Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Photon Deflection
13 views
Skip to first unread message
Koobee Wublee
May 30, 2013, 12:47:02 PM5/30/13
to
May 29 marked the anniversary date for Eddington’s dishonest
scientific ventures. In 1919, he was able to conclude a twice amount
to Newtonian prediction of corpuscle deflection where light corpuscles
are treated as classical particles (per Andro’s and Wilson’s belief).
Examining Eddington’s instrumentations, the accuracies are just not
there for him to conclude with the said accuracies. Koobee Wublee is
not going to dwell on these expeditions of Eddington’s but would like
to revisit if indeed GR, namely the Schwarzschild metric, does offer
the said twice amount over Newtonian prediction. So, hold on to your
hat. <shrug>
Say the Newtonian deflected amount is one nibble. Just what made
Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar conclude two nibbles
of deflection? Well, the nitwit argued that curved space would give
one nibble while gravitational time dilation would yield another one
--- thus two nibbles total. <shrug>
Imagine if there is no gravitational time dilation. Can a photon
traveling near the sun be observed to shift in position? If either
the photon or the observer is located well under the influence of
curved space, this will indeed be the case. However, if the photon
starts out and ends well outside of (flat space) the influence of
curved space, would the observed position still shift to indicate a
bending in the photon’s path? <shrug>
Koobee Wublee’s gut feeling is saying no and has mathematics to prove
that no such bending would take place if anyone is interested. Curved
space is like a lens with gradient index of refraction. The photon
will bend one way during the inbound trip (because space is getting
more and more curved) but unbends itself during the outbound trip
(because space is getting more and more flat). The result is no such
anomaly. <shrug>
However, introducing gravitational time dilation, it behaves more like
a force. Thus, a photon will bend with gravitational time dilation,
and the total amount of bending should just be one nibble rather than
two as erroneously calculated by the self-styled physicists in the
past 100 years. <shrug>
Oops! Bad science or bad mathematics? <shrug>
scientific ventures. In 1919, he was able to conclude a twice amount
to Newtonian prediction of corpuscle deflection where light corpuscles
are treated as classical particles (per Andro’s and Wilson’s belief).
Examining Eddington’s instrumentations, the accuracies are just not
there for him to conclude with the said accuracies. Koobee Wublee is
not going to dwell on these expeditions of Eddington’s but would like
to revisit if indeed GR, namely the Schwarzschild metric, does offer
the said twice amount over Newtonian prediction. So, hold on to your
hat. <shrug>
Say the Newtonian deflected amount is one nibble. Just what made
Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar conclude two nibbles
of deflection? Well, the nitwit argued that curved space would give
one nibble while gravitational time dilation would yield another one
--- thus two nibbles total. <shrug>
Imagine if there is no gravitational time dilation. Can a photon
traveling near the sun be observed to shift in position? If either
the photon or the observer is located well under the influence of
curved space, this will indeed be the case. However, if the photon
starts out and ends well outside of (flat space) the influence of
curved space, would the observed position still shift to indicate a
bending in the photon’s path? <shrug>
Koobee Wublee’s gut feeling is saying no and has mathematics to prove
that no such bending would take place if anyone is interested. Curved
space is like a lens with gradient index of refraction. The photon
will bend one way during the inbound trip (because space is getting
more and more curved) but unbends itself during the outbound trip
(because space is getting more and more flat). The result is no such
anomaly. <shrug>
However, introducing gravitational time dilation, it behaves more like
a force. Thus, a photon will bend with gravitational time dilation,
and the total amount of bending should just be one nibble rather than
two as erroneously calculated by the self-styled physicists in the
past 100 years. <shrug>
Oops! Bad science or bad mathematics? <shrug>
Koobee Wublee
May 30, 2013, 6:54:57 PM5/30/13
to
On May 30, 1:10 pm, Melvin Barnes <melvin...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> insignificant small, according to applied Relativity.
Yes, the degree of curvature in space according to the Schwarzschild
metric is (2 U) where (U = G M / c^2 / R, R = radius of the sun) which
is about 2 parts per million. <shrug>
The point is that the photon starts out in flat space, and it is
observed in flat space. In between, it travels through space that is
slightly curved. Regardless curved space or not, light will also
travel in a straight line locally. Thus, Koobee Wublee’s argument is
that curved space itself manifests no photon deflection. All
deflection should come from gravitational time dilation. The result
of the deflection should be the same as Newtonian prediction. <shrug>
> I have no idea how
> they postulate a star observation behind the Sun. Not being overlapped /
> overshadowed by the light from the Sun, strange.
Yes, even for today’s technology, it is still rather challenging.
