# Gravitational Lensing : Eddington Experiment

Simple questions are avoided....try answering them.

1. Light follows the natural path (least time path) based on Fermat's principle. True or False ?
True
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 ?
It depends on your reference frame. For a remote viewer outside of the curved spacetime that is true.
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?
True.
4. The image shall form only if the light deviates from the natural path. True or False?
I do not know what you mean. What image? Why does light need to deviate from its natural path for an image to form? What and how does light deviate from it's natural path?

True

It depends on your reference frame. For a remote viewer outside of the curved spacetime that is true.

True.

I do not know what you mean. What image? Why does light need to deviate from its natural path for an image to form? What and how does light deviate from it's natural path?

So, we need to sort out Q4....that is the image shall form only if the light ray deviates from its natural path.....Please refer to any reference material on ray optics with lenses, the formation of image is possible only if light ray is deflected/deviated from its natural path, not otherwise.

Now, if you agree that the answer to all the four questions is 'True'....then it will imply that.....When light follows the curved geodesic it is traversing on its natural path and there is no deviation, so image shall not form....But images are there. This can only be explained if we consider curving of light as deviation of light by Gravity against flat space background..

[The crux is Q4]

If you cannot participate meaningfully, please stay away.
That was my comment to you. You admit that you don't understand this topic, yet you refuse to learn anything about this topic that you so desperately want to speak on.

Go read a book and see a counselor.

Now, if you agree that the answer to all the four questions is 'True'....then it will imply that.....When light follows the curved geodesic it is traversing on its natural path and there is no deviation, so image shall not form....But images are there. This can only be explained if we consider curving of light as deviation of light by Gravity against flat space background..
An image can form without any gravity at all thanks to a lens, like the ones we have in our eyes.

Now, if you agree that the answer to all the four questions is 'True'....then it will imply that.....When light follows the curved geodesic it is traversing on its natural path and there is no deviation, so image shall not form....But images are there. This can only be explained if we consider curving of light as deviation of light by Gravity against flat space background..
Are you serious? Really think about it for one second!
So I cannot see my car for instance unless the path of the light has deviated from its natural path? Really?

Are you serious? Really think about it for one second!
So I cannot see my car for instance unless the path of the light has deviated from its natural path? Really?

Some bad use of words by me...There is no reference to image which is formed on our retina, but even there the image is formed due to deviation by the eye lense...

The point is that the light while traversing from source (behind the lensing massive object) does not bend from the natural path, it follows the curved geodesic only which is the natural path for light, so the question of extrapolating in a straightline does not arise as there is no deviation. But this straightline extrapolation is possible if we treat this as Newtonian deflection of light against a flat space.

IMO you will see the car in considerbale Gravity as
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Car_Fisheye.jpg and at the same location if the curved spacetime is a reality, otherwise you will see an image of it somewhere up, it will be risen as if you are seeing something inside a pool.

The point is that the light while traversing from source (behind the lensing massive object) does not bend from the natural path, it follows the curved geodesic only which is the natural path for light, so the question of extrapolating in a straightline does not arise as there is no deviation. But this straightline extrapolation is possible if we treat this as Newtonian deflection of light against a flat space.
Wow, that only took 6 pages for you to admit that you were incorrect in thinking that the diagram was wrong and that the diagram somehow refuted General Relativity.

[The crux is Q4]

There is no crux...Q4 and your explanation is total rubbish.
You chose to complicate things where complications do not prevail.....
eg:
The point is that the light while traversing from source (behind the lensing massive object) does not bend from the natural path, it follows the curved geodesic only which is the natural path for light, so the question of extrapolating in a straightline does not arise as there is no deviation. But this straightline extrapolation is possible if we treat this as Newtonian deflection of light against a flat space.
I mean wow!!....Can you spray that in any more complicated scenario?
I realize you see yourself as akin to your handle, but remembering your handle being a total myth, you need to come back down to Earth with us mortals, and accept that you are impressing no one other than deluding yourself.
The following puts it rather simply and succinctly.......Please take note if you are to graduate.
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.

Some bad use of words by me...There is no reference to image which is formed on our retina, but even there the image is formed due to deviation by the eye lense...

This is getting funnier and funnier, and my prediction is that it will get even funnier still as the arrogant one tries to extract himself from his self made mess.

Last edited:
prerequisite : Some knowldege of optics with respect to lense and images formation

This question came to mind when in one of the recent hot boiled thread, Paddoboy as usual gave some copy paste of Edington Sun Eclipse Experiment of 1919 which contained the Negative Image.....accidentally it opened as full screen image on my browser. The point is lensed image is drawn when we extend/extrapolate the deviated light path. The question is should this extrapolation not be on geodesic only as per GR? Why this extrapolation is straight lined, why not on the natural path which is geodesic ?

While on the topic there are few further issues..

1. Are these lensed stars identified (named)?
2. Why the star image appears to be hyphen only?
3. What is the conclusive evidence that these hyphens belong to some star image only?

[Did not get much scientific material on this on the internet, except lot of popscience]

We really need to go back to the OP to understand the full delusional, and misinterpretation of data in this thread, as sad as that is with regards to the ignorance shown in said OP.

Guys, I am disappointed, you all are finding agenda with me, without understanding the argument.

Is it so difficult to understand that in a curved spacetime straightline extrapolation or straightline Ray Optics is bad. It is self contradictory.

