FR Bending of Light

PD wrote:

Dark energy wasn't, no.

You're right, we only have the footprints of dark energy and haven't
captured the beast yet.
If you see footprints of a tiger in the woods, do you conclude that
someone has made up a fictional tiger?

I conclude you just got eaten by a tiger and thus I can safely walk around.

How does telling you that wormholes AREN'T something you claim they
are, imply anything about what I believe or don't believe. If I tell
you that extraterrestrial planets are not cities made of paper and
clay, does that tell you that I believe in extraterrestrial planets?

You know they are because you know what they're being made of.

PD wrote:

Ah, lovely, the foam on the lips of a conspiracy goon. Can't cite it
but you know it's there.

Betting against GR is a better use of my time.

You think that GR can't calculate gravitational time dilation and
light bending? Whatever gave you that idea?

Its square root approach.

Phil Bouchard wrote:

PD wrote:

Ah, lovely, the foam on the lips of a conspiracy goon. Can't cite it
but you know it's there.

Betting against GR is a better use of my time.

You think that GR can't calculate gravitational time dilation and
light bending? Whatever gave you that idea?

Its square root approach.

Wow, you still have a problem with simple algebra?

On Nov 25, 1:36*pm, Sam Wormley wrote:
philippeb8 wrote:
I have correctly implemented the bending of light calculations
according to Finite Relativism. *The perihelion precession of Mercury
remains constant (2.49e-7 rad/cycle) like it was demonstrated before
and the discrepancy of the bending of light is of the order of 1e-7
rad!
http://www.fornux.com/personal/philippe/fr/fr.exe

The discrepancy found in 1919 was of 4.2e-6 rad:
http://web.mit.edu/6.055/notes/bending-of-light.pdf

I do not use the same conditions but we can already see its order to
be of the same magnitude.

-Phil

* *Phil, if this "Finite Relativism" can do anything, it should
* *be able to calculate the time dilation of a satellite clock in
* *orbit about the earth at at altitude of 202 km above MSL in
* *an orbit with eccentricity = 0.

* *So far you have not demonstrated that "Finite Relativism" can
* *calculate ANYTHING correctly.

* *Here's a copy of the review about your book on the subject.

* *The book you self-published is a perfect example of how you have
* *fooled yourself in to thinking the are shortcuts to education.

Customer Reviews
Finite Relativism And Dark Matter Disproof: General Relativity Reegineeredhttp://www.amazon.com/Finite-Relativism-Dark-Matter-Disproof/dp/14414...

* 'My name appears in the Acknowledgments of this book, therefore, I should
* *contribute a review. "Finite Relativism And Dark Matter Disproof" is an
* *attempt by the author to disprove special relativity, Dark Matter and to
* *solve many of what the author perceives as "dilemmas" such as singularities,
* *black hole behaviors and natural worm holes. Unfortunately, the author
* *demonstrates a complete lack of understanding of special or general
* *relativity or the underlying mathematics of either theory. The author
* *confuses the concepts of acceleration and velocity in the abstract and
* *goes downhill from there. One can open the book to almost any page and
* *find the conceptual arguments and calculations wrong. In a section on GPS,
* *the author plots gravitational time dilation as a function of altitude
* *which is totally contradicted by general relativity predictions and
* *observations of time dilation in earth satellite clocks. I cannot
* *recommend this book to anyone, even as an example of how not to write
* *about science. -- Sam Wormley, Adj. Prof. *Astronomy'- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

xxein:
"In a section on GPS, the author plots gravitational time dilation as
a function of altitude which is totally contradicted by general
relativity predictions and observations of time dilation in earth
satellite clocks."

Gravitational time dilation IS a function of altitude --- but also a
function of velocity for satellites. I don't know what Phil has put
forward in his book but I can show it to you.

Assume 3 givens. Lorentz' time dilation as a function of velocity,
Kepplerian orbit mechanics and a nominal radius of the Earth of
6378170 meters.

The GPS system satellites orbit 2x per sidereal day. Orbital period =
43198 secs. Orbital velocity (Ov) = 3871.4741303174 m/s. Altitude =
26617063.0508624 meters fron the Earth's center. So far?

