectly determine the amount of geometric deflection. So, an observed time delay of two nibbles should be construed as two nibbles of geometric deflection. Well, the Schwarzschild metric exhibits another surprise in which the self-styled physicists have neglected in the past 100 years. That is the gravitational time dilation. In a straight path, the gravitational time dilation from the Schwarzschild metric is expected to manifest one nibble of time delay. Thus, the Schwarzschild metric including both the geometric deflection and gravitational time dilation should actually yield three nibbles of time delay. Well, all experimental results since Shapiro's monumental works in the 60's have consistently demonstrated two nibbles of delay. This is actually not what the Schwarzschild metric has predicted of three nibbles. It is also not what the Newtonian mechanics has predicted of one nibble without gravitational time dilation. It can be what three Aether model of a gravitational lens with gravitational time dilation has predicted of two nibbles. <shrug>
From: Arindam Banerjee on 21 Jun 2010 04:36 On Jun 21, 12:56 pm, Tom Roberts <tjroberts...(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: > Arindam Banerjee wrote: > > [bending of light by the sun] > > As we all know, a glass or plastic lens bends light, simply because > > the light passing through same has to have the same phase front and > > also travel slower. This is just what is happening when the starlight > > passes through the dense (or light, depending upon radial distance) > > atmosphere outside the sun. In other words, the sun is acting as an > > optical lens, and thus bending the starlight. > > No. You REALLY need to read the literature. In particular, the bending of light > by the sun due to gravitation is INDEPENDENT OF WAVELENGTH of the light. The > optical refraction of the sun's atmosphere depends on the wavelength of the > light. Measurements have been made at multiple wavelengths that include a model > of the sun's atmosphere, and the effect due to gravitation dominates; the result > is consistent with GR. > > Also, the sun's deflection of microwaves has been measured via VLBI out past 90 > degrees from the sun, where the solar atmosphere is completely negligible.. Such > a path does not get any closer to the sun than the earth is, yet the sun's > gravitational deflection is measurable and consistent with GR. > > > To totally ignore this optical aspect, [...] > > It is not ignored in the physics literature. For you to totally ignore the > physics literature is indeed "terrific bungling or intellectual dishonesty of > the lowest kind". > > Also, you completely ignored the fact that there are many other tests of GR. > > And there are 3 potential refutations of GR for which the jury > is still out: the Pioneer anomaly, dark matter and energy, and > spacecraft flyby anomalies. > > Tom Roberts In all the acceptance testing of GR, nowhere was the atmosphere of the sun where the light from the stars had to pass through, ever mentioned. The sun was taken as a point mass. Well, that is not the case. GR like SR and Quantum and also entropy (most of modern and some ancient physics) are all rubbish. One successful working model of an IFE, will send them all into the dustbin, and cause a massive rewriting of the physics texts using the two new formulas;' c(v=V) = c(mu, ep) + V and e = 0.5mVVN(N-k) Cheers, Arindam Banerjee
From: Arindam Banerjee on 21 Jun 2010 04:40 On Jun 21, 1:41 pm, "Sue..." <suzysewns...(a)yahoo.com.au> wrote: > On Jun 20, 8:58 pm, Arindam Banerjee <adda1...(a)bigpond.com> wrote: > > > > > > > Good morning, all honest folk. > > > The "proof" for General Relativity is the famous solar eclipse > > experiement. In a nutshell, GR has it that a large mass like the sun > > "bends" or "warps" space, and so, it acts like a "gravitational > > lens". Meaning, that when the Sun is visible in the sky, it will bend > > the light from the distant stars (then unseen, due to sunlight) behind > > the Sun to such displaced positions that they did not hold in the > > night (when the Sun was not around). So, in a total eclipse, the > > positions would be seen to be displaced! > > > And indeed that was shown to be the case! The stellar positions were > > displaced, exactly as if the Sun was acting as a lens! Hurrah, what a > > proof for General Relativity! Lots of mathematical mumbo-jumbo > > leading to the supposed existence of black holes, followed in due > > course. > > > But what was really happening? The light from the stars bent in the > > atmosphere extending way beyond the rim of the Sun, due to the simple > > process of refraction. Light travels slowly in a dense medium (air, > > glass, water) with respect to vacuum. It is this difference in speed > > which causes bending, known as refraction. (Note: Put some water in a > > glass tumbler. Insert a pencil