Sobral 1919 eclipse involves deflection of star light by theMoons gravity

On Jul 18, 12:23 pm, PD wrote:
On 7/12/2011 12:29 AM, Jim Greenfield wrote:

It never ceases to amaze, that if GR WAS correct, and light followed
gravitational
contraction of the aether around massive bodies, then it would return
to its ORIGINAL path
after exiting such field, and NO GRAVITATIONAL LENSING would occur.
Do ANY Einsteinians understand how and why a simple lense works?

Oh, please. Light does not return to its original direction after
leaving a lens either. If it did, a lens could not focus parallel rays
onto a common spot.

The lensing terminology is a *rough* analogy but does not work in
exactly the same way.

Note that in a glass lens in air, there are TWO refractions that go on,
at each material interface.

Basic optics says light will bend traveling through a medium with
increasing index of refraction (lower speed). The reverse is true
where light will unbend through the same medium with decreasing index
of refraction. The net result for light to pass through a lens made
out of a sphere with increasing index of refraction towards its center
is shifting in position with no bending. shrug

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

On Jul 20, 2:43 pm, PD wrote:
On 7/20/2011 2:48 PM, Koobee Wublee wrote:

Basic optics says light will bend traveling through a medium with
increasing index of refraction (lower speed). The reverse is true
where light will unbend through the same medium with decreasing index
of refraction. The net result for light to pass through a lens made
out of a sphere with increasing index of refraction towards its center
is shifting in position with no bending.shrug

Reference, please.

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

Don’t you have books on optics? shrug

On Jul 21, 12:44*pm, Koobee Wublee wrote:
On Jul 20, 2:43 pm, PD wrote:

On 7/20/2011 2:48 PM, Koobee Wublee wrote:
Basic optics says light will bend traveling through a medium with
increasing index of refraction (lower speed). *The reverse is true
where light will unbend through the same medium with decreasing index
of refraction. *The net result for light to pass through a lens made
out of a sphere with increasing index of refraction towards its center
is shifting in position with no bending.shrug

Reference, please.

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

Don’t you have books on optics? *shrug

GR says light passing a heavy body does this;


no lensing


body


Newton says this;



body

magnification

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

Jim G
c'=c+v

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

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

On Jul 21, 7:03 am, PD wrote:
On 7/21/2011 12:31 AM, 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.

There is no claim that Snell's law applies in GR lensing.

It ought to be. shrug

Snell's law is
a law about refraction at the interface between different materials.
There is no such interface here.

You are denying the Aether, and that is what the problem is. shrug

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

You have hit it on the head, KW. You, as an engineer, are taking the
stance that you do not accept relativity until all possible other
explanations have been exhausted and ruled out.

No, no, no! He does not accept relativity because of the mathematical
inconsistencies. The math is all ****ed up. Gee! After all these
years, you still don’t get it. shrug

You claim this is what
engineers must do as a matter of course. (Not being an engineer, I won't
dispute this, although it doesn't seem to be my experience in working
with engineers that this is in fact what they do. Structural engineers,
for example, do not typically exhaust all other possible structural
designs before producing a design.)

Scientists on the other hand take a different approach than the one you
espouse. They are willing to provisionally accept a theory that seems to
do better *in total* than other *currently available* theories in
explaining the body of experimental evidence. It is not necessary, for
example, for *all* predictions of a theory to be tested prior to
acceptance. It is not necessary, for example, to demonstrate by proof
that no other theory is *possible* that could be as successful. If they
have a theory that works better than any other theory proposed to date,
then this is the one that is accepted as provisionally correct.

So, your definition of science is alchemy. It allows you to make
excuses on why you are so stupid and so ignorant., but that is not
what science is all about. shrug

You do not adopt the scientific approach by choice. That's fine. It's
been clear for a very long time that you're not a big fan of science.
Why you spend so much time in a science newsgroup is then a big mystery.

There is just no point in going on discussing with you. You don’t
know what He has been talking about in the past few years, and you do
not understand what science is. 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

Get a hint. Science is not alchemy. shrug

On Jul 20, 3:48*pm, Koobee Wublee wrote:
[snip]
Basic optics says light will bend traveling through a medium with
[snip]

Cheese and crackers! Learn some optics before you spew.
Socks

On Jul 22, 6:30 am, PD wrote:
On 7/21/2011 10:43 PM, Koobee Wublee wrote:

You are sprouting stupidity. Don t you understand optics? Don t you
understand Snell s law?

I do. I was asking about your claim that a sphere (with a index
gradient) does not bend rays but introduces an offset shift.

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. The result from this bending and that
unbending accounts for merely a position shift. Just what part of
that you have trouble understanding? shrug

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

I do, that's why I asked you for a reference, so that I could locate in
them where your claim is supported. Can you not do that?

Once again, here is the reference.

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

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

On Jul 22, 6:35 am, Puppet_Sock wrote:
On Jul 20, 3:48 pm, Koobee Wublee wrote:

Basic optics says light will bend traveling through a medium with
increasing index of refraction (lower speed). The reverse is true
where light will unbend through the same medium with decreasing index
of refraction. The net result for light to pass through a lens made
out of a sphere with increasing index of refraction towards its center
is shifting in position with no bending. shrug

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

Cheese and crackers! Learn some optics before you spew.
Socks

What are you puking up this time? Cheese and crackers? Or socks?
shrug

I did not get the distinction between "shifting" light & bending it,
a la the classical problem of the brachistochrone/tautochrone,
by which actually created "the" calculus,
by issuing it as a challenge to Bernoulli et al.

that is to say,
the reduction of the wave theory to just one "photon,"
zipping "through" the medium of space,
normal to the surface of the wavefront.

No, no, no! *He does not accept relativity because of the mathematical
inconsistencies. *The math is all ****ed up. *Gee! *After all these