(1-(2*M/r))^.5. Look familiar? M and r are expressed in meters. It's
gravitational time dilation. How about (2*M*c^2/r)^.5? That's escape
velocity (Ev). A velocity wrt an altitude!

What is such a satellite's unadjusted clockrate? How does it compare
with a clockrate on the Earth's surface? Let's do a simple little
unorthodox math and figure that out, huh?

First of all, and to be consistant, there is no frame dragging going
on here at all. Just velocities.

GPS clockrate = clockrate for Lorentz velocity of ((Ov^2) + (Ev^2))^.5
(= 6705.58989389825 m/s) = .999999999749849 secs/sec.

Earth observer clockrate is the same except that the orbit velocity is
replaced with the rotational velocity (463.855086238872 m/s) yielding .
999999999302857 secs/sec. The difference is 4.46991998970248E-10 secs/
sec. So far?

Multiply by the 86396 seconds in a sidereal day and you get your
3.86183207430336E-05 second per day difference. Not too hard, is it?

Of course the Sun, Moon and Jupiter have their say in all this also
but what I give is just an idealized celestial mechanic of 2 bodies
(point particle and mass). But this puts definite restrictions on how
light can orbit a black hole.

Light can only circularly orbit (eccentricity = |0|) a black hole at
3M. Do my math to see that ((Ov^2) + (Ev^2))^.5 = c. The question
then becomes "Is c not a constant? Why is it orbiting at only
173085256.327319 m/s?". Ans: Because it is moving across the
stream. It is the same reason we had to give it twice the lightpath
for bending. At 3M, light is crossing a 244779516.944918 m/s stream.
A stream of what? Why not a curvature of spacetime like we chose to
believe? Because we chose wrongly.

On Nov 24, 4:24*pm, PD wrote:
On Nov 24, 3:16*pm, Phil Bouchard wrote:

PD wrote:

For whom? You? That's fine.

*From the facts.

Facts don't "like" theories.



No, it doesn't. You've already said it gets an answer different than
what is actually observed. GR gets the same answer as what is actually
observed. This should be perceived as a problem.

GR light bending was tested once

It's been tested multiple times over the last 90 years.

in 1919 with obscure conditions and
debatable precision. *FR can be tested anywhere and at anytime.

So can GR.

The strength of gravity slows light down by time-aether.

Mitch Raemsch

On Nov 26, 1:00*am, Sam Wormley wrote:
xxeinwrote:
On Nov 25, 1:36 pm, Sam Wormley wrote:
philippeb8 wrote:
I have correctly implemented the bending of light calculations
according to Finite Relativism. *The perihelion precession of Mercury
remains constant (2.49e-7 rad/cycle) like it was demonstrated before
and the discrepancy of the bending of light is of the order of 1e-7
rad!
http://www.fornux.com/personal/philippe/fr/fr.exe
The discrepancy found in 1919 was of 4.2e-6 rad:
http://web.mit.edu/6.055/notes/bending-of-light.pdf
I do not use the same conditions but we can already see its order to
be of the same magnitude.
-Phil
* *Phil, if this "Finite Relativism" can do anything, it should
* *be able to calculate the time dilation of a satellite clock in
* *orbit about the earth at at altitude of 202 km above MSL in
* *an orbit with eccentricity = 0.

* *So far you have not demonstrated that "Finite Relativism" can
* *calculate ANYTHING correctly.

* *Here's a copy of the review about your book on the subject.

* *The book you self-published is a perfect example of how you have
* *fooled yourself in to thinking the are shortcuts to education.

Customer Reviews
Finite Relativism And Dark Matter Disproof: General Relativity Reegineeredhttp://www.amazon.com/Finite-Relativism-Dark-Matter-Disproof/dp/14414....

* 'My name appears in the Acknowledgments of this book, therefore, I should
* *contribute a review. "Finite Relativism And Dark Matter Disproof" is an
* *attempt by the author to disprove special relativity, Dark Matter and to
* *solve many of what the author perceives as "dilemmas" such as singularities,
* *black hole behaviors and natural worm holes. Unfortunately, the author
* *demonstrates a complete lack of understanding of special or general
* *relativity or the underlying mathematics of either theory. The author
* *confuses the concepts of acceleration and velocity in the abstract and
* *goes downhill from there. One can open the book to almost any page and
* *find the conceptual arguments and calculations wrong. In a section on GPS,
* *the author plots gravitational time dilation as a function of altitude
* *which is totally contradicted by general relativity predictions and
* *observations of time dilation in earth satellite clocks. I cannot
* *recommend this book to anyone, even as an example of how not to write
* *about science. -- Sam Wormley, Adj. Prof. *Astronomy'- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

xxein:
"In a section on GPS, the author plots gravitational time dilation as
a function of altitude which is totally contradicted by general
relativity predictions and observations of time dilation in earth
satellite clocks."

