|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#81
|
|||
|
|||
Mercury 1300cm per century yet General Relativity predicts 110
a_plutonium wrote:
Mostly because the language of physics is far removed from the aphabet of a keyboard. So I think physics should change into a system where the keyboard becomes our symbols and eliminate the Greek alphabet and make calculus into the keyboard symbols. Replace current symbols with something of the keyboard symbols. Almost every scientist uses LaTeX to write even very complicate formulas with the normal keyboard and very little effort. Where have you been in all the past years ?? g. |
#82
|
|||
|
|||
deflection and magnetic moments (factor in mass) are directly-proportional for Sun and Jupiter Sun deflection 4 milliarcseconds, Jupiter deflection 300 microarcseconds; two old posts in sci.physics
a_plutonium wrote: It is 4 milliarcseconds Sun deflection of light, and previous posts I called it 4.5 cm which is confusing with something else-- centimeters. And I suppose the best and latest measure of deflection by Jupiter is from this website. --- quoting the deflection --- http://relativity.livingreviews.org/...rticlesu7.html In recent years, transcontinental and intercontinental VLBI observations of quasars and radio galaxies have been made primarily to monitor the Earth's rotation ("VLBI" in Figure 5View Image). These measurements are sensitive to the deflection of light over almost the entire celestial sphere (at 90o from the Sun, the deflection is still 4 milliarcseconds). A 2004 analysis of almost 2 million VLBI observations of 541 radio sources, made by 87 VLBI sites yielded (1 + g)/2 = 0.99992 ± 0.00023, or equivalently, -4 g - 1 = (- 1.7± 4.5)× 10 [240]. Analysis of observations made by the Hipparcos optical astrometry satellite yielded a test at the level of 0.3 percent [115]. A VLBI measurement of the deflection of light by Jupiter was reported; the predicted deflection of about 300 microarcseconds was seen with about 50 percent accuracy [257]. The results of light-deflection measurements are summarized in Figure 5View Image. --- end quoting --- Now I do not know how accurate this table is, because another poster warned of the source as not scientific enough. But that aside, let us say it is accurate enough. Solar System Magnetic Data No. Body Present Magnetic Moment (J/T) 1. Sun 3.5 x 10^29 2. Mercury 4.8 x 10^19 3. Venus 1.0 x 10^19 4. Earth 7.9 x 10^22 5. Moon 1.3 x 10^15 6. Mars 2.1 x 10^18 7. Jupiter 1.6 x 10^27 8. Saturn 4.3 x 10^25 And I have not yet figured out the mathematical predictions of the Displacement-Current = gravity theory as to what the deflection of light would be for the Sun and Jupiter. However, I do note the remarkable direct proportionality of the Magnetic Moment of Sun and Jupiter and their corresponding deflection. 3.5 x 10^29 4 x 10^-3 Sun mass ---------------- proportional ---------------- proportional ----------- 1.6 x 10^27 300 x 10^-6 Jupiter mass What the Displacement Current theory of gravity would say about deflection is that the Magnetic and Electric field of a planet or star in addition to the mass of the planet or star causes the deflection. General Relativity has only a mass contribution to deflection. Displacement Current theory says that is only part of the cause of deflection and that the astro bodies magnetic and electric field play a major role in deflection. In the Displacement Current theory, gravity due to space being a ocean of positrons and mass being part of the electrons of the Atom Totality and their magnetic attraction towards one another produces a "gravity envelope" over the mass (the bending of space). So that when starlight is deflected, it has two components for the deflection--- the bending of space component and the magnetic field of the astro body. The flaw of General Relativity is that it never defines what "Space" is. It treats space as a physical entity but never includes space as a physical entity to explain the force of gravity. In the Displacement Current theory of gravity, space is the ocean of positrons and since the Sun and Jupiter are bits and pieces of the electrons of the Atom Totality, gravity is produced because Sun and Mercury are attracted by the magnetic pull of positrons. General Relativity calculates a deflection from solely a mass component. Displacement Current theory calculates a deflection from mass component but also includes a second component of the intrinsic magnetic field of the object. Archimedes Plutonium www.iw.net/~a_plutonium whole entire Universe is just one big atom where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies |
#83
|
|||
|
|||
does anyone know of a electrical or magnetic phenomenon thatis similar to what Saturn rings are?
