- Thank you received: 0
"Evicting Einstein"
- Larry Burford
-
- Offline
- Platinum Member
-
Less
More
20 years 4 months ago #11629
by Larry Burford
Replied by Larry Burford on topic Reply from Larry Burford
[Jim] "Is there any kind of good, bad or ugly theory of the reason gravity has these effects on light?"
This is your lucky day. There actually is a fairly good theory "of the reason gravity has these effects on light". It is kind of weird in some ways, and the guy pushing it is considered a Kook. Let me know if you think you'd be interested. I'll see if I can find the address of his site.
LB
This is your lucky day. There actually is a fairly good theory "of the reason gravity has these effects on light". It is kind of weird in some ways, and the guy pushing it is considered a Kook. Let me know if you think you'd be interested. I'll see if I can find the address of his site.
LB
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
20 years 4 months ago #11298
by Meta
Replied by Meta on topic Reply from Robert Grace
"But neither GR nor MM claim that light is bent by gravitational force". TVF
In the "LEFT" diagram of this document straight from the science community, is the gravitational lensing statement,
"Astronomers use the light-bending properties of gravity to view the very distant galaxies.....etc"
IF GR DOES NOT SAY THE SAME THEN THESE SCIENTISTS ARE IN ERROR BUT I BELIEVE IT ALWAYS HAS SAID THAT LIGHT IS BENT BY GRAVITY SO YOU, THOSE SCIENTISTS AND EINSTEIN ARE ALL IN ERROR.
www.rgrace.org/146/152evictein.html
Meta
rgrace@rgrace.org
In the "LEFT" diagram of this document straight from the science community, is the gravitational lensing statement,
"Astronomers use the light-bending properties of gravity to view the very distant galaxies.....etc"
IF GR DOES NOT SAY THE SAME THEN THESE SCIENTISTS ARE IN ERROR BUT I BELIEVE IT ALWAYS HAS SAID THAT LIGHT IS BENT BY GRAVITY SO YOU, THOSE SCIENTISTS AND EINSTEIN ARE ALL IN ERROR.
www.rgrace.org/146/152evictein.html
Meta
rgrace@rgrace.org
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
20 years 4 months ago #11353
by Meta
Replied by Meta on topic Reply from Robert Grace
"GR's geometric interpretation claims it is bent by curved space-time." TVF
You show me exactly where GR says that light is bent by curved space-time and I will show you that light doesn't even "travel" thru what you call space-time, which space-time doesn't exist.
Prove to us that a flashlight works in deep space. it doesn't.
Prove that light from a massive star, outputting uncountable, imaginary photons, which don't exist, can travel through space that has, at most, one atom and electrons per 27 cubic feet of space or a 3x3x3 cube...tell me how all that star light is conveyed through one atom per 27 cubic feet of space....fact is...it doesn't.
GR's premises are backward.
Space or Einsteins hypothetical and non existant "spacetime" doesnt bend what isn't in it...light doesnt exist in space for it to bend it. Bending is because space is a curved vortex already even without light, gravity, matter or EM in it.
Meta
rgrace@rgrace.org
You show me exactly where GR says that light is bent by curved space-time and I will show you that light doesn't even "travel" thru what you call space-time, which space-time doesn't exist.
Prove to us that a flashlight works in deep space. it doesn't.
Prove that light from a massive star, outputting uncountable, imaginary photons, which don't exist, can travel through space that has, at most, one atom and electrons per 27 cubic feet of space or a 3x3x3 cube...tell me how all that star light is conveyed through one atom per 27 cubic feet of space....fact is...it doesn't.
GR's premises are backward.
Space or Einsteins hypothetical and non existant "spacetime" doesnt bend what isn't in it...light doesnt exist in space for it to bend it. Bending is because space is a curved vortex already even without light, gravity, matter or EM in it.
