info
Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Photon Deflection
31 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>
Melvin Barnes
May 30, 2013, 4:10:48 PM5/30/13
to
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. I have no idea how
they postulate a star observation behind the Sun. Not being overlapped /
overshadowed by the light from the Sun, strange.
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.
Sam Wormley
May 30, 2013, 4:18:21 PM5/30/13
to
On 5/30/13 3:10 PM, Melvin Barnes wrote:
> This bother me as well. The curvature of space around the Sun must be so
> insignificant small, according to applied Relativity. I have no idea how
> they postulate a star observation behind the Sun. Not being overlapped /
> overshadowed by the light from the Sun, strange.
>
> 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.
Photons like any thing else are following the "straight line" in the
> This bother me as well. The curvature of space around the Sun must be so
> insignificant small, according to applied Relativity. I have no idea how
> they postulate a star observation behind the Sun. Not being overlapped /
> overshadowed by the light from the Sun, strange.
>
> 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.
curved spacetime near the sun. The observation was made during an
eclipse, so as not to overwhelm the expose of the photographic plates.
Melvin Barnes
May 30, 2013, 4:41:44 PM5/30/13
to
Sam Wormley wrote:
> Photons like any thing else are following the "straight line" in the
> curved spacetime near the sun. The observation was made during an
> eclipse, so as not to overwhelm the expose of the photographic
> plates.
Did you added additional info or anything else to what I said?
> Photons like any thing else are following the "straight line" in the
> curved spacetime near the sun. The observation was made during an
> eclipse, so as not to overwhelm the expose of the photographic
> plates.
hanson
May 30, 2013, 6:45:50 PM5/30/13
to
"Sam Wormley" <swor...@gmail.com> wrote:
. Melvin Barnes <melv...@hotmail.com>wrote:
Sam, by SRian definition, NOTHING moves in spacetime.
Not particles, not stars, not photons. Einstein realized that
SR/GR was a USELESS crock o'shit, already 60+ years ago,
when
___ Einstein became a RELATIVITY DENIER ____
<http://tinyurl.com/Einstein-denied-his-SR-and-GR>
>
Here is more from & about Einstein, the plagiarist,
who STOLE E=mc² from Pretto, Hasenoehrl and others,
and publicly apologized for his thievery in 1907.
>
<http://tinyurl.com/E-mc2-existed-before-Einstein> (1)
<http://tinyurl.com/How-Einstein-stole-E-mc-2> (1)
<http://tinyurl.com/Kwublee-views-Einsteins-Theft> (1)
<http://tinyurl.com/Zio-Politics-with-Relativity> (2)
<http://tinyurl.com/Alberts-Zio-Politics-w-SR-GR> (2)
<http://tinyurl.com/Einsteins-1905-is-Mileva-Maric>
<http://tinyurl.com/Einstein-wife-beater-arrested>
>
This is not Einsein bashing, Sam. You yourself posted
a while back that:
"Sam Wormley" <swor...@gmail.com> wrote:
Young Scientists Encourage the Public to Demand Peer Review
<http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/2013/02/27/young-scientists-encourage-the-public-to-demand-peer-review-2/>
wherein it says:
"It seems that more and more policy makers, advocacy groups,
advertisers and media pundits are making claims based on science:
this kind of potion is good for your health, that chemical is bad for
the environment, this new technology can reduce crime. How is the
public supposed to know what to believe?
>>
The peer review system can help cut through the uncertainty and
obfuscation. Yet few members of the public other than scientists
know what peer review is or how it can be used."
>
hanson wrote:
ahahaha.. Good one, Sam. Yeah, you bet that it will
"cut thru the uncertainty and obfuscation" when you
cosider that, according to Michael Brooks' link:
<http://tinyurl.com/Michael-Brooks-Free-Radicals> :
>
"1/3 (33+%) of all scientists are on drugs and loaded
while on the job and that 2/3rds (66+%) of all scientists
volunteered & admitted that they cheat & commit
fraud in/for & during their investigations."
