| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"Golden Boar" |
| Date: |
30 Apr 2006 11:40:15 PM |
| Object: |
A question about the bending of light |
Why is the amount of bending of light twice the value predicted by
Newton's laws?
Is this because photons are gravitaionally attracted twice as much as
massive particles?
.
|
|
| User: "brian a m stuckless" |
|
| Title: Re: A question about the bending of light |
01 May 2006 10:53:46 AM |
|
|
$$ Golden Boar wrote: >
Why is the amount of bending of light
twice the value predicted by Newton's laws?
Is this because photons are gravitaionally attracted
twice as much as massive particles?
$$ The coup-GR didN'T know that Newton typically neglected M1 motion.
$$ [Clearly HOWEVER, this is NOT TRUE for ANY two more-SiMiLAR mass].
1. SR & GR ..no barycentre.
$$ SR had M1 at REST ..permanantly, in theory.
$$ GR didN'T have M1 at REST ..permanantly, in theory, as SR did.
$$ [ SR and GR ..*BOTH*, eliminate the *point-in-common* ].
$$ Newton ..with (n - 1), gives the EXACT answer.
2. SR & GR ..no ambient density.
$$ Note GR substitutes "SPACE-time curvature", in place of "ambient".
$$ [The bending of light is ACTUALLY "ambient gradient DiFFRACTiON"].
$$ [i.e. There is DiFFRACTiON. Therefore there is AMBiENT media].
3. SR & GR ..no test mass field.
$$ Note, where-as M1 had a field ..the TEST mass m1 HAD no "FiELD".
$$ [Therefore, TWO (2) photons *caN'T BE* attracted to EACH other].
$$ [This means in GR YOU HAVE to CHOOSE WHiCH one attracts others].
$$ Newton PROFOUNDLY simplified the n-body problem to just two (2).
$$ [THEN with (n - 1) CORRECTiNG Newton, ANOTHER body is included].
$$ [THEN with (n - 1) CORRECTiNG Newton, ANOTHER mass mS is added].
$$ SR & GR "linear" means "no barycentre". i.e. No CENTRO-symmetry.
$$ [From a political perspective ALL the talk is THEN of symmetry].
$$ GR with NO test field AND a GR-SUBSTiTUTED-ambient, is just WRONG.
$$ [Albeit, "predicting" the "correct" NUMBER after TWEAKiNG it ALL].
Re: Go-go NETSCAPE news < alt.science.nanotech > < WHY m1*v1=M1*v. >.
Re: A question about the bending of light.
Re: Newton ..with (n - 1), gives the EXACT answer. ..End of POST.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Nicky" |
|
| Title: Re: A question about the bending of light |
01 May 2006 12:50:49 AM |
|
|
"Golden Boar" <goldenboar@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1146458415.825671.203830@e56g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...
Why is the amount of bending of light twice the value predicted by
Newton's laws?
Is this because photons are gravitaionally attracted twice as much as
massive particles?
Newton never predicted bending light.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Y.Porat" |
|
| Title: Re: A question about the bending of light |
02 May 2006 05:50:12 AM |
|
|
1
Newton never Had to predict beding og light
the same way he never predicted that i will fall on my steps etc etc
2 the calculation according newton is twice Shrartzshilled
because ........
people dont know how to use newton for that calculations
the whol ebussiness of sun stars and especially
'sun assumptions' are wrong
the sun is not a point particle nore a shoere
it is a boilling gass object with no firm geometric shape
expeciaslly its corrona
3 the Shwartsield story and even curved space time
is actually mass and gravitition dependant!!
so it is actually gravitationthat does the job not spcace
4 all those 'predictions are nothing but
'back fiddling ' of experimental data
iow fitting theory constants to observationof gravitational
data .!!
that theory cant live without constats
and those consatnce are gravitation deoendant
and the prove for gravity dependance is:
no gravity no curvature of space
spcace is nothing and cant have any properties except
hosting mass and particles
NO MASS NO REAL PHYSICS .
ATB
Y.Porat
----------------------
ATB
Y.Porat
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "BernardZ" |
|
| Title: Re: A question about the bending of light |
01 May 2006 05:13:19 AM |
|
|
In article <4455a19a$0$16357$892e7fe2@authen.yellow.readfreenews.net>,
nospam@nospam.com says...
"Golden Boar" <goldenboar@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1146458415.825671.203830@e56g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...
Why is the amount of bending of light twice the value predicted by
Newton's laws?
Is this because photons are gravitaionally attracted twice as much as
massive particles?
Newton never predicted bending light.
Actually Newton was a bit unsure of this. If light was a particle it
would bend under gravity but if it was wave, it would not.
--
Be careful, what you predict with the theory of human-caused global
warming as it will be tested soon enough as we aren't going to reduce
carbon dioxide emissions.
Observations of Bernard - No 99
.
|
|
|
| User: "Randy Poe" |
|
| Title: Re: A question about the bending of light |
01 May 2006 08:49:02 AM |
|
|
BernardZ wrote:
In article <4455a19a$0$16357$892e7fe2@authen.yellow.readfreenews.net>,
nospam@nospam.com says...
"Golden Boar" <goldenboar@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1146458415.825671.203830@e56g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...
Why is the amount of bending of light twice the value predicted by
Newton's laws?
Is this because photons are gravitaionally attracted twice as much as
massive particles?
Newton never predicted bending light.
Actually Newton was a bit unsure of this. If light was a particle it
would bend under gravity but if it was wave, it would not.
Only if it is a particle with nonzero mass.
- Randy
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: A question about the bending of light |
01 May 2006 03:31:23 PM |
|
|
In article <1146491342.377882.314280@e56g2000cwe.googlegroups.com>, "Randy Poe" <poespam-trap@yahoo.com> writes:
BernardZ wrote:
In article <4455a19a$0$16357$892e7fe2@authen.yellow.readfreenews.net>,
nospam@nospam.com says...
