Question about gravity and light

[redeye]

Doesn't heat bend light?

Cheers!

[TalonThorn]

Doesn't heat bend light?

Cheers!

Is that "bending" or rather is it light reflecting off the particles that carry the heat energy?

And speaking of which, just what does it mean for light to be bent? Gravity is taken for granted so much that no one has bothered to explain just how it works (let alone what it is), so how can it be said that gravity is the source of the bending (assuming that the phenomena labeled "bending" is legit)? It isn't the only thing out there, I hear.

Are any of these questions addressed by EU?

Regards.

[StevenO]

Doesn't heat bend light?

Cheers!

Is that "bending" or rather is it light reflecting off the particles that carry the heat energy?

And speaking of which, just what does it mean for light to be bent? Gravity is taken for granted so much that no one has bothered to explain just how it works (let alone what it is), so how can it be said that gravity is the source of the bending (assuming that the phenomena labeled "bending" is legit)? It isn't the only thing out there, I hear.

Are any of these questions addressed by EU?

Regards.

The EU explanation of gravity does not make much sense to me. The best explanation I have encountered sofar holds that gravity is an undirected compressing motion of matter (the reverse of the expansion of space as seen in far away galaxies; a 'deflating balloon' or 'shrinking dough' analogy). That explains why gravity does not have to propagate: it is intrinsic to matter.

[The Great Dog]

The Great Dog offers these bones from Electric Universe physicist Wal Thornhill:

"Gravity is due to radially oriented electrostatic dipoles inside the Earth’s protons, neutrons and electrons.[18] The force between any two aligned electrostatic dipoles varies inversely as the fourth power of the distance between them and the combined force of similarly aligned electrostatic dipoles over a given surface is squared. The result is that the dipole-dipole force, which varies inversely as the fourth power between co-linear dipoles, becomes the familiar inverse square force of gravity for extended bodies. The gravitational and inertial response of matter can be seen to be due to an identical cause. The puzzling extreme weakness of gravity (one thousand trillion trillion trillion trillion times less than the electrostatic force) is a measure of the minute distortion of subatomic particles in a gravitational field."



The Great Dog doesn't know if Wal Thornhill is correct. There is no way of "knowing" whether any of the theories about gravity are correct. These ideas are conclusions based on cogitation and not observation. The Great Dog knows irony when it raises its tail.

Heat does not bend light, lightwaves are being bent as they pass through regions of greater atmospheric density in the same way that lightwaves are bent as they pass from atmosphere to water. Thus, caustics are seen in swimming pools.

[earls]

Pardon me, most hairy one, but I have a bone to chew...

In regards to "dipole" gravitation, there's a slight discrepancy...

Please refer to Wikipedia's entry on dielectrics.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dielectric

The primary graphic is comparable to the one you have shared... And there in lies the problem.

Dielectrics have varying levels of permittivity.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dielectric_constant

If "electric gravity" were to operate in the matter proposed by Wal Thornhill, then more massive bodies could weigh less than less massive bodies based on their permittivity.

As we know, this is not the case. More mass, more weight, regardless of the electrical characteristics of the mass. Gravity (supposedly) cannot be shielded.

How can we account for this inconsistency between theory and observation?

[The Great Dog]

The Great Dog suspects that bald anthropoids are merely jealous of luxuriant canid fur.

The Great Dog sees no connection between dialectrics and subtron electric charge. The bald anthropoid will have to be more specific.

[earls]

Please share the link to the Wikipedia article for subtron(s) and or any other measurements of quantity and quality of such. What is the structure of a subtron?

Unmeasured, unquantified substances are akin to dark matter, dark energy or fairy dust... All which garner such disdain from the Electric Universe community.

The nimbleness you showed to evade my originally inquiry is quite suspicious. Almost feline.

[junglelord]

Wal points to Neutrinos being a charge unit. That of course is wrong. They are electrically neutral, hence the term Neutrino.
Subtrons is a idea that the atomic units of protons and electrons is composed of, like a quark.
Frankly only e- and p+ are stable, hell even a neutron disappears in 14 minutes.

[The Great Dog]

The Great Dog sees nothing about neutrinos being charge units. If you wish to disparage someone's theory, at least quote the source.

The Great Dog wonders why the "structure of a subtron" is requested.

The Great Dog growls at Wikipedia and would pee on it if it were here.

[earls]

Well, the "structure" or "nature" or better yet the "physics" of the "subtron" would be exceptionally useful in gauging it's role in gravity and electromagnetism. For example, does the subtron obey the same rules as the electron? Specifically, the physics governing the subtron would be easier to decipher if we understood the structure of the subtron.