>
Your young scientists have great role models, like
Francis Crick, Nobel laureate for the DNA, who
admitted to have been high on LSD when he conjured
up the Double Helix... or like other well known lodos
and druggies such as LSD-guru Timothy Leary and
the classic one, Cocaine Freak Freud,... all of'em
being
great examples for your young scientists to learn how
"peer review is or how it can be used", making it even
reminiscent of Obama's wealth redistribution gig....
with a new twist...
>
Thanks for the laughs, Sam... ahahahanson
>
PS:
Sam, when an invention or discovery has merit
it'll stand on its own feet. For Gedanken farts and
parroting by Einstein Dingleberries, the insider's
peer review cabal does look after its own spawns,
just like its done in religion and politics...
. Melvin Barnes <melv...@hotmail.com>wrote:
>
Koobee Wublee <koobee...@gmail.com> wrote:
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>
Koobee Wublee <koobee...@gmail.com> wrote:
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>
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>
>
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>
>
>Melvin Barnes wrote:
This bother me as well. The curvature of space around the Sun must be so
insignificant small, according to applied Relativity. I have no idea how
they postulate a star observation behind the Sun. Not being overlapped /
overshadowed by the light from the Sun, strange.
>>
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.
>
This bother me as well. The curvature of space around the Sun must be so
insignificant small, according to applied Relativity. I have no idea how
they postulate a star observation behind the Sun. Not being overlapped /
overshadowed by the light from the Sun, strange.
>>
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.
>
Sam wrote:
Photons like any thing else are following the "straight line" in the
curved spacetime near the sun. The observation was made during an
eclipse, so as not to overwhelm the expose of the photographic plates.
>
hanson wrote:
Photons like any thing else are following the "straight line" in the
curved spacetime near the sun. The observation was made during an
eclipse, so as not to overwhelm the expose of the photographic plates.
>
Sam, by SRian definition, NOTHING moves in spacetime.
Not particles, not stars, not photons. Einstein realized that
SR/GR was a USELESS crock o'shit, already 60+ years ago,
when
___ Einstein became a RELATIVITY DENIER ____
<http://tinyurl.com/Einstein-denied-his-SR-and-GR>
>
Here is more from & about Einstein, the plagiarist,
who STOLE E=mc² from Pretto, Hasenoehrl and others,
and publicly apologized for his thievery in 1907.
>
<http://tinyurl.com/E-mc2-existed-before-Einstein> (1)
<http://tinyurl.com/How-Einstein-stole-E-mc-2> (1)
<http://tinyurl.com/Kwublee-views-Einsteins-Theft> (1)
<http://tinyurl.com/Zio-Politics-with-Relativity> (2)
<http://tinyurl.com/Alberts-Zio-Politics-w-SR-GR> (2)
<http://tinyurl.com/Einsteins-1905-is-Mileva-Maric>
<http://tinyurl.com/Einstein-wife-beater-arrested>
>
This is not Einsein bashing, Sam. You yourself posted
a while back that:
"Sam Wormley" <swor...@gmail.com> wrote:
Young Scientists Encourage the Public to Demand Peer Review
<http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/2013/02/27/young-scientists-encourage-the-public-to-demand-peer-review-2/>
wherein it says:
"It seems that more and more policy makers, advocacy groups,
advertisers and media pundits are making claims based on science:
this kind of potion is good for your health, that chemical is bad for
the environment, this new technology can reduce crime. How is the
public supposed to know what to believe?
>>
The peer review system can help cut through the uncertainty and
obfuscation. Yet few members of the public other than scientists
know what peer review is or how it can be used."
>
hanson wrote:
ahahaha.. Good one, Sam. Yeah, you bet that it will
"cut thru the uncertainty and obfuscation" when you
cosider that, according to Michael Brooks' link:
<http://tinyurl.com/Michael-Brooks-Free-Radicals> :
>
"1/3 (33+%) of all scientists are on drugs and loaded
while on the job and that 2/3rds (66+%) of all scientists
volunteered & admitted that they cheat & commit
fraud in/for & during their investigations."
