Desperate denial of General Relativity by The God

[The God]

river, Ultron and The God will be crushed.

Nope. The God will never be crushed.

Infact if you study the Gravitational Lensing, you will realize that it proves flat space, not curved spacetime. I know this statement will have mindless objection, but so be it.

I must tell you how.

1. Simple Optics, will give you an idea about image formation. The path of incident light gets deviated, it is not that space or spacetime there is curved.

2. So by extending the analogy, in Newtonian Gravity, also the light gets deflected in presence of lensing mass, we should get lensed images.

3. Now the question is of accuracy, and Newtonian appears to be at disadvantage over GR on this. But this can be simply resolved by saying that for massless photons the deflection angle has afudge factor of 2. We make lot of approximation in GR, we can give this liberty to Newtonian as well, not something so sordid in Physics, right ?

4. So. prima facie Newtonian has a problem with accuracy, but GR has a bigger problem.

4.1. Can you or anyone here do optics in Curved Spacetime ?

4.2. In curved spacetime, the light does not deflect, it moves in straightline called null geodesics, so if it does not deflect how can we claim deviation or lensed images ?

4.3. If the curved spacetime is present, we will see images only never the real object, let me explain..

4.31. Say you are a point observer on the surface of a Neutron Star, Neutron Star is expected to have a significantly curved spacetime. In front of you at your eye level (however you define it), there is a vertical object. Now do the optics here ? Can you ? Then I will respond.

 

[DaveC426913]

3. Now the question is of accuracy, and Newtonian appears to be at disadvantage over GR on this. But this can be simply resolved by saying that for massless photons the deflection angle has afudge factor of 2. We make lot of approximation in GR, we can give this liberty to Newtonian as well, not something so sordid in Physics, right ?

3. You are pleading for us to grant you the right to "fudge" the facts to fit your hypothesis. No.

4.2. In curved spacetime, the light does not deflect, it moves in straightline called null geodesics, so if it does not deflect how can we claim deviation or lensed images ?

Well, that's an admission of something you don't understand. That's good.
4.2 Your difficulty understanding light paths in curved space doesn't invalidate it.

4.3. If the curved spacetime is present, we will see images only never the real object, let me explain..

By definition, we only ever see images of objects. Our images are always dependent on what light does before it reaches our eye. There is no such thing as "seeing the real object". Statement 4.3 has no meaning.

 

[The God]

You do realize that, by definition, we only ever see images of objects. Our images are always dependent on what light does before it reaches our eye. There is no such thing as "seeing the real object".

Statement 4.3 is bereft of meaning.

Lets not get into nitty gritty of optics....Thats why I said please do the optics.

When I see my desktop terminal at 50 cm away from me, it is real and at 50 CM....I am not talking about Physics and biology involved in our eyes. But if the curved spacetime is there I will not be able to see the desktop terminal in the given shape and at 50 cm ? Hope you understood it now ? If so, please do the optics. And BTW nothing by me is bereft of meaning. You may or may not agree with me, thats your prerogative.

 

[DaveC426913]

Lets not get into nitty gritty of optics...

Well, then there is no point in pursuing a discussion about optics (the study of light paths).

When I see my desktop terminal at 50 cm away from me, it is real and at 50 CM

It is as real as a gravitationally lensed star.

What you see is the light that left an object and arrived at your eye, by whatever route.

But if the curved spacetime is there I will not be able to see the desktop terminal in the given shape and at 50 cm ?

I'm not sure what impression you have of curved spacetime.

Do you think that, if a mountain 10 miles away rises to a height of 1 mile, then a pebble at 50 cm away must also rise to a height of 1 mile? Of course not.

Spacetime curvature happens over light years, not centimetres (unless you're near supermassive obejcts).

And BTW nothing by me is bereft of meaning. You may or may not agree with me, thats your prerogative.

I am not disagreeing or offering opinions, I am highlighting the flaws in your own logic.

One example is your arbitrary idea of what is an image and what is "real".
This:
"...we will see images only never the real object..."
is meaningless.

 

[paddoboy]

3. You are pleading for us to grant you the right to "fudge" the facts to fit your hypothesis. No.


Well, that's an admission of something you don't understand. That's good.
4.2 Your difficulty understanding light paths in curved space doesn't invalidate it.


By definition, we only ever see images of objects. Our images are always dependent on what light does before it reaches our eye. There is no such thing as "seeing the real object". Statement 4.3 has no meaning.

