"Evicting Einstein"

Thomas
Offline
Elite Member

20 years 3 months ago #11250 by Thomas

Replied by Thomas on topic Reply from Thomas Smid

The flaw with all the observations quoted above is the circumstance that the light passes through the atmosphere of the sun (or other astronomical objects) and that traditional optical theory may not fully take 'refraction' effects into account. This is because any density gradient in a plasma (ionized gas) will be associated with an electric field ('plasma polarization field') due to different mobility of electrons and ions. It is obvious that any steady state electric field should affect the propagation of electromagnetic waves. On the other hand, it is completely implausible that electromagnetic waves should in any way be affected by gravity as they don't have any mass (see my page www.physicsmyths.org.uk/photons.htm ).

One could only unambiguously prove that 'a mass bends light' if one would consider a mass that doesn't have any atmosphere (e.g. the moon).

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

20 years 3 months ago #11296 by tvanflandern

Replied by tvanflandern on topic Reply from Tom Van Flandern

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Thomas
 The flaw with all the observations quoted above is the circumstance that the light passes through the atmosphere of the sun (or other astronomical objects) and that traditional optical theory may not fully take 'refraction' effects into account.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">Then the agreement found in 2003 with Einstein's 1916 prediction to 23 parts per million is just coincidence?

Your claim appears to be a desparate attempt to cling to a falsified theory you favor. 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.

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">This is because any density gradient in a plasma (ionized gas) will be associated with an electric field ('plasma polarization field') due to different mobility of electrons and ions. It is obvious that any steady state electric field should affect the propagation of electromagnetic waves.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">No such thing is "obvious" because 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.

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">On the other hand, it is completely implausible that electromagnetic waves should in any way be affected by gravity as they don't have any mass<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">But neither GR nor MM claim that light is bent by gravitational force. GR's geometric interpretation claims it is bent by curved space-time. MM claims it is bent by refraction in elysium (the light-carrying medium). So your valid point here is a strawman argument because few would disagree with it.

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">One could only unambiguously prove that 'a mass bends light' if one would consider a mass that doesn't have any atmosphere (e.g. the moon).<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">Pulsars, which are neutron stars, have no atmosphere, but the GR-predicted light-bending works for explaining variations in their pulse arrival times too.

You have not a leg to stand on in maintaining that first order GR is not established as correct mathematically to at least 1-2% for all four classical tests. Ignoring clear falsifications of favored models makes you a relative of Cleopatra -- the Queen of De-nial! [}

] -|Tom|-

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

Thomas
Offline
Elite Member

20 years 3 months ago #11505 by Thomas

Replied by Thomas on topic Reply from Thomas Smid

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by tvanflandern
Then the agreement found in 2003 with Einstein's 1916 prediction to 23 parts per million is just coincidence?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">This would at least be a theoretical possibility. Another would be a manipulation of the results (after all, fraud in science is commonplace as the well publicised incident at Bell Labs a couple of years ago showed). One should bear in mind that Einstein's theory was practically accepted already in 1918 after Eddington's dubious eclipse measurements (where actually only 7 out of 30 odd stars showed anything like the desired effect), so the modern observations inevitably look somewhat like alibi actions on the background of the initial (questionable) acceptance of the theory.

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Your claim appears to be a desparate attempt to cling to a falsified theory you favor. 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.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">I don't think that refraction was even being thought of at the time when Eddington did his eclipse observations, but anyway, I am not talking about the usual refraction here, but one that could be caused by the plasma polarization field in the solar atmosphere.

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">No such thing is "obvious" because 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.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">Light has no charge but it behaves in many ways as if it had: electromagnetic waves affect charge distributions, so it would be reasonable to assume that there is also a reverse dependence. After all, in the Faraday effect, the magnetic field also effects the propagation of e.m. waves. In this case, there is a wavelength dependence, but this does not mean that this must also be so for the proposed light bending in an electric field (for which no quantitative theory exists yet).

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">But neither GR nor MM claim that light is bent by gravitational force. GR's geometric interpretation claims it is bent by curved space-time.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"> Even worse, how can the light path possibly be bent by space i.e. nothing? I am actually somewhat surprised by your statement in view of your general insistence on 'physics with principles' and your remarks in the 'Nature of Force' thread regarding the substantiality of all physical interactions.

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Pulsars, which are neutron stars, have no atmosphere, but the GR-predicted light-bending works for explaining variations in their pulse arrival times too.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"> How should pulsars emit light without an atmosphere of some kind? This seems to be a contradiction in terms to me.
Anyway, the reference physicsweb.org/article/news/7/9/14 claims that the sensitivity of the 2003 experiment was in principle 10^-14, so this should surely be enough to demonstrate the light bending effect for the moon. This would eliminate all the potential problems with gaseous bodies like the sun.

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">You have not a leg to stand on in maintaining that first order GR is not established as correct mathematically to at least 1-2% for all four classical tests. Ignoring clear falsifications of favored models makes you a relative of Cleopatra -- the Queen of De-nial! <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"> I am not denying anything. I am merely trying to make sense out of the claims of Relativists in view of the conceptual and logical flaws of GR as a physical theory.

www.physicsmyths.org.uk
www.plasmaphysics.org.uk

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

Jim
Offline
Platinum Member

20 years 3 months ago #11252 by Jim

Replied by Jim on topic Reply from

Meta said:"earth based measurement and assigning bending to gravity when gravity is neither understood nor is the cause of the bending." Is there a known cause for the observed bending due to gravity? Is this bending related to redshift caused by gravity? Is there any kind of good, bad or ugly theory of the reason gravity has these effects on light?

