North's "Light Doesn't Curve By Gravity"

[alextwo]

I agree with Darkpassenger. I think that the whole idea of spacetime being curved and proven to curve during solar eclipses is hokum. It proves that light is bent by gravity and nothing more. It is a convoluted explanation for something that is quite simple. Einstein was the only one that I can think of that could get away with mind experiments. Didn't we get away from that during the Rennaisance? String theory is another example of trying to force something to make sense instead of shutting up and just admitting we just don't know at this time what the heck is going on at that level. I've been looking at these things for over 40 years and the logic goes right out the window. Sorry to be so blunt.

[north]

I agree with Darkpassenger. I think that the whole idea of spacetime being curved and proven to curve during solar eclipses is hokum. It proves that light is bent by gravity and nothing more.

 

I disagree

 

light is not curved by gravity but by the closness of light to the sun atmosphere and rotation

 

think of being in a desert and the heat-wave off the desert surface and the consequent optics observered

 

now apply

Edited December 22, 2008 by north

[iNow]

light is not curved by gravity but by the closness of light to the sun atmosphere and rotation]

This is wrong. If you care to prove your assertion with citations and/or evidence, please have at it.

[north]

Originally Posted by north

light is not curved by gravity but by the closeness of light to the sun atmosphere and rotation]

 

This is wrong. If you care to prove your assertion with citations and/or evidence, please have at it.

 

how is what I put forth wrong ?

 

space has NO substance associated to it , in and of its self

 

and time is certainly a mathematical concept and is based on an objects movements , which are based on the objects nature and the interactions with other objects

 

what is left other than the reality of the consequenes of the sun's atmosphere , the closer to it , the more bent the light is

[iNow]

You cannot avoid the request for a reference, citations, or supporting mathematics with a question to me. Please address my request or stop posting. I want to remind you that you're posting in a physics forum, not a metaphysics or philosophy forum.

 

Why does it feel like I'm repeating myself?

[north]

You cannot avoid the request for a reference, citations, or supporting mathematics with a question to me. Please address my request or stop posting. I want to remind you that you're posting in a physics forum, not a metaphysics or philosophy forum.

 

Why does it feel like I'm repeating myself?

 

because you have not come to terms with what I'm saying as a truth

 

and what I'm saying has nothing to do with metaphysics or philosophy

 

but with reality

[mooeypoo]

New subject can be discussed here, in Pseudoscience/Speculation, where it belongs.

 

And now that that was settled:

 

North, the "bendiness" of light is a well proven, positively observed phenomena that influences many other observable phenomena and physical concepts.

 

Here is a short list of proven effects about light bending due to gravity:

1. Gravitational Lensing: We can see galaxies and stars that are otherwise "hidden" behind other massive objects *because* light can bend. This is actually pretty cool; there are objects in space we can't see directly, but we do see a slightly distorted image of their light as it bent from the gravitational field of a massive object like another galaxy.
   Not only can we observe this, we can actually calculate - VERY ACCURATELY - the exact location of the original star, and that calculation fits precisely with all the other effects the star has on its environment.
   Check these out:
   
   1. 
      
   2. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_lens
      
   3. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einstein_ring
      

[*]When general relativity was "put to the test" (as in, when we looked for observable phenomena that can be explained using general relativity) we found that we can explain many things we couldn't before. We cannot explain phenomena correctly until we take into account that light bends *DUE TO GRAVITY*. We can even calculate this effect CORRECTLY. That is extremely powerful in proving the theory.

Check this out: http://archive.ncsa.uiuc.edu/Cyberia/NumRel/EinsteinTest.html

There are more, but the above should give you an idea of why light DOES bend, and quite a whole lot MORE than just what you see in the desert.

 

In fact, what you see in the desert is not light bending, it's the air heating up and moving; light itself didn't bend, it just moves through a volume that is MOVING -- hence the effect. If you jump into a pond and look at the sun through while in the water, you will see a similar effect. The light doesn't "bend", the *SURFACE* through which you are looking at that light is moving.

 

That's an entirely different phenomena.

 

 

Now. If you believe otherwise, you should give proof, substantiation and some decent explanation of why your notion is true and the current, proven, observed, predictable, mathematically-sound theory is false. Nonintuitive? Perhaps. But proven. And works. And quite cool, actually.

 

~moo

Edited December 22, 2008 by mooeypoo
multiple post merged

[Sayonara]

but with reality

Reality should only be described in objective and rational terms. If you can't or won't describe it in these terms, don't continue.

[Darkpassenger]

I agree with Darkpassenger. I think that the whole

idea of spacetime being curved and proven to curve during solar eclipses

is hokum. It proves that light is bent by gravity and nothing more. It

is a convoluted explanation for something that is quite simple. Einstein

was the only one that I can think of that could get away with mind experiments. Didn't we get away from that during the Rennaisance? String theory is another example of trying to force something to make sense instead of shutting up and just admitting we just don't know at this time what the heck is going on at that level. I've been looking at these things for over 40 years and the logic goes right out the window. Sorry to be so blunt.