You are far too kind...
The whole post is lacking any meaning from his first attempt at "nose twitching" and his childish claim re the god will never be crushed....It's downhill all the way from there.
Plus the optical factor he is trying to rehash here, is just that: A total rehash that was previously rebuffed and shown to be horribly and ignorantly wrong.

 

[DaveC426913]

You are far too kind...

Everyone has the right to choose whose rope they hang by.
I am happy for TG to provide his own rope.

 

[The God]

3. You are pleading for us to grant you the right to "fudge" the facts to fit your hypothesis. No.


Well, that's an admission of something you don't understand. That's good.
4.2 Your difficulty understanding light paths in curved space doesn't invalidate it.


By definition, we only ever see images of objects. Our images are always dependent on what light does before it reaches our eye. There is no such thing as "seeing the real object". Statement 4.3 has no meaning.

You edited your post after I replied.....You should have created a new one to avoid the confusion..May be you were editing when I responded.

No, I am not pleading for fudge factor. Are you not aware of fudge factors in Physics ?

I have no difficulty in understanding the light path in curved spacetime, it is just that there is no curved spacetime. It appears to me that you are prostrating infront of authority without understanding what they are saying..thats Paddoboy type.

 

[The God]

One example is your arbitrary idea of what is an image and what is "real".
This:
"...we will see images only never the real object..."
is meaningless.

Thats what I call cop out....

You will understand when you do the optics.. But it appears you are not equipped.

Let me help you a bit.....

You are on the surface of a massive star..
1. The top end of the object is in line with your eyes...
2. There is no null geodesic in curved spacetime which will connect the top end from your eyes, straight.
3. So the light ray which appears to move up (makes a round top path between object and eye) will strike the eye.
4. So where do you see the top end of the object ? Pl do the optics, then you will realize.

 

[The God]

You are far too kind...
The whole post is lacking any meaning from his first attempt at "nose twitching" and his childish claim re the god will never be crushed....It's downhill all the way from there.
Plus the optical factor he is trying to rehash here, is just that: A total rehash that was previously rebuffed and shown to be horribly and ignorantly wrong.

Sorry, but that reflected yours and few others total ignorance......None could come up with, how to do optics in curved spacetime ? Everyone was pushing that popscience pic, which was miserably incorrect.

 

[DaveC426913]

You edited your post after I replied.....You should have created a new one to avoid the confusion..May be you were editing when I responded.

Yes. My bad.

No, I am not pleading for fudge factor. Are you not aware of fudge factors in Physics ?

Which way do you want to play it? If you're not pleading for fudge factor then what does it matter if there's such a thing in Physics?

But you are. Your Newtonian model does not apply as well as a newer model that explains both these observations and many, many more. (A Newtonian universe is inadequate in a host of ways, including requiring that gravity operate at infinite speed across distance, that the universe is completely deterministic, and that time is an unchanging static constant everywhere in the universe).

I have no difficulty in understanding the light path in curved spacetime, it is just that there is no curved spacetime.

I get your stance. You are making a claim but have not backed it up. This is the debate equivalent of nuh-uh!

It appears to me that you are prostrating infront of authority without understanding what they are saying..thats Paddoboy type.

A hackneyed mantra - and a logical fallacy - used to evade answering direct questions placed before you.
I've pointed out flaws in your own logic. Address them.

 

[The God]

Everyone has the right to choose whose rope they hang by.
I am happy for TG to provide his own rope.

Thats wishful thinking !!
You have not shown any understanding of the subject........

 

[DaveC426913]

how to do optics in curved spacetime ?

You asking questions is a good thing. It means you are open to the idea of learning about stuff while at the same time acknowledging that you don't know all of it.

You need to drop the 'I know it all' hypocricy, since you freely admit not knowing about the subject.

 

[The God]

A hackneyed mantra - and a logical fallacy - used to evade answering direct questions placed before you.
I've pointed out flaws in your own logic. Address them.

No, you did not. I asked you to do the optics in curved spacetime ? You had no answer so you misguided it towards real-image controversy. You have failed to appreciate that everything sensed or observed is observer specific. You are talking about observer mechanism, which is irrelevant to the argument.

 

[paddoboy]

Sorry, but that reflected yours and few others total ignorance......None could come up with, how to do optics in curved spacetime ? Everyone was pushing that popscience pic, which was miserably incorrect.

