Stephen Crothers’ Latest Numerology Presentation

[David Talbott]

Querious, as I understand Ed Dowdye's message, the distortion would occur from the Chromosphere up to and including the Corona, all in relation to plasma density, which would be greatest at the limb, the interfacial boundary of the Photosphere and Chromosphere.

[David Talbott]

All you have to do is read his material. If you're going to argue about something, please look it up yourself before accusing me of misrepresenting things.

I'm not going to do the homework for you of chasing down a bunch of links to prove how wrong he is. Although there's a section of the book "Was Einstein Right?" that covers these quasar measurements by VLBI very well, starting on pg80.

Righto Querious. I won’t be asking you to do research for me. I’ve had to correct you twice since arriving here just last night.

More importantly, my hope is that contributors to this Forum could retain their good humor and drop all argument by insult.

[jacmac]

Going back a bit Querious said:

Dowdye argues, without any basis other than a slide showing straight lines, than the sun only bends starlight through the corona. This is simply an utterly preposterous argument.

Also, Querious quotes Dowdye that :
As crazy as it seems, that's exactly what he says...

Microwaves from Radio Quasar Sources deflected only at the Solar Plasma Limb
observed to deflect only at the angle of exactly 1.75 arcsec
only at the impact parameter of one (1) solar radius R

Perhaps there is a small mix up here.

My take on Prof. Dowdye's talk was that The bending of light ONLY takes place when it goes through the solar LIMB. And that further out, at 2 solar radius for example, the bending is not what the gravity bending formula would suggest. Thus, the bending at the limb is not from gravity.

I do not think He says the light bends only in the CORONA.

The limb is the EDGE of the solar disc but I don't know if it is the chromosphere or the bottom of the corona or both.

[comingfrom]

BecomingTesla wrote

I found his counter argument to Crother's to be perfectly valid. He asked Crothers a legitimate question:

I saw something else completely.

David wasn't asking Stephen a question, at least in this thread, but started it out with

At the Electric Universe conference (EU2015), Stephen Crothers made the shocking and controversial claim that general relativity is "really nothing other than some kind of numerology":

This thread will examine that startling claim and see if it can stand up to scrutiny.

And, Stephen himself came, and attempted to engage David.
After some snide comments, David promised to answer Stephen's questions, and compile a few questions of his own.

I’ll start work on your little pop quiz. And also compile a list of my own questions that I have been eager to ask you. So stay tuned…

This was never forthcoming, yet he continued to post derogatory remarks.

Finally, David compiles a post of links to all Stephen's critics.

I saw David miss his opportunity to engage with Stephen personally.

~~
And thank you, Solar, for that awesome post about the Galaxy's center.

[querious]

Do you mean refraction by the corona, the solar wind, general diffuse gas in the solar system, or what?

All of them have a radial density gradient increasing towards the Sun, and neither were included in the calculations used to confirm gravitational bending of light close to the Sun.

At optical light frequencies, the coronal refraction is negligible. For the VLBI measures of quasars, the corona causes lots of problems, but they are very frequency dependent, and can be corrected for by looking at the offsets at different frequencies.

As for all the other "stuff" causing refraction, the light from the reference star/quasar and the bent star/quasar are traveling through pretty much the exact same medium on it's way to the telescope.

They are very aware of these effects, and they are included in the calculations.

[querious]

Wikipedia says:
(In the Dark Matter Halo page.)

The visible disk of the Milky Way Galaxy is embedded in a much larger, roughly spherical halo of dark matter. The dark matter density drops off with distance from the galactic center.

So, in the standard model, we have the high density mass in the center of the galaxy(black hole) AND the dark matter halo throughout the galaxy and beyond.
Is this correct for the standard model ?
If so, don't we have TWO really big dark things effecting the rotation curves ?
How does that work ?

A central black hole would cause the stars toward the center to rotate faster. This becomes the reference velocity that outer stars' rotation curve SHOULD conform to. So, a black hole shouldn't cause anomalies in the rotation curve, AFAIK.

[querious]

Querious, as I understand Ed Dowdye's message, the distortion would occur from the Chromosphere up to and including the Corona, all in relation to plasma density, which would be greatest at the limb, the interfacial boundary of the Photosphere and Chromosphere.

My apologies for causing confusion by conflating the LIMB and corona.

It's still preposterous to claim there's no bending out in the vacuum, away from the sun's atmosphere.

[celeste]

You should read this article which lays that myth to rest...
Not Only Because of Theory: Dyson, Eddington and the Competing Myths of the 1919 Eclipse Expedition

Excellent article. I have read many just like it over the years, but this one is particularly good.

However, just like its predecessors, this article will most likely have no influence at all on the anti-General Relativity zealots who won't allow plain and simple facts to get in the way of their seething hatred of Einstein's mathematical-based theory.

David and querious, Since you both like this article, I'll ask that either of you actually read it:

"Nevertheless, as I have argued above, I believe that close inspection of the totality of
information now available to us since 1979, suggests that the 1919 experimenters
probably were justified in concluding that they had at least falsified the lower Newtonian
prediction."

For everyone else: He is saying the Newtonian prediction is wrong, but clearly NOT that Einstein is proven right. Here we need some mechanism, (Einstein's,Dowdye's, or?), that also causes bending of light. Nothing here that could settle the Einstein vs Dowdye debate.

