|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Lee Smolin: Einstein can bend light, Newton cannot
http://streamer.perimeterinstitute.c...dResize=False#
Lee Smolin: "Newton's theory predicts that light goes in straight lines and therefore if the star passes behind the sun, we can't see it. Einstein's theory predicts that light is bent...." Pentcho Valev |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Lee Smolin: Einstein can bend light, Newton cannot
On Jun 19, 3:32*pm, Pentcho Valev wrote:
http://streamer.perimeterinstitute.c...NoPopupRedirec... Lee Smolin: "Newton's theory predicts that light goes in straight lines and therefore if the star passes behind the sun, we can't see it. Einstein's theory predicts that light is bent...." Pentcho Valev Motion determines the curve taken through curved space. Light is the least curved path and anything slower is a more and more curved in its motion. Mitch Raemsch |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Lee Smolin: Einstein can bend light, Newton cannot
On Jun 19, 7:32*pm, Pentcho Valev wrote:
http://streamer.perimeterinstitute.c...NoPopupRedirec... Lee Smolin: "Newton's theory predicts that light goes in straight lines and therefore if the star passes behind the sun, we can't see it. Einstein's theory predicts that light is bent...." Pentcho Valev xxein: What about it? Do you have a question? |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Lee Smolin: Einstein can bend light, Newton cannot
"xxein" wrote in message ... On Jun 19, 7:32 pm, Pentcho Valev wrote: http://streamer.perimeterinstitute.c...NoPopupRedirec... Lee Smolin: "Newton's theory predicts that light goes in straight lines and therefore if the star passes behind the sun, we can't see it. Einstein's theory predicts that light is bent...." Pentcho Valev xxein: What about it? Do you have a question? Yes, I do. Why did Einstein say the speed of light from A to B is c-v, the speed of light from B to A is c+v, the "time" each way is the same? |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Lee Smolin: Einstein can bend light, Newton cannot
On Jun 20, 5:16*am, xxein wrote:
On Jun 19, 7:32*pm, Pentcho Valev wrote: http://streamer.perimeterinstitute.c...ldResize=False Lee Smolin: "Newton's theory predicts that light goes in straight lines and therefore if the star passes behind the sun, we can't see it. Einstein's theory predicts that light is bent...." Pentcho Valev xxein: *What about it? *Do you have a question? Journalists believe Newton can also bend light: http://blogs.nature.com/news/blog/20..._innocent.html Journalists: "And contrary to popular belief, Newtonian physics did not predict that light would remain undeflected – Einstein himself pointed out in 1911 that Newtonian gravity should cause some deviation too." Who is right: Lee Smolin ("popular belief") or journalists? Pentcho Valev |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Lee Smolin: Einstein can bend light, Newton cannot
On Jun 20, 2:46*am, Pentcho Valev wrote:
On Jun 20, 5:16*am, xxein wrote: On Jun 19, 7:32*pm, Pentcho Valev wrote: http://streamer.perimeterinstitute.c...NoPopupRedirec.... Lee Smolin: "Newton's theory predicts that light goes in straight lines and therefore if the star passes behind the sun, we can't see it. Einstein's theory predicts that light is bent...." Pentcho Valev xxein: *What about it? *Do you have a question? Journalists believe Newton can also bend light: http://blogs.nature.com/news/blog/20...ton_was_innoce... Journalists: "And contrary to popular belief, Newtonian physics did not predict that light would remain undeflected – Einstein himself pointed out in 1911 that Newtonian gravity should cause some deviation too." Who is right: Lee Smolin ("popular belief") or journalists? If Smolin actually said it, then he's dead wrong. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Lee Smolin: Einstein can bend light, Newton cannot
Pentcho Valev wrote:
Journalists believe Newton can also bend light: http://blogs.nature.com/news/blog/20..._innocent.html Journalists: "And contrary to popular belief, Newtonian physics did not predict that light would remain undeflected – Einstein himself pointed out in 1911 that Newtonian gravity should cause some deviation too." Who is right: Lee Smolin ("popular belief") or journalists? Let's not forget that during Newton's time, the speed of light was not known, and was considered to be infinite. A finite lightspeed of 300,000 kps (186,000 mps) would still be deflected by Newtonian gravity, but an infinite lightspeed would not be deflected by anything. Yousuf Khan |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Lee Smolin: Einstein can bend light, Newton cannot
Pentcho Valev wrote:
http://streamer.perimeterinstitute.c...dResize=False# Lee Smolin: "Newton's theory predicts that light goes in straight lines and therefore if the star passes behind the sun, we can't see it. Einstein's theory predicts that light is bent...." Looks like he was the special guest lecturer at an undergrad physics class. |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Lee Smolin: Einstein can bend light, Newton cannot
On Jun 20, 7:12 pm, Yousuf Khan wrote:
