Question about gravity and light

[rcglinsk]

Hiyas,

I was reading another post and it referred to the effect that gravity has on light. Does anyone know what forms the basis for that conclusion?

[StevenO]

Hiyas,

I was reading another post and it referred to the effect that gravity has on light. Does anyone know what forms the basis for that conclusion?

A massive body will change the path of a lightray. It is observable at e.g. solar eclipses. Lightrays get bend by 1.75 arcsec when passing close to the sun.

[Solar]

Since the density of the ether increases around large bodies such as stars and planets, it acts as a refracting medium and affects the speed of propagation of light and electromagnetic forces. Tom Van Flandern writes:

Their behavior follows the laws of refraction for light moving through a medium of higher density: propagation slows, directions of propagation bend, and wavelengths shift toward the red. This is why ... light bends near the Sun, radar beams to the planets slow their round-trip travel times, and light escaping a gravitational field gets redshifted. The refraction model likewise can exactly predict the advance of Mercury’s perihelion, as has been known since Eddington. - Van Flandern, Dark Matter, Missing Planets & New Comets, pp. 59, 62-5

Via Einsteinian Relativity (which is what it should be called) the laws of physics are supposedly everywhere the same. But a paradoxical contradiction ensues when, for Einsteinian Relativity, it's own axiom is broken; and the laws of Refraction no longer apply. Instead some bizarre creature called "space-time" warps and bends under gravity.

[bboyer]

Just ran across this. Appears to be QT-based, but still, their spectral hypothesis seems so much more reasonable to me than the mathematical inventiveness of relativity. Their proposed experiment sounds simple and doable enough.

http://www.hyperflight.com/starlight.htm

[bdw000]

Hiyas,

I was reading another post and it referred to the effect that gravity has on light. Does anyone know what forms the basis for that conclusion?

A "must read" on the subject is here:
http://www.scientificexploration.org/jo ... usland.pdf

The claim that "eclipse data" conclusively supports Einstein appears (I am not a physicist) to be a deliberate lie.

I have an early book by an opponent of Einstein which photos from Eddington. If the pics are accurate (how can I verify if they are faked or not?), it does not take a Ph.D to realize that someone is being less than honest.

Bottom line: they really just do not have the technical ability to use portable telescopes to prove, conclusively, that stars bend starlight.

There are claims out there that NASA has used radar/probes/planets to "prove" the idea to a precision of "10 to the minus 4" or something like that. It is certainly possible. But I don't believe it. Who can REPEAT those NASA experiments? Isn't REPEATABILITY supposed to be part of "science" ???? All we can do is take NASA's word for it.

[StevenO]

Hiyas,

I was reading another post and it referred to the effect that gravity has on light. Does anyone know what forms the basis for that conclusion?

A "must read" on the subject is here:
http://www.scientificexploration.org/jo ... usland.pdf

The claim that "eclipse data" conclusively supports Einstein appears (I am not a physicist) to be a deliberate lie.

I have an early book by an opponent of Einstein which photos from Eddington. If the pics are accurate (how can I verify if they are faked or not?), it does not take a Ph.D to realize that someone is being less than honest.

Bottom line: they really just do not have the technical ability to use portable telescopes to prove, conclusively, that stars bend starlight.

There are claims out there that NASA has used radar/probes/planets to "prove" the idea to a precision of "10 to the minus 4" or something like that. It is certainly possible. But I don't believe it. Who can REPEAT those NASA experiments? Isn't REPEATABILITY supposed to be part of "science" ???? All we can do is take NASA's word for it.

The measurements by Eddington were surely so inaccurate to leave room for multiple interpretations, but to claim that GR is not repeatedly proven or a deliberate lie can only be stated by someone who has not studied the facts.
Here are some articles with numbers on the accuracy of tests for General Relativity.
Two tests of General Relativity
Measurement of the Solar Gravitational Deflection of Radio Waves using Geodetic Very-Long-Baseline Interferometry Data, 1979–1999

The time dilation due to gravitation of GPS satellites is also consistent with the predictions from General Relativity:

At the time of launch of the first NTS-2 satellite (June 1977), which contained the first Cesium clock to be placed in orbit, there were some who doubted that relativistic effects were real. A frequency synthesizer was built into the satellite clock system so that after launch, if in fact the rate of the clock in its final orbit was that predicted by GR, then the synthesizer could be turned on bringing the clock to the coordinate rate necessary for operation. The atomic clock was first operated for about 20 days to measure its clock rate before turning on the synthesizer. The frequency measured during that interval was +442.5 parts in 10^12 faster than clocks on the ground; if left uncorrected this would have resulted in timing errors of about 38,000 nanoseconds per day. The difference between predicted and measured values of the frequency shift was only 3.97 parts in 10^12, well, within the accuracy capabilities of the orbiting clock. This then gave about a 1% validation of the combined motional and gravitational shifts for a clock at 4.2 earth radii.

