From the suggestions box. Contributor Zeke alerts us to an interesting sounding presentation on the net:
I would like to invite any and all interested to attend a web presentation on World Science Database, this Saturday:
Albert Einstein (centre) discovered the bending of light round the sun
Dr. Edward Henry Dowdye Jr.Physicist, Laser Optics Engineer, Independent ResearcherDate: Saturday, February 12, 2011Time: 07:00 AM – 09:00 AM (U.S. Pacific time)
Subject:”An application of the Mathematical Physics of Gauss’s Law for gravity along with intense observational evidence, reveal that solar lensing does not occur in the empty vacuum space slightly above the plasma rim of the sun. The thin plasma atmosphere of the sun represents a clear example of an indirect interaction involving an interfering plasma medium between the gravitational field of the sun and the rays of light from the stars. There is convincing observational evidence that a direct interaction between light and gravitation in the empty vacuum space above the solar rim simply does not occur. Historically, all evidence of light bending has been observed predominantly near the thin plasma rim of the sun; not in the empty vacuum space far above the thin plasma rim.
An application of Gauss’ law clearly shows that, if the light bending rule of General Relativity were valid, then a light bending effect due to the gravitational field of the sun should be easily detectable with current technical mean in Astrophysics at various analytical Gaussian spherical surfaces of solar radii, namely, 2R, 3R, 4R, 5R, …, respectively, where R is one solar radius. An effect of at least one half, one third, one forth, one fifth, etc., respectively, of the observed light bending noted at the solar rim within currently technical means should be easily observable effects. This has not been the case….”
http://www.worldsci.org/php/index.php?tab0=Events&tab1=Display&id=402
Tallbloke's Talkshop 
Hi TB.
This is an interesting observation that may, or may not, be of great significance. The failure of gravitational lensing to decrease proportionally with the power of a gravitational field strongly suggests that the lensing is not generated by the force of gravity!
Where a lensing effect only exists at the interface between a ‘masked’ and ‘unmasked’ region e.g. a ‘pinhole camera lens’, but within the void of near-space, one must be persuaded to reconsider the causal force.
We know that ‘atmospheric lensing’ is generated by the altered refractive index of an atmosphere that’s generated by an altered mass density within that atmosphere. Isn’t this observed phenomenon the same thing? ‘Atmospheric lensing’.
Unfortunately, your link doesn’t connect yet so I can’t read the page. However, doesn’t GR divorce gravity from photon flight (a photon, being mass-less, is unaffected by gravity) and gives us a problem with ‘black holes’ (though, perhaps this is just due to a Doppler effect of the emissive object until other masses enshroud the signal)?
The observation would be more significant if it was of a large mass without an atmosphere. This would preclude atmospheric lensing and, with an identical observation, would show the lensing to be generated by the EM field per se.
Best regards, Ray Dart.
I need to study this in greater depth. This is a big deal for me. :-)pg
The url link doesn’t work but zeke the sneaks’ does.
http://www.worldsci.org/php/index.php?tab0=Events&tab1=Display&id=402
PG
[edit] Thanks P.G. Fixed
P.G. Sharrow.
Thanks for the active link PG. I’ll read this later, when opportunity permits.
Best regards, Ray Dart.
Whomever has worked with laser diffraction apparatus for determining particle size, knows that humble diffraction was behind all the time. We must consider that in those “good old days” space was considered totally empty.
http://www.extinctionshift.com/SignificantFindings.htm
This is the paper that the article is based on. pg
It appears he is going to deal only with so-called gravitational lensing around the sun.
Otherwise, it gets into all kinds of issues with redshift, where something appearing with the galaxy is supposed to be far behind it, like the rings around Abell 2218, here:
(with z values)
And in that case there is usually not enough matter to have that much gravitational force, so a lot of dark matter is assumed to be there.
So I can’t wait to see what he has to say.
Correction! He is also going to discuss the lack of gravitational lensing around our galaxy center, and Saggitarius A:
“Moreover, the events taking place at the center of our galaxy under intense observations by the astrophysicists since 1992, present convincing evidence that a direct interaction between light and gravitation simply does not take place. The highly studied region, known as Sagittarius A*, is thought to contain a super massive object or a black hole, a most likely candidate for gravitational lensing. The past two decades of intense observation in this region have revealed not a shred of evidence for gravitational lensing. The evidence is clearly revealed in the time resolved images of the rapidly moving stellar objects orbiting about Sagittarius A*.”
Thanks
Thanks for the heads-up on this Zeke, but I’m going to a beer festival/concert on Friday night so I may not be fit to join the discussion.
Regarding gravitational lensing…
…Logic supports refraction, and refutes lensing. This is because refraction can explain the very limited instances of bending we do get. Refraction requires that we have an area of refracting medium, of the right refraction index, at the right distance, and at the right angle, in order to send an image to us. This would be expected to be a fairly rare occurrence, even at universal scales.
