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: Arindam Banerjee on 20 Jun 2010 20:58 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). Cheers, Arindam Banerjee http://adda-enterprises.com/MMInt/MMint.htm http://adda-enterprises.com/htnwebsite/home.htm
From: Monsieur Turtoni on 20 Jun 2010 23:32 On Jun 20, 10:56 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 You have to bare in mind that the vast majority of usenet posters appear to be mentally ill.. HTHelps.
From: Sue... on 20 Jun 2010 23:41 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 Relativity http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s8-04/8-04.htm Sue... > > Cheers, > Arindam Banerjeehttp://adda-enterprises.com/MMInt/MMint.htmhttp://adda-enterprises.com/htnwebsite/home.htm
From: Inertial on 20 Jun 2010 23:45 "Monsieur Turtoni" <turtoni(a)fastmail.net> wrote in message news:6922fd0f-ec4d-48d2-b19f-f4c34ebd71e5(a)i28g2000yqa.googlegroups.com... > On Jun 20, 10:56 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 > > You have to bare in mind that the vast majority of usenet posters > appear to be mentally ill.. > > HTHelps. Good point :)
From: Don Stockbauer on 21 Jun 2010 00:25
On Jun 20, 10:48 pm, Sir Frederick Martin <mmcne...(a)fuzzysys.com> wrote: > On Sun, 20 Jun 2010 20:32:59 -0700 (PDT), Monsieur Turtoni <turt...(a)fastmail.net> wrote: > >On Jun 20, 10:56 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 > > >You have to bare in mind that the vast majority of usenet posters > >appear to be mentally ill.. > > >HTHelps. > > Welcome back to the scene. > It takes a kind of mental illness just to be human, > thus all but the BORG are loony. > Functioning in society requires a common mental illness > called domestication, a learned stance. > You are so right. Why, without this domestication, what would humans be? A bunch of wild animals swinging from limbs, bartering for bananas. Just a minute... Just a minute... Dave, an alternative scenario has been proposed for the human race. All members swinging from limbs, bartering for bananas. Sounds a lot better than where we're headed. Survivable, at least. |