|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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 | |
|
|
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 |