"Golden Boar" <goldenboar@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1146458415.825671.203830@e56g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...
Why is the amount of bending of light twice the value predicted by
Newton's laws?
Is this because photons are gravitaionally attracted twice as much as
massive particles?
Newton never predicted bending light.
Actually Newton was a bit unsure of this. If light was a particle it
would bend under gravity but if it was wave, it would not.
Only if it is a particle with nonzero mass.
No, not quite so. Note that the deflection of particle in (Newtonian)
gravity field is independent of mass.
Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool,
meron@cars.uchicago.edu | chances are he is doing just the same"
.
|
|
|
| User: "brian a m stuckless" |
|
| Title: Re: A question about the bending of light |
01 May 2006 05:46:18 PM |
|
|
$$ [CRANK] wrote: >
In article <1146491342.377882.314280@e56g2000cwe.googlegroups.com>,
"Randy Poe" <poespam-trap@yahoo.com> writes: > >BernardZ wrote:
-=-
"Golden Boar" <goldenboar@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1146458415.825671.203830@e56g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...
Why is the amount of bending of light twice the value
predicted by Newton's [ *No* ..(n - 1). ] laws?
Is this because photons are gravitaionally attracted
twice as much as massive particles? > >> > >
Newton never predicted bending light. > >> >
Actually Newton was a bit unsure of this. If light was a
particle it would bend under gravity but if it was wave,
it would not.
Only if it is a particle with nonzero [ h*fL/c^2 ] mass.
No, not quite so. Note that the deflection of particle in
(Newtonian) gravity field is independent of mass.
$$ NO ..NO, Dimwit.!! Say "independent of [MAGNiTUDE of] mass".!!
$$ What a GR-cracked-pot ..at least Bilge shows a few "smarts".!!
$$
$$ STOOPiNG to a SORT of "semantic trickery" ..so TOM ROBERTsy.!!
$$ STOOPiNG to a SORT of "semantic trickery" ..just like Bilge.!!
$$ [i.e Bilge's mental GR-CONE doesN'T get BiGGER, either way].!!
$$ [His GR CONE doesN'T get BiGGER asMEASURED along it's axis].!!
$$
$$ Newtonian GRAViTY is independent of the *MAGNiTUDE* of mass.!!
$$
$$ Sincerely, Brian [B A STUCKLESS iNSPECTiON and SUPERViSiON].!!
Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool,
meron@cars.uchicago.edu | chances are he is doing just the same"
$$ Re: A question about the bending of light.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "bernardz" |
|
| Title: Re: A question about the bending of light |
01 May 2006 08:40:38 PM |
|
|
Randy Poe wrote:
BernardZ wrote:
In article <4455a19a$0$16357$892e7fe2@authen.yellow.readfreenews.net>,
nospam@nospam.com says...
"Golden Boar" <goldenboar@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1146458415.825671.203830@e56g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...
Why is the amount of bending of light twice the value predicted by
Newton's laws?
Is this because photons are gravitaionally attracted twice as much as
massive particles?
Newton never predicted bending light.
Actually Newton was a bit unsure of this. If light was a particle it
would bend under gravity but if it was wave, it would not.
Only if it is a particle with nonzero mass.
- Randy
Under Newton physics
Force= M x A
Gravity Force = GMm / R^2 where m=mass of the object
=> A= GM/r^2
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ben Rudiak-Gould" |
|
| Title: Re: A question about the bending of light |
01 May 2006 03:37:10 PM |
|
|
Golden Boar wrote:
Why is the amount of bending of light twice the value predicted by
Newton's laws?
I think, but am not at all sure, that it's because spatial and temporal
components of the Schwarzschild metric contribute equally to the bending,
and the Newtonian approximation corresponds roughly to ignoring the spatial
components.
Or it may be coincidence. Dimensional analysis is enough to get the bending
formula up to a constant factor, so the fact that the two predictions differ
by a small constant factor isn't surprising.
-- Ben
.
|
|
|
| User: "ma1ibu" |
|
| Title: Re: A question about the bending of light |
02 May 2006 05:31:33 PM |
|
|
What is the derivative of x squared?
Light is 2D and matter is 3D.
You subtract a dimension but you
multilpy by two.
John
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Eric Gisse" |
|
| Title: Re: A question about the bending of light |
01 May 2006 01:11:49 AM |
|
|
Golden Boar wrote:
Why is the amount of bending of light twice the value predicted by
Newton's laws?
Newton is wrong.
The question is as valid as asking why the magic 8 ball doesn't get
everything right.
Is this because photons are gravitaionally attracted twice as much as
massive particles?
No.
In the Newtonian "treatment" I am familiar with, photons are assumed to
have an infintesimal mass that allows meaningful discussion about what
happens to a photon in Newtonian theory.
General relativity predicts something different, but it predicts
correctly.
.
|
|
|
| User: "srp" |
|
| Title: Re: A question about the bending of light |
01 May 2006 11:22:55 AM |
|
|
Eric Gisse a écrit :
Golden Boar wrote:
Why is the amount of bending of light twice the value predicted by
Newton's laws?
Newton is wrong.
Newton was not wrong in this regard. He simply did not address
this question. His laws were for non relativistic behavior of
massive bodies, more specifically astronomical bodies.
The question is as valid as asking why the magic 8 ball doesn't get
everything right.
Is this because photons are gravitaionally attracted twice as much as
massive particles?
Transversally, very possibly.
Actually, they simply appear to display half the transverse inertia
that same energy massive particles would display. But since massive
particles cannot move at the speed of light anyway, the question is
academic.
