Sobral 1919 eclipse involves deflection of star light by theMoons gravity

is the photon supposed to represent one cycle
of periodic radiation, so that
a continuous wave is like a string of photons?

On Jul 22, 12:11 pm, PD wrote:
On 7/22/2011 1:13 PM, Koobee Wublee wrote:

That was not what He said. He clearly said that light will bend as it
travels through a medium with INCREADING index of refraction, and it
will unbend itself as it travels through the same medium with
DECREASING index of refraction.

That's an index gradient. Thanks. That's what I said. Idiot.

No, you have been maintaining that after light bending with INCREASING
index of refraction, it will continue to follow the same bending rule
as it travel through DECREASING index of refraction. You are a liar.
shrug

The result from this bending and that
unbending accounts for merely a position shift.

Prove that. Reference please.

All you have to do is to understand Snell’s law. shrug

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snell%27s_law

Just what part of

that you have trouble understanding?shrug

Yes. Not a thing there about a positional offset of light due to
refraction through a sphere with an index gradient. Not a thing.
Where is the reference that shows the application of a spherical medium
with an index gradient that produces no bending but a positional offset?
Where?

Oh, yes, it does. The law spells definitively how light will bend.
shrug

Are you bull****ting? Do deities bull****?

He never bull****s, He never lies, and He never bluffs. That is
unlike PD who bull****s, lies, and bluffs anyway he can to justify
that Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar is a god.
shrug

Don’t you understand optics? You obviously don’t understand Snell’s
law. You are not fit to teach any physics class.shrug

PD remains unfit to teach physics. PD cannot even understand the
simple Snell’s law. shrug

On Jul 21, 2:31*pm, Koobee Wublee wrote:
On Jul 20, 9:31 pm, Jim Greenfield wrote:

GR says light passing a heavy body does this;

* * * * * * * * * *no lensing

* * * * * * *body

It all boils down to what the mathematics predicts despite what it is
called. *Years ago, yours truly did realize the same effect as you
have pointed out if GR really behaves like a gravitational lens that
obeys Snell’s law. *However, the mathematics of GR does no such
thing. *It indicates more like a force in line with the thinking of
Newtonian law of gravity. *After all, the set of field equations
mirrors very closely to what Newtonian’s Poisson equation does in
gravitation down to the Cosmological constant as negative density in
space that manifests anti-gravity. *shrug

Newton says this;

* * * * * * * body

* * * * * * * * * * * * * magnification

This is what is OBSERVED: Newton is correct, and "spacetime" is a joke

Yours truly thinks the verdict is still out there. *So far, all
experimental results have been interpreted as bending of light in
which a shift of light was never considered due to the lower
intelligence among the self-styled physicists who had failed to become
engineers in the first place. *Engineers deal with real life issues,
and they must consider and exhaust all possibilities before
establishing a conclusion. *Physicists, on the other hand, tend to
jump into conclusions so soon without consulting with their
rationalizations. *It is sad but true! *shrug

One thing that is very interesting is that if gravitational lens
really behaves under Snell’s law, the observed star would be shifted
in the opposite direction as predicted by GR and Newtonian physics.
All convictions, except the inadequate 1919 Eddington expeditions, all
are decided on gravitational time delays which is mathematically very
different from light bending but the shallow-mined self-styled
physicists know nothing better. *It is sad indeed! *shrug

For 'gravitational lensing', put 'magnification'; the real expected
(and observed) effect of light change of direction.
I am not discussing the apparent change of position of a star; rather
the FACT that distant objects (galaxies) are MAGNIFIED.
Hint: Parrallel light does not magnify (may dull or brighten image).
My previous diagram should have included (for the brain dead), light
passing
'below' the 'body'.
You make the diagram, and reach the obvious conclusion, which is that
scenario 2
is the ONLY way in which magnification can occur.

Jim G
c'=c+v

On Jul 22, 12:43*pm, Koobee Wublee wrote:
On Jul 21, 6:53 am, PD wrote:

Koobee Wublee wrote:
Thus, Mr. Greenfield has raised a very interesting fact about simple
optics. *If the effect of gravitational lens is observed, it has been
misinterpreted as light bending instead of light shifting in
position. *That would be another blunder among the self-styled
physicists. *shrug

Sure. Give me a reference to one of them where it says such a thing.
You're a pretty transparent liar.

You are sprouting stupidity. *Don’t you understand optics? *Don’t you
understand Snell’s law?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snell%27s_law

Don’t you own any books on optics? *It is within the scope of 1st year
physics. *shrug

Apparently not.
But there are no mediums involved with this scenario; purely vacuum,
light, and gravity.
No interfaces, refractive indexes etc
Just the principle on how a (magnifying) lens works, and the inference
that GR
is total crap.