Pop science is all that you reject [near all cosmology] based on your own nonsensical religious driven agenda.
The other thread that discussed your fabricated optic argument was totally demolished as has every other fabricated argument that you have put.
I'm not wasting my time to show what I say is fact by searching for that thread, I'll leave that up to you to show my claim is wrong.But obviously you can't.
It's obvious the further your ideas and denials are derided and invalidated, the more it drives you to babble on with your arse against the wall, without any context and against all evidence showing otherwise, similar to that claimed by river when he is caught between a rock and a hard place.

 

[The God]

You asking questions is a good thing. It means you are open to the idea of learning about stuff while at the same time acknowledging that you don't know all of it.

You need to drop the 'I know it all' hypocricy, since you freely admit not knowing about the subject.

No, this is not a question from my side...This is a challenge from my side to you, can you do the optics in curved spacetime ? Pl do that and speak from the position of knowledge. Why I like Rpenner, he does the maths and proves his point. He does not copy paste or give links. But you are just making noise.

 

[DaveC426913]

No, you did not. I asked you to do the optics in curved spacetime ? You had no answer so you misguided it towards real-image controversy. You have failed to appreciate that everything sensed or observed is observer specific. You are talking about observer mechanism, which is irrelevant to the argument.

You made several statements in post #4. Your final statement is predicated on them.
I've pointed out flaws in several previous points leading up to them. We do not move beyond 4.2 until the premises are addressed.
So that's where it stands.

We are at post #4, point #3. You plead for a fudge factor. It is not granted.
Then, in point #4.2, you seem to struggle with light paths in curved space time.

How can you possibly draw any conclusions about highly-curved space until you know how to do this in gently-curved space? Deal with point 4.2 before trying 4.31.

 

[DaveC426913]

This is a textbook ATM tactic.

"I've got this idea that I can't back up with math, but I really like it. So I reverse the burden of proof - put it to others to try to refute my idea. The onus is on everyone else to 'prove' to me my idea is false".

Sorry TG. It is your claim - the onus is on you to demonstrate and defend it. And, since you insist on an answer 'doing the maths', then 'doing the maths' is what will be expected from you.

So no more evading - get answering.

 

[paddoboy]

No, this is not a question from my side...This is a challenge from my side to you, can you do the optics in curved spacetime ? Pl do that and speak from the position of knowledge. Why I like Rpenner, he does the maths and proves his point. He does not copy paste or give links. But you are just making noise.

You have no question. You have an agenda!
This has all been done before.

Nope. The God will never be crushed.

If you were half as smart as you pretend to be, you would not be posting and admitting to such stupidity.

 

[paddoboy]

the god said:
Lets transport a big Cube (with sharp straight edges) on the surface of the Neutron Star, assuming that Neutron Star has extreme Gravity and appreciable curvature is present, now can you please analyse how an observer will see the cube from a distance?
Professor Eric V. Linder said:
Hi Tashja,

The key to thinking about gravitational lensing is the lensing part. The effects really are not that different from looking through normal lenses. You can find many example of videos comparing gravitational lensing images to those seen through lenses like the base of a wine glass on the web. Also see a video glossary by one of my colleagues, Reiko Nakajima, at http://videoglossary.lbl.gov/#n36

Gravity bends light just like a lens does. Why? Because (in almost all situations) gravity acts like an index of refraction. When you look at a fish at the bottom of a pond, you do not see it at its true position because water bends light - it has an index of refraction of 1.33. A straight stick extending from the air into the water will appear bent. The index of refraction of gravity is given by 1+Phi, where Phi is the gravitational potential GM/(r c^2), where M is the mass of a gravitational mass and r is the distance from it. Near the surface of the Sun, the strength of Phi is 0.000001 (10^{-6}), so the index of refraction is quite small and one needs precise experiments to measure the bending of light (i.e. gravitational lensing). For a neutron star, r is much smaller than the Sun, although the mass M is about the same: Phi is about 0.1. So a cube sitting on a neutron star would appear about the same as a cube sitting at the bottom of a pool, with regard to lensing effects!

Only when you get to black holes, where Phi is near 1, do new aspects of gravitational lensing enter. This is because interpreting gravity as an index of refraction is only good when Phi is much less than 1, what is called the linear gravitation theory.

Thanks for your interest in gravity.

Best,
Eric

""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s8-04/8-04.htm


http://www.eftaylor.com/download.html#general_relativity

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.

The problem you envisage is non existent.

 

[The God]

You have no question. You have an agenda!
This has all been done before.

If you were half as smart as you pretend to be, you would not be posting and admitting to such stupidity.

I told you many a times, to stay away, if you do not have anything to contribute...You are just cluttering the thread.