André Michaud
.
|
|
|
| User: "Llanzlan Klazmon" |
|
| Title: Re: A question about the bending of light |
01 May 2006 09:47:36 PM |
|
|
srp <srp2@globetrotter.net> wrote in news:4455FA43.8080803
@globetrotter.net:
Eric Gisse a écrit :
Golden Boar wrote:
Why is the amount of bending of light twice the value predicted by
Newton's laws?
Newton is wrong.
Newton was not wrong in this regard. He simply did not address
this question. His laws were for non relativistic behavior of
massive bodies, more specifically astronomical bodies.
Even so, Newton did actually consider this question. From "Opticks" query
1:
" Do not Bodies act upon Light at a distance, and by their action bend its
Rays; and is not this action strongest at the least distance? "
Interestingly, Einstein initially got the wrong answer in 1911 - i.e his
initial answer was identical to Newton's. He finally got the right answer
in 1915 after he had completed his general theory of relativity. Luckily
the effect wasn't measured until 1919 confirming the 1915 prediction ;-).
The following page shows how the GR result is obtained on the assumption
that the Sun is not rotating (Schwarzchild metric):
http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s6-03/6-03.htm
Klazmon.
The question is as valid as asking why the magic 8 ball doesn't get
everything right.
Is this because photons are gravitaionally attracted twice as much as
massive particles?
Transversally, very possibly.
Actually, they simply appear to display half the transverse inertia
that same energy massive particles would display. But since massive
particles cannot move at the speed of light anyway, the question is
academic.
André Michaud
.
|
|
|
| User: "srp" |
|
| Title: Re: A question about the bending of light |
02 May 2006 07:01:58 AM |
|
|
Llanzlan Klazmon a écrit :
srp <srp2@globetrotter.net> wrote in news:4455FA43.8080803
@globetrotter.net:
Eric Gisse a écrit :
Golden Boar wrote:
Why is the amount of bending of light twice the value predicted by
Newton's laws?
Newton is wrong.
Newton was not wrong in this regard. He simply did not address
this question. His laws were for non relativistic behavior of
massive bodies, more specifically astronomical bodies.
Even so, Newton did actually consider this question. From "Opticks" query
1:
" Do not Bodies act upon Light at a distance, and by their action bend its
Rays; and is not this action strongest at the least distance? "
Interesting. What was the context ? Was he really talking about
"astronomical" light bending ?
Interestingly, Einstein initially got the wrong answer in 1911 - i.e his
initial answer was identical to Newton's. He finally got the right answer
in 1915 after he had completed his general theory of relativity.
Absolutely true. I think Kaufmann was instrumental in causing him
to correct his figure.
Luckily
the effect wasn't measured until 1919 confirming the 1915 prediction ;-).
The following page shows how the GR result is obtained on the assumption
that the Sun is not rotating (Schwarzchild metric):
http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s6-03/6-03.htm
Klazmon.
André Michaud
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Jan Panteltje" |
|
| Title: Re: A question about the bending of light |
02 May 2006 05:03:23 AM |
|
|
On a sunny day (2 May 2006 14:47:36 +1200) it happened Llanzlan Klazmon
<Klazmon@llurdiaxorb.govt> wrote in
<Xns97B7967D1DEFCKlazmonllurdiaxorbgo@203.97.37.6>:
The following page shows how the GR result is obtained on the assumption
that the Sun is not rotating (Schwarzchild metric):
http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s6-03/6-03.htm
<quote>
1991 the observations of radio waves from stars consistently showed that the
ratio of observed deflections to the deflections predicted by general
relativity is 1.0001 ± 0.00001. Thus the dramatic announcement of 1919 has
been retro-actively justified.
</quote>
mm .0001, seems Einstein was wrong again, or at least incomplete.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: A question about the bending of light |
02 May 2006 12:47:28 PM |
|
|
In sci.physics Jan Panteltje <pNaonStpealmtje@yahoo.com> wrote:
On a sunny day (2 May 2006 14:47:36 +1200) it happened Llanzlan Klazmon
<Klazmon@llurdiaxorb.govt> wrote in
<Xns97B7967D1DEFCKlazmonllurdiaxorbgo@203.97.37.6>:
The following page shows how the GR result is obtained on the assumption=
=20
that the Sun is not rotating (Schwarzchild metric):
=20
http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s6-03/6-03.htm
<quote>
1991 the observations of radio waves from stars consistently showed=20
that the ratio of observed deflections to the deflections predicted=20
by general relativity is 1.0001 =C2=B1 0.00001. Thus the dramatic has
announcement of 1919 been retro-actively justified.
</quote>
This is an odd statement, especially since no reference is given, as=20
far as I can see, for the quoted figure. To see some actual results,=20
try http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2006-3/index.html
and look at section 3.4. Figure 5 has a nice summary of a large set
of measurements. The most recent gives 0.99992 =C2=B1 0.00023 -- that is,
agreement with GR with an accuracy of .02%.
Steve Carlip
.
|
|
|
| User: "Scott Davies" |
|
| Title: Re: A question about the bending of light |
03 May 2006 08:41:20 AM |
|
|
On Tue, 2 May 2006 17:47:28 +0000 (UTC),
carlip-nospam@physics.ucdavis.edu wrote:
In sci.physics Jan Panteltje <pNaonStpealmtje@yahoo.com> wrote:
On a sunny day (2 May 2006 14:47:36 +1200) it happened Llanzlan Klazmon
<Klazmon@llurdiaxorb.govt> wrote in
<Xns97B7967D1DEFCKlazmonllurdiaxorbgo@203.97.37.6>:
<quote>
1991 the observations of radio waves from stars consistently showed
that the ratio of observed deflections to the deflections predicted
by general relativity is 1.0001 +- 0.00001. Thus the dramatic has
announcement of 1919 been retro-actively justified.