Jim G
c'=c+v

On Jul 22, 9:47 pm, Jim Greenfield wrote:
On Jul 21, 2:31 pm, Koobee Wublee wrote:

It all boils down to what the mathematics predicts despite what it is
called. Years ago, yours truly did realize the same effect as you
have pointed out if GR really behaves like a gravitational lens that
obeys Snell’s law. However, the mathematics of GR does no such
thing. It indicates more like a force in line with the thinking of
Newtonian law of gravity. After all, the set of field equations
mirrors very closely to what Newtonian’s Poisson equation does in
gravitation down to the Cosmological constant as negative density in
space that manifests anti-gravity. shrug

Yours truly thinks the verdict is still out there. So far, all
experimental results have been interpreted as bending of light in
which a shift of light was never considered due to the lower
intelligence among the self-styled physicists who had failed to become
engineers in the first place. Engineers deal with real life issues,
and they must consider and exhaust all possibilities before
establishing a conclusion. Physicists, on the other hand, tend to
jump into conclusions so soon without consulting with their
rationalizations. It is sad but true! shrug

One thing that is very interesting is that if gravitational lens
really behaves under Snell’s law, the observed star would be shifted
in the opposite direction as predicted by GR and Newtonian physics.
All convictions, except the inadequate 1919 Eddington expeditions, all
are decided on gravitational time delays which is mathematically very
different from light bending but the shallow-mined self-styled
physicists know nothing better. It is sad indeed! shrug

For 'gravitational lensing', put 'magnification'; the real expected
(and observed) effect of light change of direction.
I am not discussing the apparent change of position of a star; rather
the FACT that distant objects (galaxies) are MAGNIFIED.

Other than a galaxy, whether it is the same one or not, can be seen
behind a massive, dark galaxy, there is no evidence in this so-called
magnification you have brought up. shrug

Hint: Parrallel light does not magnify (may dull or brighten image).

Quite true. If gravitational lens behave under Snell’s law, there
should be no magnification. Light passing through a gravitational
lens is shifted in position instead. If gravitational lens behave
like GR mathematics, it is no different to Newtonian physics, and this
so-called magnification is expected. This is very ironic, and it is
eluded all self-styled physicists for over 100 years. shrug

My previous diagram should have included (for the brain dead), light
passing
'below' the 'body'.
You make the diagram, and reach the obvious conclusion, which is that
scenario 2
is the ONLY way in which magnification can occur.

He thought that you and Him are talking about the same thing. If not,
oh, well. shrug

On Jul 20, 11:31*pm, Jim Greenfield wrote:

GR says light passing a heavy body does this;

* * * * * * * * * *no lensing
* * * * * * *
* * * * * * *
* * * * * * *body

Look at the second derivatives of the curve that you have drawn.

no lensing


-------+++--------- second derivative

Your claim is that there is a region near the Sun's edge where a
grazing light beam INCREASES IN SPEED as it approaches the Sun,
which would result in a reversal in curvature.

You are an idiot.

Jerry

On Jul 22, 7:59*pm, Koobee Wublee wrote:
On Jul 22, 12:11 pm, PD wrote:

On 7/22/2011 1:13 PM, Koobee Wublee wrote:
That was not what He said. *He clearly said that light will bend as it
travels through a medium with INCREADING index of refraction, and it
will unbend itself as it travels through the same medium with
DECREASING index of refraction.

That's an index gradient. Thanks. That's what I said. Idiot.

No, you have been maintaining that after light bending with INCREASING
index of refraction, it will continue to follow the same bending rule
as it travel through DECREASING index of refraction. *You are a liar.
shrug

*The result from this bending and that
unbending accounts for merely a position shift.

Prove that. Reference please.

All you have to do is to understand Snell’s law. *shrug

Fine. Demonstrate your understanding by deriving the result claimed
for light passing through a sphere with an index gradient.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snell%27s_law

* Just what part of

that you have trouble understanding?shrug

Yes. Not a thing there about a positional offset of light due to
refraction through a sphere with an index gradient. Not a thing.
Where is the reference that shows the application of a spherical medium
with an index gradient that produces no bending but a positional offset?
Where?

Oh, yes, it does. *The law spells definitively how light will bend.
shrug

Are you bull****ting? Do deities bull****?