Meta
rgrace@rgrace.org
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
20 years 4 months ago #10963
by Thomas
Replied by Thomas on topic Reply from Thomas Smid
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by tvanflandern</i>
But modern observations have rendered the optical measurements of historical interest only. This began with Phys.Rev.Lett. 24, 1373-1376 (1970): "Measurement of the of 9.602-GHz radiation from 3C279 in the solar gravitational field", G.A. Seielstad, R.A. Sramek & K.W. Weiler. The position of radio source [quasar] 3C279 was interferometrically monitored during its annual occultation by the Sun in October 1969 to determine the deviation of its 9.602-GHz radiation in the solar gravitational field. Repeated instrumental calibration and negligible coronal refraction enabled the measurement of the general relativity “light bending" deflection. The result was 1.77” +/- 0.20” at the limb of the Sun, as compared with the predicted value of 1.75”.
More recently, we have D.S. Robertson et al., Nature 349 (1991) 768: 74 radio sources, over 300,000 VLBI observations; fitting not just deflection at the limb of the Sun, but the amount and functional form of deflection as a function of distance from the limb. The result at all angular distances agrees with relativity, whose prediction is verified to within a standard error of 0.2%.
Or D.E. Lebach et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 75 (1995) 1439: VLBI measurements of two extragalactic radio sources at three frequencies; a total of over 20,000 measurements; standard error of less than 0.2%.
Finally, we have the coup de grace of experimental measurements of light-bending by mass: See physicsweb.org/article/news/7/9/14 or Nature 425, ix & 374-376 (2003). Using signals from Earth to the Cassini spacecraft, the magnitude of the predicted light-bending effect produced by the Sun was shown to agree with GR predictions to within 23 parts per million.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote"> I have checked out the references given above and I am really puzzled by some of them:
<b>Phys.Rev.Lett. 24, 1373-1376 (1970): "Measurement of the of 9.602-GHz radiation from 3C279 in the solar gravitational field", G.A. Seielstad, R.A. Sramek & K.W. Weiler. </b>
The data for this publication are shown in this diagram 1 and it puzzles me how, in view of the large spread of the data points, they arrive at the quoted relative accuracy of the slope of the least squares fit of the order of 10%. First of all, many error bars are already much larger than this i.e. inclusion of the corresponding data points seems non-sensical. Even after removing the data points with error bars more than twice the quoted error, the data are still strongly spread (see diagram 2 ). A least squares fit reveals that the correlation coefficient for the data is indeed only of the order of R=0.4 (see diagram 3 which means that variation of the data is statistically rather significant (the error of the slope should actually be about 84% (R²=0.16)). So there is now way that these data should confirm the GR interpretation of the light-bending (or any other interpretation for that matter).
<b>D.S. Robertson et al., Nature 349 (1991) 768: </b>
I am even more puzzled here as the data show no relationship to the theoretical curve at all ( diagram 4 ).
Furthermore,
<b>D.E. Lebach et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 75 (1995) 1439</b>
This reference does not give any representation of the data at all and merely gives the final result.
<b> Cassini Data (Nature 425, ix & 374-376 (2003)). </b>
As far as I can see from this publication, the experiment only manages to eliminate the random noise by the corona but not any systematic signal delay (and in any case not any delay due to a possible frequency independent 'refraction' caused by the coronal plasma polarization field (as suggested by me above)).
www.physicsmyths.org.uk
www.plasmaphysics.org.uk
But modern observations have rendered the optical measurements of historical interest only. This began with Phys.Rev.Lett. 24, 1373-1376 (1970): "Measurement of the of 9.602-GHz radiation from 3C279 in the solar gravitational field", G.A. Seielstad, R.A. Sramek & K.W. Weiler. The position of radio source [quasar] 3C279 was interferometrically monitored during its annual occultation by the Sun in October 1969 to determine the deviation of its 9.602-GHz radiation in the solar gravitational field. Repeated instrumental calibration and negligible coronal refraction enabled the measurement of the general relativity “light bending" deflection. The result was 1.77” +/- 0.20” at the limb of the Sun, as compared with the predicted value of 1.75”.
