Gravitational Lensing : Eddington Experiment

Just as you seem to believe that the more times you mention the ether, and the more threads you wrangle it in, the more legitimate it becomes?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

and of course with your own personal attacks which you will probably use some form of semantic bullshit to worm your way out of.

Sure! I find your argument against the opinion of my link, as fabricated, contrived, and halfway bullshit. Is that fair enough?
In fact its about as credible and as realistic as your general political crap you often infest this forum with.
Curved spacetime is a necessary concept of GR and has been proven as attested by GP-B and other experiments. [fairy tale ethers and god bothering fools not withstanding]

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

[1] You rejecting any claims does not hold much water due to your troublesome non existing ether,
[2]I find your argument contrived and confusing, but then again, that's our friend Schmelzer!
[3] Crying??

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Oh stop the histrionics Schmelzer: You are starting to sound as daft as the divine one.

PS: When I decide to use bold and highlight is my decision: OK?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Feel free to provide physical arguments, instead of simply adding "non existing" to ether. Learn that adding "non existing" to ether is as meaningless as adding "non existent" to curved spacetime. Because above things are theoretical entities, which do not exist in the other interpretation.

If you don't understand, ask about what you don't understand. I will help you as far as possible.

This is the way how using boldface, red colors, lots of exclamation marks, uppercase letters or big fonts are named in the net. Civilized people don't use such things. except for emphasizing a few words or so.

Ok. It is your decision how to discredit yourself. It is my decision to note that using such things in a large amount discredits those who do this.

No. But if somebody distributes claims about physics which are wrong, because the very existence of a viable ether theory already proves them wrong, I will mention it in the answer.

It is not an argument at all. But an opinion. Ok, there are so-called democrats who believe opinions, even if not supported by any arguments, are somehow important, so important that society should be ruled by them. But, sorry, I'm a scientist, for me unjustified opinions are nothing.

Even if some democrats seem to thing that repeating a mantra as often as possible, in boldface, makes them correct or so. These are things which impress only sheeple. No scientist will be impressed by this.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I've given many reputable links expressing otherwise. What you chose to ignore is your problem.
https://einstein.stanford.edu/content/relativity/q411.html
Spacetime exists: Spacetime is curved/warped/twisted as per GR: The ether is long dead and buried and your paper is no more than a hypothetical interpretation rather than any theory: Similar to papers on wormholes, parallel universes etc.

I'm OK thank you and if I do need assistance, I'll listen to you and than get a second more reputable opinion.
Curved spacetime is a necessary concept of GR and has been proven as attested by GP-B and other experiments. [fairy tale ethers and god bothering fools not withstanding]

Again, that just your own rather off center, weird opinion...like your politics and science.

Just as your political claptrap discredits you, along with ether ranting in many threads and scientific fabrication.

You mean anything that validates GR like spacetime curvature, or any thread singing the praises of GR and its monumental discoveries, gives you an opportunity to again canvas your ether nonsense.

More philosophical and conspiracy inspired claptrap to cast some rather vague support for your own weird political and scientific stance and the mythical ether.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Links which do not cover at all the status of modern ether theories. If the ether is mentioned at all, it is usually only very old ether theories already falsified by Michelson-Morley. So, in this link "ether" appears only two time, as part of "together" and "whether". Thus, your links present only the spacetime interpretation of GR. And, therefore, are unable to distinguish experimental and observational support for the spacetime interpretation vs. ether interpretation.

The spacetime interpretation is nothing but the (mainstream) interpretation of the Einstein equations of GR.

Fine, except that there is no "second more repuatable opinion" which proves your boldface (indicating a religious mantra) claims. You may find a lot of sources verbally supporting the mainstream spacetime interpretation, presenting it as if it would be the only one, and supported by observation, based on ignorance of the modern ether.

I don't care to answer quasi-religious singing praises. I object to claims which are simply false. If you would restrict yourself to correct presentations of modern GR, I would not answer at all.

 

The ether does not exist and is superfluous anyway.
That's why your paper will in time be lost in oblivion with many other scientific hypotheticals.

And it is the mainstream interpretation because it is the most logically sensible, and has been evidenced.

Totally false no matter which way you see the need to squirm to avoid any second opinion: Your ether paper remains uncited, and the overwhelmingly supported GR remains so for obvious reasons.

No that is false also: Any claim that anyone makes, that in essence shows or insinuates or ignores your mythical ether, you will squirm, use semantics pedant, and whatever professional skills you do have, to avoid the reality of the issue being spoken.
That has been evidenced both scientifically and politically and remarked on by quite a few. Quite an unprofessional and intellectually dishonest approach.

 

You cannot know. The only situation where a scientist could claim with some reason that the ether does not exist is if there does not exist any viable ether theory for modern physics. He could claim that it is superfluous if there would not exist a viable ether theory which solves some, however minor, problem. The problems my ether theory solves are serious ones: Quantization of gravity, and explanation of the SM.

No. It is the mainstream interpretation because the other was not known. So nobody has compared them. And there cannot be any empirical evidence distinguishing interpretations.

There are no obvious reasons, except that the competing theory remains unknown. Ignorance is not an argument in science. But it is, of course, a very powerful "argument" in any real human society.

A cheap personal attack omitted without comment

 

So you keep on saying

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

And I'll keep saying that if what you claim were true, your theory would be far more talked about and cited than it currently is: which is zero.

You're squirming again.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Of course there are reasons. And you not recognising them just shows how much an agenda can affect ones judgement as well as other qualities.
GR has past every classical test thrown at it with flying colours.
Your's remains as a mere curiosity without citation.