a_plutonium wrote:
The title says it mostly all. I was trying to think of a electrical or magnetic phenomenon which simulates the endresult of what Saturn has as its rings. Is there something in EM that can simulate or model what the Saturn ring structure is? No. And for the simple reason that magnets have two poles. That is what you get from a field generated by spin 1 bosons. Gravitation if it can be mediated by a field is mediated by spin 2 bosons. Gravitation and Electromagnetism are not the same. Bob Kolker |
#84
|
|||
|
|||
only stable structure of independent particles-- Ring; Saturn's Ring proves the existence of monopoles does anyone know of a electrical or magnetic phenomenon that is similar to what Saturn rings are?
Bob Kolker wrote: a_plutonium wrote: The title says it mostly all. I was trying to think of a electrical or magnetic phenomenon which simulates the endresult of what Saturn has as its rings. Is there something in EM that can simulate or model what the Saturn ring structure is? No. And for the simple reason that magnets have two poles. That is what you get from a field generated by spin 1 bosons. Gravitation if it can be mediated by a field is mediated by spin 2 bosons. Gravitation and Electromagnetism are not the same. Bob Kolker In 1857, James Clerk Maxwell gave a treatise that the only possible structure of Saturn's Ring is a structure of small independent particles. That the Ring could not be solid or rigid. If Maxwell had lived double his short life of 40, perhaps in his older age, he would have discovered the world's first magnetic monopole. Because if you think about Saturn's Ring as a Magnetic Field, its ring structure is a magnetic monopole affect. So what is the magnetic monopole? It is Space itself as a ocean of positrons. When you say Gravity equals Displacement Current with an added term in the Faraday Law, you are saying, then, a magnetic monopole exists. It is not coincidence that the shape of Saturn's Ring is the shape of our Solar System, and the shape of Saturn's Ring is in 99 percent of the cases the shape of galaxies. Our Solar System of planets and satellites is a Saturn Ring around the Sun. Our Milky Way Galaxy is a Saturn Ring of solar systems around the nucleus of our galaxy. Most every galaxy is a Saturn Ring of solar systems around its nucleus. After 1857, James Clerk Maxwell, if he had lived longer, may have run this Logical thought through his mind. Or perhaps Dirac who was even more focused on magnetic monopoles and who already had the space= ocean of positrons, could have run upon Saturn's Ring. LOGICAL ANALOGY: If the only stable structure of Saturn Ring is independent particles and for which this geometry is duplicated in solar systems and galaxies. And for which the EM explanation is a magnetic monopole. Then this logic leads us to the conclusion that Space is a magnetic monopole. And to have Space as a magnetic monopole means that space is Dirac's ocean of positrons. Of course our Solar System under gravity = displacement current is much older than previously thought in the Nebular Dust Cloud theory. Our solar system is at least 10 billion years old and not the mere 5 billion as currently accepted. To age a solar system or to age a galaxy, if they have the appearance of a "Saturn Ring" means they are very old. I am not surprized that Dirac never realized his monopole was so close at hand-- Saturn's Ring. I mean, he was so very close since he discovered space as an ocean of positrons and he discovered a "new radioactivity" which would build stars and solar systems and galaxies. And yet just one tiny step more-- Saturn's Ring -- implies a monopole. Gravity is a monopole because Space as a ocean of positrons is a monopole structure. The Universe has two monopoles. All the mass and matter we observe is all part of the electrons of the Atom Totality. So Space is a + charge monopole, and all the mass and matter in the Cosmos is the - charged monopole. And Gravity is a positron envelope over mass and matter. Because Space is a monopole, the most stable galaxy structure and the most stable solar system structure end up appearing like Saturn's Ring. Archimedes Plutonium www.iw.net/~a_plutonium whole entire Universe is just one big atom where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies |
