If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. 


Thread Tools  Display Modes 
#1




The rotating spaceship. Is the centrifugal force a real force?
On Jan 23, 11:49 am, "Paul B. Andersen" wrote:
On 23.01.2013 12:57, Alfonso wrote: Not convinced. According to Waldron's ballistic theory photons have mass and are therefore deflected by gravity. Sure Newtonian gravity predicts deflection of light. The problem (for you) is that the Newtonian prediction for the deflection of a light beam passing the Sun is: delta_NG = 2GM/(c^2*R) where M is the solar mass and R is the distance of closest approach to the Sun. GR's prediction is: delta_GR = 4GM/(c^2*R) These predictions can only be so only if gravity is a real force where a force is always pulling the photon towards the very center of the sun. shrug Another deflection mechanism or model is the lens effect that obeys something similar to Snell’s law. In this case, there is no force pulling at the photon. Thus, in a gravitational lens, where the effect of gravity is stronger in a gradient towards the center of the sun, the inward path will be deflected according to a force. However, the outgoing path will be undeflected (or deflect in the other direction behaving like antigravity if you will but not really antigravity). The net amount in this case is not a deflection, per say, but a shift in the observed location of the star. shrug Several very precise measurements of the deflection of light are now done, amongst others by the VBLA: http://tinyurl.com/b768jbd Measuring the deflection of light will be plagued with serious noise issues and challenges. If the photon deflection follows Snell’s law, there is always a data point or two that can be interpreted as deflection twice the Newtonian amount. That is if you are not looking for an observed shift in position. shrug The GR prediction is confirmed to a precision of 0.0003. Newtonian gravitation miss by a factor of 2. All these experiments that have been labeled as validations to GR would also support light shift in position according to Snell’s law. shrug The question is how GR bends light  Snell’s law or gravitational law? From the geodesic equations, clearly, GR bends light through the gravitational law. If the curvature of spacetime does not manifest an actual force, light bending would obey Snell’s law through shifting in observed position. shrug Once again, the selfstyled physicists have shown their shallow understanding of this simple subject, no? How do you plead, paul? If you don’t agree with Koobee Wublee, He would be delighted to spank your ass in public again. :) Oh, by the way, could you publish your JAVA applet showing both twins travel with the exact same acceleration profile? Just let the self styled physicists brainstorm a cure from the inconsistent results instead of hiding them. Hiding them is not doing science any good if you have not figured that out yet. shrug 
Ads 
#2




The rotating spaceship. Is the centrifugal force a real force?
On Jan 24, 10:35 am, Koobee Wublee wrote:
On Jan 23, 11:49 am, "Paul B. Andersen" wrote: Sure Newtonian gravity predicts deflection of light. The problem (for you) is that the Newtonian prediction for the deflection of a light beam passing the Sun is: delta_NG = 2GM/(c^2*R) where M is the solar mass and R is the distance of closest approach to the Sun. GR's prediction is: delta_GR = 4GM/(c^2*R) These predictions can only be so only if gravity is a real force where a force is always pulling the photon towards the very center of the sun. shrug Another deflection mechanism or model is the lens effect that obeys something similar to Snell’s law. In this case, there is no force pulling at the photon. Thus, in a gravitational lens, where the effect of gravity is stronger in a gradient towards the center of the sun, the inward path will be deflected according to a force. However, the outgoing path will be undeflected (or deflect in the other direction behaving like antigravity if you will but not really antigravity). The net amount in this case is not a deflection, per say, but a shift in the observed location of the star. shrug Several very precise measurements of the deflection of light are now done, amongst others by the VBLA: http://tinyurl.com/b768jbd Measuring the deflection of light will be plagued with serious noise issues and challenges. If the photon deflection follows Snell’s law, there is always a data point or two that can be interpreted as deflection twice the Newtonian amount. That is if you are not looking for an observed shift in position. shrug The GR prediction is confirmed to a precision of 0.0003. Newtonian gravitation miss by a factor of 2. All these experiments that have been labeled as validations to GR would also support light shift in position according to Snell’s law. shrug The question is how GR bends light  Snell’s law or gravitational law? From the geodesic equations, clearly, GR bends light through the gravitational law. If the curvature of spacetime does not manifest an actual force, light bending would obey Snell’s law through shifting in observed position. shrug Once again, the selfstyled physicists have shown their shallow understanding of this simple subject, no? How do you plead, paul? If you don’t agree with Koobee Wublee, He would be delighted to spank your ass in public again. :) Oh, by the way, could you publish your JAVA applet showing both twins travel with the exact same acceleration profile? Just let the self styled physicists brainstorm a cure from the inconsistent results instead of hiding them. Hiding them is not doing science any good if you have not figured that out yet. shrug Why is paul not corresponding? Please agree or disagree on Koobee Wublee’s two types of photon deflections, and please report if the accelerating twins experience converging time flows or not. Then, you can go back to figure out how to fudge the whole thing to continue worshipping of the crap better known as SR and GR. shrug Shall Koobee Wublee give you a few more days? Please advise. shrug Why are selfstyled physicists not corresponding with Koobee Wublee? Scared to get their butts kicked? Once again, please advise. shrug 
#3




