A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

Go Back   Home » SpaceBanter.com forum » Astronomy and Astrophysics » Astronomy Misc
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Sobral 1919 eclipse involves deflection of star light by theMoons gravity



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21  
Old July 24th 11, 05:04 AM posted to sci.physics.relativity,sci.physics,sci.math,sci.astro
Koobee Wublee
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 815
Default Sobral 1919 eclipse involves deflection of star light by theMoons gravity

On Jul 23, 7:40 am, PD wrote:
On Jul 22, 11:59 pm, Jim Greenfield wrote:


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.


You are jumping into conclusions again with consulting with your own
brain. The Aether as predicted by classical electromagnetism does
require a medium with properties to allow for different value in the
speed of light. This allows the Aether to behave like a lens that
obeys Snell’s law. shrug
  #22  
Old July 24th 11, 05:07 AM posted to sci.physics.relativity,sci.physics,sci.math,sci.astro
Koobee Wublee
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 815
Default Sobral 1919 eclipse involves deflection of star light by theMoons gravity

On Jul 23, 7:38 am, PD wrote:
On Jul 22, 7:59 pm, Koobee Wublee wrote:


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


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.


He has already given you the answer. It is up to you to study Snell’s
law and apply it to this situation. shrug

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


[whining crap snipped]


You do not even understand the basic Snell’s law. You should not be
allowed to teach physics. shrug


  #23  
Old July 24th 11, 05:10 AM posted to sci.physics.relativity,sci.physics,sci.math,sci.astro
Koobee Wublee
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 815
Default Sobral 1919 eclipse involves deflection of star light by theMoons gravity

On Jul 23, 7:38 am, PD wrote:
On Jul 22, 7:59 pm, Koobee Wublee wrote:


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


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.


He has already given you the answer. It is up to you to study Snell’s
law and apply it to this situation. shrug

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


[whining crap snipped]


You do not even understand the basic Snell’s law. You should not be
allowed to teach physics. shrug

On Jul 23, 9:14 am, PD wrote:
On Jul 23, 12:27 am, Koobee Wublee wrote:


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


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


But it doesn't.


Stop lying. shrug

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



  #24  
Old July 24th 11, 05:16 AM posted to sci.physics.relativity,sci.physics,sci.math,sci.astro
Koobee Wublee
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 815
Default Sobral 1919 eclipse involves deflection of star light by theMoons gravity

On Jul 22, 6:13 am, PD wrote:
On 7/21/2011 10:57 PM, Koobee Wublee wrote:

On Jul 21, 7:03 am, 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


Not without a boundary between different materials.


Stop denying the Aether then. 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


So where is the *boundary* between *different* materials, including the
aether.


There needs to be no boundary in a medium. A medium can have
different index of refraction from one region to another. You got to
be brain dead not to be able to comprehend this. 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


It's not my definition of science, KW.


Yes, it is your bull****. shrug

It's how science works.


No, it is not. shrug

As I
said, you may not like it, but it is what it is.


It is not an issue whether He likes it or not. It is what science
is. Science is not alchemy. 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


Actually, you seem to be the one that is shocked about what science is
and how it operates.


What gives you that erroneous conclusion? 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

  #25  
Old July 24th 11, 05:45 AM posted to sci.physics.relativity,sci.physics,sci.math,sci.astro
Jerry
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 502
Default Sobral 1919 eclipse involves deflection of star light by theMoons gravity

On Jul 20, 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

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


You and Greenfield are both idiots. Consider the marching
soldiers analogy. Surely you've heard of it?
------------------------------------------------------------
SCENARIO 1:
A column of soldiers, four abreast, is marching to the right.
.. . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
.. . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
.. . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
.. . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
The soldiers in line 1 march slightly faster than in line 2,
who march slightly faster in line 3, who march slightly
faster than in line 4. The entire column CURVES DOWNWARDS
as it marches.
------------------------------------------------------------
SCENARIO 2:
The same column of soldiers is marching to the right and
upwards.
1
. 2
. . 3
. . . 4
. . .
. .
  #26  
Old July 24th 11, 05:52 AM posted to sci.physics.relativity,sci.physics,sci.math,sci.astro
Jim Greenfield
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 12
Default Sobral 1919 eclipse involves deflection of star light by theMoons gravity

On Jul 23, 7:06*pm, Jerry wrote:
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


and DECREASES again after it passes.
Black holes (if they exist) swallow light altogether;
an extreme example of how much the speed of light may be alterred by
gravity.
.......and say three "Hail Einsteins" as pennance for your foolishness.