into in, at an angle. See how the > > pencil apparently bends? No great relativistic or mathematical mumbo > > jumbo is required to explain this phenomenon. It comes from Maxwell's > > mathematical derivation of the speed of light as a function of > > physical constants - the electric permittivity of a dense medium is > > greater than that of vacuum, to be a bit technical.) > > > As we all know, a glass or plastic lens bends light, simply because > > the light passing through same has to have the same phase front and > > also travel slower. This is just what is happening when the starlight > > passes through the dense (or light, depending upon radial distance) > > atmosphere outside the sun. In other words, the sun is acting as an > > optical lens, and thus bending the starlight. > > > To totally ignore this optical aspect, and to say that this bending is > > due to its bending space instead, is either terrific bungling or > > intellectual dishonesty of the lowest kind. I prefer the former, for > > the sake of thinking better of human nature (undeserved as it may be). > > It isn't ignored: > > Refractions on Relativityhttp://www.mathpages.com/rr/s8-04/8-04.htm > > Sue... > > > > > > > Cheers, > > Arindam Banerjeehttp://adda-enterprises.com/MMInt/MMint.htmhttp://adda-enterprises.co...- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - Not in the old texts that I read, where the sun was taken as a point mass. Quote from a 1950-60 textbook, where the optical lens issue has been discussed with reference to light bending. Fine thing about print, that unlike electronic media, it cannot be manipulated. Cheers, Arindam Banerjee
From: Arindam Banerjee on 21 Jun 2010 04:41 On Jun 21, 2:56 pm, Koobee Wublee <koobee.wub...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jun 20, 5:58 pm, Arindam Banerjee wrote: > > > Good morning, all honest folk. > > Is this the same Ari some Indian dude who thinks that India has been > raped to the bones by the British empire is the best thing for India? Fool, I only wrote some facts no genuine Indian ever bothers to contest.
From: Arindam Banerjee on 21 Jun 2010 04:44
On Jun 21, 6:36 pm, Arindam Banerjee <adda1...(a)bigpond.com> wrote: > On Jun 21, 12:56 pm, Tom Roberts <tjroberts...(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: > > > > > > > Arindam Banerjee wrote: > > > [bending of light by the sun] > > > As we all know, a glass or plastic lens bends light, simply because > > > the light passing through same has to have the same phase front and > > > also travel slower. This is just what is happening when the starlight > > > passes through the dense (or light, depending upon radial distance) > > > atmosphere outside the sun. In other words, the sun is acting as an > > > optical lens, and thus bending the starlight. > > > No. You REALLY need to read the literature. In particular, the bending of light > > by the sun due to gravitation is INDEPENDENT OF WAVELENGTH of the light.. The > > optical refraction of the sun's atmosphere depends on the wavelength of the > > light. Measurements have been made at multiple wavelengths that include a model > > of the sun's atmosphere, and the effect due to gravitation dominates; the result > > is consistent with GR. > > > Also, the sun's deflection of microwaves has been measured via VLBI out past 90 > > degrees from the sun, where the solar atmosphere is completely negligible. Such > > a path does not get any closer to the sun than the earth is, yet the sun's > > gravitational deflection is measurable and consistent with GR. > > > > To totally ignore this optical aspect, [...] > > > It is not ignored in the physics literature. For you to totally ignore the > > physics literature is indeed "terrific bungling or intellectual dishonesty of > > the lowest kind". > > > Also, you completely ignored the fact that there are many other tests of GR. > > > And there are 3 potential refutations of GR for which the jury > > is still out: the Pioneer anomaly, dark matter and energy, and > > spacecraft flyby anomalies. > > > Tom Roberts > > In all the acceptance testing of GR, nowhere was the atmosphere of the > sun where the light from the stars had to pass through, ever > mentioned. The sun was taken as a point mass. Well, that is not the > case. > > GR like SR and Quantum and also entropy (most of modern and some > ancient physics) are all rubbish. > > One successful working model of an IFE, will send them all into the > dustbin, and cause a massive rewriting of the physics texts using the > two new formulas;' > > c(v=V) = c(mu, ep) + V > and > e = 0.5mVVN(N-k) > > Cheers, > Arindam Banerjee Let someone show some pre 1960 or so textbook where the atmosphere of the sun was taken into account for light bending. Passing off the optical effect for a rubbish gravitational effect is intellectual dishonesty of the lowest kind. Cheers, Arindam Banerjee |