</quote>
This is an odd statement, especially since no reference is given, as
far as I can see, for the quoted figure.
I would guess it is a typo for a result quoted in Ohanian and
Ruffini's "Gravitation and Spacetime". It says in Table 4.3 that
Robertson et al did VLBI measurements in 1991 and got the result
1.0001 +- 0.0001, the same as quoted above except for an extra zero in
the error bar.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Jan Panteltje" |
|
| Title: Re: A question about the bending of light |
02 May 2006 01:30:37 PM |
|
|
On a sunny day (Tue, 2 May 2006 17:47:28 +0000 (UTC)) it happened
carlip-nospam@physics.ucdavis.edu wrote in <e385vg$9ht$1@skeeter.ucdavis.edu>:
In sci.physics Jan Panteltje <pNaonStpealmtje@yahoo.com> wrote:
On a sunny day (2 May 2006 14:47:36 +1200) it happened Llanzlan Klazmon
<Klazmon@llurdiaxorb.govt> wrote in
<Xns97B7967D1DEFCKlazmonllurdiaxorbgo@203.97.37.6>:
The following page shows how the GR result is obtained on the assumption=
that the Sun is not rotating (Schwarzchild metric):
http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s6-03/6-03.htm
<quote>
1991 the observations of radio waves from stars consistently showed
that the ratio of observed deflections to the deflections predicted
by general relativity is 1.0001 ± 0.00001. Thus the dramatic has
announcement of 1919 been retro-actively justified.
</quote>
This is an odd statement, especially since no reference is given, as
far as I can see, for the quoted figure. To see some actual results,
try http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2006-3/index.html
and look at section 3.4. Figure 5 has a nice summary of a large set
of measurements. The most recent gives 0.99992 ± 0.00023 -- that is,
agreement with GR with an accuracy of .02%.
Steve Carlip
OK, but of course this is not:
http://www.esa.int/SPECIALS/GSP/SEM0L6OVGJE_0.html
But I have to admit I thought:
Did they twist the wires to the acceleration sensors (to cancel magnetic induction).
Did they also twist these in the reverse direction and get the same result?
hehe
The gist: you cannot 100% shield a magnetic effect, so....
But if it is repeated and confirmed, then we should start again, and HOPEFULLy this time
with logic.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Llanzlan Klazmon" |
|
| Title: Re: A question about the bending of light |
02 May 2006 05:06:26 PM |
|
|
Jan Panteltje <pNaonStpealmtje@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:e388gk$rj9$1@news.datemas.de:
On a sunny day (Tue, 2 May 2006 17:47:28 +0000 (UTC)) it happened
carlip-nospam@physics.ucdavis.edu wrote in
<e385vg$9ht$1@skeeter.ucdavis.edu>:
In sci.physics Jan Panteltje <pNaonStpealmtje@yahoo.com> wrote:
On a sunny day (2 May 2006 14:47:36 +1200) it happened Llanzlan
Klazmon <Klazmon@llurdiaxorb.govt> wrote in
<Xns97B7967D1DEFCKlazmonllurdiaxorbgo@203.97.37.6>:
The following page shows how the GR result is obtained on the
assumption=
that the Sun is not rotating (Schwarzchild metric):
http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s6-03/6-03.htm
<quote>
1991 the observations of radio waves from stars consistently showed
that the ratio of observed deflections to the deflections predicted
by general relativity is 1.0001 ± 0.00001. Thus the dramatic has
announcement of 1919 been retro-actively justified.
</quote>
This is an odd statement, especially since no reference is given, as
far as I can see, for the quoted figure. To see some actual results,
try http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2006-3/index.html
and look at section 3.4. Figure 5 has a nice summary of a large set
of measurements. The most recent gives 0.99992 ± 0.00023 -- that is,
agreement with GR with an accuracy of .02%.
Steve Carlip
OK, but of course this is not:
http://www.esa.int/SPECIALS/GSP/SEM0L6OVGJE_0.html
But I have to admit I thought:
Did they twist the wires to the acceleration sensors (to cancel magnetic
induction). Did they also twist these in the reverse direction and get
the same result? hehe
The gist: you cannot 100% shield a magnetic effect, so....
But if it is repeated and confirmed, then we should start again, and
HOPEFULLy this time with logic.
Don't be silly. There is always some error inherent in such measurements.
The error bars are there as a statement about the probable sources of
error. Also note that the prediction is itself an approximation as the
higher order terms are ignored (justifiably) and also the effect of the
rotation of the Sun is ignored (again justifiably).
Klazmon.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jan Panteltje" |
|
| Title: Re: A question about the bending of light |
03 May 2006 05:15:40 AM |
|
|
On a sunny day (3 May 2006 10:06:26 +1200) it happened Llanzlan Klazmon
<Klazmon@llurdiaxorb.govt> wrote in
<Xns97B866D18D0BKlazmonllurdiaxorbgo@203.97.37.6>:
<quote>
1991 the observations of radio waves from stars consistently showed
that the ratio of observed deflections to the deflections predicted
by general relativity is 1.0001 ± 0.00001. Thus the dramatic has
announcement of 1919 been retro-actively justified.
</quote>
This is an odd statement, especially since no reference is given, as
far as I can see, for the quoted figure. To see some actual results,
try http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2006-3/index.html
and look at section 3.4. Figure 5 has a nice summary of a large set
of measurements. The most recent gives 0.99992 ± 0.00023 -- that is,
agreement with GR with an accuracy of .02%.
Steve Carlip
OK, but of course this is not:
http://www.esa.int/SPECIALS/GSP/SEM0L6OVGJE_0.html
But I have to admit I thought:
Did they twist the wires to the acceleration sensors (to cancel magnetic
induction). Did they also twist these in the reverse direction and get
the same result? hehe
The gist: you cannot 100% shield a magnetic effect, so....
