Gravitational Lensing : Eddington Experiment

Discussion in 'Astronomy, Exobiology, & Cosmology' started by The God, Nov 29, 2015.

  1. The God Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,546
    Appears to be some conceptual problem here..
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    27,534
    No, no problem other than with your own posts and yourself, obviously.
    Like I said, the refraction aspect is caused by an entirely different animal then gravitational lensing.
    Refraction concerns itself with the effects we see from the apparent speed of light within certain materials. Refraction is chromatic and different wavelengths are refracted at different rates according to the refractive index.
    Gravitational lensing is caused by the property of light/photons following geodesics in curved spacetime and is achromatic.
    Curved spacetime is a necessary concept of GR and has been proven as attested by GP-B and other experiments.
    In fact spacetime curvature was evident long before GP-B, which in essence primarily showed the validity of frame dragging.

    http://arxiv.org/pdf/1010.3829v1.pdf
    Abstract.
    Gravitational lensing has developed into one of the most powerful tools for the analysis of the dark universe. This review summarises the theory of gravitational lensing, its main current applications and representative results achieved so far. It has two parts. In the first, starting from the equation of geodesic deviation, the equations of thin and extended gravitational lensing are derived. In the second, gravitational lensing by stars and planets, galaxies, galaxy clusters and large-scale structures is discussed and summarised.



    http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/9504001


    and this.......
    http://spiff.rit.edu/classes/phys240/lectures/microlens/microlens.html


    http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/2041-8205/814/2/L26

    RESOLVING THE INNERMOST REGION OF THE ACCRETION DISK OF THE LENSED QUASAR Q2237+0305 THROUGH GRAVITATIONAL MICROLENSING

    Abstract
    We study three high magnification microlensing events, generally recognized as probable caustic crossings, in the optical light curves of the multiply imaged quasar Q2237+0305. We model the light curve of each event as the convolution of a standard thin disk luminosity profile with a straight fold caustic. We also allow for a linear gradient that can account for an additional varying background effect of microlensing. This model not only matches noticeably well the global shape of each of the three independent microlensing events but also gives remarkably similar estimates for the disk size parameter. The measured average half-light radius,

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    light-days, agrees with previous estimates. In the three events, the core of the magnification profile exhibits "fine structure" related to the innermost region of the accretion disk (located at a radial distance of 2.7 ± 1.4 Schwarzschild radii according to our measurement). Relativistic beaming at the internal rim of the accretion disk can explain the shape and size of the fine structure, although alternative explanations are also possible. This is the first direct measurement of the size of a structure, likely the innermost stable circular orbit, at ~3 Schwarzschild radii in a quasar accretion disk. The monitoring of thousands of lensed quasars with future telescopes will allow the study of the event horizon environment of black holes in hundreds of quasars in a wide range of redshifts (0.5 < z < 5).
    ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

    We have now seen the how the combination of arrogance, ignorance, a total lack of humility, driven by a "god agenda", can screw and mess with people's brains and total discarding of logic and common sense in the face of 100 years of GR and the overwhelming observations that show GR and gravitational lensing, to be as close to reality as we could wish.
    That's how the universe is, whether we like it or not.

    Again, if any one believes they have any thing with substance, refuting/invalidating GR, let them write up another scientific paper, and get the appropriate peer review.
    They havn't, and they won't and they'll also totally ignore this reasonable request because it will reveal them as the fraudsters that they obviously are.
    Sad and amusing.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    actually.
     
    Last edited: Dec 31, 2015
    brucep likes this.
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    27,534

    http://www.letstalkphysics.com/2013/02/how-to-identify-cranks.html

    How to Identify Cranks:

    Why does physics attract so many more cranks than any other field? I don't know, but here's how you can identify them.