[celeste]

However, Sagittarius A is not the “center” of the Milky Way Galaxy. The Sag A complex is one of a number of dynamic features that exist at the relative “center” of the Milky Way Galaxy. This fact gets lost in the reductionist approach that labels Sag A as the “central engine” of our galaxy. It isn’t. In order to put Sag A into context take a broad step back for moment and give thought to the following image of Galaxy NGC 3079:


(Credits: NASA, Gerald Cecil (University of North Carolina), Sylvain Veilleux (University of Maryland), Joss Bland-Hawthorn (Anglo- Australian Observatory), and Alex Filippenko (University of California at Berkeley). )

Now: Pick out one of those filaments and realize that what has been observed with regard to Sag A is the result of only one of many dynamic filaments likewise extending perpendicular to the galactic plane of our Milky Way galaxy.

Solar, You certainly have been busy since your last post in this forum. Wow.

Questions: This could be scalable, where your picture of NGC 3079 could also represent our solar system? We'd have the sun, a planetary disk, and these small scale birkeland currents, which impinge on the sun as sunspots? Key point being that sunspots don't appear at the sun's "center", but at some radius.

Also, you already see how this fits with Donald Scott's model? If there is some large scale filament that runs up and down through our galaxy, then according to Don's model, there should be an axial magnetic field,not at the galactic center, but at some radius away. Here the Double Helix Nebula would be a small scale filament, following the axial magnetic field of that larger scale filament?

More please!

[antosarai]

More please!

So we can move away from this topic's uncomfortable topic, fast?

[querious]

You should read this article which lays that myth to rest...
Not Only Because of Theory: Dyson, Eddington and the Competing Myths of the 1919 Eclipse Expedition

Excellent article. I have read many just like it over the years, but this one is particularly good.

However, just like its predecessors, this article will most likely have no influence at all on the anti-General Relativity zealots who won't allow plain and simple facts to get in the way of their seething hatred of Einstein's mathematical-based theory.

David and querious, Since you both like this article, I'll ask that either of you actually read it:

"Nevertheless, as I have argued above, I believe that close inspection of the totality of
information now available to us since 1979, suggests that the 1919 experimenters
probably were justified in concluding that they had at least falsified the lower Newtonian
prediction."

For everyone else: He is saying the Newtonian prediction is wrong, but clearly NOT that Einstein is proven right. Here we need some mechanism, (Einstein's,Dowdye's, or?), that also causes bending of light. Nothing here that could settle the Einstein vs Dowdye debate.

Hi celeste,
I actually did read it, but David cut off the quote from scowie that I was actually responding to....

scowie wrote...

And i'm going to assume that claim is bogus, just like Eddington's 1919 claim of a detection of GR bending close to the sun (despite none of his measurements matching GR predictions, although by throwing away the measurements he didn't like he could manufacture an average that fitted).

and this was my reponse...

You should read this article which lays that myth to rest...
Not Only Because of Theory: Dyson, Eddington and the Competing Myths of the 1919 Eclipse Expedition

The point is, the paper does indeed show that it's a myth that Eddington fudged the numbers.

It's a moot point now anyway, since we have much more precise ways to test GR bending predictions, and it passes with flying colors.

[celeste]

Like I said before, I haven't rejected any observations, only the mainstream interpretations of them.

Are you saying the Hipparcos star data (and all other modern measurements of bending) has been fudged to match GR predictions?

Or are you saying the data is not fudged, but the refractive index-caused bending just happens to match GR predictions?

querious,
This is where we have to get back to the "Pleiades distance problem". If you remember this issue, you know that the Hipparcos (direct parallax) distance and the Hubble (relative parallax distance) were very different. This could in fact be explained if we assumed that light was being bent as it passed near the Pleiades cluster.

So why didn't the mainstream understand that this was happening? Because the bending was not anywhere close to the GR prediction, but was in fact MUCH HIGHER than could be explained by the mass in that cluster. (the mass calculated by how stars in this cluster orbit each other).

So the point is this: The mainstream does sometimes see light bending that more or less matches their predictions. But when they see light bending that DOES NOT match their predictions, they tend to throw out the observations, not the degree of light bending they see! This is the sad state in which the "Pleiades distance problem" remains even now. If you read the latest literature, you'll find where one team or the other (Hipparcos or Hubble) made some "error" in either their observations, or their calculations.
In other words, when the mainstream finds light bending that matches the GR prediction, then they have more "confirmation". When they find a degree of light bending that doesn't match the GR prediction, then they have a "mistake" in observation that they need to "fix".

[kiwi]

Celeste

This is where we have to get back to the "Pleiades distance problem"

Do you have a link to that thread?

cheers

[Electro]

Every time I read articles or watch videos from Wal Thornhill, seems to me that the EU theory rejects GR and gravitational lensing (explained with refraction). So why are we even debating GR on an Electric Universe forum?

By the way, I really liked Stephen J. Crothers' presentation. It's refreshing to see the mainstream being "debunked" sometimes... I honestly don't care for the math or if he's not accurate. You don't need math to prove Big Bang, black holes and singularities are complete hogwash!

[comingfrom]

Hi Electro.

Every time I read articles or watch videos from Wal Thornhill, seems to me that the EU theory rejects GR and gravitational lensing (explained with refraction). So why are we even debating GR on an Electric Universe forum?

Light lensing happens. EU theorists are happy to speak about observational evidence.
It's just that they tend to disagree with the mainstream explanations, for much of what is observed.

By the way, I really liked Stephen J. Crothers' presentation. It's refreshing to see the mainstream being "debunked" sometimes... I honestly don't care for the math or if he's not accurate. You don't need math to prove Big Bang, black holes and singularities are complete hogwash!

I agree.
But I hope, and like to think, that his math is accurate.