But if it is repeated and confirmed, then we should start again, and
HOPEFULLy this time with logic.
Don't be silly. There is always some error inherent in such measurements.
The error bars are there as a statement about the probable sources of
error. Also note that the prediction is itself an approximation as the
higher order terms are ignored (justifiably) and also the effect of the
rotation of the Sun is ignored (again justifiably).
Klazmon.
I accuse those guys [that defend Einstein] of scientific fraud, WHAT PART OF
1.0001 ± 0.00001 is not clear to you?
Again and again results that do not fit [their Einstein religion] are brushed
under the carpet, and data withheld.
They are afraid to tackle the ESA experiment or even reply about it here.
Must be a bummer to find out you have insulted people and believed some brain
fart of a wild haired man who was STUCK on gravity, for many years
(Wormley calls anyone an idiot who challenges his OneStone).
What crap science you make, you idiotic formula parrots.
Here you are.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: A question about the bending of light |
03 May 2006 06:59:05 PM |
|
|
In sci.physics Jan Panteltje <pNaonStpealmtje@yahoo.com> wrote:
=20
[...]
I accuse those guys [that defend Einstein] of scientific fraud,=20
Really? Based on something you got off a Web site that didn't even
give a reference to where the number came from?
WHAT PART OF
1.0001 =C2=B1 0.00001 is not clear to you?
The part that explains what experiment obtained this number. I=20
am reasonably familiar with the actual primary literature on this
subject, and I don't recognize this. If you can give an real
reference to a paper, I'll be happy to look at it. If not, that's
pretty thin grounds for an accusation of scientific fraud, don't
you think?
Steve Carlip
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jan Panteltje" |
|
| Title: Re: A question about the bending of light |
04 May 2006 05:12:42 AM |
|
|
On a sunny day (Wed, 3 May 2006 23:59:05 +0000 (UTC)) it happened
carlip-nospam@physics.ucdavis.edu wrote in <e3bg49$9f6$1@skeeter.ucdavis.edu>:
In sci.physics Jan Panteltje <pNaonStpealmtje@yahoo.com> wrote:
[...]
I accuse those guys [that defend Einstein] of scientific fraud,
Really? Based on something you got off a Web site that didn't even
give a reference to where the number came from?
WHAT PART OF
1.0001 ± 0.00001 is not clear to you?
The part that explains what experiment obtained this number. I
am reasonably familiar with the actual primary literature on this
subject, and I don't recognise this. If you can give an real
reference to a paper, I'll be happy to look at it. If not, that's
pretty thin grounds for an accusation of scientific fraud, don't
you think?
Steve Carlip
Well, that link was presented by Andre Michaud as example that Einstein was
correct.
You then stated something along the line:
'There are other better experiments that show Einstein right'.
Now this is totally unscientific, because:
Not ANY experiment can prove him right.
ONE experiment is enough to prove him wrong.
That link (data) proved him wrong or incomplete (as I stated).
So now you step back, and say 'I have better data for that experiment', well
the burden is on you, WHERE IS IT.
You need to address the difference found in the experiment that proved him
wrong.
That is the scientific way.
I am sure you know that.
But you did not go that route.
Neither have you addressed (after I asked now 2 times, once in sci.astro,
and once in sci.physics) the ESA results:
http://www.esa.int/SPECIALS/GSP/SEM0L6OVGJE_0.html
There are other issues with Einstein.
1) He admitted he failed in making a theory that incorporated gravity.
2) LIGO found no gravity waves
Now for ME, looking at YOU, following the footsteps of a person that
got STUCK does not make a lot of sense.
I would try an other route.....
I am a Le Saga fan, but my view of these particles is very very different
from what you guys think it is.
But I will not call anyone an idiot (as Wormley and several other do when
people point out Einstein sucks) when you say I am wrong about Le Saga like
models [because I could well be, and I know it].
So, fraud is maybe not the right word, at least the other poster had the
right attitude to point out there could be a typo in that link, with
a difference of a factor ten in the error bars.
Makes me wonder all the times, 'make error bars so that at least Einstein
COULD be right, else we will not get published'.
??????????
Coincidence, I do not think so.
There are experiments with pendulums during solar eclipses that show effects
that are NOT explainable by relativity.
There are many other problems too with Einsteins ideas, axiom speed of light,
well that already defeats itself, c+v, OK call all these things nonsense,
ignore the facts, and after the Bose-Einstein condensate paper where
Einstein refers De Broglie it must have hit the old man hard to see photon
is a wave.... and he just got the Nobel price, trapped he could not now
show it to be a wave anymore.
And YOU are stuck with that ego maniac with the wild hairs.
Walk all the way back, to here:
http://panteltje.com/panteltje/physics/Einsteins_1925_manuscript.pdf
Politics and career planning is not science.
And giving a quick WRONG answer to a challenge because you believe in
the wild haired man god OneStone is misleading people.
Let's just say scientific fraud.
Have fun.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: A question about the bending of light |
04 May 2006 07:37:43 PM |
|
|
In sci.physics Jan Panteltje <pNaonStpealmtje@yahoo.com> wrote:
On a sunny day (Wed, 3 May 2006 23:59:05 +0000 (UTC)) it happened
carlip-nospam@physics.ucdavis.edu wrote in <e3bg49$9f6$1@skeeter.ucdavis=
..edu>:
In sci.physics Jan Panteltje <pNaonStpealmtje@yahoo.com> wrote:
=20
[...]
I accuse those guys [that defend Einstein] of scientific fraud,=20
=20
Really? Based on something you got off a Web site that didn't even
give a reference to where the number came from?
=20
WHAT PART OF
1.0001 =C2=B1 0.00001 is not clear to you?