More recently, we have D.S. Robertson et al., Nature 349 (1991) 768: 74 radio sources, over 300,000 VLBI observations; fitting not just deflection at the limb of the Sun, but the amount and functional form of deflection as a function of distance from the limb. The result at all angular distances agrees with relativity, whose prediction is verified to within a standard error of 0.2%.
Or D.E. Lebach et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 75 (1995) 1439: VLBI measurements of two extragalactic radio sources at three frequencies; a total of over 20,000 measurements; standard error of less than 0.2%.
Finally, we have the coup de grace of experimental measurements of light-bending by mass: See physicsweb.org/article/news/7/9/14 or Nature 425, ix & 374-376 (2003). Using signals from Earth to the Cassini spacecraft, the magnitude of the predicted light-bending effect produced by the Sun was shown to agree with GR predictions to within 23 parts per million.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote"> I have checked out the references given above and I am really puzzled by some of them:
<b>Phys.Rev.Lett. 24, 1373-1376 (1970): "Measurement of the of 9.602-GHz radiation from 3C279 in the solar gravitational field", G.A. Seielstad, R.A. Sramek & K.W. Weiler. </b>
The data for this publication are shown in this diagram 1 and it puzzles me how, in view of the large spread of the data points, they arrive at the quoted relative accuracy of the slope of the least squares fit of the order of 10%. First of all, many error bars are already much larger than this i.e. inclusion of the corresponding data points seems non-sensical. Even after removing the data points with error bars more than twice the quoted error, the data are still strongly spread (see diagram 2 ). A least squares fit reveals that the correlation coefficient for the data is indeed only of the order of R=0.4 (see diagram 3 which means that variation of the data is statistically rather significant (the error of the slope should actually be about 84% (R²=0.16)). So there is now way that these data should confirm the GR interpretation of the light-bending (or any other interpretation for that matter).
<b>D.S. Robertson et al., Nature 349 (1991) 768: </b>
I am even more puzzled here as the data show no relationship to the theoretical curve at all ( diagram 4 ).
Furthermore,
<b>D.E. Lebach et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 75 (1995) 1439</b>
This reference does not give any representation of the data at all and merely gives the final result.
<b> Cassini Data (Nature 425, ix & 374-376 (2003)). </b>
As far as I can see from this publication, the experiment only manages to eliminate the random noise by the corona but not any systematic signal delay (and in any case not any delay due to a possible frequency independent 'refraction' caused by the coronal plasma polarization field (as suggested by me above)).
www.physicsmyths.org.uk
www.plasmaphysics.org.uk
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
- tvanflandern
-
Topic Author
- Offline
- Platinum Member
-
Less
More
- Thank you received: 0
20 years 4 months ago #11512
by tvanflandern
Replied by tvanflandern on topic Reply from Tom Van Flandern
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Thomas</i>
<br /><b>Phys.Rev.Lett. 24, 1373-1376 (1970)</b> ... it puzzles me how, in view of the large spread of the data points, they arrive at the quoted relative accuracy of the slope of the least squares fit of the order of 10%. First of all, many error bars are already much larger than this i.e. inclusion of the corresponding data points seems non-sensical.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Your comments indicate unfamiliarity with the "least squares" process -- something you should remedy if you plan to examine data. Suppressing outliers can bias the solution. And the mean error of a solution parameter is supposed to be much less than the mean error of the contributing observations.
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><b>D.S. Robertson et al., Nature 349 (1991) 768:</b> I am even more puzzled here as the data show no relationship to the theoretical curve at all.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">The plot shows the data distribution, not the data itself, as the caption says.
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><b>D.E. Lebach et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 75 (1995) 1439</b> This reference does not give any representation of the data at all and merely gives the final result.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">That is a common procedure where data is too voluminous for a paper. It remains available through the NSSDC, and sometimes from the authors directly or from their web site.