Gravitational time dilation IS a function of altitude --- but also a
function of velocity for satellites. *I don't know what Phil has put
forward in his book but I can show it to you.

Assume 3 givens. *Lorentz' time dilation as a function of velocity,
Kepplerian orbit mechanics and a nominal radius of the Earth of
6378170 meters.

The GPS system satellites orbit 2x per sidereal day. *Orbital period =
43198 secs. *Orbital velocity (Ov) = 3871.4741303174 m/s. *Altitude =
26617063.0508624 meters fron the Earth's center. *So far?

(1-(2*M/r))^.5. *Look familiar? *M and r are expressed in meters. It's
gravitational time dilation. *How about (2*M*c^2/r)^.5? *That's escape
velocity (Ev). *A velocity wrt an altitude!

What is such a satellite's unadjusted clockrate? *How does it compare
with a clockrate on the Earth's surface? *Let's do a simple little
unorthodox math and figure that out, huh?

First of all, and to be consistant, there is no frame dragging going
on here at all. *Just velocities.

GPS clockrate = clockrate for Lorentz velocity of ((Ov^2) + (Ev^2))^.5
(= 6705.58989389825 m/s) = .999999999749849 secs/sec.

Earth observer clockrate is the same except that the orbit velocity is
replaced with the rotational velocity (463.855086238872 m/s) yielding .
999999999302857 secs/sec. *The difference is 4.46991998970248E-10 secs/
sec. *So far?

Multiply by the 86396 seconds in a sidereal day and you get your
3.86183207430336E-05 second per day difference. *Not too hard, is it?

Of course the Sun, Moon and Jupiter have their say in all this also
but what I give is just an idealized celestial mechanic of 2 bodies
(point particle and mass). *But this puts definite restrictions on how
light can orbit a black hole.

Light can only circularly orbit (eccentricity = |0|) a black hole at
3M. *Do my math to see that ((Ov^2) + (Ev^2))^.5 = c. *The question
then becomes "Is c not a constant? *Why is it orbiting at only
173085256.327319 m/s?". *Ans: *Because it is moving across the
stream. *It is the same reason we had to give it twice the lightpath
for bending. *At 3M, light is crossing a 244779516.944918 m/s stream.
A stream of what? *Why not a curvature of spacetime like we chose to
believe? *Because we chose wrongly.

* *See: Relativistic Effects on Satellite Clocks
* * *http://relativity.livingreviews.org/...age=node5....- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

xxein: I'm familiar with Neil Ashby. At least he called a double
correction an error before GPS was fully developed. I saw it in
retrospect with my work. But he does not see it as clearly as he
could.

As we have progressed in a general science, new dicoveries are
assimilated and used to promote the general welfare of all. But this
Einsteinian concept is reluctant to change. It wants new discovery to
be a part of it's concept without the changing of itself.

This Horganish process and hubris dominates this class of science. It
puts a false limit on an otherwise usable logic.

I don't know why you cited Ashby.

On Nov 26, 5:37*pm, xxein wrote:
On Nov 26, 1:00*am, Sam Wormley wrote:





xxeinwrote:
On Nov 25, 1:36 pm, Sam Wormley wrote:
philippeb8 wrote:
I have correctly implemented the bending of light calculations
according to Finite Relativism. *The perihelion precession of Mercury
remains constant (2.49e-7 rad/cycle) like it was demonstrated before
and the discrepancy of the bending of light is of the order of 1e-7
rad!
http://www.fornux.com/personal/philippe/fr/fr.exe
The discrepancy found in 1919 was of 4.2e-6 rad:
http://web.mit.edu/6.055/notes/bending-of-light.pdf
I do not use the same conditions but we can already see its order to
be of the same magnitude.
-Phil
* *Phil, if this "Finite Relativism" can do anything, it should
* *be able to calculate the time dilation of a satellite clock in
* *orbit about the earth at at altitude of 202 km above MSL in
* *an orbit with eccentricity = 0.