They have to compare the chart of stars when the sun is not around
versus the chart during a solar eclipse. Other than Eddington’s work,
this has never been done before. Instead, the photon delay is
construed as photon deflection as per Shapiro’s work on bouncing radio
signals off Venus when Venus is on the other side of the sun. <shrug>
> A total eclipse does not help whatsoever since the light from the Sun, the
> photons emitted omnidirectional, IS/ARE STILL THERE. A Moon will not take
> those away, the Moon cannot cancel anything, except the small part where
> it shadows.
>
> However, even a perfect solar eclipse will not shadow the Sun completely.
Not sure what you are saying and not sure what your point is. <shrug>
> Koobee Wublee wrote:
> > Imagine if there is no gravitational time dilation. Can a photon
> > traveling near the sun be observed to shift in position? If either the
> > photon or the observer is located well under the influence of curved
> > space, this will indeed be the case. However, if the photon starts out
> > and ends well outside of (flat space) the influence of curved space,
> > would the observed position still shift to indicate a bending in the
> > photon’s path? <shrug>
>
> This bother me as well. The curvature of space around the Sun must be so
> > Imagine if there is no gravitational time dilation. Can a photon
> > traveling near the sun be observed to shift in position? If either the
> > photon or the observer is located well under the influence of curved
> > space, this will indeed be the case. However, if the photon starts out
> > and ends well outside of (flat space) the influence of curved space,
> > would the observed position still shift to indicate a bending in the
> > photon’s path? <shrug>
>
> insignificant small, according to applied Relativity.
Yes, the degree of curvature in space according to the Schwarzschild
metric is (2 U) where (U = G M / c^2 / R, R = radius of the sun) which
is about 2 parts per million. <shrug>
The point is that the photon starts out in flat space, and it is
observed in flat space. In between, it travels through space that is
slightly curved. Regardless curved space or not, light will also
travel in a straight line locally. Thus, Koobee Wublee’s argument is
that curved space itself manifests no photon deflection. All
deflection should come from gravitational time dilation. The result
of the deflection should be the same as Newtonian prediction. <shrug>
> I have no idea how
> they postulate a star observation behind the Sun. Not being overlapped /
> overshadowed by the light from the Sun, strange.
Yes, even for today’s technology, it is still rather challenging.
They have to compare the chart of stars when the sun is not around
versus the chart during a solar eclipse. Other than Eddington’s work,
this has never been done before. Instead, the photon delay is
construed as photon deflection as per Shapiro’s work on bouncing radio
signals off Venus when Venus is on the other side of the sun. <shrug>
> A total eclipse does not help whatsoever since the light from the Sun, the
> photons emitted omnidirectional, IS/ARE STILL THERE. A Moon will not take
> those away, the Moon cannot cancel anything, except the small part where
> it shadows.
>
> However, even a perfect solar eclipse will not shadow the Sun completely.
Not sure what you are saying and not sure what your point is. <shrug>
Koobee Wublee
May 31, 2013, 2:02:38 AM5/31/13
to
On May 30, 7:31 pm, Lofty Goat <rlwatk...@gmail.com> wrote:
> little compared to the Sun's gravity deflecting photons.
Photons deflecting other photons have never being observed in
science. It is a silly prediction of GR where the momentum which is
an observer dependent quantity is able to affect the curvature of
spacetime. <shrug>
> Moreover, two-photon interactions cause scattering, photons are deflected
> by gravity coherently.
Actually, in science there remains no such evidence that photons are
deflected by gravity coherently. However, there are plenty of
experiments that have indicated photons are delayed coherently under
gravity well. <shrug>
> Finally, some solar eclipses do obscure the sun completely, at least when
> observed from here.
The 1919 solar eclipse actually was a very good scenario. <shrug>
> On Thu, 30 May 2013 20:10:48, Melvin Barnes wrote:
> > Koobee Wublee wrote:
> > > Imagine if there is no gravitational time dilation. Can a photon
> > > traveling near the sun be observed to shift in position? If either the
> > > photon or the observer is located well under the influence of curved
> > > space, this will indeed be the case. However, if the photon starts out
> > > and ends well outside of (flat space) the influence of curved space,
> > > would the observed position still shift to indicate a bending in the
> > > photon’s path? <shrug>
>
> > Koobee Wublee wrote:
> > > Imagine if there is no gravitational time dilation. Can a photon
> > > traveling near the sun be observed to shift in position? If either the
> > > photon or the observer is located well under the influence of curved
> > > space, this will indeed be the case. However, if the photon starts out
> > > and ends well outside of (flat space) the influence of curved space,
> > > would the observed position still shift to indicate a bending in the
> > > photon’s path? <shrug>
>
> > A total eclipse does not help whatsoever since the light from the Sun,
> > the photons emitted omnidirectional, IS/ARE STILL THERE. A Moon will not
> > take those away, the Moon cannot cancel anything, except the small part
> > where it shadows.