#85
|
|||
|
|||
likely error and flaw in the math of Clifford Will of Max Planck Institute regards General Relativity Sun deflection 4 milliarcseconds, Jupiter deflection 300 microarcseconds
Now I quoted two old posts discussing deflection of light by a EM
field, and I will address them later as to point out some issues if mutual interest. But I want to address the website below of Clifford Will from Max Planck Institute, as to possible mathematical errors. --- quoting the deflection --- http://relativity.livingreviews.org/...rticlesu7.html It is interesting to note that the classic derivations of the deflection of light that use only the corpuscular theory of light (Cavendish 1784, von Soldner 1803 [277]), or the principle of equivalence (Einstein 1911), yield only the "1/2" part of the coefficient in front of the expression in Equation (46View Equation). But the result of these calculations is the deflection of light relative to local straight lines, as established for example by rigid rods; however, because of space curvature around the Sun, determined by the PPN parameter g, local straight lines are bent relative to asymptotic straight lines far from the Sun by just enough to yield the remaining factor "g/2". The first factor "1/2" holds in any metric theory, the second "g/2" varies from theory to theory. Thus, calculations that purport to derive the full deflection using the equivalence principle alone are incorrect. --- end quoting --- I think what General Relativity really predicts is only 1/2 of the observed deflection. And so in the case of the Sun, General Relativity does not predict 4 milliarcseconds but actually predicts a mere 2 milliarcseconds. And in the case of Jupiter, General Relativity only predicts 150 microarcseconds. The explanation as to the 1/2 in the above is not acceptable. What happened was that no-one really knew what GR predicts for Sun deflection, and after Eddington reported a number and the theoreticians saw that it was double the number their math predicted, they threw in the 1/2 term. The real explanation for why GR only predicts 1/2 observed value is because GR as a theory is wrong. Gravity is a EM phenomenon of a Displacement Current. And the deflection by the Sun of starlight involves 2 components. The mass bends space is one component and that is the only component GR manages to compute to some accuracy. But GR misses the other half of the component which is the intrinsic magnetic field of the body in question. Displacement Current theory would predict for the Sun a 4 milliarcsecond but GR predicts only 2 milliarcseconds. Gravity under GR misses the term of Space. GR talks about Space and thinks of space as a physical entity, but the mathematics using GR then treats space as a *vacuum*. So GR is only able to capture 1/2 of the physical phenomenon of gravity. The Displacement Current theory treats space as a ocean of positrons which attracts matter (bits and pieces of the electrons of the Atom Totality). Positrons are + charged and electron mass is - charged and so gravity is this magnetic attraction between Space and Matter. So that when it comes time to compute deflection of starlight, GR misses the contribution of the magnetic field of the astro body in question. GR computes only 1/2 of the deflection. At least that is my present analysis of the situation, and I could be mistaken. Archimedes Plutonium www.iw.net/~a_plutonium whole entire Universe is just one big atom where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies |
#86
|
|||
|
|||
only stable structure of independent particles-- Ring; Saturn's Ring proves the existence of monopoles does anyone know of a electrical or magnetic phenomenon that is similar to what Saturn rings are?