* *So far you have not demonstrated that "Finite Relativism" can
* *calculate ANYTHING correctly.

* *Here's a copy of the review about your book on the subject.

* *The book you self-published is a perfect example of how you have
* *fooled yourself in to thinking the are shortcuts to education..

Customer Reviews
Finite Relativism And Dark Matter Disproof: General Relativity Reegineeredhttp://www.amazon.com/Finite-Relativism-Dark-Matter-Disproof/dp/14414....

* 'My name appears in the Acknowledgments of this book, therefore, I should
* *contribute a review. "Finite Relativism And Dark Matter Disproof" is an
* *attempt by the author to disprove special relativity, Dark Matter and to
* *solve many of what the author perceives as "dilemmas" such as singularities,
* *black hole behaviors and natural worm holes. Unfortunately, the author
* *demonstrates a complete lack of understanding of special or general
* *relativity or the underlying mathematics of either theory. The author
* *confuses the concepts of acceleration and velocity in the abstract and
* *goes downhill from there. One can open the book to almost any page and
* *find the conceptual arguments and calculations wrong. In a section on GPS,
* *the author plots gravitational time dilation as a function of altitude
* *which is totally contradicted by general relativity predictions and
* *observations of time dilation in earth satellite clocks. I cannot
* *recommend this book to anyone, even as an example of how not to write
* *about science. -- Sam Wormley, Adj. Prof. *Astronomy'- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

xxein:
"In a section on GPS, the author plots gravitational time dilation as
a function of altitude which is totally contradicted by general
relativity predictions and observations of time dilation in earth
satellite clocks."

Gravitational time dilation IS a function of altitude --- but also a
function of velocity for satellites. *I don't know what Phil has put
forward in his book but I can show it to you.

Assume 3 givens. *Lorentz' time dilation as a function of velocity,
Kepplerian orbit mechanics and a nominal radius of the Earth of
6378170 meters.

The GPS system satellites orbit 2x per sidereal day. *Orbital period =
43198 secs. *Orbital velocity (Ov) = 3871.4741303174 m/s. *Altitude =
26617063.0508624 meters fron the Earth's center. *So far?

(1-(2*M/r))^.5. *Look familiar? *M and r are expressed in meters. It's
gravitational time dilation. *How about (2*M*c^2/r)^.5? *That's escape
velocity (Ev). *A velocity wrt an altitude!

What is such a satellite's unadjusted clockrate? *How does it compare
with a clockrate on the Earth's surface? *Let's do a simple little
unorthodox math and figure that out, huh?

First of all, and to be consistant, there is no frame dragging going
on here at all. *Just velocities.

GPS clockrate = clockrate for Lorentz velocity of ((Ov^2) + (Ev^2))^.5
(= 6705.58989389825 m/s) = .999999999749849 secs/sec.

Earth observer clockrate is the same except that the orbit velocity is
replaced with the rotational velocity (463.855086238872 m/s) yielding