    1. They claim to get huge new results without new mathematics:
    This never happens. Consider: Newtonian physics required the invention of calculus. Electromagnetism brought in the whole machinery of field theory, including partial differential equations, gauge invariance, Green functions, and many other things unknown to physicists of the prior century. Quantum mechanics brought in infinite dimensional Hilbert spaces and operator algebras. General relativity brought in tensor calculus and Riemann spaces. Quantum field theory brought in...itself, a mathematical smorgasbord as yet not fully characterized.

    Think any of these are unecessary? Think they could be replaced by some kind of pictures or verbal explanations, if only a more incisive thinker came along? Then congratulations, you're about 25% of the way towards crankdom.

    New physics requires new mathematics because, essentially, working out the results of old mathematics is a matter of effort, not creativity. Mathematics is highly structured, by definition, and if you put a few hundred smart people to work for a couple decades within a given mathematical structure, they will extract everything of physical relevance. You just can't get new wine from old grapes (and definitely not from sour grapes, see item 4).

    2. They haven't mastered existing theories:
    Nobody advances physics without a complete mastery of the current state of the art. Most cranks think that Einstein did this, but they are completely wrong. He completed the full course of physics studies, all the way through graduate level, and then on his own he studied obsessively.

    You aren't playing at Carnegie Hall without practice, and the same goes with physics.

    3. They don't publish conventionally:
    Cranks have the idea that there have been some great physicists of the past, mainly Einstein, whose work was ignored or not published in conventional venues. This is not really true. Einstein completed his first three great papers in 1905. When were they published? 1905. Where? Annalen der Physik, a mainstream journal. Even Boltzmann, whose work on statistical mechanics met with great resistance, was a full professor and a mainstream physicist.

    If mainstream journals won't publish your works of physics, they aren't works of physics.

    4. They blame their failures on the attitudes of others:
    Cranks believe that the "establishment" is lined up against their ideas and that is why they don't succeed. When the community (largely) ignores them or fails to follow up on these "brilliant" new developments, the reason is not that the developments aren't worthwhile, but rather that the community is too narrow-minded and dominated by entrenched interests to see the truth.

    Your classic crank meets all 4 of these criteria, knows very little real mathematics, and is easily ignored. However, there are some people, superficially very knowledgable, who pass 1-3 but still fail item 4, hence qualifying as 25% cranks. They publish sour-grapes books with titles like "The trouble with physics" or "Not even wrong". They think a bunch of "big egos" are standing in the way of progress, even though this never happened before in the history of physics.*

    Folks, when good ideas appear you can tell. How? First, all the smartest people jump on them. Why? Because that's how they make their careers. What does any theoretical physicist have to gain by *not* pouncing on a new idea? Nothing. What does s/he have to lose? Just the opportunity for success, fame, and a place in the history books. And the second indicator that a new idea is good: it produces mountains of new and unfamiliar mathematics, see item 1. Good ideas are very fertile, and the form which fertility takes in theoretical physics is new equations. With luck, they lead to new experimental tests. Nothing guarantees that a correct physical idea has to be testable - that depends on the specific design of our universe - but of course it will be a drag if the correct theories are, in fact, not testable in practice, so that we can never know the truth.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. river

    Messages:
    17,307
    Main stream cranks think that they know it all for infinity ; is that not right paddy boy?
     
  8. river

    Messages:
    17,307
    Its one thing to be mainstream in your thinking paddy boy , its another to insult people that have another perspective. For without another perspective neither Einstein or any others theory would have been considered.
     
  9. Dywyddyr Penguinaciously duckalicious. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    19,225
    Don't talk nonsense.
     
  10. river

    Messages:
    17,307
    What nonsense.
     
  11. Dywyddyr Penguinaciously duckalicious. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    19,225
    Einstein followed the scientific method. What he came up with was science.
    It was based entirely on what you call "mainstream".
     
  12. river

    Messages:
    17,307
    What was mainstream about Einstein; at the time his theories came out?
     
  13. Dywyddyr Penguinaciously duckalicious. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    19,225
    You really do have trouble reading and understanding, don't you? Have another go:
    Einstein followed the scientific method. What he came up with was science.
    It was based entirely on what you call "mainstream".
     
