Gravitational Lensing : Eddington Experiment

But this is THE science......Image shall form only if there is any deviation from the natural path of light and the natural path is defined by Fermat's Principle......In curved spacetime, the curved path is the natural path, so it cannot be treated as deviation and no image shall form. But image is forming, that means it is not the curved spacetime but deflection of light due to Gravity in flat space background..So simple.
Religion is a powerful delusional effect that plays tricks with the mind.
There is no problem...at least half a dozen explanations have been given that does explain it simply.
In essence, there is no problem..
In curved spacetime, Euclidean straightline is meaningless, because nothing can traverse that, not even light. [except possibly the radial lines.]. Resorting to flat Newtonian Space (or Minkowski Spacetime) to provide linear extrapolation is bad. This is not even approximation.
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.

:rolleyes:
 
Lets leave this GL for some time and please respond if you can on following...

1. Light follows the natural path (least time path) based on Fermat's principle. True or False ?
2. If it is curved spacetime then the natural path is curved geodesic between two points A & B, not an Euclidean straightline joining A&B. True or False ?
3. In Newtonian under the absolute flat space, the bending of light near a massive object is envisaged as the deflection in the natural path of light. True or False?
4. The image shall form only if the light deviates from the natural path. True or False?

If you honestly answer these four questions, you will understand the OP.
 
Lets leave this GL for some time and please respond if you can on following...

1. Light follows the natural path (least time path) based on Fermat's principle. True or False ?

2. If it is curved spacetime then the natural path is curved geodesic between two points A & B, not an Euclidean straightline joining A&B. True or False ?

3. In Newtonian under the absolute flat space, the bending of light near a massive object is envisaged as the deflection in the natural path of light. True or False?
4. The image shall form only if the light deviates from the natural path. True or False?

If you honestly answer these four questions, you will understand the OP.
[1]Light follows geodesics in curved spacetime.
[2]Spacetime tells matter how to move; matter tells spacetime how to curve.
John Wheeler:
]3]Curved spacetime is an effect that has been validated and a requirement of GR.
[4]

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.


Now some questions for you.....
[1] After 100 years of continued validation, you now believe you have found fault with GR? True or false?.

[2] If that unlikely situation is true, you would not be here and would be submitting a proper scientific paper for appropriate peer review? True or false?

[3] You have just recently had another anti mainstream science thread moved to pseudoscience...true or false?

[4]In essence you are saying [once again] that the whole world is wrong except for you...true or false?

You are honest in answering those questions reasonably and logically, you will see why most on this forum, view you as a fraud.



http://content.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,2104225,00.html

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17773357

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Optical_Gravitational_Lensing_Experiment

https://vela.astro.ulg.ac.be/themes/extragal/gravlens/bibdat/engl/DE/didac.html

http://www.einstein-online.info/spotlights/grav_lensing_history
 
[1] After 100 years of continued validation, you now believe you have found fault with GR? True or false?.

None has specifically countered my argument, so it appears True....

[2] If that unlikely situation is true, you would not be here and would be submitting a proper scientific paper for appropriate peer review? True or false?

Not necessary. Its not a new theory, it is just a point which may validate flat space.

[3] You have just recently had another anti mainstream science thread moved to pseudoscience...true or false?

True.....you crapped on that thread, in a span of 8 hours you screwed that.

[4]In essence you are saying [once again] that the whole world is wrong except for you...true or false?

Not necessary. The "GR ridiculous predictions" believers do not constitute the whole world.



Now respond to four of my questions...
 
Paddoboy,

You are a fan of GR. This very GR predicts time travel to past...
Do you belive in evolution ? [Another Mainstream theory, well established]
Life on Earth (in primitive form) appeared around 3 billion years ago...and I am not invoking my name sake.
Now let GR make a virile couple (man and woman) travel to past around 3 billion years ago, and start populating human beings (no culture, no restriction, none to supervise, no religion, just populate).