The rotating spaceship. Is the centrifugal force a real force?
On Jan 26, 3:43 pm, "Paul B. Andersen" wrote:
Koobee Wublee wrote: Another deflection mechanism or model is the lens effect that obeys something similar to Snell’s law. In this case, there is no force pulling at the photon. Thus, in a gravitational lens, where the effect of gravity is stronger in a gradient towards the center of the sun, the inward path will be deflected according to a force. However, the outgoing path will be undeflected (or deflect in the other direction behaving like antigravity if you will but not really antigravity). The net amount in this case is not a deflection, per say, but a shift in the observed location of the star. shrug Measuring the deflection of light will be plagued with serious noise issues and challenges. If the photon deflection follows Snell’s law, there is always a data point or two that can be interpreted as deflection twice the Newtonian amount. That is if you are not looking for an observed shift in position. shrug The question is how GR bends light  Snell’s law or gravitational law? From the geodesic equations, clearly, GR bends light through the gravitational law. If the curvature of spacetime does not manifest an actual force, light bending would obey Snell’s law through shifting in observed position. shrug Since your two types of photon deflections now have made it clear why measurements like this: http://tinyurl.com/b768jbd don't confirm GR, what more is there to discuss? Thanks, paul, for breaking the silence. Your butt must be healing well. :) First of all, the paper did not address the two types of photon deflections. It only assumed all photon deflections as forcelike. Koobee Wublee thinks because of expecting a certain model, the interpretations tend to be biased. shrug Please continue corresponding. May the mother of all ass spankings would befall upon paul in the near future. shrug Keep talking to the only person of your intellectual calibre, Koobee. Yourself. Yes, it is indeed very lonely at the top after spanking the asses of all these selfstyled physicists. :) Oh, by the way, could you publish your JAVA applet showing both twins travel with the exact same acceleration profile? Just let the self styled physicists brainstorm a cure from the inconsistent results instead of hiding them. Hiding them is not doing science any good if you have not figured that out yet. shrug 
Thread Tools  
Display Modes  


Similar Threads  
Thread  Thread Starter  Forum  Replies  Last Post 
The rotating spaceship. Is the centrifugal force a real force?  Koobee Wublee  Astronomy Misc  1  January 24th 13 10:20 PM 
Whats difference between Centripetal and Centrifugal force?  G=EMC^2 Glazier[_1_]  Misc  3  May 5th 09 02:53 PM 
Question about centrifugal force and Bernoulli's law.  Robert Clark  Astronomy Misc  7  August 29th 06 01:56 AM 
tides and centrifugal force  Paolo Sirtoli  Astronomy Misc  0  July 12th 05 11:05 AM 
Centrifugal Force?  Benign Vanilla  Misc  44  July 19th 04 05:21 AM 