>
> > However, even a perfect solar eclipse will not shadow the Sun
> > completely.
>
> You're worried about photons deflecting other photons? They do. But very
> > the photons emitted omnidirectional, IS/ARE STILL THERE. A Moon will not
> > take those away, the Moon cannot cancel anything, except the small part
> > where it shadows.
>
> > However, even a perfect solar eclipse will not shadow the Sun
> > completely.
>
> little compared to the Sun's gravity deflecting photons.
Photons deflecting other photons have never being observed in
science. It is a silly prediction of GR where the momentum which is
an observer dependent quantity is able to affect the curvature of
spacetime. <shrug>
> Moreover, two-photon interactions cause scattering, photons are deflected
> by gravity coherently.
Actually, in science there remains no such evidence that photons are
deflected by gravity coherently. However, there are plenty of
experiments that have indicated photons are delayed coherently under
gravity well. <shrug>
> Finally, some solar eclipses do obscure the sun completely, at least when
> observed from here.
The 1919 solar eclipse actually was a very good scenario. <shrug>
Sam Wormley
May 31, 2013, 11:02:31 AM5/31/13
to
On 5/31/13 1:02 AM, Koobee Wublee wrote:
> Photons deflecting other photons have never being observed in
> science. It is a silly prediction of GR where the momentum which is
> an observer dependent quantity is able to affect the curvature of
> spacetime.
Two-photon physics
> Photons deflecting other photons have never being observed in
> science. It is a silly prediction of GR where the momentum which is
> an observer dependent quantity is able to affect the curvature of
> spacetime.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two-photon_physics
> Two-photon physics, also called gamma-gamma physics, is a branch of
> particle physics that describes the interactions between two photons.
> If the energy at the center of mass system of the two photons is
> large enough, matter can be created.
Koobee Wublee
May 31, 2013, 12:37:13 PM5/31/13
to
On May 31, 8:13 am, Tom Roberts wrote:
> Note all that is relevant only for optical observations. VLBI has much higher
> angular resolution, and can look at microwaves and measure the solar deflection
> out to ~ 90 degrees from the sun.
Don’t confuse delay with deflection. There are still no experiments
to measure the angle of photon deflection. <shrug>
> Such deflections have a dependence on the
> light-path relationships to the sun right in line with the predictions of GR.
The prediction of the Schwarzschild metric on photon deflection is the
same as the Newtonian amount since curved space manifests no such
distortion at the end points which are in flat space. <shrug>
> (Somebody mentions Shapiro time delay: there are several pulsars whose light
> paths come close to the sun, and they have been used to measure this delay to
> very high accuracy.)
Yes, in this thread, it was Koobee Wublee who mentioned it. By
sweeping the signal towards the sun in several iterations, a coherent
amount of delay can be deduced. However, gravitational time delay and
gravitational photon deflection are not the same thing. <shrug>
> Note all that is relevant only for optical observations. VLBI has much higher
> angular resolution, and can look at microwaves and measure the solar deflection
> out to ~ 90 degrees from the sun.
Don’t confuse delay with deflection. There are still no experiments
to measure the angle of photon deflection. <shrug>
> Such deflections have a dependence on the
> light-path relationships to the sun right in line with the predictions of GR.
The prediction of the Schwarzschild metric on photon deflection is the
same as the Newtonian amount since curved space manifests no such
distortion at the end points which are in flat space. <shrug>
> (Somebody mentions Shapiro time delay: there are several pulsars whose light
> paths come close to the sun, and they have been used to measure this delay to
> very high accuracy.)
Yes, in this thread, it was Koobee Wublee who mentioned it. By
sweeping the signal towards the sun in several iterations, a coherent
amount of delay can be deduced. However, gravitational time delay and
gravitational photon deflection are not the same thing. <shrug>
1treePetrifiedForestLane
May 31, 2013, 3:25:38 PM5/31/13
to
don't confuse ray-tracing with "photons refracting," when
it is really a wave refracting, just like through a breakwater.
curvature has both local & global (universal) aspects, and
is the inverse of diameter.
it is really a wave refracting, just like through a breakwater.
curvature has both local & global (universal) aspects, and
is the inverse of diameter.
Koobee Wublee
May 31, 2013, 3:56:49 PM5/31/13
to
On May 31, 8:02 am, Sam Wormley <sworml...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 5/31/13 1:02 AM, Koobee Wublee wrote:
> > Photons deflecting other photons have never being observed in
> > science. It is a silly prediction of GR where the momentum which is
> > an observer dependent quantity is able to affect the curvature of
> > spacetime.