This will violate evolution. Don't you see the weirdness of this prediction of GR ?

:You can always argue that look you could send the human beings to past only when they are evolved, but this is sufficient to rebut travel to past.:
 
You have not understood, I am not disputing this geometry or this explanation. This is correct. But this interpretation holds only in flat space not in curved spacetime. The curved geodesic path from source to our eye is the natural path of light if theory of curved spacetime is correct, in this case there shall not be any image or extension to apparent image.
First you say the diagram is correct and then you say it is not correct.
So basically you feel strongly both ways. Nice...:rolleyes:

This is clearly a wasted effort, so I will let you get back to your favorite past time; bickering with paddoboy.
 
Last edited:
You have not understood, I am not disputing this geometry or this explanation. This is correct. But this interpretation holds only in flat space not in curved spacetime. The curved geodesic path from source to our eye is the natural path of light if theory of curved spacetime is correct, in this case there shall not be any image or extension to apparent image. But in case of flat space and deviation due to Newtonian the light from source gets defelected and the path of light is not the natural path of light and image gets formed. Am I being religious in making this claim? Why don't you respond on this...
Let's assume that everything that you say is true. What does curved spacetime look like in the absence of mass?
 
Let's assume that everything that you say is true. What does curved spacetime look like in the absence of mass?

I am not a votary of curved spacetime.

Assuming that you are. By what mechanism a flat spacetime is curved by the mass?
 
First you say the diagram is correct and then you say it is not correct.
So basically you feel strongly both ways. Nice...:rolleyes:

This is clearly a wasted effort, so I will let you get back to your favorite past time; bickering with paddoboy.

I never said diagram is incorrect, I just said that this explanation is improper in case of curved spacetime. This is a perfectly valid explanation and confirms flat background.
 
I never said diagram is incorrect,
Yes, you did.
I just said that this explanation is improper in case of curved spacetime.
The diagram is correct for the curved spacetime.
This is a perfectly valid explanation and confirms flat background.
Flat background? The diagram is a completely valid explanation for what is observed from the curved spacetime around the sun.
 
[1] After 100 years of continued validation, you now believe you have found fault with GR? True or false?.

None has specifically countered my argument, so it appears True....
You do not have an argument: You have an agenda.
And this is simply a forum, not an academic peer review process, something that has already rejected some of your crazy notions in the past [BNS's]
[2] If that unlikely situation is true, you would not be here and would be submitting a proper scientific paper for appropriate peer review? True or false?

Not necessary. Its not a new theory, it is just a point which may validate flat space.
Don't under estimate yourself: You are claiming to invalidate GR.
That illustrates extreme delusions of grandeur.
[3] You have just recently had another anti mainstream science thread moved to pseudoscience...true or false?

True.....you crapped on that thread, in a span of 8 hours you screwed that.
That's what we call a cop out and generally applies to all cranks and alternative nuts.
[4]In essence you are saying [once again] that the whole world is wrong except for you...true or false?

Not necessary. The "GR ridiculous predictions" believers do not constitute the whole world.
I withdraw my "except for you" and revise it to except for you, chinglu, jcc, constant theorist and other sprinkling of cranks that have nothing to do with accepted mainstream academia.

Now respond to four of my questions...
I already have...You have simply fabricated nonsensical scenarios that are not valid.eg: .the god said "In curved spacetime, the curved path is the natural path, so it cannot be treated as deviation and no image shall form. But image is forming, that means it is not the curved spacetime but deflection of light due to Gravity in flat space background..So simple". The above is rubbish.
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.
 