a_plutonium wrote: Bob Kolker wrote: a_plutonium wrote: The title says it mostly all. I was trying to think of a electrical or magnetic phenomenon which simulates the endresult of what Saturn has as its rings. Is there something in EM that can simulate or model what the Saturn ring structure is? No. And for the simple reason that magnets have two poles. That is what you get from a field generated by spin 1 bosons. Gravitation if it can be mediated by a field is mediated by spin 2 bosons. Gravitation and Electromagnetism are not the same. Bob Kolker In 1857, James Clerk Maxwell gave a treatise that the only possible structure of Saturn's Ring is a structure of small independent particles. That the Ring could not be solid or rigid. If Maxwell had lived double his short life of 40, perhaps in his older age, he would have discovered the world's first magnetic monopole. Because if you think about Saturn's Ring as a Magnetic Field, its ring structure is a magnetic monopole affect. So what is the magnetic monopole? It is Space itself as a ocean of positrons. When you say Gravity equals Displacement Current with an added term in the Faraday Law, you are saying, then, a magnetic monopole exists. It is not coincidence that the shape of Saturn's Ring is the shape of our Solar System, and the shape of Saturn's Ring is in 99 percent of the cases the shape of galaxies. Our Solar System of planets and satellites is a Saturn Ring around the Sun. Our Milky Way Galaxy is a Saturn Ring of solar systems around the nucleus of our galaxy. Most every galaxy is a Saturn Ring of solar systems around its nucleus. After 1857, James Clerk Maxwell, if he had lived longer, may have run this Logical thought through his mind. Or perhaps Dirac who was even more focused on magnetic monopoles and who already had the space= ocean of positrons, could have run upon Saturn's Ring. LOGICAL ANALOGY: If the only stable structure of Saturn Ring is independent particles and for which this geometry is duplicated in solar systems and galaxies. And for which the EM explanation is a magnetic monopole. Then this logic leads us to the conclusion that Space is a magnetic monopole. And to have Space as a magnetic monopole means that space is Dirac's ocean of positrons. Of course our Solar System under gravity = displacement current is much older than previously thought in the Nebular Dust Cloud theory. Our solar system is at least 10 billion years old and not the mere 5 billion as currently accepted. To age a solar system or to age a galaxy, if they have the appearance of a "Saturn Ring" means they are very old. I am not surprized that Dirac never realized his monopole was so close at hand-- Saturn's Ring. I mean, he was so very close since he discovered space as an ocean of positrons and he discovered a "new radioactivity" which would build stars and solar systems and galaxies. And yet just one tiny step more-- Saturn's Ring -- implies a monopole. Gravity is a monopole because Space as a ocean of positrons is a monopole structure. The Universe has two monopoles. All the mass and matter we observe is all part of the electrons of the Atom Totality. So Space is a + charge monopole, and all the mass and matter in the Cosmos is the - charged monopole. And Gravity is a positron envelope over mass and matter. Because Space is a monopole, the most stable galaxy structure and the most stable solar system structure end up appearing like Saturn's Ring. Archimedes Plutonium www.iw.net/~a_plutonium whole entire Universe is just one big atom where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies |
#87
|
|||
|
|||
how physicists sometimes find that extra tiny step very difficult-- solving gravity only stable structure of independent particles-- Ring; Saturn's Ring proves the existence of monopoles
a_plutonium wrote: I am not surprized that Dirac never realized his monopole was so close at hand-- Saturn's Ring. I mean, he was so very close since he discovered space as an ocean of positrons and he discovered a "new radioactivity" which would build stars and solar systems and galaxies. And yet just one tiny step more-- Saturn's Ring -- implies a monopole. I should clarify the above paragraph for I have experienced these circumstances in my own creative talent of doing physics and science. On at least 2 occasions that I can recall, where I found a truth in science, yet unable to make a tiny step forward to set correct another truth of science. Back in 1990 when I discovered the Atom Totality theory, for which the theory of biological evolution was a prompt and spur and motivation and after I discovered the Atom Totality theory it took me many years afterwards to realize that biological evolution was no longer true and that Superdeterminism had to replace Evolution. So what I am saying is that it is difficult in science to sometimes take that tiny extra step forward and solve more problems. And then once the mind has taken the