|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Photon Deflection
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 |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Photon Deflection
On May 30, 1:10 pm, Melvin Barnes wrote:
Koobee Wublee wrote: 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 This bother me as well. The curvature of space around the Sun must be so insignificant small, according to applied Relativity. Yes, the degree of curvature in space according to the Schwarzschild metric is (2 U) where (U = G M / c^2 / R, R = radius of the sun) which is about 2 parts per million. shrug The point is that the photon starts out in flat space, and it is observed in flat space. In between, it travels through space that is slightly curved. Regardless curved space or not, light will also travel in a straight line locally. Thus, Koobee Wublee’s argument is that curved space itself manifests no photon deflection. All deflection should come from gravitational time dilation. The result of the deflection should be the same as Newtonian prediction. shrug I have no idea how they postulate a star observation behind the Sun. Not being overlapped / overshadowed by the light from the Sun, strange. Yes, even for today’s technology, it is still rather challenging. They have to compare the chart of stars when the sun is not around versus the chart during a solar eclipse. Other than Eddington’s work, this has never been done before. Instead, the photon delay is construed as photon deflection as per Shapiro’s work on bouncing radio signals off Venus when Venus is on the other side of the sun. shrug A total eclipse does not help whatsoever since the light from the Sun, the photons emitted omnidirectional, IS/ARE STILL THERE. A Moon will not take those away, the Moon cannot cancel anything, except the small part where it shadows. However, even a perfect solar eclipse will not shadow the Sun completely. Not sure what you are saying and not sure what your point is. shrug |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Photon Deflection
On May 30, 7:31 pm, Lofty Goat wrote:
On Thu, 30 May 2013 20:10:48, Melvin Barnes wrote: Koobee Wublee wrote: 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 A total eclipse does not help whatsoever since the light from the Sun, the photons emitted omnidirectional, IS/ARE STILL THERE. A Moon will not take those away, the Moon cannot cancel anything, except the small part where it shadows. However, even a perfect solar eclipse will not shadow the Sun completely. You're worried about photons deflecting other photons? They do. But very little compared to the Sun's gravity deflecting photons. Photons deflecting other photons have never being observed in science. It is a silly prediction of GR where the momentum which is an observer dependent quantity is able to affect the curvature of spacetime. shrug Moreover, two-photon interactions cause scattering, photons are deflected by gravity coherently. Actually, in science there remains no such evidence that photons are deflected by gravity coherently. However, there are plenty of experiments that have indicated photons are delayed coherently under gravity well. shrug Finally, some solar eclipses do obscure the sun completely, at least when observed from here. The 1919 solar eclipse actually was a very good scenario. shrug |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Photon Deflection
On 5/31/13 1:02 AM, Koobee Wublee wrote:
Photons deflecting other photons have never being observed in science. It is a silly prediction of GR where the momentum which is an observer dependent quantity is able to affect the curvature of spacetime. Two-photon physics http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two-photon_physics Two-photon physics, also called gamma-gamma physics, is a branch of particle physics that describes the interactions between two photons. If the energy at the center of mass system of the two photons is large enough, matter can be created. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Photon Deflection
On May 31, 8:13 am, Tom Roberts wrote:
Note all that is relevant only for optical observations. VLBI has much higher angular resolution, and can look at microwaves and measure the solar deflection out to ~ 90 degrees from the sun. Don’t confuse delay with deflection. There are still no experiments to measure the angle of photon deflection. shrug Such deflections have a dependence on the light-path relationships to the sun right in line with the predictions of GR. The prediction of the Schwarzschild metric on photon deflection is the same as the Newtonian amount since curved space manifests no such distortion at the end points which are in flat space. shrug (Somebody mentions Shapiro time delay: there are several pulsars whose light paths come close to the sun, and they have been used to measure this delay to very high accuracy.) Yes, in this thread, it was Koobee Wublee who mentioned it. By sweeping the signal towards the sun in several iterations, a coherent amount of delay can be deduced. However, gravitational time delay and gravitational photon deflection are not the same thing. shrug |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
there are no massless rocks of light in fignewton's soi-dissant"theory of ray-tracing
don't confuse ray-tracing with "photons refracting," when
it is really a wave refracting, just like through a breakwater. curvature has both local & global (universal) aspects, and is the inverse of diameter. Don’t confuse delay with deflection. *There are still no experiments to measure the angle of photon deflection. *shrug |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Photon Deflection
On May 31, 8:02 am, Sam Wormley wrote:
On 5/31/13 1:02 AM, Koobee Wublee wrote: Photons deflecting other photons have never being observed in science. It is a silly prediction of GR where the momentum which is an observer dependent quantity is able to affect the curvature of spacetime. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two-photon_physics Two-photon physics, also called gamma-gamma physics, is a branch of particle physics that describes the interactions between two photons. If the energy at the center of mass system of the two photons is large enough, matter can be created. Your two-photon physics has nothing to do with photon deflection under gravity. Sam, try to get a clue as what we are discussing here. shrug |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Photon Deflection
On May 31, 4:25 pm, Melvin Barnes wrote:
Sam Wormley wrote: The historical record is clear--the observation was made *during the totality* of the so the dynamic range of the photographic plate wouldn't be overwhelmed by the direct sunlight. This allowed a long enough exposure to record "distorted" star locations. I beg to differ. There is no such totality thing. There is still a lot of light/photons coming from the Sun. This intensity is MAGNITUDES higher than ANY existent visible start. YOU NEED COMPLETE DARK (NIGHT) AND CLEAR ATMOSPHERE TO see and measure ANGLES/ DEVIATION of the stars. End of story. I win! According to the following link picturing one of Eddington’s photos, the sun’s corona is still too bright during a complete solar eclipse. http://www.wired.com/thisdayintech/2...ayintech_0529/ Although it did not register any stars, to get any stars you must go at least a sun’s radius away that means a diameter of the sun from its center. This means the deflected angle is halved of what Eddington was hopefully looking and intentionally fudging for. shrug |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Photon Deflection
On May 30, 9:47 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 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. shrug Oops! Bad science or bad mathematics? shrug Just incompetence, no? shrug |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Photon Deflection
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 |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Gravitational Deflection of Light from the Stars Orbiting the | Thomas Smid | Research | 3 | June 11th 09 09:14 AM |
Starlight deflection predicted by Newtonian mechanics? | Starboard | Amateur Astronomy | 4 | January 2nd 07 08:36 PM |
Telescope Tube Deflection | [email protected] | Amateur Astronomy | 1 | March 6th 05 04:31 PM |
Comet deflection capability | David Dalton | Astronomy Misc | 64 | July 6th 04 10:47 PM |
nucular asteroid deflection | Parallax | Policy | 31 | January 20th 04 03:49 PM |