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><b>Cassini Data (Nature 425, ix & 374-376 (2003)).</b> As far as I can see from this publication, the experiment only manages to eliminate the random noise by the corona but not any systematic signal delay (and in any case not any delay due to a possible frequency independent 'refraction' caused by the coronal plasma polarization field (as suggested by me above)).<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">My previous remarks dealt with that issue: "One of the earliest considerations about light-bending was the amount of refraction expected from the solar atmosphere. But all estimates of the observed plasma density, then and now, make it orders of magnitude too sparse to produce such a large refraction." ... "light has no charge, and is therefore unaffected by electric fields. However, the converse is true: If the refraction was caused by a solar atmosphere, the amount of bending would be wavelength-dependent, and we would see absorption lines indicating large number densities of active particles. But both of these are contrary to observations." -|Tom|-
<br /><b>Phys.Rev.Lett. 24, 1373-1376 (1970)</b> ... it puzzles me how, in view of the large spread of the data points, they arrive at the quoted relative accuracy of the slope of the least squares fit of the order of 10%. First of all, many error bars are already much larger than this i.e. inclusion of the corresponding data points seems non-sensical.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Your comments indicate unfamiliarity with the "least squares" process -- something you should remedy if you plan to examine data. Suppressing outliers can bias the solution. And the mean error of a solution parameter is supposed to be much less than the mean error of the contributing observations.
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><b>D.S. Robertson et al., Nature 349 (1991) 768:</b> I am even more puzzled here as the data show no relationship to the theoretical curve at all.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">The plot shows the data distribution, not the data itself, as the caption says.
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><b>D.E. Lebach et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 75 (1995) 1439</b> This reference does not give any representation of the data at all and merely gives the final result.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">That is a common procedure where data is too voluminous for a paper. It remains available through the NSSDC, and sometimes from the authors directly or from their web site.
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><b>Cassini Data (Nature 425, ix & 374-376 (2003)).</b> As far as I can see from this publication, the experiment only manages to eliminate the random noise by the corona but not any systematic signal delay (and in any case not any delay due to a possible frequency independent 'refraction' caused by the coronal plasma polarization field (as suggested by me above)).<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">My previous remarks dealt with that issue: "One of the earliest considerations about light-bending was the amount of refraction expected from the solar atmosphere. But all estimates of the observed plasma density, then and now, make it orders of magnitude too sparse to produce such a large refraction." ... "light has no charge, and is therefore unaffected by electric fields. However, the converse is true: If the refraction was caused by a solar atmosphere, the amount of bending would be wavelength-dependent, and we would see absorption lines indicating large number densities of active particles. But both of these are contrary to observations." -|Tom|-
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
20 years 4 months ago #11384
by Thomas
Replied by Thomas on topic Reply from Thomas Smid
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by tvanflandern</i>
<br /><blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Thomas</i>
<br /><b>Phys.Rev.Lett. 24, 1373-1376 (1970)</b> ... it puzzles me how, in view of the large spread of the data points, they arrive at the quoted relative accuracy of the slope of the least squares fit of the order of 10%. First of all, many error bars are already much larger than this i.e. inclusion of the corresponding data points seems non-sensical.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Your comments indicate unfamiliarity with the "least squares" process -- something you should remedy if you plan to examine data. Suppressing outliers can bias the solution. And the mean error of a solution parameter is supposed to be much less than the mean error of the contributing observations.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
I used now a different online program which also gives the errors of the fit parameters (see members.aol.com/johnp71/nonlin.html ). Using all the data points shown in diagram 1 , a slope of 1.51 ± 0.32 is obtained. Leaving out the data points with the large error bars changes the result only insignificantly (1.55 ± 0.35). In any case, the error is substantially larger than the 0.19 quoted in the paper (although it should be noted that the correlation factor of the data is in fact 0.62; it appears that the other online calculator gave the square of this value (0.39) as the correlation coefficient).