>
Your young scientists have great role models, like
Francis Crick, Nobel laureate for the DNA, who
admitted to have been high on LSD when he conjured
up the Double Helix... or like other well known lodos
and druggies such as LSD-guru Timothy Leary and
the classic one, Cocaine Freak Freud,... all of'em
being
great examples for your young scientists to learn how
"peer review is or how it can be used", making it even
reminiscent of Obama's wealth redistribution gig....
with a new twist...
>
Thanks for the laughs, Sam... ahahahanson
>
PS:
Sam, when an invention or discovery has merit
it'll stand on its own feet. For Gedanken farts and
parroting by Einstein Dingleberries, the insider's
peer review cabal does look after its own spawns,
just like its done in religion and politics...
Koobee Wublee
May 30, 2013, 6:54:57 PM5/30/13
to
On May 30, 1:10 pm, Melvin Barnes <melvin...@hotmail.com> 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>
>
> This bother me as well. The curvature of space around the Sun must be so
> insignificant small, according to applied Relativity.
Yes, the degree of curvature in space according to the Schwarzschild
> 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
> insignificant small, according to applied Relativity.
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.
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.
Melvin Barnes
May 30, 2013, 7:04:00 PM5/30/13
to
Koobee Wublee wrote:
>> 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>
A light from a star cannot possibly be stronger than the light from from
>> 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>
Sun. Ergo, you cannot see that star even if it were true in there.
Sam Wormley
May 30, 2013, 7:21:14 PM5/30/13
to
On 5/30/13 6:04 PM, Melvin Barnes wrote:
> A light from a star cannot possibly be stronger than the light from from
> Sun.
In order for the photographic plate not to get over exposed by photons
> A light from a star cannot possibly be stronger than the light from from
> Sun.
from the sun, the observation was made during a total solar eclipse so
the exposure time could be stretched out to record background stars.
> http://astro.berkeley.edu/~kalas/labs/documents/kennefick_phystoday_09.pdf
Lofty Goat
May 30, 2013, 10:31:25 PM5/30/13
to
little compared to the Sun's gravity deflecting photons.
Moreover, two-photon interactions cause scattering, photons are deflected
by gravity coherently.
Finally, some solar eclipses do obscure the sun completely, at least when
observed from here.
Lofty Goat
May 30, 2013, 10:34:43 PM5/30/13
to
On Thu, 30 May 2013 15:45:50 -0700, hanson wrote:
> Sam, when an invention or discovery has merit it'll stand on its own
> feet. For Gedanken farts and parroting by Einstein Dingleberries, the
> insider's peer review cabal does look after its own spawns, just like
> its done in religion and politics...
I'd begun to think you'd had your medication adjusted, but it now appears
> Sam, when an invention or discovery has merit it'll stand on its own
> feet. For Gedanken farts and parroting by Einstein Dingleberries, the
> insider's peer review cabal does look after its own spawns, just like
> its done in religion and politics...
that that was an artifact of Strassberg's Uncertainty Principle.
Koobee Wublee
May 31, 2013, 2:02:38 AM5/31/13
to
On May 30, 7:31 pm, Lofty Goat <rlwatk...@gmail.com> wrote:
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
> little compared to the Sun's gravity deflecting photons.
Photons deflecting other photons have never being observed in
> > 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
> little compared to the Sun's gravity deflecting photons.
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.
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.
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.
Tom Roberts
May 31, 2013, 11:13:59 AM5/31/13
to
On 5/30/13 5/30/13 - 3:10 PM, Melvin Barnes wrote:
> The curvature of space around the Sun must be so
> insignificant small, according to applied Relativity.
Your GUESS is both irrelevant and wrong. One must COMPUTE this, and one finds it
> The curvature of space around the Sun must be so
> insignificant small, according to applied Relativity.
is important in this particular application.
> I have no idea how
> they postulate a star observation behind the Sun. Not being overlapped /
> overshadowed by the light from the Sun, strange.
this to "stars behind the sun".