On Nov 26, 7:15*pm, Sam Wormley wrote:
xxein wrote:
On Nov 26, 1:00 am, Sam Wormley wrote:
xxeinwrote:
On Nov 25, 1:36 pm, Sam Wormley wrote:
philippeb8 wrote:
I have correctly implemented the bending of light calculations
according to Finite Relativism. *The perihelion precession of Mercury
remains constant (2.49e-7 rad/cycle) like it was demonstrated before
and the discrepancy of the bending of light is of the order of 1e-7
rad!
http://www.fornux.com/personal/philippe/fr/fr.exe
The discrepancy found in 1919 was of 4.2e-6 rad:
http://web.mit.edu/6.055/notes/bending-of-light.pdf
I do not use the same conditions but we can already see its order to
be of the same magnitude.
-Phil
* *Phil, if this "Finite Relativism" can do anything, it should
* *be able to calculate the time dilation of a satellite clock in
* *orbit about the earth at at altitude of 202 km above MSL in
* *an orbit with eccentricity = 0.
* *So far you have not demonstrated that "Finite Relativism" can
* *calculate ANYTHING correctly.
* *Here's a copy of the review about your book on the subject.
* *The book you self-published is a perfect example of how you have
* *fooled yourself in to thinking the are shortcuts to education..
Customer Reviews
Finite Relativism And Dark Matter Disproof: General Relativity Reegineeredhttp://www.amazon.com/Finite-Relativism-Dark-Matter-Disproof/dp/14414....
* 'My name appears in the Acknowledgments of this book, therefore, I should
* *contribute a review. "Finite Relativism And Dark Matter Disproof" is an
* *attempt by the author to disprove special relativity, Dark Matter and to
* *solve many of what the author perceives as "dilemmas" such as singularities,
* *black hole behaviors and natural worm holes. Unfortunately, the author
* *demonstrates a complete lack of understanding of special or general
* *relativity or the underlying mathematics of either theory. The author
* *confuses the concepts of acceleration and velocity in the abstract and
* *goes downhill from there. One can open the book to almost any page and
* *find the conceptual arguments and calculations wrong. In a section on GPS,
* *the author plots gravitational time dilation as a function of altitude
* *which is totally contradicted by general relativity predictions and
* *observations of time dilation in earth satellite clocks. I cannot
* *recommend this book to anyone, even as an example of how not to write
* *about science. -- Sam Wormley, Adj. Prof. *Astronomy'- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
xxein:
"In a section on GPS, the author plots gravitational time dilation as
a function of altitude which is totally contradicted by general
relativity predictions and observations of time dilation in earth
satellite clocks."
Gravitational time dilation IS a function of altitude --- but also a
function of velocity for satellites. *I don't know what Phil has put
forward in his book but I can show it to you.
Assume 3 givens. *Lorentz' time dilation as a function of velocity,
Kepplerian orbit mechanics and a nominal radius of the Earth of
6378170 meters.
The GPS system satellites orbit 2x per sidereal day. *Orbital period =
43198 secs. *Orbital velocity (Ov) = 3871.4741303174 m/s. *Altitude =
26617063.0508624 meters fron the Earth's center. *So far?
(1-(2*M/r))^.5. *Look familiar? *M and r are expressed in meters. It's
gravitational time dilation. *How about (2*M*c^2/r)^.5? *That's escape
velocity (Ev). *A velocity wrt an altitude!
What is such a satellite's unadjusted clockrate? *How does it compare
with a clockrate on the Earth's surface? *Let's do a simple little
unorthodox math and figure that out, huh?
First of all, and to be consistant, there is no frame dragging going
on here at all. *Just velocities.
GPS clockrate = clockrate for Lorentz velocity of ((Ov^2) + (Ev^2))^.5
(= 6705.58989389825 m/s) = .999999999749849 secs/sec.
Earth observer clockrate is the same except that the orbit velocity is
replaced with the rotational velocity (463.855086238872 m/s) yielding

On Nov 25, 2:51*pm, Phil Bouchard wrote:
PD wrote:

Ah, lovely, the foam on the lips of a conspiracy goon. Can't cite it
but you know it's there.

Betting against GR is a better use of my time.

Betting against it, on the grounds of counterevidence you can't cite
but you know it's there.


You think that GR can't calculate gravitational time dilation and
light bending? Whatever gave you that idea?

Its square root approach.

What makes you think a square root is not exact?

On Nov 24, 6:45*pm, BURT wrote:
On Nov 24, 4:24*pm, PD wrote:



On Nov 24, 3:16*pm, Phil Bouchard wrote:

PD wrote:

For whom? You? That's fine.

*From the facts.

Facts don't "like" theories.

No, it doesn't. You've already said it gets an answer different than
what is actually observed. GR gets the same answer as what is actually
observed. This should be perceived as a problem.

GR light bending was tested once

It's been tested multiple times over the last 90 years.

in 1919 with obscure conditions and
debatable precision. *FR can be tested anywhere and at anytime.

So can GR.

I challenge anyone to answer this question for su what wave is the
photon in the electric or the *magnetic?

Waves don't have to be *in* anything. But in electromagnetic
radiation, both the electric and magnetic fields manifest wave
solutions.


I am in the aether waiting for the answer.

Mitch Raemsch