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

tvanflandern
Topic Author
Offline
Platinum Member

20 years 3 months ago #11253 by tvanflandern

Replied by tvanflandern on topic Reply from Tom Van Flandern

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Thomas
 <blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by tvanflandern
Then the agreement found in 2003 with Einstein's 1916 prediction to 23 parts per million is just coincidence?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">This would at least be a theoretical possibility.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">That is a huge stretch.

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Another would be a manipulation of the results (after all, fraud in science is commonplace as the well publicised incident at Bell Labs a couple of years ago showed).<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">Contrary to your claim, every instance of scientific fraud gets well-publicized precisely because they are so rare, and no one wants them to be tolerated.

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">One should bear in mind that Einstein's theory was practically accepted already in 1918 after Eddington's dubious eclipse measurements (where actually only 7 out of 30 odd stars showed anything like the desired effect), so the modern observations inevitably look somewhat like alibi actions on the background of the initial (questionable) acceptance of the theory.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">First, the light-bending is a 1/r effect, so stars at greater distances had better have little or no effect or GR would be wrong. Those "null bending" stars serve as controls against which the more significant bending of the closer stars can be seen. Otherwise, one could not tell if the experiment showed bending or just a plate scale error.

As for "alibi actions", when I was still in college in the late 1950s and early 1960s, relativity was recognized as a theory in good standing, but was widely disliked and seldom used. Only after modern high-precision techniques (the first was planetary radar ranging) turned up the light-bending effect again in a completely independent experiment, at a level too large to ignore, and accompanied by gravitational redshift and Shapiro delay, did relativity begrudgingly become widely accepted and used. The biases, such as they were before that time, tended to run against Einstein in experimental circles. That was typified by the American Institute of Physics's relativity debate in 1959, and former relativist Dingle's relativity-trouncing book "Science at the Crossroads".

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">[tvf]: Your claim appears to be a desparate attempt to cling to a falsified theory you favor. 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.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">I don't think that refraction was even being thought of at the time when Eddington did his eclipse observations<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">On the contrary. Eddington explicitly mentions the refraction interpretation of light-bending that the MM uses today in his 1920 book "Space, Time, and Gravitation" (reprinted by Cambridge University Press in 1987), p. 109. It was obvious to all concerned astronomers that no claim of light-bending could be used to support GR unless refraction by a solar atmosphere could be excluded.

Did you really think you were the first to think of this?

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">[tvf]: light has no charge, and is therefore unaffected by electric fields.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">Light has no charge but it behaves in many ways as if it had: electromagnetic waves affect charge distributions, so it would be reasonable to assume that there is also a reverse dependence.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">Light has momentum because it exerts pressure against surfaces, as was well known even in 19th century experiments. The converse (charge affecting light) was exhaustively sought, but never found. The present upper limits on any possible effect of charge on light are far too small to save your theory. In any case, it would destroy quantum mechanics because it would have to either be an effect of charge on a charge-neutral body (heretofore unknown), or a tiny fractional charge on the photon (in complete contradiction of the idea that charge comes in indivisible quanta -- the essence of QM).

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">[tvf]: But neither GR nor MM claim that light is bent by gravitational force. GR's geometric interpretation claims it is bent by curved space-time.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">Even worse, how can the light path possibly be bent by space i.e. nothing? I am actually somewhat surprised by your statement in view of your general insistence on 'physics with principles' and your remarks in the 'Nature of Force' thread regarding the substantiality of all physical interactions.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">I'm not defending the geometric interpretation of GR. I was simply objecting to using your statement "it is completely implausible that electromagnetic waves should in any way be affected by gravity as they don't have any mass" as an argument against GR. My point was that not even geometric GR claims that gravitational force bends light.

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">[tvf]: Pulsars, which are neutron stars, have no atmosphere, but the GR-predicted light-bending works for explaining variations in their pulse arrival times too.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">How should pulsars emit light without an atmosphere of some kind? This seems to be a contradiction in terms to me.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">What possible role does an atmosphere play in the emission of light? Earth's atmosphere doesn't emit light. Yet the Earth does emit more radiation into space than it takes in from the Sun. So do most large planets.

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Anyway, the reference ... claims that the sensitivity of the 2003 experiment was in principle 10^-14, so this should surely be enough to demonstrate the light bending effect for the moon.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">It may be a long time before the Moon happens to line up with a spacecraft. Moreover, the post-bending distance is less than a half-million km, allowing little space for the effect to become large enough to be seen.

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">I am merely trying to make sense out of the claims of Relativists in view of the conceptual and logical flaws of GR as a physical theory.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">We all have that goal. I think MM does a fine job of getting there -- and without denying the experimental evidence. Our "Gravity" CD will be out shortly. I recommend it for some answers that you may not have considered. -|Tom|-

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

tvanflandern
Topic Author
Offline
Platinum Member

20 years 3 months ago #11254 by tvanflandern

Replied by tvanflandern on topic Reply from Tom Van Flandern

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Jim
 Is there a known cause for the observed bending due to gravity? Is this bending related to redshift caused by gravity? Is there any kind of good, bad or ugly theory of the reason gravity has these effects on light?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">Refraction by elysium (the light-carrying medium). Refraction is the same physics phenomenon that bends the light entering Earth's atmosphere from every star. Outside our atmosphere, the Sun attracts elysium just like Earth attracts its atmosphere, and the predicted bending amount agrees exactly with both GR and with all experiments. -|Tom|-

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

Time to create page: 0.256 seconds