tiny step forward, in hindsight we can laugh at ourselves as to why it took so long to realize that tiny step. So I am not mocking Dirac or making less of his physics talent, in fact, in my esteem Dirac was ten times a greater physicist than was Einstein, because Dirac was so far ahead of his century that just now in this 21st century we are catching up to Dirac's spurs and proddings and vanguard. Dirac was one of the few quantum physicists that knew quantum physics was far more important than Einstein's General Relativity which is easy to see as anti-quantum physics. Dirac felt that monopoles must exist, and they do. He felt this way because he realized that more beauty would come of physics with monopoles because the Maxwell Equations would be perfectly symmetrical. And Dirac knew that ugliness in physics is probably muddleheaded physics. Dirac discovered that Space is a ocean of positrons. Dirac intuited a "cosmic radioactivity" as outlined in his book Directions in Physics. So why did not Dirac realize that Saturn's Ring is a result of Space being a monopole? Well, Dirac did not have an Atom Totality theory. I had an Atom Totality theory and it took me over 10 years to find a picture of gravity. So if it was hard for me to finally see the picture on gravity having the Atom Totality theory, think of how hard it would have been for Dirac to say "yes, Saturn Ring must be a monopole structure and thus Space as ocean of positrons is a monopole". In fact, monopole structure does not end with Saturn's Ring, it just begins there. Because our Sun with its planets is a monopole structure where the planets are likened to the Ring of Saturn. The asteroid belt is a imitation of a part of the Ring of Saturn. Distant galaxies when viewed by Hubble is a Saturn for its nucleus and its stars form a Ring. So wherever there is mass and matter, there is gravity, and wherever there is gravity for long periods of time there is going to be a geometry of Saturn's Ring. Why? Because Space is a ocean of positrons that attracts mass and matter and that is what gravity is. The theory of General Relativity had gotten only a 1/2 truth. It is correct that "mass bends space and other mass follows the curvature of that bent space". But GR never explains what space is. It treats space as a physical entity but when it calculates something like Mercury precession or starlight deflection, it treats Space as a vacuum. So the calculations of GR only give at most 1/2 of the full and correct answer. In the case of Mercury precession it gives only 1/100 of the full answer. In the case of Solar deflection of starlight it gives only 1/2 of the correct answer. Why does GR miss so much? Because gravity is a magnetic phenomenon and it misses the magnetic field of the Sun or Jupiter or whatevery astro body it is calculating. GR obviously never ties gravity as a EM phenomenon and so GR could never be the truth behind "What is Gravity?" Dirac came so very close. But I guess it required the Atom Totality theory first in order to assemble (1) Dirac's monopole quest (2) Dirac's ocean of positrons = space (3) Dirac's new radioactivities. It took me 16 years from 1990 with the Atom Totality to finally make it here to the finish line. Archimedes Plutonium www.iw.net/~a_plutonium whole entire Universe is just one big atom where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies |
#88
|
|||
|
|||
how physicists sometimes find that extra tiny step very difficult-- solving gravity only stable structure of independent particles-- Ring; Saturn's Ring proves the existence of monopoles
In article . com,
"a_plutonium" wrote: The theory of General Relativity had gotten only a 1/2 truth. It is correct that "mass bends space and other mass follows the curvature of that bent space". But GR never explains what space is. It treats space as a physical entity but when it calculates something like Mercury precession or starlight deflection, it treats Space as a vacuum. Seeing as you don't actually understand what the GR prediction for Mercury actually was, I'll pass... -- Thermodynamics claims another crown! http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/heacon.html -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com |
#89
|
|||
|
|||
revision of all scientific symbols instead of trying to fit them to the computer