=20
The part that explains what experiment obtained this number. I=20
am reasonably familiar with the actual primary literature on this
subject, and I don't recognise this. If you can give an real
reference to a paper, I'll be happy to look at it. If not, that's
pretty thin grounds for an accusation of scientific fraud, don't
you think?
Well, that link was presented by Andre Michaud as example that Einstein =
was
correct.
You then stated something along the line:
'There are other better experiments that show Einstein right'.
Now this is totally unscientific, because:
Not ANY experiment can prove him right.
ONE experiment is enough to prove him wrong.
That link (data) proved him wrong or incomplete (as I stated).
Let's try this one more time.
1. You did *not* provide a citation to an experiment that proved
Einstein wrong. You provided a link to a Web site that quoted a
number without saying where it came from.=20=20
As hard as it may be to believe, not everything you find on the Web=20
is right. If you want to claim that an experiment proved Einstein
wrong -- and you want to have anyone believe you -- you need to
cite the actual experiment. "I found a number on the Web" is not
enough.=20=20
2. It is *not* true that "one experiment is enough to prove [a theory]
wrong." You are misunderstanding the meaning of falsification. One
*repeatable* observation that *consistently* disagrees with a prediction
may be enough to prove a theory wrong (in a particular context). But
anyone who has ever actually done experiments knows that a single
instance of disagreement with a theory, which is not then reproduced
by repeated measurements, doesn't prove anything. Experiments aren't
perfect -- even the best they contain systematic errors which are not
completely understood. If you want to show that a theory fails, you=20
need *repeatable* experiments.
So now you step back, and say 'I have better data for that experiment',=20
well the burden is on you, WHERE IS IT.
Robertson et al., Nature 349 (1991) 768; Lebach et al., Phys. Rev.=20
Lett. 75 (1995) 1439; Shapiro et al.,Phys. Rev. Lett. 92 (2004) 121101.
You need to address the difference found in the experiment that proved=20
him wrong.
Tell me where to read about "the experiment that proved him wrong," and
I'll be happy to. Give a reference: author, journal, date. Not "I found
a number on the Web."=20
=20
[...]
There are other issues with Einstein.
1) He admitted he failed in making a theory that incorporated gravity.
Citation, please.=20=20
2) LIGO found no gravity waves
LIGO's first science run at design sensitivity just started a few
months ago. Whether it will detect gravitational waves before the
scheduled upgrade is anyone's guess -- we don't know how many
nearby astrophysical sources there are, so we don't know how likely
a detection should be. If LIGO still fails to detect gravitational
waves after the upgrade to Advanced LIGO, then something is almot
certainly wrong with GR.
[...]
So, fraud is maybe not the right word, at least the other poster had the=
=20
right attitude to point out there could be a typo in that link, with
a difference of a factor ten in the error bars.
Makes me wonder all the times, 'make error bars so that at least Einstei=
n
COULD be right, else we will not get published'.
Nonsense! An experiment that actually showed a small deviation from GR
would make a big splash. There is an active effort by many theorists
to find alternatives to GR -- multiscalar-tensor theories, "infrared
modified gravity," "TeV-scale gravity," "gravity with higher curvature
terms," etc. Many physicists would be *delighted* to see such results.=20=
=20
As just a tiny selection of examples in the past few months: Iorio,
JCAP 0601 (2006) 008; Ilana et al., Phys.Rev.D72 (2005) 024003; Rizzo,
JHEP 0506 (2005) 079; Aslan et al., Phys.Lett.B635 (2006) 343; Navarro
et al., JCAP 0603 (2006) 008; Gabadadze et al., Phys.Lett.B632 (2006) 617;
Dvali, Phys.Scripta T117 (2005) 92; Brownstein and Moffat, Class.Quant.Gra=
v.
23 (2006) 3427; Casanova and Spallucci, Class.Quant.Grav. 23 (2006) R45;=20
Jaekel and Reynaud, Class.Quant.Grav. 23 (2006) 777; Allemandi et al.,
Gen.Rel.Grav. 37 (2005) 1891; Liberati et al., Phys.Rev.Lett. 96 (2006)=20
151301; Olmo, Phys.Rev.Lett. 95 (2005) 261102.=20=20
The idea that alternatives to GR are somehow being suppressed can only
come from ignorance of what's really going on in physics.
Steve Carlip
=20
.
|
|
|
| User: "Llanzlan Klazmon" |
|
| Title: Re: A question about the bending of light |
04 May 2006 08:22:42 PM |
|
|
wrote in
news:e3e6on$ose$1@skeeter.ucdavis.edu:
In sci.physics Jan Panteltje <pNaonStpealmtje@yahoo.com> wrote:
On a sunny day (Wed, 3 May 2006 23:59:05 +0000 (UTC)) it happened
wrote in
<e3bg49$9f6$1@skeeter.ucdavis
.edu>:
In sci.physics Jan Panteltje <pNaonStpealmtje@yahoo.com> wrote:
[...]
I accuse those guys [that defend Einstein] of scientific fraud,
Really? Based on something you got off a Web site that didn't even
give a reference to where the number came from?
WHAT PART OF
1.0001 ± 0.00001 is not clear to you?
The part that explains what experiment obtained this number. I
am reasonably familiar with the actual primary literature on this
subject, and I don't recognise this. If you can give an real
reference to a paper, I'll be happy to look at it. If not, that's
pretty thin grounds for an accusation of scientific fraud, don't
you think?
Well, that link was presented by Andre Michaud as example that Einstein
was
correct.
You then stated something along the line:
'There are other better experiments that show Einstein right'.
Now this is totally unscientific, because:
Not ANY experiment can prove him right.
ONE experiment is enough to prove him wrong.