However, even without the least squares calculation, it is obvious that there are unknown systematic errors which render the data analysis useless: about 1/3 of the data points have a distance from the line of regression of 2 or more standard deviations of the individual errors. This should be next to impossible if the data spread is of a purely statistical nature. On the other hand, if these offsets are caused by other influences not taken into consideration in the analysis (e.g. plasma effects in the solar corona) one might as well assume that these also have a systematic effect and are in fact responsible for the slope of the line of regression.
I think that this data analysis does not even have the standard of a student exercise, let alone a ground breaking scientific publication.
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><b>D.S. Robertson et al., Nature 349 (1991) 768:</b> I am even more puzzled here as the data show no relationship to the theoretical curve at all.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">The plot shows the data distribution, not the data itself, as the caption says.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
I can only see one vertical scale in diagram 3 and since the smooth curve is the theoretical deflection radio sources near the sun, the histogram should display a deflection as well.
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><b>D.E. Lebach et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 75 (1995) 1439</b> This reference does not give any representation of the data at all and merely gives the final result.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">That is a common procedure where data is too voluminous for a paper. It remains available through the NSSDC, and sometimes from the authors directly or from their web site.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
Where's the problem with inserting 1 or 2 diagrams into the publication that show the data in comparison the to the theoretical values? Leaving this out deprives the reader of important information that enables him to assess the scientific quality of the work (as is evident from the case discussed in more detail above).
www.physicsmyths.org.uk
www.plasmaphysics.org.uk
<br /><blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Thomas</i>
<br /><b>Phys.Rev.Lett. 24, 1373-1376 (1970)</b> ... it puzzles me how, in view of the large spread of the data points, they arrive at the quoted relative accuracy of the slope of the least squares fit of the order of 10%. First of all, many error bars are already much larger than this i.e. inclusion of the corresponding data points seems non-sensical.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Your comments indicate unfamiliarity with the "least squares" process -- something you should remedy if you plan to examine data. Suppressing outliers can bias the solution. And the mean error of a solution parameter is supposed to be much less than the mean error of the contributing observations.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
I used now a different online program which also gives the errors of the fit parameters (see members.aol.com/johnp71/nonlin.html ). Using all the data points shown in diagram 1 , a slope of 1.51 ± 0.32 is obtained. Leaving out the data points with the large error bars changes the result only insignificantly (1.55 ± 0.35). In any case, the error is substantially larger than the 0.19 quoted in the paper (although it should be noted that the correlation factor of the data is in fact 0.62; it appears that the other online calculator gave the square of this value (0.39) as the correlation coefficient).
However, even without the least squares calculation, it is obvious that there are unknown systematic errors which render the data analysis useless: about 1/3 of the data points have a distance from the line of regression of 2 or more standard deviations of the individual errors. This should be next to impossible if the data spread is of a purely statistical nature. On the other hand, if these offsets are caused by other influences not taken into consideration in the analysis (e.g. plasma effects in the solar corona) one might as well assume that these also have a systematic effect and are in fact responsible for the slope of the line of regression.
I think that this data analysis does not even have the standard of a student exercise, let alone a ground breaking scientific publication.
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><b>D.S. Robertson et al., Nature 349 (1991) 768:</b> I am even more puzzled here as the data show no relationship to the theoretical curve at all.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">The plot shows the data distribution, not the data itself, as the caption says.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
I can only see one vertical scale in diagram 3 and since the smooth curve is the theoretical deflection radio sources near the sun, the histogram should display a deflection as well.
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><b>D.E. Lebach et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 75 (1995) 1439</b> This reference does not give any representation of the data at all and merely gives the final result.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">That is a common procedure where data is too voluminous for a paper. It remains available through the NSSDC, and sometimes from the authors directly or from their web site.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
Where's the problem with inserting 1 or 2 diagrams into the publication that show the data in comparison the to the theoretical values? Leaving this out deprives the reader of important information that enables him to assess the scientific quality of the work (as is evident from the case discussed in more detail above).
www.physicsmyths.org.uk
www.plasmaphysics.org.uk
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
Time to create page: 0.329 seconds