Miles Mathis "Light Bending"

[altonhare]

I drew some geometric diagrams to help me understand Mathis' calculations regarding the measurement of the "bending of starlight". I want to go through it step by step and analyze the situation with others here.

First, we have the sun and earth, with their centers separate by a distance that, I believe, is typically measured via parallax. That seems reasonably dependable. At that first moment we have a light signal incident at the edge of the sun. We also have a light signal incident from the center of the sun. This is important because the origin of this light signal remains the same while the origin of light signals from the edge of the sun changes due to the sun's expansion according to Mathis.

CA is the radius of the sun, BE is the radius of the earth, AB is the distance between them, and D is a point on the photon's path where it will intersect a photodetector. CD is the path of the light signal from the edge of the sun and AD is the path of the light signal from the center of the sun. In the next frame the photon has arrived at the photodetector while the earth and sun have expanded a bit in the interim.

AF is the new radius of the sun, BD is the new radius of the earth. Their ratios are still the same. AB, the distance between their centers, hasn't changed. CD is the path of the light signal from the edge of the sun to the photodetector and AD is the path of the light signal from the center of the sun to the photodetector. In this particular example the angle just happens to be 7.1 degrees. Obviously these diagrams aren't drawn to scale.

The next light signal from the edge of the sun leaves F, again on its way to a photodetector on earth. Of course another light signal leaves A also on its way to a photodetector on earth.

G is where the photodetector will be when the signal incident from F gets there. The angle between AG and FG is now 10.7 degrees. This change in angle, 10.7-7.1 = 3.6, Mathis claims, is the so-called "bending of starlight". If there were no expansion of the earth and sun, this angle would not be changing.

[altonhare]

On the other hand, Mathis tells us to ignore the expansion of the sun:

tang.jpg (10.57 KiB) Viewed 11485 times

In this diagram, Mathis shows two light rays L1 and L2, each leaving the same point on the surface of the sun. As they travel to a photodetector on earth, the earth expands. L1 hits the photodetector on the earth at time t0 and the L2 hits the photodetector later on, after the earth has expanded somewhat (I believe he uses 500 seconds or so).

Such a setup struggles against logic. If one light signal intersects the earth 500 seconds after the other, there is no way they could have originated from anywhere near the same point. L1 flies past the edge of the sun, then the sun is busily expanding for 500 seconds, and L2 flies past the edge of the sun, arriving on earth some 500+ seconds later. If it arrives later, it leaves later, and if it leaves later, the sun has expanded in the meanwhile, meaning its originating point has moved far from where it was.

[junglelord]

I do not believe the expansion theory is correct.
My two cents.
Nice work Alton

[webolife]

I have not found the bending of starlight to be problematic for two reasons:
1. You can "bend" or refract light around any object, due to the fact that a light ray [aka central line of sight] is accompanied by a pressure gradient, which can be shown geometrically to operate in either direction [ie from source to intervening object, or from recptor to intervening object. This gradient shows up [as a spectrum] at any ostensible edge which restricts the gradient, and especially by the use of a pinhole or slit, but also by any beamsplitter [as small as a hair], the edge of the solar disk is no different.
2. The presence of a luminous or massive intervening object adds additional pressure gradient "vectors" to those attributed to the source object, as the two vectoral pressure systems superimpose, eg. at the edge of the intervening object. This will inevitably lead to what could appear to be a "pulling" of the vectors toward each other with respect to the observer. I don't see the vectors as physically pulling on each other per se, but with respect to the observer from a distance there would be a convergence of the gradients. This is also a likely explanation for gravitational lensing.