>
> On 5/31/13 1:02 AM, Koobee Wublee wrote:
> > Photons deflecting other photons have never being observed in
> > science. It is a silly prediction of GR where the momentum which is
> > an observer dependent quantity is able to affect the curvature of
> > spacetime.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two-photon_physics
>
> Two-photon physics, also called gamma-gamma physics, is a branch of
> particle physics that describes the interactions between two photons.
> If the energy at the center of mass system of the two photons is
> large enough, matter can be created.
Your two-photon physics has nothing to do with photon deflection under
>
> Two-photon physics, also called gamma-gamma physics, is a branch of
> particle physics that describes the interactions between two photons.
> If the energy at the center of mass system of the two photons is
> large enough, matter can be created.
gravity. Sam, try to get a clue as what we are discussing here.
<shrug>
Koobee Wublee
May 31, 2013, 7:54:01 PM5/31/13
to
On May 31, 4:25 pm, Melvin Barnes <melvin...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Sam Wormley wrote:
> > The historical record is clear--the observation was made
> > *during the totality* of the so the dynamic range of the photographic
> > plate wouldn't be overwhelmed by the direct sunlight. This allowed a
> > long enough exposure to record "distorted" star locations.
>
> I beg to differ. There is no such totality thing. There is still a lot of
> light/photons coming from the Sun. This intensity is MAGNITUDES higher
> than ANY existent visible start.
>
> YOU NEED COMPLETE DARK (NIGHT) AND CLEAR ATMOSPHERE TO see and measure
> ANGLES/ DEVIATION of the stars. End of story. I win!
According to the following link picturing one of Eddington’s photos,
the sun’s corona is still too bright during a complete solar eclipse.
http://www.wired.com/thisdayintech/2009/05/dayintech_0529/
Although it did not register any stars, to get any stars you must go
at least a sun’s radius away that means a diameter of the sun from its
center. This means the deflected angle is halved of what Eddington
was hopefully looking and intentionally fudging for. <shrug>
> Sam Wormley wrote:
> > The historical record is clear--the observation was made
> > *during the totality* of the so the dynamic range of the photographic
> > plate wouldn't be overwhelmed by the direct sunlight. This allowed a
> > long enough exposure to record "distorted" star locations.
>
> I beg to differ. There is no such totality thing. There is still a lot of
> light/photons coming from the Sun. This intensity is MAGNITUDES higher
> than ANY existent visible start.
>
> YOU NEED COMPLETE DARK (NIGHT) AND CLEAR ATMOSPHERE TO see and measure
> ANGLES/ DEVIATION of the stars. End of story. I win!
According to the following link picturing one of Eddington’s photos,
the sun’s corona is still too bright during a complete solar eclipse.
http://www.wired.com/thisdayintech/2009/05/dayintech_0529/
Although it did not register any stars, to get any stars you must go
at least a sun’s radius away that means a diameter of the sun from its
center. This means the deflected angle is halved of what Eddington
was hopefully looking and intentionally fudging for. <shrug>
Koobee Wublee
Jun 2, 2013, 1:32:17 AM6/2/13
to
shift the ray of photons (starting and observed in flat space with
curved space in between) by an amount of (2 G M / c^2 / r). Combined
with an actual photon deflection due to gravitational time dilation
would be what Eddington had observed in 1919. <shrug>
Basically, we have the following regarding the Schwarzschild metric:
** Gravitational time dilation bends photons towards the sun with a
coherent angle the same as the Newtonian amount when treating light as
classical particles.
** Curved space shift the path of photo (starting and observed in
flat space with curved space in between) by an amount of (2 G M /
c^2 / r) towards the sun.
<shrug>
> Oops! Bad science or bad mathematics? <shrug>
Koobee Wublee
Jun 3, 2013, 12:12:29 AM6/3/13
to
the photon starts and is observed in flat space with curved space in
between. However, in flat space with a gradient index of refraction,
the path of the photon will be shift (not deflected) by an amount of
(2 G M / c^2) towards the sun according to Snell's law.
1treePetrifiedForestLane
Jun 8, 2013, 4:46:52 PM6/8/13
to
this is teh first-observed utilization of Snell,
either here or in alt.global-warming; congradualtion!
however, you are ignoring the simple fact that
it *is* the main example of "curving the space."
either here or in alt.global-warming; congradualtion!
however, you are ignoring the simple fact that
it *is* the main example of "curving the space."
John Gogo
Jun 10, 2013, 8:27:29 PM6/10/13
to
rotating light experiment.
1treePetrifiedForestLane
Jun 10, 2013, 11:41:37 PM6/10/13
to
again, congrdulation
Brad Guth
Jun 13, 2013, 8:26:44 PM6/13/13
to
0 new messages