It certainly would not be the standard experience of every image. But if the theory of gravitational bending were true, every single massive object in the sky would be bending light to us. Every visible and invisible object, including every star and every galaxy, would be bending light to us. Every object would be surrounded by literally thousands of haloes (of varying brightnesses), since every object behind it would have some angle of refraction at some distance from its edge, that would bend the light to us. We don’t see this, so we can’t be seeing gravitational bending.
The above is an extract from a Miles Mathis essay – full version of ‘Against Gravitational Lensing’ is available FREE here:-
http://milesmathis.com/lens.html
So if I understand correctly, Ed doesn’t have the resources to test his hypothesis, but is sure it’s within the current capability NASA has?
tallbloke says:
February 10, 2011 at 9:51 am
So if I understand correctly, Ed doesn’t have the resources to test his hypothesis, but is sure it’s within the current capability NASA has?
Why would a cash-strapped agency spend money on this – after all, the science is settled!
I suspect the last thing the National Agency for Science Assassination wants is to be raising any potential issues with the standard model.
Sure, the same thought occurred to me. We’ll have to wait and see what Ed has to say about how the experiment might be done.
The same with the squaring of light speed. If light speed is the limit, how about squaring it?
E=mc2 vs. E=hv
“Every visible and invisible object, including every star and every galaxy, would be bending light to us. Every object would be surrounded by literally thousands of haloes (of varying brightnesses), since every object behind it would have some angle of refraction at some distance from its edge, that would bend the light to us. We don’t see this, so we can’t be seeing gravitational bending.”
Thank god! Astronomy would be very difficult with a halo around everything. pg
We’ll have to see what he says, what his data are, and see if there are experimental results that can be replicated. A very interesting idea, that is not likely to be well received in the physics world. Wonder what Motl will have to say about it.
Well you have a good evening then Tenuc. We’ll let you know about the lack of lensing by gravity when you sleep that off. hahahaha
After an excellent evening of sampling several excellent ales and listening to the famous old punk Brighton band, The Piranhas, I finally surfaced in time for some breakfast and the start of the England – Italy 6 Nations rugby match. We beat them 59 – 13 – it doesn’t come better than that!!!
I look forward to hearing comments from this mornings event Zeke.
Well as it happens, I managed to tune in as well. It was very interesting, with Ed Dowdye doing well to overcome a few technical hitches with the e-conference system, which would play his gif animations. Host Greg aslo set me up a profile so I can put a summary of my stuff up there too.
Anyway, from what I could gather, Ed is claiming that it is possible to tell from data already available that light doesn’t bend due to gravity. If he’s right, then general relativity is wrong. Ed says he has a paper already published and another ready for submission.
Interesting times.
Post updated with diagram showing no-lensing of light beyond solar atmosphere.
GR and your GPS.
Well, if GR is not “true” then whatever replaces it had better be consistent with it.
Cause you Need GR to make an accurate GPS.
or put another way, I don’t want some of you working on systems to protect my nation
Hi Steve,
Could it be that ‘GR’ works with satellite orbits for similar reasons light bends n the sun’s atmosphere? i.e. is it possible the ‘GR’ adjustments to GPS satellite orbits work not because GR correctly decribes how light reacts to gravity but because it is compensating for another factor?
Just because the mathematics works, it does not mean the concept used to explain the math factors is correct. Anyone that works in electronics knows that the math will get you close but you need real test data to correct the functions of your device. The universe works because of fudge factors and not due to exact mathimatical persusion. pg
woulda coulda shoulda Guys.
The point is this. If you want to build something that works you use the best science, the best theory available. Now, of course you can say “maybe the “true’ theory, is different from that!” or maybe its gremlins!
yes, and maybe monkeys will fly out of the southern end of my alimetary canal. All science is contingent. But if I make a decision today based on the best theory that explains the most data to the highest precision, in the most economical fashion.. then I’m using GR. AND I am not letting you anywhere NEAR the design.
Same thing with AGW.
As for testing GR. how’s my GPS work? ask anyone at the business end of a GPS guided munition.
Tallbloke,
Have you ever played with lasers in hologram animation?
I had the priviledge of six months with the creator of this field. With floating tables and splitting laser beams and all sorts of different optical lenses.
It would be possible to bend light in space when you have a clear molecule of gas as the bend occurs on the edge and not in the exact center.
Joe says:
Tallbloke,
Thanks to you! You brought back the past I had in using lasers with about 200 different lenses to focus or disperse the laser light. These antique things were from old optimologists cases of lenses.This would very much be what the atmosphere would be doing in having a curviture of focus of sun light. It again adds to the multiple interaction that must be considered.
Thanks,
Joe
Tallbloke,
The “lense” of the atmosphere has to have an effect due to the “observed science” of the suns size that we all have observed. So this also means the energy from the sun is also effected by this dispersion method as well.
The sun looks bigger in the early morning and at sunset.