> A total eclipse does not help whatsoever since the light from the Sun, the
> photons emitted omnidirectional, IS/ARE STILL THERE.
smaller than that of the sun itself. You need to learn how to estimate orders of
magnitude, and how to tell when something is important or not.
> A Moon will not take
> those away, the Moon cannot cancel anything, except the small part where
> it shadows.
to tell when something is important or not.
The moon and a solar eclipse are only needed because of limitations of the
instrumentation used. The underlying physics is NOT affected significantly.
> However, even a perfect solar eclipse will not shadow the Sun completely.
whose light passes near to the sun.
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. Such deflections have a dependence on the
light-path relationships to the sun right in line with the predictions of GR.
(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.)
Tom Roberts
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
> 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.
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.
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.)
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>
Melvin Barnes
May 31, 2013, 7:03:34 PM5/31/13
to
Tom Roberts wrote:
> On 5/30/13 5/30/13 - 3:10 PM, Melvin Barnes wrote:
>> The curvature of space around the Sun must be so insignificant small,
>> according to applied Relativity.
>
> Your GUESS is both irrelevant and wrong. One must COMPUTE this, and one
> finds it is important in this particular application.
Idiot, they are not guesses, but QUALIFIED GUESSES. Must compute? Yes, do
> On 5/30/13 5/30/13 - 3:10 PM, Melvin Barnes wrote:
>> The curvature of space around the Sun must be so insignificant small,
>> according to applied Relativity.
>
> Your GUESS is both irrelevant and wrong. One must COMPUTE this, and one
> finds it is important in this particular application.
it! Judging your big mouth, you are supposed to pick those numbers
anywhere anytime!
>> I have no idea how they postulate a star observation behind the Sun.
>> Not being overlapped / overshadowed by the light from the Sun, strange.
>
> You need to STUDY the literature. Your GUESS is wrong -- nobody tries to
> apply this to "stars behind the sun".
one SMART ASS in the world!!! I don't know shit, but I don't need to
study. They need to do that because I tell them to do so."
This kind of useless crap please post somewhere else. YOU NEED TO FOCUS ON
THE SUBJECT HERE! Got it?
>> A total eclipse does not help whatsoever since the light from the Sun,
>> the photons emitted omnidirectional, IS/ARE STILL THERE.
>
> Sure. But the photons are IRRELEVANT, because their energy density is
> VASTLY smaller than that of the sun itself. You need to learn how to
> estimate orders of magnitude, and how to tell when something is
> important or not.
intensity light from the Sun's corona overshadow any eventual existent DIM
LIGHT from any DISTANT star or object. GOT IT?
>> A Moon will not take those away, the Moon cannot cancel anything,
>> except the small part where it shadows.
>
> The "small part" is >99% of the light from the sun. Again, you need to
> learn how to tell when something is important or not.
>
> The moon and a solar eclipse are only needed because of limitations of
> the instrumentation used. The underlying physics is NOT affected
> significantly.
existent DIM LIGHT from distant start in that AREA.
If you tell me that they could observe a dim light from a star through the
light from the corona, you are a liar, since this must be an IMPOSSIBILITY!
I can be wrong however, but YOU DON'T TELL HOW! Not my fault.
>> However, even a perfect solar eclipse will not shadow the Sun
>> completely.
>
> Hmmm. It is good enough that the instrumentation can be used to look at
> stars whose light passes near to the sun.
of the eclipse, the OBSERVATION and the time reading. You need to specify
BOTH
1. time of reading
2. The exact REAL star position (at the time of reading)
3. The apparent calculated position
4. The OBSERVED position (at the time of the reading)
You did not specified not clarified ANY!
I remove the rest, it looks insignificant. Sorry to tell that.
Melvin Barnes
May 31, 2013, 7:05:41 PM5/31/13
to
Lofty Goat wrote:
> Moreover, two-photon interactions cause scattering, photons are
> deflected by gravity coherently.