Giovanni Resta wrote: a_plutonium wrote: Mostly because the language of physics is far removed from the aphabet of a keyboard. So I think physics should change into a system where the keyboard becomes our symbols and eliminate the Greek alphabet and make calculus into the keyboard symbols. Replace current symbols with something of the keyboard symbols. Almost every scientist uses LaTeX to write even very complicate formulas with the normal keyboard and very little effort. Where have you been in all the past years ?? g. No, I disagree. When are at a juncture in science and physics written communication. A juncture because of computers. So that we should not try to resurrect the old literature and symbols onto this new platform of communication. There should be some sort of symposium of scientists of every science discipline wherein the objective and endgoal is that every science symbol and math symbol is covered by the ten digits and the 26 letters of the alphabet and including symbols such as !#%^&*(){}[]":;' In other words, revamp the old. Get rid of all foreign made up symbols such as infinity, such as the differential, the integral signs, partial derivative, Greek letters, etc etc Come up with a system wherein all science symbols can be had from the alphabet and ten digits and the common symbols. We waste too much time in science in getting the "symbols" correct, when we should be devoting that time to doing actual science itself. So do not devise a software, but revamp the entire way of symbolization in science. For example the integral sign maybe SS, and the derivative sign maybe DD. Find out what would be an easy system and then make it a universal standardized system. Have a symposium of scientists that revises the entire symbolism system and makes it easy to type on every computer. And has plenty of room for future symbols. Archimedes Plutonium www.iw.net/~a_plutonium whole entire Universe is just one big atom where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies |
#90
|
|||
|
|||
two old posts that question General Relativity per EM
a_plutonium wrote: --- quoting two old posts on the same subject as my new theory of gravity as a displacement current in Faraday's Law --- Is light deflected by electric field? Subject: Is light deflected by electric field? From: Date: Fri, 9 Sep 2005 15:41:44 +0000 (UTC) Approved: (sci.physics.research) In-reply-to: .com Message-ID: .com Newsgroups: sci.physics.research Organization: http://groups.google.com References: Sender: Thomas Smid wrote in part: [...] clarity in this respect can only be achieved by less ambiguous observations, i.e. on the one hand by controlled laboratory experiments examining the bending of light (or not) in sufficiently strong electric field (gradients) [...] Er, did you read my Aug-20 posting in this thread? Interactions between photons and an EM field *have* been experimentally investigated. The outcome is that you need the truly enormous field that occurs close to a nucleus, and a high-energy photon, to see but a very weak effect. Also, there's a physical limit on how strong EM fields can become. When the field gets stronger than that of a nucleus with Z=138 (or maybe 139 if my memory is faulty), the energy density of the field is high enough to spontaneously create electron-positron pairs which carry energy away. The stronger the field, the faster such pairs are created. Catch-22. All this has been known experimentally for decades. Funny how in the future, people will kind of wonder and laugh why the high quality science posts by me and a few others posted in sci.physics never needed any approval, yet lower quality posts in moderated newsgroups required approval. And that most all of the creative new ideas in science occurred in the unmoderated newsgroup and virtually no ideas of merit originated in the moderated newsgroups. I reckon the reason for this is because creative ideas do not want to waste the time of approval. I re-posted the above because it touches on two aspects of the Displacement-Current theory = gravity. For one, it talks about electron-positron pairs. And it is very funny and laughable that positrons have been known about for decades and half century, yet no-one was serious enough to make the next big step--- Space is a ocean of positrons and then to put this into the ideas and theories and formulas of physics. For when you put Space = ocean of positrons into General Relativity you cannot get black-holes, but instead quasars. And you get intrinsic magnetic moment for all astro bodies. And you get a different number for Mercury precession and Solar deflection of starlight. So the history of physics for the past 50 years knew that positrons are a cosmic ocean but funny, how no physicist took that serious enough to say Space is positrons. But that is probably because no-one had the Atom Totality theory to make that step forward. The other thing about that old post is the talk about light deflection by EM. And the Displacement Current = gravity would predict a zero deflection by the Sun if it had to rely solely on EM, but when you consider that the bending of space is due to magnetism of positrons then the magnetic field of the astro body itself bends space even more than what the mass bends the space alone. It is correct that only light travelling near a nucleus is deflected, but that viewpoint does not realize that gravity is simply a magnetic phenomenon. Is light deflected by electric field? Subject: Is light deflected by electric field? From: Gerry Quinn Date: Sat, 