General relativity in the global positioning system

Some more on the verification of the SR and GR theories:
Relativity at the centenary

[Total Science]

I was reading another post and it referred to the effect that gravity has on light. Does anyone know what forms the basis for that conclusion?

It's called insanity. It's formed on the basis of mass delusion.

"Meanwhile remote operation has just been revived in England by the admirable Mr. Newton, who maintains that it is the nature of bodies to be attracted and gravitate one towards another, in proportion to the mass of each one, and the rays of attraction it receives. Accordingly the famous Mr. Locke, in his answer to Bishop Stillingfleet, declares that having seen Mr. Newton's book he retracts what he himself said, following the opinion of the moderns, in his Essay Concerning Human Understanding, to wit, that a body cannot operate immediately upon another except by touching it upon its surface and driving it by its motion. He acknowledges that God can put properties into matter which cause it to operate from a distance. Thus the theologians of the Augsburg Confession claim that God may ordain not only that a body operate immediately on divers bodies remote from one another, but that it even exist in their neighbourhood and be received by them in a way with which distances of place and dimensions of space have nothing to do. Although this effect transcends the forces of Nature, they do not think it possible to show that it surpasses the power of the Author of Nature. For him it is easy to annul the laws that he has given or to dispense with them as seems good to him, in the same way as he was able to make iron float upon water and to stay the operation of fire upon the human body." -- Gottfriend W. Leibniz, polymath, 1695

"...to establish it [gravitation] as original or primitive in certain parts of matter is to resort either to miracle or an imaginary occult quality." -- Gottfreid W. Leibniz, polymath, July 1710

Since photons are alleged to be massless particles it's impossible for gravitation to have any effect on them.

The debunked and falsified 17th century occult myth of gravitation says: F = G x m^1m^2/r2

Plug in zero and you get zero.

Dowdye, Jr., E.H., Profound Fundamentals of Mathematical Physics Seriously Misapplied to Gravitational Lensing, Dec 2008

As far as the debunked and falsified 20th century theory it is also impossible since in Riemannian geometry there is no such thing as a straight line and also according to Lobachevsky Theorem 20 Riemannian geometry is impossible.

"Theorem 20: If in any triangle the sum of the three angles is equal to two right angles, so is this the case for every other triangle." -- Nikolai I. Lobachevsky, mathematician, 1840

"Einstein’s theory of gravity is the craziest explanation of the phenomenon imaginable." -- Wallace Thornhill, physicist, 2001

Furthermore:

Dowdye, Jr., E.H., Time Resolved Images from the Center of the Galaxy Appear To Counter General Relativity, Astronomische Nachrichten, Volume 328, Issue 2, Pages 186-191, Feb 2007

The Emperor has no clothes: gravitation is a myth.

"Since Newton announced his universal law of gravitation, scientists have accepted and educators taught it, and rarely has it been questioned. Occasionally one has the temerity to say that gravitation is a myth, an invented word to cover scientific ignorance." -- C.H. Kilmer, historian, October 1915

Kilmer, C.H., The Myth of Gravitation, The New York Times, October 1915

Velikovsky, I., Cosmos Without Gravitation: Attraction, Repulsion, and Electromagnetic Circumduction In The Solar System, 1946

"But what do you know about gravitation? Nothing, except that it is a very recent development, not too well established, and that the math is so hard that only twelve men in Lagash are supposed to understand it." -- Isaac Asimov, writer, 1941

"An atom differs from the solar system by the fact that it is not gravitation that makes the electrons go round the nucleus, but electricity." -- Bertrand Russell, physicist/philosopher, 1924

"...what is really wanted for a truly Natural Philosophy is a supplement to Newtonian mechanics, expressed in terms of the medium which he suspected and sought after but could not attain, and introducing the additional facts, chiefly electrical—especially the fact of variable inertia—discovered since his time…" -- Oliver J. Lodge, physicst, February 1921

"Magnetism is possessed by the whole mass of the earth and universe of heavenly bodies, and is an essence of known demonstration and laws. By adopting it we have the advantage over the gravity theory by the use of the polar relation to magnetism. A magnetic north pole presented to a magnetic south pole, or a south pole to a north pole, attracts, while a north pole to another north pole or a south pole to another repels. This gives to us a better reason than gravitation can for the elliptical orbit of the planets instead of the circular. It also gives us some light on the mystery of the tides, the philosophy of which the profoundest study has not solved. Certain facts are apparent; but for the explanation of the true theory such men as Laplace and Newton, and others more recent, have labored in vain." -- C.H. Kilmer, historian, October 1915

"The form of the corona and the motion of the prominences suggest that it [the sun] is a magnet." -- George E. Hale, astronomer, 1913

"What we call mass would seem to be nothing but an appearance, and all inertia to be of electromagnetic origin." -- Henri Poincaré, physicist, 1908

"...Inertia is exclusively of electromagnetic origin...." -- Henri Poincaré, physicist, 1908

"...the great truth, accidentally revealed and experimentally confirmed, is fully recognized, that this planet, with all its appalling immensity, is to electric currents virtually no more than a small metal ball...." -- Nikola Tesla, physicist, 1904