No, I stand by my accusations/claims: You would try to get out of gaol if you could.

 

I cannot recognize them, because I don't know them. Nobody has yet published a presentation of those classical arguments against the ether which remain valid for the modern published ether theories. So, for the scientific community they do not exist.

Given that none of these predictions differs from those made by my ether theories, my ether theories have, up to now, also passed every classical test, with the same flying colors.
Your argument is that the only argument against my theories is ignorance.

 

Of course you do. GR is overwhelmingly evidenced and has passed all tests with flying colours including gravitational lensing and spacetime curvature.
The ether is not needed: The ether is not evident: the ether is superfluous: And once again if it were all you claimed it to be, you would be in line for a Nobel.

My argument is that unless you are calling the spacetime and associated curvature your ether, then your ether is just plain not needed, no matter how often you want to deny that: Not withstanding any conspiracy related claims re academia and mainstream science.
To quote a Shakespearian line from Romeo and Juliet
"A rose by any other name would smell as sweet"
Either way you have nothing new.

 

Repetition of the mantra deleted.

I have something new. A background which allows to define, in a reasonable way, quantum superpositions of different gravitational fields.

May be it is not even that difficult to understand. You are somewhere, in a quantum gravity world. You ask "what is the gravitational field here". It will be the superposition of two different gravitational fields, each of which has a value (a metric tensor) here. What is this "here"? It is one event on one gravitational field, and another event on the other gravitational field. Above events are points of different solutions, but above are the same "here". Quantum gravity needs this "here". So, quantum gravity needs something which connects different solutions, by telling this event on one solution is the same "here" as this event on the other solution.

GR does not know such a relation. My ether theory has it.

And, of course, the SM has no explanation why it has these fermions, why so much, why this gauge group, why have the fermions these charges, nothing. All this postulated. My ether model explains why.

 

Usual repetitive nonsense deleted.

And to repeat myself again, I find that impossible to accept, as if it were the case, why is your paper languishing, largely unknown, and uncited. And why are you languishing night and day on this forum, [despite your university lectures and preparations etc] preaching to mostly lay people with regard to your hypothetical ether.NB: That is all it is: a hypothetical.
I know!! You don't really care!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

The really funny thing is that I have never before made this attempt to explain the basic idea of quantum gravity.

What follows? You have deleted it probably without even reading, certainly without understanding.

I have explained it many times, you have named this "conspiracy" even if I have repeatedly shown you that this explanation does not contain any conspiracy. Only an extremely stupid, but completely open way to pay scientists.

The situation is so that I cannot recommend anybody to work in ether theory - except if he is able and ready to get no payment at all. Not even because that prejudice against the ether, but simply because it is an alternative proposal, and if one depends on getting the next grant, one has to "publish or perish", and to publish a lot in short time is possible only in a mainstream fad.

University lectures I would have to give about GR, if I would take such a job. So I prefer not to give lectures.

 

Repetitive bullshit with regards to mainstream

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

blah, blah, blah.

So we play the victim card again.
That's actually also ties in with conspiracy claims.

 

Let me again say then.........
Curved spacetime is a necessary concept of GR and has been proven as attested by GP-B and other experiments.
And with relation to the subject of this thread.......
The path of the light from the emitter to the observer, is dictated by curved spacetime or geodesics.
The eye interprets that curved geodesic path as a straight line and gives an apparent position different from the true position.
Curved spacetime in the presence of mass, is a prerequisite and postulate of GR.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

That's pretty simple.

 

The usual repetitions of the mantra, combined with an Einstein picture with a quote which is completely unrelated, because paddoboys repetition of his mantra is nothing but a simple explanation of whatever.

But before this, there was even something new:

Victim card? I'm fine without being paid. I'm happy that I don't have to do boring things. And, no, there is no conspiracy claim. It is clear and natural that universities teach established theories, no conspiracy, but completely open, this is what they get paid for.

 

Whatever you are fine with is your boring business....Best of luck with it.
Nice to see my claims stand though:

 

Correction!!!
Not my claims of course: Claims held over the last hundred years by many giants of science, based on GR and curved spacetime as indicated by gravitational lensing effects and many tests and observational data.

 

2015 December 21

http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap151221.html

SN Refsdal: The First Predicted Supernova Image
Image Credit: NASA, ESA, and S. Rodney (JHU) and the FrontierSN team; T. Treu (UCLA), P. Kelly (UC Berkeley), and the GLASS team; J. Lotz (STScI) and the Frontier Fields team; M. Postman (STScI) and theCLASH team; and Z. Levay (STScI)
Explanation: It's back. Never before has an observed supernova been predicted. The unique astronomical event occurred in the field of galaxy cluster MACS J1149.5+2223. Most bright spots in the featured imageare galaxies in this cluster. The actual supernova, dubbed Supernova Refsdal, occurred just once far across the universe and well behind this massive galaxy cluster. Gravity caused the cluster to act as a massivegravitational lens, splitting the image of Supernova Refsdal into multiple bright images. One of these images arrived at Earth about ten years ago, likely in the upper red circle, and was missed. Four more bright imagespeaked in April in the lowest red circle, spread around a massive galaxy in the cluster as the first Einstein Cross supernova. But there was more. Analyses revealed that a sixth bright supernova image was likely still on its way to Earth and likely to arrive within the next year. Earlier this month -- right on schedule -- this sixth bright image was recovered, in the middle red circle, as predicted. Studying image sequences like this help humanity to understand how matter is distributed in galaxies and clusters, how fast the universe expands, and how massive stars explode.

 

How does gravity cause this bending of light at all ; pad? What are the mechanics of gravity?. Does the moon bend light?