He never bull****s, He never lies, and He never bluffs. *That is
unlike PD who bull****s, lies, and bluffs anyway he can to justify
that Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar is a god.
shrug

Then prove that you're not bull****ting by deriving the result you
claimed from Snell's law.
The more you dance, the more the bull**** on your shoes shows up.


Don’t you understand optics? *You obviously don’t understand Snell’s
law. *You are not fit to teach any physics class.shrug

PD remains unfit to teach physics. *PD cannot even understand the
simple Snell’s law. *shrug

On Jul 22, 11:59*pm, Jim Greenfield wrote:
On Jul 22, 12:43*pm, Koobee Wublee wrote:









On Jul 21, 6:53 am, PD wrote:

Koobee Wublee wrote:
Thus, Mr. Greenfield has raised a very interesting fact about simple
optics. *If the effect of gravitational lens is observed, it has been
misinterpreted as light bending instead of light shifting in
position. *That would be another blunder among the self-styled
physicists. *shrug

Sure. Give me a reference to one of them where it says such a thing.
You're a pretty transparent liar.

You are sprouting stupidity. *Don’t you understand optics? *Don’t you
understand Snell’s law?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snell%27s_law

Don’t you own any books on optics? *It is within the scope of 1st year
physics. *shrug

Apparently not.
But there are no mediums involved with this scenario; purely vacuum,
light, and gravity.
No interfaces, refractive indexes etc

Exactly. Which is why Snell's law doesn't apply here.

Just the principle on how a (magnifying) lens works, and the inference
that GR
is total crap.

And how do you make that inference based on how a glass object
operates on a completely different principle?


Jim G
c'=c+v

On Jul 23, 12:27*am, Koobee Wublee wrote:
On Jul 22, 9:47 pm, Jim Greenfield wrote:









On Jul 21, 2:31 pm, Koobee Wublee wrote:
It all boils down to what the mathematics predicts despite what it is
called. *Years ago, yours truly did realize the same effect as you
have pointed out if GR really behaves like a gravitational lens that
obeys Snell’s law. *However, the mathematics of GR does no such
thing. *It indicates more like a force in line with the thinking of
Newtonian law of gravity. *After all, the set of field equations
mirrors very closely to what Newtonian’s Poisson equation does in
gravitation down to the Cosmological constant as negative density in
space that manifests anti-gravity. *shrug

Yours truly thinks the verdict is still out there. *So far, all
experimental results have been interpreted as bending of light in
which a shift of light was never considered due to the lower
intelligence among the self-styled physicists who had failed to become
engineers in the first place. *Engineers deal with real life issues,
and they must consider and exhaust all possibilities before
establishing a conclusion. *Physicists, on the other hand, tend to
jump into conclusions so soon without consulting with their
rationalizations. *It is sad but true! *shrug

One thing that is very interesting is that if gravitational lens
really behaves under Snell’s law, the observed star would be shifted
in the opposite direction as predicted by GR and Newtonian physics.
All convictions, except the inadequate 1919 Eddington expeditions, all
are decided on gravitational time delays which is mathematically very
different from light bending but the shallow-mined self-styled
physicists know nothing better. *It is sad indeed! *shrug

For 'gravitational lensing', put 'magnification'; the real expected
(and observed) effect of light change of direction.
I am not discussing the apparent change of position of a star; rather
the FACT that distant objects (galaxies) are MAGNIFIED.

Other than a galaxy, whether it is the same one or not, can be seen
behind a massive, dark galaxy, there is no evidence in this so-called
magnification you have brought up. *shrug

Hint: Parrallel light does not magnify (may dull or brighten image).

Quite true. *If gravitational lens behave under Snell’s law,

But it doesn't.

there
should be no magnification. *Light passing through a gravitational
lens is shifted in position instead. *If gravitational lens behave
like GR mathematics, it is no different to Newtonian physics, and this
so-called magnification is expected. *This is very ironic, and it is
eluded all self-styled physicists for over 100 years. *shrug

My previous diagram should have included (for the brain dead), light
passing
'below' the 'body'.
You make the diagram, and reach the obvious conclusion, which is that
scenario 2
is the ONLY way in which magnification can occur.

He thought that you and Him are talking about the same thing. *If not,
oh, well. *shrug

On Jul 23, 11:14*am, PD wrote:
On Jul 23, 12:27*am, Koobee Wublee wrote:

Quite true. *If gravitational lens behave under Snell’s law,

But it doesn't.

Be easy on KW. Light passing around a massive object WOULD obey
the principle of least action, which is the underlying reason why
Snell's law works.

KW just can't think through the consequences, that's all.

Jerry