  14. river

    Messages:
    17,307
    Did he?

    Yet people were scrambling to prove him right. And that proving that Einstein was right was the scientific method not his theories.
     
  15. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    27,534
    It's one thing to be anti science and wear it like a badge of honour river old son, and its another thing to have any concrete evidence to invalidate the incumbent model.
    Your kind get your kicks and thrills in putting your nonsense on science forums such as this. The rest of the scientific world proceeds as per normal despite your ranting, and that's what sticks in your craw and those of our other rather isolated and totally ignored alternative brigade.
     
    Last edited: Jan 1, 2016
  16. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    27,534
    No, that's just your total twisting and squirming to throw people off the truth.
    Einstein's theory was a combination and association of the work done by half a dozen other greats before him: His genius was putting it all together.
    And of course while SR is a special case of GR, the main postulate of GR [curved spacetime exhibiting gravity when warped by mass] was first verified with Eddington's solar eclipse observations, despite the less than credible arguments that often infest forums such as this: The only outlet, such as yourself and kin have and that will stomach your nonsense.
     
  17. river

    Messages:
    17,307
    The scientific method was by proving whether he was right or wrong.
     
  18. The God Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,546
    No formally educated person will make such meaningless statement.

    Refraction causes deviation in the path of light.......The deviation (rather following of curved geodesic) of background star light in presence of massive foreground object is termed as Gravitational Lensing.

    Only argument you and couple of others have is that entire deviation of background star light isdue to GR curvature, why? Why cannot you guys logically or reasonably say that yes, alternative explanations are present which could explain this phenomenon.


    Very fair, none will object to such frank analysis in the paper.
     
  19. The God Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,546
    This thread, and similar such threads cannot come to logical conclusion, simply because mainstream followers will give no leeway to any alternative proposition or to any aspect which questions mainstream. In the summary I can say that the Gravitational Lensing does not conclusively prove curved spacetime.
     
    river likes this.
  20. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    27,534
    No, not really. Firstly proof does not really mean anything with regards to a scientific theory, and Einstein arrived at his through the scientific method obviously and as I have detailed.
     
  21. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    27,534
    Most formally educated people understand it perfectly unless they hide behind an agenda as you obviously do and have continually shown.
    Let me state it again: Like I said, the refraction aspect is caused by an entirely different animal then gravitational lensing.
    Refraction concerns itself with the effects we see from the apparent speed of light within certain materials. Refraction is chromatic and different wavelengths are refracted at different rates according to the refractive index.
    Gravitational lensing is caused by the property of light/photons following geodesics in curved spacetime and is achromatic.
    Curved spacetime is a necessary concept of GR and has been proven as attested by GP-B and other experiments.
    In fact spacetime curvature was evident long before GP-B, which in essence primarily showed the validity of frame dragging.
    post 363 obviously also applies to you.

    It's been explained to you many times, the most recent just above. Also one professional reply refutes your nonsense.
    Your continued noise achieves nothing at all. Mainstream accepted cosmology proceeds without your input as upsetting to you as that is, it is a fact.
    Gravitational lensing has been overwhelmingly supported and proves the curvature/warping of spacetime.
    Nothing has changed my dear friend.




    Very fair, none will object to such frank analysis in the paper.[/QUOTE]
     
  22. PhysBang Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,422
    So that this crank stops polluting other threads with his crankiness, let's post here a great example of a gravitational lens, with mass of the lensing body determined before measuring the angle of deflection, with additional confirming evidence.

    Dar, Arnon, "Are Quasar Redshifts Cosmological?", The Astrophysical Journal, 382: L1-L4, 1991 November 20
     
  23. Schmelzer Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,003
    Wrong. It has been explained you many times that there exists an alternative interpretation of the equations of GR, that means, curved space is not necessary. And it has been also explained many times that experiments cannot decide about which interpretation is the correct one.

    Repetition, crying and hiding the critical phrases among other, correct ones does not make these objections go away.
     

Share This Page