Last edited:
Paddoboy,

You are a fan of GR. This very GR predicts time travel to past...
Do you belive in evolution ? [Another Mainstream theory, well established]
Life on Earth (in primitive form) appeared around 3 billion years ago...and I am not invoking my name sake.
No, I'm not a fan of GR, I'm simply a fan of logic, common sense, and the scientific methodology which you arrogantly avoid.
Yep, the equations of GR predict time travel and so does the simple proven fact of time dilation predict time travel. Just because you and your mythical pixie in the sky cannot accept that, does in no way invalidate that time travel is allowed for by GR. Backward time travel by the way, we are not 100% sure about as yet.
https://plus.maths.org/content/time-travel-allowed
On evolution, certainly I accept evolution because it is a fact......
Now let GR make a virile couple (man and woman) travel to past around 3 billion years ago, and start populating human beings (no culture, no restriction, none to supervise, no religion, just populate).
This will violate evolution. Don't you see the weirdness of this prediction of GR ?
The only weirdness I see is your continued anti science rants and your lack of intestinal fortitude to not post in the correct sections.

But, hey, a nice attempt to sidetrack from your previous even more crank claims re gravitational lensing.
 
I am not a votary of curved spacetime.

Assuming that you are. By what mechanism a flat spacetime is curved by the mass?
More to the point, you are not a votary of science/cosmology in general, nor of logic and common sense.
 
First you say the diagram is correct and then you say it is not correct.
So basically you feel strongly both ways. Nice...:rolleyes:

This is clearly a wasted effort, so I will let you get back to your favorite past time; bickering with paddoboy.
Of course it is a wasted effort! It was also a wasted effort with the likes of chinglu, and jcc, and constant theorist, just as it is with anyone that has a religiously driven agenda nonsense.
And as has now become obvious, this thread is in the wrong section which is par for the course with this poster.
 
Last edited:
Assuming that you are. By what mechanism a flat spacetime is curved by the mass?
We do not really know.....just as we do not know the how and why of the BB, or why gravity exhibits itself when spacetime is curved.
The point is though, spacetime is curved/warped and twisted, and this has been evidenced many times particularly with the results from GP-B.
 
I am not a votary of curved spacetime.

Assuming that you are. By what mechanism a flat spacetime is curved by the mass?
OK, so you are straight up admitting that you do not understand the science you are "criticizing".

You might want to take a hard look at your life and try to get some help.
 
Simple questions are avoided....try answering them.

1. Light follows the natural path (least time path) based on Fermat's principle. True or False ?
2. If it is curved spacetime then the natural path is curved geodesic between two points A & B, not an Euclidean straightline joining A&B. True or False ?
3. In Newtonian under the absolute flat space, the bending of light near a massive object is envisaged as the deflection in the natural path of light. True or False?
4. The image shall form only if the light deviates from the natural path. True or False?
 
OK, so you are straight up admitting that you do not understand the science you are "criticizing".

You might want to take a hard look at your life and try to get some help.

If you cannot participate meaningfully, please stay away.
 
Simple questions are avoided....try answering them.
They were answered......and answered honestly.
[1]Light follows geodesics in curved spacetime.
[2]Spacetime tells matter how to move; matter tells spacetime how to curve.
John Wheeler:
]3]Curved spacetime is an effect that has been validated and a requirement of GR.
[4]

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.

What you imagine beyond that is your problem. Get over it.
Like your Black Neutron Star debacle, like your second paper that was obviously totally rejected, like your failure to understand that once the Schwarzchild radius is reached in any mass, further collapse is compulsory, like your failure to accept that tidal gravitational effects result in spaghetification and eventual matter broken down into its most basic fundamentals, when inside a BH, like your failure to realize you are totally delusional in believing you are another Einstein :rolleyes: Like your other thread/s that have been moved to pseudoscience, your credibility, if you ever had any on this forum, is in tatters.
As a wise man posted earlier, get some help before its too late.
 
Last edited:
If you cannot participate meaningfully, please stay away.

You mean anyone that dare invoke standard accepted cosmology against your total fabricated nonsense and anti GR tirade should stay away. That will not happen, at least not from this quarter.
Physbang has hit the nail on the head. You do not understand it.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top