Just because Wal Thornhill said that Ralph Sansbury said while he was high on LSD that everything is subtrons, without measurements of specific quantities of the different dimensions of subtrons, we're not really making any progress towards mastering gravity, since we can't interact with dark-sub-matter-energy-trons.

I suppose I understand the disdain for Wikipedia when they require citation of sources and evidence for scientific claims.

There seems to be a lot more bark than bite to this dog.

[SpaceTravellor]

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?

Gravity as understood by Newton and Einstein is generally a flaw law! Gravity does not "bend light".

The postulated measuring of "the lensing gravity" is just a simple prism effect when light from a celestial subject hits the atmosphere of another celestial body in the line of an observation.

[Solar]

Gravity as understood by Newton and Einstein is generally a flaw law! Gravity does not "bend light".

The postulated measuring of "the lensing gravity" is just a simple prism effect when light from a celestial subject hits the atmosphere of another celestial body in the line of an observation.

Agreed. But the refraction can also occur when light "hits" the "atmosphere" of plasma filaments.

[SpaceTravellor]

@Solar,

Also agreed on the light refraction in plasma filaments.

NB: Thanks for the link to "Case against Cosmologists"

[kevin]

If You scroll down to page 21 in this link, it shows the results of the tests to establish the so called speed of light, they were averaged out.
there will be an average seasonal and bi-monthly speed of light relative to the circulating conditions around this planet, but it will be merely local to this planet
that link then goes on to give a summary of TT Browns findings with capacitors.
He was also involved with submarine tests on the so called constant of gravity, which again fluctuated on a seasonal and lunar phase timing.
The so called laws of physics appear to myself to be a sham, a front to fix the sciences and stop them actually working out how universe operates.
http://www.zamandayolculuk.com/Cetinbal ... erTech.pdf

the submarine tests were pre-war, i will find the links to them.
if you try to adhere to accepted so called laws of physics , you are living a lie, imo.
kevin

[StevenO]

If You scroll down to page 21 in this link, it shows the results of the tests to establish the so called speed of light, they were averaged out.
there will be an average seasonal and bi-monthly speed of light relative to the circulating conditions around this planet, but it will be merely local to this planet
that link then goes on to give a summary of TT Browns findings with capacitors.
He was also involved with submarine tests on the so called constant of gravity, which again fluctuated on a seasonal and lunar phase timing.
The so called laws of physics appear to myself to be a sham, a front to fix the sciences and stop them actually working out how universe operates.
http://www.zamandayolculuk.com/Cetinbal ... erTech.pdf

the submarine tests were pre-war, i will find the links to them.
if you try to adhere to accepted so called laws of physics , you are living a lie, imo.
kevin

As usual these kind of texts present strawmen of physics theories and experiments and then, after creating FUD, forward some pet theory without experimental verification. We should really be more alert on these things and develop some capacity for critical thinking to the have the quality of this website up to a standard.

Let me just take a few excerpts from this page page 21:

In 1932, the light measurements showed such marked discrepancies
with previous results as to occasion a distress call to the U.S. Coast &
Geodetic Survey, whose surveyors repeatedly remeasured the length of the
tube and found no error. Variations of 12 miles per second and more were
recorded.

A peak variation of 12 miles/second on 186217 miles/second accounts to a peak error of 0.006%, which, seen the time and setup of the measurement seems quite reasonable. It is well established scientific practice to average out measurements to get a more accurate result, provided one can show it are truly random variations and not systematic errors that could relate to temperature, accuracy of clocks, light sources, methods, etc.

The discovery of new particles in nuclear physics challenges Einstein's
theories. In 1967, Prof. Gerald Feinberg, a theoretical physicist at Columbia
University, New York, published his new theory concerning tachyons, a word
derived from the Greek "Tachyos" = fast. Feinberg supplied mathematical
proof that these particles move infinitely fast, but become slower as they
approach the speed of light. (Published in PHYSICAL REVIEW, 1967).

The "tachyon" was never "discovered". It was a mathematical exercise that showed that particles ALWAYS moving faster than light would fit with the Special Relativity. It could indicate that the lightspeed barrier has two sides, but it is by no means a refutation of Special Relativity theory.

On August 28, 1970, two British scientists, John Allen and Geoffrey
Endean announced their discovery of an E/M field in which particles move at
a speed of about twice that of light. According to these scientists, the characteristics
of this particular E/M field alone "would prove erroneous Einstein's
theory."

Since a reference to this "discovery", 39 years after, can only be found in these ether theory books and sites, I have to assume that their experiments could not be repeated by others, so it has found it's way to the scrap heap and pseudoscience archives.

This is just an analysis of half a page of the book. Just as in the laws of physics, the facts speak for itself