Pentcho Valev wrote: Journalists believe Newton can also bend light: http://blogs.nature.com/news/blog/20...ton_was_innoce... Journalists: "And contrary to popular belief, Newtonian physics did not predict that light would remain undeflected – Einstein himself pointed out in 1911 that Newtonian gravity should cause some deviation too." Who is right: Lee Smolin ("popular belief") or journalists? Let's not forget that during Newton's time, the speed of light was not known, and was considered to be infinite. A finite lightspeed of 300,000 kps (186,000 mps) would still be deflected by Newtonian gravity, but an infinite lightspeed would not be deflected by anything. That is not a correct version of history. Lord Cavendish had already described how gravity could bend light before 1800. His friend Michell had already described how a finite speed of light would not escape a dark star. |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Lee Smolin: Einstein can bend light, Newton cannot
On Jun 20, 2:46*am, Pentcho Valev wrote:
On Jun 20, wrote: On Jun 19, 7:32*pm, Pentcho Valev wrote: http://streamer.perimeterinstitute.c...NoPopupRedirec.... Lee Smolin: "Newton's theory predicts that light goes in straight lines and therefore if the star passes behind the sun, we can't see it. Einstein's theory predicts that light is bent...." Pentcho Valev xxein: *What about it? *Do you have a question? Journalists believe Newton can also bend light: http://blogs.nature.com/news/blog/20...ton_was_innoce... Journalists: "And contrary to popular belief, Newtonian physics did not predict that light would remain undeflected – Einstein himself pointed out in 1911 that Newtonian gravity should cause some deviation too." Who is right: Lee Smolin ("popular belief") or journalists? Pentcho Valev xxein: Who cares as long as we eventually get the physic right? xxein: Who cares? I hate to say it in this way because I am such a critic of present science theory, but the fact that light bends in gravity is irrefutable. But I have never seen it described correctly. I have done a ton of work on this. No one has even has a clue as to what physically happens to bent light and the reference time associated to it for observational frames. It is simple and complete, but nobody seems to catch on. Maybe because I haven't presented it yet? I know you read a lot and are not very satisfied with the present physic as we think we know it. Have you ever stepped back far enough to re-analyze it? There is a certain point like somewhere between alchemy and chemistry that can give a good starting point to be able to re-analyze that science. The same with any other or physical knowledge in general. Try it for a few years. If you are any good at logic, you will find that all is rotten (in Denmark). It's not that hard to find info enough to make a rational investigation and find the physical logic. I did it before the Internet. That should say something because I am here now and still find no rational argument or theory that can circumvent or alter the behavior of the physic as I saw/see it. If you buy the argument that guesses are all we have and that some work better than others, then there is where I am at. I will not and cannot lie to you. I can't figure out how to connect the observations of QM to GR. QM shows no recognition of gravity. GR has no interface with QM. We can think on terms of one or the other, each missing components the other. I'm not doing a half-bad job of making that connection. I can connect a gravity between them and give reason, but not much else for detail. Not that reason and logic should be sloughed off here, but there is a lot we haven't examined and what we already have examined comes with a preconceived baggage of interpretation. Iow, what the public is presented with is basically the resultant conclusion of the data --- not raw data. Perhaps another way of saying all of the above will be more convincing. I can use a different notion of the physic and get the same results as GPS. The end result is the same. But I used the objective form of the physic and then translated it into the common subjective form for our observation. A completely different process that can separate the objective physic from the subjective observance of it. I shouldn't be able to do this if our present theories were the only answer. This shows that we can math manipulate theories all we want to get the correct subjectively measured result. But more importantly, GR was supposed to simplify the matter. Instead, it ended up in a quagmire of math with no clear physic as an answer (except for self-generated math to try to keep up with subjective observation). Do you understand? |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Why does light bend under gravity? | Pentcho Valev | Astronomy Misc | 81 | April 4th 08 01:17 PM |
FROM NEWTON TO EINSTEIN OR FROM EINSTEIN TO NEWTON? | Pentcho Valev | Astronomy Misc | 3 | September 1st 07 01:07 PM |
Father of science Newton has perceived it (light energy mass-inter conversion) two centuries before Einstein, but without mathematical derivation. | fleesow | Amateur Astronomy | 2 | July 27th 07 11:53 PM |
Moonbeams Shine on Einstein, Galileo and Newton | Sam Wormley | Amateur Astronomy | 13 | March 15th 05 08:16 AM |
Moonbeams Shine on Einstein, Galileo and Newton | [email protected] | News | 0 | March 5th 05 01:40 AM |