That link (data) proved him wrong or incomplete (as I stated).
Let's try this one more time.
1. You did *not* provide a citation to an experiment that proved
Einstein wrong. You provided a link to a Web site that quoted a
number without saying where it came from.
It was me that originally cited that article but I was addressing the
question of how the GR prediction is obtained. I hadn't even looked as far
as the experimental results that were presented further down. When you look
at recent VLBI papers, the error bars are something like 40 times greater
than those stated in the mathpages article, which it claims are results
obtained back in 1991. The most likely explanation is that the author of
the mathpages article misquoted or typoed the figures. As they didn't give
a reference though we don't really know for sure. I don't get these
conspiracy idiots like Jan. If a genuine result was found to contradict
general relativity it would be a sure path to fame for the workers
involved.
Klazmon
<SNIP>
.
|
|
|
| User: "srp" |
|
| Title: Re: A question about the bending of light |
05 May 2006 06:47:00 AM |
|
|
Llanzlan Klazmon a écrit :
If a genuine result was found to contradict
general relativity it would be a sure path to fame for the workers
involved.
This obviously will not happen to any physicist who still believes
that the Pioneer "anomaly" is caused by vapor emission, residual
heat, or other long ago discarded causes. All but GR inadequacy
has already been discarded.
André Michaud
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Jan Panteltje" |
|
| Title: Re: A question about the bending of light |
05 May 2006 04:21:38 AM |
|
|
On a sunny day (5 May 2006 13:22:42 +1200) it happened Llanzlan Klazmon
<Klazmon@llurdiaxorb.govt> wrote in
<Xns97BA8817E877EKlazmonllurdiaxorbgo@203.97.37.6>:
carlip-nospam@physics.ucdavis.edu wrote in
news:e3e6on$ose$1@skeeter.ucdavis.edu:
In sci.physics Jan Panteltje <pNaonStpealmtje@yahoo.com> wrote:
On a sunny day (Wed, 3 May 2006 23:59:05 +0000 (UTC)) it happened
carlip-nospam@physics.ucdavis.edu wrote in
<e3bg49$9f6$1@skeeter.ucdavis
.edu>:
In sci.physics Jan Panteltje <pNaonStpealmtje@yahoo.com> wrote:
[...]
I accuse those guys [that defend Einstein] of scientific fraud,
Really? Based on something you got off a Web site that didn't even
give a reference to where the number came from?
WHAT PART OF
1.0001 ± 0.00001 is not clear to you?
The part that explains what experiment obtained this number. I
am reasonably familiar with the actual primary literature on this
subject, and I don't recognise this. If you can give an real
reference to a paper, I'll be happy to look at it. If not, that's
pretty thin grounds for an accusation of scientific fraud, don't
you think?
Well, that link was presented by Andre Michaud as example that Einstein
was
correct.
You then stated something along the line:
'There are other better experiments that show Einstein right'.
Now this is totally unscientific, because:
Not ANY experiment can prove him right.
ONE experiment is enough to prove him wrong.
That link (data) proved him wrong or incomplete (as I stated).
Let's try this one more time.
1. You did *not* provide a citation to an experiment that proved
Einstein wrong. You provided a link to a Web site that quoted a
number without saying where it came from.
It was me that originally cited that article but I was addressing the
question of how the GR prediction is obtained. I hadn't even looked as far
as the experimental results that were presented further down. When you look
at recent VLBI papers, the error bars are something like 40 times greater
than those stated in the mathpages article, which it claims are results
obtained back in 1991. The most likely explanation is that the author of
the mathpages article misquoted or typoed the figures. As they didn't give
a reference though we don't really know for sure. I don't get these
conspiracy idiots like Jan.
Hell you are the idiot, i pointed out plenty of stuff.
If a genuine result was found to contradict
general relativity it would be a sure path to fame for the workers
involved.
They all all yellow chicken ***** not to be accepted in the EinStein Devotees club.
You included.
Klazmon
<SNIP>
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Jan Panteltje" |
|
| Title: Re: A question about the bending of light |
05 May 2006 04:19:39 AM |
|
|
On a sunny day (Fri, 5 May 2006 00:37:43 +0000 (UTC)) it happened
carlip-nospam@physics.ucdavis.edu wrote in <e3e6on$ose$1@skeeter.ucdavis.edu>:
Let's try this one more time.
1. You did *not* provide a citation to an experiment that proved
Einstein wrong. You provided a link to a Web site that quoted a
number without saying where it came from.
I did:
1) http://www.esa.int/SPECIALS/GSP/SEM0L6OVGJE_0.html
4 times now you have evaded this.
Does the previous noise about *Podkletnov* still echo in the hidden
spaces beteen the ears?
So that makes TWO, a repeated experiment, and if you had bothered to read
the papers there were many more.
2) LIGO.
LIGO was expected to have some results in the past runs.
You did not read the Einstein paper I referred to either, you are just
typing away,
I do not see you in the webserver log,
I am ending this discussion with you, although I respect your knowledge of
physics, it is MUCH more then I will likely ever know, I think you
are confused by following the old OneStone, who got stuck.
If you really think he was that good (he was not dumb for sure), the fact
that he got stuck with his waves and curved space and hair should show
you he was on the wrong way, if that way was the right way he would have
found the solution, and he had lots of help too.
Scientific fraud.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Eric Gisse" |
|
| Title: Re: A question about the bending of light |
05 May 2006 04:39:28 AM |
|
|
Jan Panteltje wrote:
On a sunny day (Fri, 5 May 2006 00:37:43 +0000 (UTC)) it happened
carlip-nospam@physics.ucdavis.edu wrote in <e3e6on$ose$1@skeeter.ucdavis.edu>:
Let's try this one more time.