[Solar]

In relation to the concept of 'photons traveling' the best explanation of what may actually be functioning with this "light binding" concept is Alton's suggestion of the 're-transmission' of light. So, a couple of thoughts:

a) The "space" as "void" concept has seriously impaired interpretation. The gradient of matter at an object's edge may induce the 're-transmission' of the light stimulus.

b) The gravitational properties of the matter composing the gradient as it 're-transmits' the light stimulus via secondary emission of photons is what causes the perception that 'light is bending'.

c) The "photons" seen along the gradient are not the same "photons" emitted from the source. They are secondary ('re-transmitted') "photons".

d) All of which assumes that 'photons travel'.

e) An ideal vector along a line of sight would not "bend". Therefore, interpretations would need to take into account activities according to the characteristics of the existing matter along said line of sight. Such that, if something appears to "bend" - the light 'emitting' matter has "crossed" the vector at some angle.

f) An object (matter) emitting/'re-transmitting' photons 'neath the influence of gravity - which then - under the influence of gravity - "crosses" the vector along a line of sight cannot then be interpreted as "photons" changing their direction. The 'emitter' of "photons" is in motion, not the subsequently produced 'photon field'.

g) If "photons" are 'punctual' - being then - on the spot globular productions of a superluminal 'stimulus' (phase velocity, group velocity) there is no need for them to "travel". They would form in the 'wake' of that 'superluminal stimulus'.

h) If we look at R.A. Smith's "T-Field" (or any theoretical nomena that may occupy and or fill "space" such as "virtual particles", electric fields, 'potential' et al) inducing a 'pressure-like stimulus' - the movement of a "particle" of matter through same has consequences. Likewise, the 'movement' of said "field" (via "stress") would have consequences on said "particle".

The uniform production of "photons" within said "field" could be a resonant change of 'phase-state' for a localized region of said field. This would be detected not by being within the same 'region' of the object producing such a change, but by a 'stimulus' spread through the 'expanse' of the aforementioned space-filling nomena. Said 'stimulus' would then locally 'produce' the 'signature' of an event occurring 'over there' at some distance.

This would effectively render "the speed of light" as nothing more than the 'response time' (if even that) for the local or punctual production of "photons" as a result of a 'stimulus' propagated through a "field". No "traveling" required.

I'm getting wordy again but could someone explain how is it that an object (matter) 'emitting' or 're-transmitting' photons (under the interpretation of "traveling") having "crossed" my ideal unmovable, unbent vector equates with the "path" of the 'emitted' photons "bending"?

This is analogous to driving one's car (object/matter) at night with the lights on - turning a corner, and concluding that the light beams 'turned the corner ahead of the car'. No. The car (object/matter) bent around the corner crossing my vector and the light was continuously 'emitted' in a straight line as it helplessly followed the 'emitter'. Completely cover the car in lights and the interpretation is still the same as the car turns the corner and crosses my vector.

Barring refraction, deflection etc the light of a distant star considered to be "traveling" along the edge of the dense plasma envelope (matter) of the Sun is then said to gravitationally "bend" ...? Errr...

Help me out here ... am I not understanding something?

[altonhare]

Can I assume that everyone who has responded agrees that Mathis' calculation of "light deflection" via expansion theory is fundamentally flawed?

Notwithstanding that expansion theory dies in the cradle for metaphysical reasons, Mathis' calculation doesn't even make any sense.

Notwithstanding the fact that the situation is modelled as a single point source and a single point receiver. In actuality light is relayed many, many times en route as Solar spoke of. Each relay is an opportunity for deflection. Not only that, but the ropes extending from the distant source to the receiver on earth are curved around the high matter density around the sun. As the sun barrels through the cosmic web of ropes it pushes/perturbs them all so that they curve around the sun.

[borut]

Can I assume that everyone who has responded agrees that Mathis' calculation of "light deflection" via expansion theory is fundamentally flawed?

Notwithstanding that expansion theory dies in the cradle for metaphysical reasons, Mathis' calculation doesn't even make any sense.

Notwithstanding the fact that the situation is modelled as a single point source and a single point receiver. In actuality light is relayed many, many times en route as Solar spoke of. Each relay is an opportunity for deflection. Not only that, but the ropes extending from the distant source to the receiver on earth are curved around the high matter density around the sun. As the sun barrels through the cosmic web of ropes it pushes/perturbs them all so that they curve around the sun.

