"gravitational" lensing

[rickard]

According to EU theory gravitation can only influence objects with a mass.
Plasma is a form of "mass", albeit not in solid state.

The reson I started this thred is that I wonder if gravitation at all can influence plasma.

According to EU theory, gravity and magnetism are probably of electric nature.

We know that electricity can influence the plasma in various ways, and therefore I ask can that form af electromagnetism, that exist in form of gravity, also influence the plasma in space?

[rickard]

According to EU theory gravitation can only influence objects with a mass.
Plasma is a form of "mass", albeit not in solid state.

The reson I started this thred is that I wonder if gravitation at all can influence plasma.

According to EU theory, gravity and magnetism are probably of electric nature.

We know that electricity can influence the plasma in various ways, and therefore I ask; can that form af electromagnetism, that exist in form of gravity, also influence the plasma in space?

[nick c]

Hi Rickard,
A rhetorical question:
How does the Solar Wind escape the enormous gravity of the Sun?

[rickard]

Hi Rickard,
A rhetorical question:
How does the Solar Wind escape the enormous gravity of the Sun?

According to EU theory the gravity is a very veak force, 1000 biljon, biljon, biljon times veaker than electric forces, so that would not be any problem for the electric particles in the solar "wind" to overcome.
And I think that the sun and the planets are a sort of living beings so the communication between the sun and the planets is not a one way communication. The planets have a part in the interaction with the sun, maybe they in a way "pull" the energy from the sun .....
Rupert Sheldrake talks about the sun being a living being with a consciousness based on more subtile senses ....
I think it is impossible to really understand the universe if without seeing it as the living being it is ...... it is only logical to think that life, on earth and on other planets, can only exist in something that is alive .......

[celeste]

According to EU theory gravitation can only influence objects with a mass.
Plasma is a form of "mass", albeit not in solid state.

The reson I started this thred is that I wonder if gravitation at all can influence plasma.

According to EU theory, gravity and magnetism are probably of electric nature.

We know that electricity can influence the plasma in various ways, and therefore I ask; can that form af electromagnetism, that exist in form of gravity, also influence the plasma in space?

https://www.aanda.org/articles/aa/pdf/2 ... ah2649.pdf
Absolutely. It is this point that shows what is wrong with a gravity only, or an EU only paradigm.

[celeste]

rickard,
A bit more: The mainstream argument often repeated, is there is no charge separation in space. That is wrong. An idea that comes up over and over in the EU, is that since the electrostatic force is so much stronger than the gravitational force, we can ignore gravity. That is equally wrong. The solar surface is the point where gravitational forces are on the same order of magnitude as the electrostatic forces.

So much of the dynamics of the solar surface can be understood ONLY once you understand the balance of forces there, that you see why both the mainstream (ignoring electrostatics) and some in the EU (ignoring gravity, or trying to explain gravity as an electrostatic force), miss the whole dynamic.

First understand the balance that occurs at the solar surface! Then a number of the "puzzles" both in mainstream theory, and the EU, will become clear.

[celeste]

rickard,
One more: Edward Dowdye Jr explained the bending of light near the sun, as being due to botth the plasma and the gravitational fild at the solar surface. This is aslo correct, in that it is not gravity alone, or plasma alone, that bends light. We need a plasma in a gravitational field. Not just gravity, and not just plasma, but the interaction of both.

This whole topic has been grossly ignored in both the mainstream and EU models. Light is bent by plasma in a gravitational field. And can be explained quantitatively by Dowdye. Using gravity.

[Zyxzevn]

rickard,
Edward Dowdye Jr explained...

On his website and in his EU video, he explains that there is NO gravitational bending or lensing,
as it would give totally different observations.

See website http://extinctionshift.com/

A direct interaction between
Gravitation and Electromagnetism
occurs nowhere in plasma-free vacuum space.

That makes it clear to me that he does not believe in gravitational bending of light (or space).

The other EU speaker "Ron Hatch" has a slightly different view on gravity.
See: RON HATCH: Relativity in the Light of GPS | EU 2013
He also thinks that light does not change paths in gravity.
He explains how the GPS should be viewed slightly different.
From his view the light does not change in gravity.
But instead light is emitted (or received) at a different frequencies.

[celeste]

rickard,
Edward Dowdye Jr explained...

On his website and in his EU video, he explains that there is NO gravitational bending or lensing,
as it would give totally different observations.

See website http://extinctionshift.com/

A direct interaction between
Gravitation and Electromagnetism
occurs nowhere in plasma-free vacuum space.

That makes it clear to me that he does not believe in gravitational bending of light (or space).

As he explains, "Gravitational deflection of light in solar plasma atmosphere". So it is gravity, and the bending is in the direction of the gravitational field. But you are right, it is not empty space itself that is bent. Light is bent when passing through the plasma limb of the sun, in the direction of the gravitational field. Not bent passing through a gravitational field with no plasma. But also no bending by plasma without gravitation, if his theory is correct.

[jacmac]

Celest:

Light is bent when passing through the plasma limb of the sun, in the direction of the gravitational field.

