Stephen Crothers’ Latest Numerology Presentation

[BecomingTesla]

querious, as someone who has stood up for your right to criticize dipole gravity in the past, do you seriously need to turn every freaking conversation into a fight between Bengt about the thing? Seriously, how is this helpful?

[querious]

querious, as someone who has stood up for your right to criticize dipole gravity in the past, do you seriously need to turn every freaking conversation into a fight between Bengt about the thing? Seriously, how is this helpful?

You're right, that was uncalled for. My sincere apologies Bengt. Offending portion removed.

[BecomingTesla]

Right on, good show of integrity. I respect that. Carry on, everyone lol

[scowie]

I just love how you can pretend to speak with any kind of certitude on such subtle matters. Why just a little while ago you said there was no bending at all...

That was based on the observations I had knowledge of at the time. Thanks to you querious I am now slightly wiser and instead of saying "no bending", I will now say "no gravitational bending"

The lack of stellar einstein rings or gravitational lensing suggests to me that this bending you pointed out must be a heliospheric effect due to refraction in a density gradient. The mainstream's assessment of the hipparcos data probably takes account of this to some extent (the free parameter I mentioned) but they will make sure they leave room for some GR-related bending of course.

I am happy to take onboard new observations and change my views accordingly. I have changed my mind about these sorts of things many times over the last few years. I don't turn a blind eye to any observations or assume the observations must be wrong (just the mainstream's interpretations of them!). I notice querious, that you didn't pick me up on my other points: no stellar einstein rings, no Sag.A* bending

[querious]

I notice querious, that you didn't pick me up on my other points: no stellar einstein rings, no Sag.A* bending

Ok then, what's your basis for saying "no Sgr A* bending"?

I sure hope your only source for this idea isn't Dowdye. I still don't undertsand why he says...

Historically, the effect of light bending due to gravitation has been noted only at the thin plasma rim of the sun's atmosphere. This is a firm and well founded observational fact. Fig 4A illustrates the theoretical light bending effect of the sun, as predicted by General Relativity, which should be observed in the vacuum space far above the solar plasma rim as well as within the solar plasma rim itself. Note that the predicted light bending effect in the vacuum space far above the rim of the solar plasma; at various radii of analytical Gaussian spherical surfaces concentric to the center of the sun, is not observed at all by modern technical means.

You might also want to take a look at...

Observing gravitational lensing effects by Sgr A* with GRAVITY

[Webbman]

you forgot about the solar wind which extends out much further. Though perhaps it wasn't windy that day.

[scowie]

Ok then, what's your basis for saying "no Sgr A* bending"?

The lack of any report of a gravitational lensing effect at Sgr A*

You might also want to take a look at...

Observing gravitational lensing effects by Sgr A* with GRAVITY

That is a prediction that gravitational lensing should be detectable, although the abstract does use some careless phrasing in the first two lines with a statement that the lensing is a fact even before having been observed!

[querious]

Ok then, what's your basis for saying "no Sgr A* bending"?

The lack of any report of a gravitational lensing effect at Sgr A*

Ah, I see. Well, as they say, "absence of proof is not proof of absence".

I'm sure you'll be thrilled to know the equipment able to (precisely!) measure bending around Sgr A* is just now nearing completion, so what a fortuitous time to be having this discussion!

GRAVITY Project milestones:
For the BCI:
- PAE passed 10. June 2015
- BCI arrived at Paranal 15. July 2015
- first commissioning run 4. November 2015

For the WFS (unit#1):
- PAE: Spring 2015
- Shipment to Paranal: September 2015

[scowie]

I'm sure you'll be thrilled to know the equipment able to (precisely!) measure bending around Sgr A* is just now nearing completion, so what a fortuitous time to be having this discussion!

Indeed. I have a feeling that a premature claim of gravitational lensing detection may be forthcoming though. As the abstract you linked too said...

The easiest effect to be observed in the next years is the astrometric displacement of primary images. In particular the shift of the star S17 from its Keplerian orbit will be detected as soon as GRAVITY becomes operative.

Deviation from a Keplerian orbit isn't necessarily a lensing effect. The jovian planets do that to some degree. Also, since by my reckoning, both the forces responsible for the orbits of the Sag.A* stars are attractive (gravity + electrostatic attraction), unlike in the case of our solar system where they oppose and have a stabilising effect, I expect the orbits of these stars to be unstable.

[querious]

Thanks to you querious I am now slightly wiser and instead of saying "no bending", I will now say "no gravitational bending"

So the bending is then caused by what?

[scowie]

So the bending is then caused by what?

Like I said, I am going to presume it is due to the refractive index gradient within the heliosphere, at least until I see more solid evidence that gravity really does bend light.

Actually, now I think about it, the transition of starlight from the interstellar medium into the heliosphere should cause some bending too, although planets would be excluded from that effect.

[querious]

So the bending is then caused by what?

Like I said, I am going to presume it is due to the refractive index gradient within the heliosphere, at least until I see more solid evidence that gravity really does bend light.

How could it be that this ref. index just so happens to cause exactly the same amount of bending as GR?

[scowie]

How could it be that this ref. index just so happens to cause exactly the same amount of bending as GR?

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).

[querious]

How could it be that this ref. index just so happens to cause exactly the same amount of bending as GR?

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).

I guess that's one approach to science. Although, if you're going to call BS on the scientists, you might as well stick to your guns and declare there was never any bending outside the corona at all. You can join Dowdye, and problem solved!

So much for your earlier statement...

I am happy to take onboard new observations and change my views accordingly.

[scowie]

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