I agree with Miles. I can see, that you have problems in analysing what you see in time dimension.

[Plasmatic]

Can I assume that everyone who has responded agrees that Mathis' calculation of "light deflection" via expansion theory is fundamentally flawed?

Notwithstanding that expansion theory dies in the cradle for metaphysical reasons, Mathis' calculation doesn't even make any sense.

Notwithstanding the fact that the situation is modelled as a single point source and a single point receiver. In actuality light is relayed many, many times en route as Solar spoke of. Each relay is an opportunity for deflection. Not only that, but the ropes extending from the distant source to the receiver on earth are curved around the high matter density around the sun. As the sun barrels through the cosmic web of ropes it pushes/perturbs them all so that they curve around the sun.

I agree with Miles. I can see, that you have problems in analysing what you see in time dimension.

How does one "see" a time dimension?

[borut]

How does one "see" a time dimension?

Those lines are representing photons that travel. Those lines cannot be straight because light need time to travel.
Relativity my friend. Light is time dimension.

[borut]

Miles picture we can draw in two ways. First one we can see in Miles article. The second picture would be without those lines and without angle of light bending. It would have just curve and off course only one size of earth. The second picture is mathematically almost the same as Miles picture. Different is just that standard view is "bending" light and Miles is "bending" the point of view.

Astonishing is that with distance that angle is getting larger by Miles. Now we can see that Einstein pushed his math in Mercury problem and he would have to push his math in all other discovered problems. Miles math stays the same all the time
lp
Borut

[webolife]

Borut,
Some folks on these forums, including Wal T and myself, sorry for namedropping, believe that light is transmitted instantaneously across distance. Understanding this is a radical view in light of the last 2 centuries of physics, it is a view worth taking a second look at what is actually measured in the determination of light "travel time".

[nick c]

I believe Wal wrote "near" instantaneous, or is it that just nit picking?

Nick

[junglelord]

There is an instant quality to light, ask Tesla.
Especially a Z/Theta Pinch, which has scalar and longitudinal waves, which are basicly instant...ask Tesla.
So the EU has what we call a Z Pinch, not light from a bulb. The type of energy involved in static discharges, especially electrostatic impulses from a Z/Theta pinch always involve a magneto-dieletric component, that is the scalar component. It is basicly instant. It is not limited to c in any way.

Ask Tesla, or better yet, listen to Dollard.

I think people get lost in the different forms of possible induction.
According to Dollard there are four types of induction.
Two are limited to c, two are not.

[webolife]

Nick,
If you wish to pick my nits, go right ahead
I don't pretend to speak for Wal, but I came to the EU a few years ago through the work of and personal correspondence with Ralph Sansbury, whose work has influenced Wal's viewpoint... according to Sansbury, and by adoption, Wal, the longitudinal aspect of light transmission is instantaneous; the distortional effects of light on the state of electrons [or what Ralph Sansbury calls subtrons] takes place at the rate of c. This is a minute amount of delay compared to the concept of light taking d/c amount of time to get here from wherever; but yes, the detection of the light hence cannot be instant, though the transmission of it is theorized to be instantaneous. My own view, from the tutilage of R A Smith in the early 80's, is that light as a force vector is "tugged" across distance without any delay, but the effect of that "tug" on any receptor is a small motion that takes a little time. Others may wish to check out or add to the "Ralph Sansbury" thread, or the "Robert Archer Smith" thread for further discussion.

[borut]

Borut,
Some folks on these forums, including Wal T and myself, sorry for namedropping, believe that light is transmitted instantaneously across distance. Understanding this is a radical view in light of the last 2 centuries of physics, it is a view worth taking a second look at what is actually measured in the determination of light "travel time".

Ok I understand...
Can you give me a main points of theory?