1. You did *not* provide a citation to an experiment that proved
Einstein wrong. You provided a link to a Web site that quoted a
number without saying where it came from.
I did:
1) http://www.esa.int/SPECIALS/GSP/SEM0L6OVGJE_0.html
What is wrong with you? This was not what he was asking about!
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/cd98eb01a90ca04c?dmode=source
He was asking about THAT, the one you are yet to provide a reference
for while asserting its' validity.
4 times now you have evaded this.
How many times have you evaded giving a simple reference as requested?
Does the previous noise about *Podkletnov* still echo in the hidden
spaces beteen the ears?
Did you miss the many attempts to replicate Podkletnov's experiments
using the apparati he said he used? Did you ever hear about how each
and every one failed? Did you mabey notice how the experiment you
linked to, while interesting, is NOT Podkletnov?
So that makes TWO, a repeated experiment, and if you had bothered to read
the papers there were many more.
Podkletnov was never repeated sucessfully. It doesn't count.
The experiment you linked to right now is interesting, it remains to be
seen if it is repeated.
The experiment you talked about on May 1st doesn't even have a
reference so how are we to know its' validity? Are you sure you simply
didn't make a mistake when counting the zeros?
2) LIGO.
LIGO was expected to have some results in the past runs.
....how long ago did LIGO reach its' design sensitivity? How frequent
are the phenomena LIGO is expected to observe?
You did not read the Einstein paper I referred to either, you are just
typing away,
I do not see you in the webserver log,
What would that prove? Seriously....look at the manuscript, can you
actually read german and Einstein's horrible scrawl at the same time? I
actually thought I had some pretty bad handwriting...but wow!
I am ending this discussion with you, although I respect your knowledge of
physics, it is MUCH more then I will likely ever know, I think you
are confused by following the old OneStone, who got stuck.
If you really think he was that good (he was not dumb for sure), the fact
that he got stuck with his waves and curved space and hair should show
you he was on the wrong way, if that way was the right way he would have
found the solution, and he had lots of help too.
Bad hair == shitty scientist. Time for me to get a haircut!
Scientific fraud.
I just love it when people claim fraud then are shown to have no idea
what they are talking about.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jan Panteltje" |
|
| Title: Re: A question about the bending of light |
05 May 2006 04:50:24 AM |
|
|
On a sunny day (5 May 2006 02:39:28 -0700) it happened "Eric Gisse"
<jowr.pi@gmail.com> wrote in
<1146821968.933707.196920@v46g2000cwv.googlegroups.com>:
Jan Panteltje wrote:
On a sunny day (Fri, 5 May 2006 00:37:43 +0000 (UTC)) it happened
carlip-nospam@physics.ucdavis.edu wrote in <e3e6on$ose$1@skeeter.ucdavis.edu>:
Let's try this one more time.
1. You did *not* provide a citation to an experiment that proved
Einstein wrong. You provided a link to a Web site that quoted a
number without saying where it came from.
I did:
1) http://www.esa.int/SPECIALS/GSP/SEM0L6OVGJE_0.html
What is wrong with you? This was not what he was asking about!
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/cd98eb01a90ca04c?dmode=source
He was asking about THAT, the one you are yet to provide a reference
for while asserting its' validity.
4 times now you have evaded this.
How many times have you evaded giving a simple reference as requested?
Does the previous noise about *Podkletnov* still echo in the hidden
spaces beteen the ears?
Did you miss the many attempts to replicate Podkletnov's experiments
using the apparati he said he used? Did you ever hear about how each
and every one failed? Did you mabey notice how the experiment you
linked to, while interesting, is NOT Podkletnov?
So that makes TWO, a repeated experiment, and if you had bothered to read
the papers there were many more.
Podkletnov was never repeated sucessfully. It doesn't count.
The experiment you linked to right now is interesting, it remains to be
seen if it is repeated.
The experiment you talked about on May 1st doesn't even have a
reference so how are we to know its' validity? Are you sure you simply
didn't make a mistake when counting the zeros?
2) LIGO.
LIGO was expected to have some results in the past runs.
...how long ago did LIGO reach its' design sensitivity? How frequent
are the phenomena LIGO is expected to observe?
You did not read the Einstein paper I referred to either, you are just
typing away,
I do not see you in the webserver log,
What would that prove? Seriously....look at the manuscript, can you
actually read german and Einstein's horrible scrawl at the same time? I
actually thought I had some pretty bad handwriting...but wow!
I am ending this discussion with you, although I respect your knowledge of
physics, it is MUCH more then I will likely ever know, I think you
are confused by following the old OneStone, who got stuck.
If you really think he was that good (he was not dumb for sure), the fact
that he got stuck with his waves and curved space and hair should show
you he was on the wrong way, if that way was the right way he would have
found the solution, and he had lots of help too.
Bad hair == shitty scientist. Time for me to get a haircut!
Scientific fraud.
I just love it when people claim fraud then are shown to have no idea
what they are talking about.
Please post again when you have anything to say and brushed up on you languages.
As a aside, in the EinStone paper, much more interesting then the high school level math,
is the thinking process, his thoughts, developing between the lines.
The original handwriting is like a picture of the deepest things in the pool of the soul
for those who can read.
Einstein was stuck, and note that after that, he never got anything new.
He was stuck because he got Nobel for photon as particle, and De Broglies highly
politically correct move to 'assume a wave FTL' must have been a force 9.7 tremor
for poor EinStone.
Stuck in fame.
For what it is worth.
eh spelling?
Good enough for me.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: A question about the bending of light |
05 May 2006 05:03:51 AM |
|
|
Jan Panteltje wrote:
[snip babble]
It is obvious you don't have a reference for the experiment you cited,
so there is no reason for me to ask for it again.
Were you always a crank or is this a recent thing? I don't remember you
being so stupid.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