"If it be true that every atom occupies the same volume of space, then gravitation might seem to be an effect depending on the crowdedness of electrons; but when an atom, breaks up into unequal parts, the smaller portion must in that case undergo considerable expansion, and that would be inconsistent with the constancy of gravitation, if it depended on crowdedness: hence I think it more probable that it depends on some interaction between positive and negative electricity, and that it is generated when these two come together, that is whenever an atom of matter is formed." -- Oliver J. Lodge, physicist, 1904

"Heavier than air flying machines are impossible." -- Lord Kelvin, gravitational physicist, 1895

"If we were to assert that we knew more of moving objects than this their last-mentioned, experimentally-given comportment with respect to the celestial bodies, we should render ourselves culpable of a falsity." -- Ernst Mach, physicist, 1893

"...certain theoretical investigations ... appear to me to throw doubt on the utility of very minute gravitational observations." -- George H. Darwin, physicist, 1882

"The long and constant persuasion that all the forces of nature are mutually dependent, having one common origin, or rather being different manifestations of one fundamental power, has often made me think on the possibility of establishing, by experiment, a connection between gravity and electricity …no terms could exaggerate the value of the relation they would establish.'' -- Michael Faraday, physicist, 1865

"Thus, thinking as Newton did (i.e., that all celestial bodies are attracted to the sun and move through empty space), it is extremely improbable that the six planets would move as they do." -- Pierre L. Maupertuis, polymath, 1746

"The example of the magnet I have hit upon is a very pretty one, and entirely suited to the subject; indeed, it is little short of being the very truth." -- Johannes Kepler, astronomer/mathematician, 1609

"It is therefore plausible, since the Earth moves the moon through its species and magnetic body, while the sun moves the planets similarly through an emitted species, that the sun is likewise a magnetic body." -- Johannes Kepler, astronomer/mathematician, 1609

"But come: let us follow more closely the tracks of this similarity of the planetary reciprocation [libration] to the motion of a magnet, and that by a most beautiful geometric demonstration, so that it might appear that a magnet has such a motion as that which we perceive in the planet." -- Johannes Kepler, astronomer/mathematician, 1609

See here for further gravitation bashing.

[StevenO]

Since when is a blog the latest standard in the progress of science?

I guess we know now why NASA never succeeded in any of its missions...gravity is just a myth

[The Great Dog]

The Great Dog understands your confusion. Total Science is not debunking the phenomenon of attraction, or the force that steers the planets, but the mathematical abstraction commonly called "gravity."

As the principals of this website constantly stipulate: "It is the thunderbolt that steers the heavens."

[Grey Cloud]

The Great Dog understands your confusion. Total Science is not debunking the phenomenon of attraction, or the force that steers the planets, but the mathematical abstraction commonly called "gravity."

As the principals of this website constantly stipulate: "It is the thunderbolt that steers the heavens."

Hi Canis Major and welcome aboard,
Good dog. I agree with 1st paragraph.
Bad dog. I disagree, slightly, with the 2nd. The thunderbolt represents the creative power of Zeus. It is Zeus' penis substitute - his seed dispenser. Zeus (Universal Mind) directs the course of the Universe. Earth (Gaia) is yin, Zeus is yang. Electricity is only a small part of the thunderbolt's capabilities. The thunderbolts were crafted by the Cyclopes. The Cyclopes were sons of Gaia and Ouranus (the heavens). He is the original yang (he still is there, two yangs above Zeus). The Cyclopes are earth-born the same as us

Hi Total Science and Steven,
'Gravity is a myth'. Correct, gravity is (one aspect of) Aphrodite - the force of attraction. Her counterpart, the force of repulsion is Eris (Strife). That's from Empedocles. Two yins. Their yang is Zeus the father of them both. Ergo Zeus controls them and keeps everything in harmony and balance.

Daoism, Greek-style.
Thank you and good night.

[The Great Dog]

The Great Dog growls at metaphysics.

[Grey Cloud]

The Great Dog growls at metaphysics.

The realm of heaven and earth is indifferent to the myriad creatures.
They appear as straw dogs.
The sage is indifferent to the multitudes of men.
They appear as straw dogs.

The realm of heaven and earth is like a bellows,
both empty and full.
Moving, it brings forth, endlessly.

More words, less understanding.
Hold fast to the core.
I Ching 5. Bart Marshall trans.

[The Great Dog]

The Great Dog prefers meat and not half-cooked, moldy mysticism. The Great Dog lives in a world of sights, sounds and smells.

[StevenO]

The Great Dog understands your confusion. Total Science is not debunking the phenomenon of attraction, or the force that steers the planets, but the mathematical abstraction commonly called "gravity."

As the principals of this website constantly stipulate: "It is the thunderbolt that steers the heavens."

Please show me any proof or even observation (outside the fact that they both obey square force laws) then that gravity is an electric phenomenom.

[junglelord]

TT Brown and the + side of a capacitor is antigravity.....you have no knowledge of this StevenO?