Bullshit, you need interaction with matter (fermions) absorption and
> Moreover, two-photon interactions cause scattering, photons are
> deflected by gravity coherently.
emission, in order to have proper scattering. You don't know what Static
or Dynamic Light/Laser Scattering (DLS) is all about. Read a three pages
DLS equation from a book, if you want to know exactly that.
Melvin Barnes
May 31, 2013, 7:07:22 PM5/31/13
to
Sam Wormley wrote:
> On 5/30/13 6:04 PM, Melvin Barnes wrote:
>> A light from a star cannot possibly be stronger than the light from
>> from Sun.
>
>
> In order for the photographic plate not to get over exposed by
> photons from the sun, the observation was made during a total solar
> eclipse so the exposure time could be stretched out to record
> background stars.
You don't get it, maybe intentional. It has nothing to do with anything.
> On 5/30/13 6:04 PM, Melvin Barnes wrote:
>> A light from a star cannot possibly be stronger than the light from
>> from Sun.
>
>
> In order for the photographic plate not to get over exposed by
> photons from the sun, the observation was made during a total solar
> eclipse so the exposure time could be stretched out to record
> background stars.
Melvin Barnes
May 31, 2013, 7:19:20 PM5/31/13
to
Melvin Barnes wrote:
> NOOO, the Moon, the Earth AND the Sun are in reciprocal motion at the time
> of the eclipse, the OBSERVATION and the time reading. You need to specify
> BOTH
>
> 1. time of reading
> 2. The exact REAL star position (at the time of reading)
> 3. The apparent calculated position
> 4. The OBSERVED position (at the time of the reading)
>
> You did not specified not clarified ANY!
I guess I just mythbusted another MYTH in Relativity. Goood!
> NOOO, the Moon, the Earth AND the Sun are in reciprocal motion at the time
> of the eclipse, the OBSERVATION and the time reading. You need to specify
> BOTH
>
> 1. time of reading
> 2. The exact REAL star position (at the time of reading)
> 3. The apparent calculated position
> 4. The OBSERVED position (at the time of the reading)
>
> You did not specified not clarified ANY!
Sam Wormley
May 31, 2013, 7:20:44 PM5/31/13
to
On 5/31/13 6:03 PM, Melvin Barnes wrote:
> NOOO, the Moon, the Earth AND the Sun are in reciprocal motion at the time
> of the eclipse, the OBSERVATION and the time reading. You need to specify
> BOTH
>
> 1. time of reading
> 2. The exact REAL star position (at the time of reading)
> 3. The apparent calculated position
> 4. The OBSERVED position (at the time of the reading)
The historical record is clear--the observation was made
> NOOO, the Moon, the Earth AND the Sun are in reciprocal motion at the time
> of the eclipse, the OBSERVATION and the time reading. You need to specify
> BOTH
>
> 1. time of reading
> 2. The exact REAL star position (at the time of reading)
> 3. The apparent calculated position
> 4. The OBSERVED position (at the time of the reading)
*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.
> http://astro.berkeley.edu/~kalas/labs/documents/kennefick_phystoday_09.pdf
Melvin Barnes
May 31, 2013, 7:25:24 PM5/31/13
to
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
> 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.
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!
Sam Wormley
May 31, 2013, 7:34:43 PM5/31/13
to
stars within a small angular distance from the sun. Therefore, the
measurements need be done during the day. Perhaps you forgot that
the measurements were performed in 1919 and repeated during other
solar eclipses with visible light telescopes.
> http://astro.berkeley.edu/~kalas/labs/documents/kennefick_phystoday_09.pdf
Melvin Barnes
May 31, 2013, 7:48:48 PM5/31/13
to
1. Say the diameter of the Sun is 1 cm.
2. The Moon will cover that 1 cm at time t0 which span 5 sec
3. Say the evt affected stars must be located coaxially between
0.99 cm and 1.00 cm at the time those 5 sec elapses
4. Outside those 5 sec the stars would NOT be affected relativisticly
Tell me the Probability that a specific star will be located exactly
as said above specificly. ZERO !!!
Another Relativity Myth just been Mythbusted. Goood!
