Photon Deflection

this is teh first-observed utilization of Snell,
either here or in alt.global-warming; congradualtion!

however, you are ignoring the simple fact that
it *is* the main example of "curving the space."

in flat space with a gradient index of refraction,
the path of the photon will be shift (not deflected) by an amount of
(2 G M / c^2) towards the sun according to Snell's law.
shrug

On May 30, 11:47*am, Koobee Wublee wrote:
May 29 marked the anniversary date for Eddington’s dishonest
scientific ventures. *In 1919, he was able to conclude a twice amount
to Newtonian prediction of corpuscle deflection where light corpuscles
are treated as classical particles (per Andro’s and Wilson’s belief).
Examining Eddington’s instrumentations, the accuracies are just not
there for him to conclude with the said accuracies. *Koobee Wublee is
not going to dwell on these expeditions of Eddington’s but would like
to revisit if indeed GR, namely the Schwarzschild metric, does offer
the said twice amount over Newtonian prediction. *So, hold on to your
hat. *shrug

Say the Newtonian deflected amount is one nibble. *Just what made
Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar conclude two nibbles
of deflection? *Well, the nitwit argued that curved space would give
one nibble while gravitational time dilation would yield another one
--- thus two nibbles total. *shrug

Imagine if there is no gravitational time dilation. *Can a photon
traveling near the sun be observed to shift in position? *If either
the photon or the observer is located well under the influence of
curved space, this will indeed be the case. *However, if the photon
starts out and ends well outside of (flat space) the influence of
curved space, would the observed position still shift to indicate a
bending in the photon’s path? *shrug

Koobee Wublee’s gut feeling is saying no and has mathematics to prove
that no such bending would take place if anyone is interested. *Curved
space is like a lens with gradient index of refraction. *The photon
will bend one way during the inbound trip (because space is getting
more and more curved) but unbends itself during the outbound trip
(because space is getting more and more flat). *The result is no such
anomaly. *shrug

However, introducing gravitational time dilation, it behaves more like
a force. *Thus, a photon will bend with gravitational time dilation,
and the total amount of bending should just be one nibble rather than
two as erroneously calculated by the self-styled physicists in the
past 100 years. *shrug

Oops! *Bad science or bad mathematics? *shrug

Yes, two nibbles- I prefer "must fall within the same tooth"- of
rotating light experiment.

again, congrdulation

it *is* the main example of "curving the space."

in flat space with a gradient index of refraction,
the path of the photon will be shift (not deflected) by an amount of
(2 G M / c^2) towards the sun according to Snell's law.
shrug

On Sunday, June 2, 2013 9:12:29 PM UTC-7, Koobee Wublee wrote:
Koobee Wublee wrote:



May 29 marked the anniversary date for Eddington’s dishonest

scientific ventures. In 1919, he was able to conclude a twice amount

to Newtonian prediction of corpuscle deflection where light corpuscles

are treated as classical particles (per Andro’s and Wilson’s belief).

Examining Eddington’s instrumentations, the accuracies are just not

there for him to conclude with the said accuracies. Koobee Wublee is

not going to dwell on these expeditions of Eddington’s but would like

to revisit if indeed GR, namely the Schwarzschild metric, does offer

the said twice amount over Newtonian prediction. So, hold on to your

hat. shrug



Say the Newtonian deflected amount is one nibble. Just what made

Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar conclude two nibbles

of deflection? Well, the nitwit argued that curved space would give

one nibble while gravitational time dilation would yield another one

--- thus two nibbles total. shrug



Imagine if there is no gravitational time dilation. Can a photon

traveling near the sun be observed to shift in position? If either

the photon or the observer is located well under the influence of

curved space, this will indeed be the case. However, if the photon

starts out and ends well outside of (flat space) the influence of

curved space, would the observed position still shift to indicate a

bending in the photon’s path? shrug



Koobee Wublee’s gut feeling is saying no and has mathematics to prove

that no such bending would take place if anyone is interested. Curved

space is like a lens with gradient index of refraction. The photon

will bend one way during the inbound trip (because space is getting

more and more curved) but unbends itself during the outbound trip

(because space is getting more and more flat). The result is no such

anomaly. shrug



However, introducing gravitational time dilation, it behaves more like

a force. Thus, a photon will bend with gravitational time dilation,

and the total amount of bending should just be one nibble rather than

two as erroneously calculated by the self-styled physicists in the

past 100 years. shrug



Although curved space does not cause any deflection in angle, it would

shift the ray of photons (starting and observed in flat space with

curved space in between) by an amount of (2 G M / c^2 / r). Combined

with an actual photon deflection due to gravitational time dilation

would be what Eddington had observed in 1919. shrug



Basically, we have the following regarding the Schwarzschild metric:



** Gravitational time dilation bends photons towards the sun with a

coherent angle the same as the Newtonian amount when treating light as

classical particles.



** Curved space shift the path of photo (starting and observed in

flat space with curved space in between) by an amount of (2 G M /

c^2 / r) towards the sun.



Actually, curved space should not result in any deflection at all if

the photon starts and is observed in flat space with curved space in

between. However, in flat space with a gradient index of refraction,

the path of the photon will be shift (not deflected) by an amount of

(2 G M / c^2) towards the sun according to Snell's law.



shrug



Oops! Bad science or bad mathematics? shrug



Just incompetence, no? shrug

We objectively know that photons exist, but do we have objective proof that individual photons move?