 

Yes, i agree with the post above i not sure what topic you are on, it dose

not relate to my original post in anyway. My post is about trying to understand why most diagrams show the space-cure in one direction on a d-2 plane, and not a 3-d ish observation on a plane at can give a better observation of just how much an object can warp space time. Also i have to disagree with your statement abut Einstein being the only scientist to use his mind to think through experiments without being testable and the use of theses theory's until they were testable. In fact some of our greatest minds have used this same thought and experimenting process , Newton, Maxwell, Hawking and may others all have used this way of experimenting. I also have to use this same experimentation because i don't have a strong enough grasp on the mathematics nor the tools to test my theory. This doesn't mean that that our theory are wrong it just means that until they can be testable that are just theory's and that is in my opinion better then to not have given them any attention at all especially when something seems so all encompassing like String theory it is just to hard to ignore.

[swansont]

Yes, i agree with the post above i not sure what topic you are on, it dose

not relate to my original post in anyway.

 

Note that the original post referred to above is now in another thread because, as this says, it's really not related.

[jackson33]

Yes, i agree with the post above i not sure what topic you are on, it dose

not relate to my original post in anyway. My post is about trying to understand why most diagrams show the space-cure in one direction on a d-2 plane, and not a 3-d ish observation on a plane at can give a better observation of just how much an object can warp space time. Also i have to disagree with your statement abut Einstein being the only scientist to use his mind to think through experiments without being testable and the use of theses theory's until they were testable. In fact some of our greatest minds have used this same thought and experimenting process , Newton, Maxwell, Hawking and may others all have used this way of experimenting. I also have to use this same experimentation because i don't have a strong enough grasp on the mathematics nor the tools to test my theory. This doesn't mean that that our theory are wrong it just means that until they can be testable that are just theory's and that is in my opinion better then to not have given them any attention at all especially when something seems so all encompassing like String theory it is just to hard to ignore.

 

While 'Theoretical Physicist/Scientist' generally try to prove through Mathematics seen/detectable phenomenon, Einstein was one that made predictions on mathematical possibilities on some issues still speculative or to disprove other observations (Newton's Gravity). I am sure other have done much the same or at least stated opinions, that were later proved correct. Wikipedia list well over a hundred of the better known, dating back to to philosophers (Democritus/Archimedes) to folks like Copernicus, Galileo Galilei, Pascal, Kepler, Newton, Plank and of course Einstein.

 

I do agree with you both (I think), that whether from a two or three dimension viewpoint of space, there is no natural curvature. The said proving of this from the Solar Eclipse and the said many confirmations were in fact repeating the of the original error. Observations of light IMO are always from the source. Where that light came from and in its time. During the eclipse test, what I feel was seen is a result of what was a second ago or so, from around the moon, possibly in combination with the sun eight minutes ago and from the source of an object light years away. I like to use 'strobe lighting' to show how illusions can be created in/by visual (photographic) means are used. Whether in person or being filmed, strobe lighting creates the illusion of slow motion, however in reality the actions are in real time. We in short see only the results/effects of certain wavelengths of energy...

 

iNow; Please note, no one has claimed Einstein's theory is incorrect or that the theory has been reputed, but rather questions the conclusions of the test involved and accepted as proof. Where else but on a Science Forum, and in some alternative theory category, would you suggest they go to explore their opinions. Using the authors own analogy, Albert Einstein would have been banned for lack of reference, by you...

[iNow]

iNow; Please note, no one has claimed Einstein's theory is incorrect or that the theory has been reputed, but rather questions the conclusions of the test involved and accepted as proof.

Every single test I've seen has shown the theory correct. Can you please be more specific about which exact conclusions should be discarded? If you simply want them questioned, have at it, but be specific as to which conclusions you are questioning and on what basis, otherwise, you're hand waving and contributing nothing at all.

 

 

Where else but on a Science Forum, and in some alternative theory category, would you suggest they go to explore their opinions. Using the authors own analogy, Albert Einstein would have been banned for lack of reference, by you...

 

No, it hurts how far from the truth that comment is. Einstein actually made the effort to teach himself the math and describe his ideas appropriately, which is part of the reason why they were ultimately accepted. Further, he was quite ferociously challenged by all sides, and it was only after he supported his assertions, after empiricism proved them accurate, that they were finally accepted.

 

Considering all of this, I strongly suggest that you freshen up on your science history and understanding of the method/process, because you really couldn't be more wrong on both content and tone.

 

 

 

Finally, just a side point, my response was to north, who was dragging a thread off topic (so far off topic that the staff here ultimately split it into its own thread), and he'd been regularly making unsubstantiated claims throughout the Physics forum. I simply requested he back up his assertions (per site rules and the method of science) or that he shut up altogether. He was not coming into Speculations to offer up a new idea, he was posting baseless assertions as factual in someone elses thread, a thread on a different topic and in a forum which requires hard evidence and math in support of claims (Physics). Hence, my challenges were more than appropriate, and he has still failed to address them.

Edited December 22, 2008 by iNow

[Darkpassenger]

Trying to figure out who moved the two original posts from my thread to this new one, if you can you please send me a private message would really appreciate it.

[iNow]

See post #7 where this is indicated.