Koobee Wublee
May 31, 2013, 7:54:01 PM5/31/13
to
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>
Melvin Barnes
May 31, 2013, 8:04:45 PM5/31/13
to
Koobee Wublee wrote:
> 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>
Good point.
> 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>
You need welding glasses to safely view a solar eclipse.
http://www.wisegeek.org/how-can-i-watch-a-solar-eclipse-without-hurting-my-eyes.htm
If anyone would tell me that they can see stars near that corona, I will
beg to fucking differ.
Sam Wormley
May 31, 2013, 8:06:15 PM5/31/13
to
On 5/31/13 6:48 PM, Melvin Barnes wrote:
> Another Relativity Myth just been Mythbusted.
> http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/da/1919_eclipse_negative.jpg
> Another Relativity Myth just been Mythbusted.
Sam Wormley
May 31, 2013, 8:06:42 PM5/31/13
to
Sam Wormley
May 31, 2013, 8:07:10 PM5/31/13
to
On 5/31/13 6:25 PM, Melvin Barnes wrote:
Melvin Barnes
May 31, 2013, 8:12:05 PM5/31/13
to
Sam Wormley wrote:
>> You need welding glasses to safely view a solar eclipse.
>>
>> http://www.wisegeek.org/how-can-i-watch-a-solar-eclipse-without-hurting-my-eyes.htm
>>
>> If anyone would tell me that they can see stars near that corona, I will
>> beg to fucking differ.
>>
>
>> http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/da/1919_eclipse_negative.jpg
Where is that lucky star. I am new beginner.
>> You need welding glasses to safely view a solar eclipse.
>>
>> http://www.wisegeek.org/how-can-i-watch-a-solar-eclipse-without-hurting-my-eyes.htm
>>
>> If anyone would tell me that they can see stars near that corona, I will
>> beg to fucking differ.
>>
>
>> http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/da/1919_eclipse_negative.jpg
paparios
May 31, 2013, 8:32:11 PM5/31/13
to
Melvin Barnes
May 31, 2013, 8:45:57 PM5/31/13
to
paparios wrote:
> The name changer attacking again, while knowing nothing about the subject.
Me attacking? He sent me to study, without adding anything more to the
> The name changer attacking again, while knowing nothing about the subject.
subject. Not my fault. Sorry.
1treePetrifiedForestLane
May 31, 2013, 9:29:04 PM5/31/13
to
the "moon effect" in particular, is an obvious matter
of "curvature of space."
of "curvature of space."
Lofty Goat
Jun 1, 2013, 3:01:56 PM6/1/13
to
local library, go to the science section, start at the first shelf you
pass, come back in a year and tell us what you've learned.
Get going.
1treePetrifiedForestLane
Jun 1, 2013, 4:45:13 PM6/1/13
to
photons are just quanta of energy, not necesserily lightconeheaded
pointy things
pointy things
Koobee Wublee
Jun 2, 2013, 1:32:17 AM6/2/13
to
On May 30, 9:47 am, Koobee Wublee <koobee.wub...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 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>
> 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>
Although curved space does not cause any deflection in angle, it would
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>
Just incompetence, no? <shrug>
> 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
> 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>
>
> 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>
Although curved space does not cause any deflection in angle, it would
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>
Just incompetence, no? <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.
Glenn Harrison
Jun 7, 2013, 6:02:27 PM6/7/13
to
Lofty Goat wrote:
> When you tire of hanging out with rabbits wearing tophats, visit your
> local library, go to the science section, start at the first shelf you
> pass, come back in a year and tell us what you've learned.
You learned Physics in your local library? This tells a lot.
> When you tire of hanging out with rabbits wearing tophats, visit your
> local library, go to the science section, start at the first shelf you
> pass, come back in a year and tell us what you've learned.
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
> Oops! Bad science or bad mathematics? <shrug>
Yes, two nibbles- I prefer "must fall within the same tooth"- of
rotating light experiment.
1treePetrifiedForestLane
Jun 10, 2013, 11:41:37 PM6/10/13
to
again, congrdulation
0 new messages