Jim G
c'=c+v
  #27  
Old July 24th 11, 06:00 AM posted to sci.physics.relativity,sci.physics,sci.math,sci.astro
Jerry
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 502
Default Sobral 1919 eclipse involves deflection of star light by theMoons gravity

On Jul 23, 11:52*pm, Jim Greenfield wrote:
On Jul 23, 7:06*pm, Jerry wrote:









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


and DECREASES again after it passes.
Black holes (if they exist) swallow light altogether;
an extreme example of how much the speed of light may be alterred by
gravity.
......and say three "Hail Einsteins" as pennance for your foolishness.


You and Koobee are both idiots. Consider the marching
soldiers analogy. Surely you've heard of it?
------------------------------------------------------------
SCENARIO 1:
A column of soldiers, four abreast, is marching to the right.
.. . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
.. . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
.. . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
.. . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
The soldiers in line 1 march slightly faster than in line 2,
who march slightly faster in line 3, who march slightly
faster than in line 4. The entire column CURVES DOWNWARDS
as it marches.
------------------------------------------------------------
SCENARIO 2:
The same column of soldiers is marching to the right and
upwards.
1
. 2
. . 3
. . . 4
. . .
. .
  #28  
Old July 24th 11, 06:06 AM posted to sci.physics.relativity,sci.physics,sci.math,sci.astro
Koobee Wublee
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 815
Default Sobral 1919 eclipse involves deflection of star light by theMoons gravity

On Jul 23, 9:45 pm, Jerry wrote:
On Jul 20, 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


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


You and Greenfield are both idiots. Consider the marching
soldiers analogy. Surely you've heard of it?


Light is not a group of marching soldiers. Your analogy is just
totally ****ed up right from the very start. shrug

Do you understand? Basic optics does NOT dictate that "light
will unbend through the same medium with decreasing index
of refraction." Except for the trivial case of traveling
along the line of the gradient, a beam of light will always
bend towards the direction of increasing refractive index.


Hmmm... At least light will not continue to bend the same way as the
journeys from INCREASING index and from DECREASING index. That means
in a true gravitational lens according to Snell’s law (or c^n
relationship where Snell’s law has n = 1), light will not bend as
predicted by Newtonian and GR physics. shrug

So Jim's diagram of a beam of light bending and then
unbending is complete nonsense, as is your entire line of
reasoning.


It is irrelevant. shrug


  #29  
Old July 24th 11, 07:20 AM posted to sci.physics.relativity,sci.physics,sci.math,sci.astro
Jerry
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 502
Default Sobral 1919 eclipse involves deflection of star light by theMoons gravity

On Jul 24, 12:06*am, Koobee Wublee wrote:
On Jul 23, 9:45 pm, Jerry wrote:


Do you understand? Basic optics does NOT dictate that "light
will unbend through the same medium with decreasing index
of refraction." Except for the trivial case of traveling
along the line of the gradient, a beam of light will always
bend towards the direction of increasing refractive index.


Hmmm... *At least light will not continue to bend the same way as the
journeys from INCREASING index and from DECREASING index. *


On the contrary. Going from low refractive index to high
refractive index, a beam that is 45 degrees from the normal
will emerge at, say, 30 degrees from the normal. Going from
high refractive index to low refractive index, a beam that
is 30 degrees from the normal will emerge at, say, 45
degrees from the normal.

The bendings in these two symmetrical scenarios are ALWAYS
in the direction of increasing refractive index, and are
equal in magnitude.

There is NEVER any unbending. NEVER.

Light passing through a sphere that is smoothly increasing in
refractive index from outer surface to center WILL bend light,
and the light WILL be focused.

The beams will NOT emerge in parallel.

Jerry

  #30  
Old July 24th 11, 07:36 AM posted to sci.physics.relativity,sci.physics,sci.math,sci.astro
Jerry
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 502
Default Sobral 1919 eclipse involves deflection of star light by theMoons gravity

On Jul 24, 1:20*am, Jerry wrote:

CLARIFICATION:

There is NEVER any unbending. NEVER.


....that is, from the direction of increasing refractive index.

Jerry
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
FR Bending of Light = GR 1919 Eddington Experiment Phil Bouchard Astronomy Misc 18 January 7th 10 03:41 AM
Gravitational Deflection of Light from the Stars Orbiting the Thomas Smid Research 3 June 11th 09 09:14 AM
mistress seldom involves Clint's tissue Mikie Amateur Astronomy 0 August 15th 07 06:05 AM
How to make a light-tight red-light sign box for star parties canopus56 Amateur Astronomy 3 June 5th 06 08:08 PM
Measuring gravity during an eclipse David F. Cox Misc 1 January 24th 04 08:57 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 02:06 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.