The direction of the gravitational field at the LIMB is also the direction of the curvature of the chromosphere.
The chromosphere is itself a Double Layer, or electric field, according to Dr Scott"s model of the sun.
So, any light bending might be caused by either gravity, the electric field, or a combination of the two IMO.
Jack

[Roshi]

In general relativity, light follows the curvature of spacetime, hence when light passes around a massive object, it is bent. This means that the light from an object on the other side will be bent towards an observer's eye, just like an ordinary lens. In General Relativity the speed of light depends on the gravitational potential (aka the metric) and this bending can be viewed as a consequence of the light traveling along a gradient in light speed. Light rays are the boundary between the future, the spacelike, and the past regions. The gravitational attraction can be viewed as the motion of undisturbed objects in a background curved geometry or alternatively as the response of objects to a force in a flat geometry. The angle of deflection is:

θ = 4GM/rc2

toward the mass M at a distance r from the affected radiation, where G is the universal constant of gravitation and c is the speed of light in a vacuum.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitati ... _curvature

Simple experiment with a light in a long vacuum tube, on Earth, should confirm this once and for al.
https://lacosmo.com/DeflectionOfLight/index.html
If the Sun bends light by 1.75'', then the Earth should also bend light by a value that should be measurable.

Of course it will never be done, asking today if relativity is true is like asking if the Earth is round in the middle ages.

Question: why doesn't the bending angle also depend on the radius of the object that bends the light? It makes no sense. It's like "ok, shoot the light beam", and they measure it after 10 meters, then: "ok it's bent by x degrees acording to our formula". And it should stay at that angle, even if it travels 100 km more while very close to the planet or star? Ok, this is too advanced for me...

[Zyxzevn]

Simple experiment with a light in a long vacuum tube, on Earth, should confirm this once and for al.

That is the LIGO.

The plasma around the sun is visible in many photographs and much denser
than predicted. The fact that the mainstream ignores the plasma around the sun,
is a clear indication that they are doing something wrong.

[celeste]

Celest:

Light is bent when passing through the plasma limb of the sun, in the direction of the gravitational field.

The direction of the gravitational field at the LIMB is also the direction of the curvature of the chromosphere.
The chromosphere is itself a Double Layer, or electric field, according to Dr Scott"s model of the sun.
So, any light bending might be caused by either gravity, the electric field, or a combination of the two IMO.
Jack

Absolutely. It has been reasoned ( even from mainstream principles), that gravity should cause charge segregation at the sun’s surface, and therefore an electric field. So is it gravity that bends light, or the electric field caused by gravity, that bends light? You are pointing out an important question, and one not conclusively answered, IMHO.

[webolife]

Self-evidently, the meaning of the term "gravitational" is core to everything in physics, let alone this thread.
A few "simple" observations/propositions:
1. Gravitation is the tendency of the universe to "amass" itself.
2. Therefore mass may not cause gravity, rather gravitation is the cause of mass.
3. Mass is fundamentally a field phenomenon, at least in the sense that it is only measurable with respect to the mutual action and space between two objects.
4. Not-just-coincidentally, that is the same relation expressed in Newton's gravitation formula.
5. Atomic theory tells us that matter is essentially electrical, an interaction between charges acting within a defined space, an atomic field if you will.
6. So electric fields, gravitational fields, and mass represent manifestations of a single field principle.
7. The two main component vectors of the action between objects at any scale/hierarchy are describable as "centropic", ie. a gravitational vector toward the centroid of a system of objects (whether atomic nuclei, solar systems, AGCs, or galactic cluster centers), and motion [kinetic energy, angular momentum] a "tangential" vector which maintains an equilibrium within the systems (whether sub-atomic or astronomical) distinguished by the space/distance between them but not distinguished by significant mathematical idiosyncrasies. Or to put it more positively, the universe is mathematically elegant -- albeit our best human efforts at describing it have far to go to attain that elegance.
8. Also describable as "centropic", light action is (in this/my view) lacking the "tangential" component of motion.
It is a straight line-of-sight action in the direction of the "source", the centroid of the local system in which it manifests.
9. The angles at which we observe "lensed" light action, eg. spectroscopic, pinholes and slit devices, prismatic lenses (incl atmospheric haloes and rainbows) are viewer defined... ie. the angles are primarily related to the central line of sight, as manifestations of a pressure gradient, rather than "forced" by massive gravitational influence on light "particles" or waves passing by a distant object.
10. Despite the fundament of #9, it is altogether reasonable to suspect that a gravitationally active/electric body such as a star, galaxy or galactic cluster centroid, may influence the vectors of light as observed from our distant position.
11. Despite the possiblity of #10, lensing of distant galactic objects is primarily a refractive phenomenon, and as such lensing/imaging can be elicited by objects as small as wine glasses and pinholes, there is no need to imagine or propose super massive fantasy matter or black holes as their cause.

[silvanelf]

Further, why do none of the stars orbiting what is supposed to be a supermassive black hole at Sagittarius A have any of their light distorted? The paths are easy to follow over time but how can that be possible when orbiting behind from just mere light hours distant?

Gravitational lensing = Garbage.

How do you know that there is no bending of light around Sagittarius A* ?
Furthermore, gravitational lensing is just a consequence of the bending of light by a gravitational field. According to your statement, the bending of light by gravity should be garbage.

The important keyword here is "the opacity of the region around Sagittarius A*":

Bearing in mind the opacity the region around Sagittarius A* our only hope of seeing lensing is if one of the orbiting stars passes behind the the black hole and is lensed, but the expected deflection of the light is too small to be measured by the kit we currently have available. However, as the paper describes, we expect the GRAVITY telescope to be accurate enough to detect the lensing.

source: https://physics.stackexchange.com/quest ... -milky-way