10 Sep 2005 14:57:47 +0000 (UTC) Approved: (sci.physics.research) Message-ID: Newsgroups: sci.physics.research Organization: Bindweed Entertainment Software References: In article .com, says... I think the discussion has somewhat gone off-topic now. The original question was what the theoretical and observational/experimental arguments for and against a deflection of light by electric fields are. I mentioned the deflection of light by the sun (and other celestial objects) as a potential evidence for such an effect considering the fact that all of those objects can be assumed to have some kind of plasma halo which in turn must be associated with an electric plasma polarization field. This suggestion is unaffected by the circumstance that these observations are presently explained by General Relativity (after all it is common in science that there is more than one theory to explain observational data). This is an invalid argument. Certainly there are many theories of gravity, for example, which all purport to explain/describe the same phenomena. All of the better ones predict that the Earth will follow an elliptical orbit around the Sun, with certain differences in the details. But we do not presume that they are operating simultaneously - we can pick only one model of gravity at a time. We do not suppose that the Earth responds to a Newtonian force, then eases into a region of greater positive curvature, is buffeted by LeSage particles, and finally absorbs a meal of virtual gravitons. In your case, however, you have not replaced gravity with a new theory, but only gravity insofar as it affects light passing near stars, galaxies etc. Your plasma deflection does not affect matter, so to explain the orbits of planets you still need another theory of gravity - one that predicts planetary orbits, but does not predict that light bends in a gravitational field. All those I mentioned will need modification. In short, your full theory is that (1) light is bent by plasma to exactly the same degree predicted by general relativity, and (2) general relativity is wrong, because light does not automatically bend towards regions of positive curvature, although it may coincidentally be deflected towards them by unrelated plasma effects. So it's two theories in one. Of those I've mentioned above, general relativity is actually the only one that can't be modified to not affect light without destroying the conceptual basis of the theory. But all of them still have big problems, given our understanding of many uncharged physical systems as having a good deal of electromagnetic binding energy. So your argument about 'more than one theory to explain observational data' doesn't work - to support your plasma theory of light deflection you also have to tear up and replace current theories of gravity with a new one that predicts planetary orbits but not light-bending. - Gerry Quinn --- end quoting 2 old posts --- I disagree with the above reply. I do not think the original poster was trying to say two or more theories were in a sort of "add on " to give deflection of starlight. As in my case of the Displacement-Current = gravity, I need to know if gravity was fully just a EM force, whether EM can deflect starlight. So in that sense, I suspect the original poster was asking. Can Mercury precession and starlight deflection can be purely answered and explained by EM. So many follow-up posters have a tendency to "put words or thoughts into another posters post that are unwarranted" The above poster assumes or presumes that the observations of Mercury precession and Solar deflection matches the numbers of General Relativity. But I think this poster needs to review how well or how awful GR matches the actual observation numbers. It is ugly to separate out a huge precession number of nearly 5600 with a GR component of only 40. Many people will say the GR advocates are merely segregating out 5560 randomly in order to make a false claim of 40 due to GR. And finally, the deflection of starlight of about 1.75", when actually GR only predicts one half of that number. No-one has reviewed the actual history of GR of the 1919 time frame with Eddington. The theoreticians were expecting a mere 0.8" but when the observations came in, the theoreticians doubled their number, and then jumped up and down screaming "beautiful match". Displacement-Current theory explains why GR misses one half of the 1.75" and it is because the huge magnetic field of Sun contributes to the bending of the Space around the Sun and thus deflection is 1.75" Archimedes Plutonium www.iw.net/~a_plutonium whole entire Universe is just one big atom where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
The Gravitational Instability Theory on the Formation of the Universe | Br Dan Izzo | Policy | 6 | September 7th 04 09:29 PM |
The Gravitational Instability Cosmological Theory | Br Dan Izzo | Astronomy Misc | 0 | August 31st 04 02:35 AM |