The apparent position (image of a star) as extended from our site in straightline is Bad Physics (BP) in curved spacetime, this is perfectly valid if we treat the reality as flat space. Counter this argument, if you can, do not keep on pasting the same image again and again.

Guys, I am disappointed, you all are finding agenda with me, without understanding the argument.
You do not have an argument.....just as everyone is inferring, you have a religious driven agenda.
Is it so difficult to understand that in a curved spacetime straightline extrapolation or straightline Ray Optics is bad. It is self contradictory.
You really do not realise how utterly foolish and childish you look with your continuing arrogance, do you?
The illusion of knowledge mashed together with total ignorance.....double whammy!
The apparent position (image of a star) as extended from our site in straightline is Bad Physics (BP) in curved spacetime, this is perfectly valid if we treat the reality as flat space. Counter this argument, if you can, do not keep on pasting the same image again and again.
You have no argument.
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.

Newtonian Angle in Curved Spacetime ?

This photo geometry of yours proves flat space, not curved spacetime.

I am not envisaging any problem, I am making a statement that in curved spacetime Newtonian Angle extrapolation to get the apparent position of star is bad. This kind of Newtonian Angle extrapolation is only possible if it is flat space.

PS : I am getting convinced, it is beyond you to even understand the point, because intuitively you do not find any issue with straightline extension to get the apparent position. But the fact is, this is incorrect if curved spacetime is reality.

A fellow jumps from a high tower, he dies midway due to heart attack, but nonetheless hits the ground head on.

1. Fellow Dies - Fact.
2. He dies of impact with the ground - False.
3. He dies of Heart Attack - True.

So..

1. Image formation at apparent position - Fact.
2. Image is due to Curved Space Time - False.
3. Image is due to deflection of light by Gravity in the flat background - True.
4. Any other reason which can support curved spacetime - ??

I am not questioning the observation, my question is 'the cause' attributed to it.

Newtonian Angle in Curved Spacetime ?

What can one say?

This photo geometry of yours proves flat space, not curved spacetime.
No....
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.

I am not envisaging any problem, I am making a statement that in curved spacetime Newtonian Angle extrapolation to get the apparent position of star is bad. This kind of Newtonian Angle extrapolation is only possible if it is flat space.
You are doing the usual god thing....fabricating and complicating a simple issue.

PS : I am getting convinced, it is beyond you to even understand the point, because intuitively you do not find any issue with straightline extension to get the apparent position. But the fact is, this is incorrect if curved spacetime is reality.
That's nice....and the rest of the world stands with me.
But you keep dreaming, and imagining that you have found something momentous.....

What can one say?

No....
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.

You are doing the usual god thing....fabricating and complicating a simple issue.

That's nice....and the rest of the world stands with me.
But you keep dreaming, and imagining that you have found something momentous.....

This is a drama enacted by a person who has no argument...

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.

How many more times you will type this ?

True the eye interprets and gives an apparent position in straightline, that is the fact...But not because we have curved spacetime, but because we have deflection of light in flat space. I do not know whats your argument, despite 100+ posts, you are shirking the main issue.

I am saying the fellow is dead due to heart attack not due to impact, but you are saying he is dead, he is dead, he is dead...move on, man, move on. Come to the cause.

That's nice....and the rest of the world stands with me.

Thats your unsubstantiated claim, but even if it is true
So what?

None stands with you, people realise that you are a pain in the AXX if opposed, so they feel its not worth opposing.

I am not envisaging any problem, I am making a statement that in curved spacetime Newtonian Angle extrapolation to get the apparent position of star is bad.
It's bad? What the hell is that suppose to mean? So you think that when your mind interprets the line of sight to the apparent position of a star that is bad?
This kind of Newtonian Angle extrapolation is only possible if it is flat space.
No, that is just plain wrong. The extrapolation is valid because it looks like the star is not behind the sun. The whole reason for the extrapolation is because the suns gravity curves spacetime.

When you make a mistake you should own up to it.
Refusing to admit you are wrong and then going on and on dodging and obfuscating only makes you look like a buffoon.

It's bad? What the hell is that suppose to mean? So you think that when your mind interprets the line of sight to the apparent position of a star that is bad?

No, that is just plain wrong. The extrapolation is valid because it looks like the star is not behind the sun. The whole reason for the extrapolation is because the suns gravity curves spacetime.

When you make a mistake you should own up to it.
Refusing to admit you are wrong and then going on and on dodging and obfuscating only makes you look like a buffoon.

Your frustration is quite visible, neither you have understood the point, nor you are capable of responding objectively.

Stop these abuses and name callings

It is frustrating, it is like talking to a 5 year old
Stop these abuses and name callings
Just thought you should know what you look like in case you didn't realize it.

I think I will stop this useless discussion. If I so desire I can always have the same discussion with a pile of bricks.

So you think that when your mind interprets the line of sight to the apparent position of a star that is bad?

When you make the above statement after 100+ posts, then you look like a moron who has no comprehension ability.

I never made that statement, I have been saying that such straightline extrapolation geometry is ok, but this kind of ray optics cannot be used in curved spacetime, this explanantion and geomtery debunks curved spacetime and proves flat space..

You are better off trolling those fringe guys, science is not for you..when you exceed your assigned limits, Tiassa will take care of you, as done in the recent past.