Well that’s very interesting that “Mosh” brought up GPS systems and General Relativity. This was not a subject Dr Dowdye touched on in his excellent presentation on Saturday. However, I would like to make several resources available to anyone interested in the need for GR calculations in GPS systems:
1. “The effects of relativity, where they are different from the effects predicted by classical mechanics and electromagnetic theory, are too small to matter – less than one cm, for users on or near earth. … In this paper, we compare the predictions of relativity and those of inuitive, classical, Newtonian physics; we show how large or small the differences are…”
Click to access Vol%2028_16.pdf
2. “Now the quoted relativistic correction of 38 microseconds/day corresponds to ε=4.4.10-10. As the satellites are at a distance of around 20000 km (=2.109 cm), the positional error due to relativity should actually only be 4.4.10-10 . 2.109 cm = 0.8 cm! This is even much less than the presently claimed accuracy of the GPS of a few meters, so the Relativity effect should actually not be relevant at all.”
http://www.physicsmyths.org.uk/gps.htm
3. Dr. Don Scott, electrical engineer, also references the first paper in its conclusion:
‘[T]here is an alternative explanation. H.F. Fliegel and R. S. DiEsposti of the GPS Joint Program Office of the Aerospace Corporation conclude1 ” ―Except for the leading γ [gamma] factor [in their final equation], it is the same formula derived in classical physics for the signal travel time from the GPS satellite to the ground station. As we have shown, introducing the γ factor makes a change of only 2 or 3 millimeters to the classical result.”
In short there are no ‗missing relativity terms. They cancel out. General Relativity Theory is not needed.’
Click to access RebutTB.pdf
Thanks, Zeke
And I am glad to see that the Natural Philosophy Alliance has added another dissident scientist, and engineer, to its World Science Database:
http://www.worldsci.org/php/index.php?tab0=Scientists&tab1=Scientists&tab2=Display&id=2045 😀
Hey Zeke,
Good research! I like it. So, sizzling forehand down the line, will Mosh be able to return and counter?
And yes, Greg started a private chat window and asked me for my email addy so he could set up a profile. What could I do but graciously accept? 🙂
Hi TB. Sorry for the delay that followed my early response here, but I’ve been ‘asking around’.
If any ‘gravitational lensing’ is to be seen from the given observations here the equipment needs to be ‘state of the art’ to observe it as, within the ~8 light minutes from Sol, ‘observation’ will only show a tiny alteration in angle with little, or no, discernible displacement of the viewed object.
It seems that the only reason an interaction between a photon and gravity is recognised comes down to ‘the equivalence principle’. Thus, a photon has a mass that can’t be measured at rest (it’s too small), but it’s mass is infinitely large at ‘c’ (in flight). Because a photon has a mass component (however small) it possesses gravity and is affected by gravity.
I’ll tell you. This raises all sorts of questions with me! 🙂
Best regards, Ray Dart.
Flatness Problem: To call a spade a spade.
=.
There are many different spaces: 2 dimension space, 3D space,
4D, 5D . . . .. .10D, 11D . . . . maybe more.
There are also ‘ closed’ and ‘open’ spaces.
There are many topological spaces too.
Question:
Which space has the Universe as a whole?
Answer:
Fact number one:
According to GRT a world without masses is flat.
Fact number two:
The average density of matter in the universe (even
incorporating a dark mass and dark energy ) is equal to
or less than critical density and therefore the universe
as a whole is a flat infinite continuum.
Fact number three:
The WMAP satellite showed that the universe as a whole is flat.
===..
But the physicists refuse to admit this fact .
Why ?
Because they don’t know that to do with ‘ a flat infinite
continuum’. And they ‘ burned ‘ the real infinite flat
cosmological continuum ( using different abstract models )
to rid it of its infinite flatness.
And from Einstein’s time they discus about cosmological
constant that will close the flat- open Universe
into a close- sphere.
==..
The Universe as a whole is an Infinite Flat Universe.
Only in some rare places the Infinite Flatness is breaked.
==..
So, instead to say : ‘ It is fact: the Universe as a whole is flat,
they say: ‘To take the Universe as an infinite flat space – it is
impossible fact. There’s something wrong with the Universe. ‘
=== =..
How is possible to understand the Flatness ?
How is possible to understand the Infinite Flat Universe ?
What is possible to say about a cold Kelvin space T=0K ?
==.
In 1854, . . . . Helmholtz realized that the laws of
thermodynamics could be applied to the universe as a whole,
meaning that everything around us, including the stars and
galaxies, would eventually have to run down.’
/ Book ‘ Parallel Worlds’ page 289 by Michio Kaku./
Flatness is a Vacuum.
Vacuum is an Empty space between billions and billions Galaxies.
Now (!) the physicists think (!) that the Universe as whole has
temperature: T= 2,7K . The parameter T=2,7K is not constant.
It is temporal and goes down. In the future it will come to T= 0K.
#
This cold Kelvin space T=0K has old physical – classical model
so-called ‘ model of an Ideal Gas’.
Now we think that model of ‘ Ideal Gas is an abstraction’,
but this abstraction suit very well to another ‘ abstraction ‘,
to ‘a cold zero Kelvin space.’
These two models have negative temperature, and
in these two models there are ‘abstract ideal – virtual particles’.
And to have real model is needed something to change in these
abstraction models .. . .. and this change can be only quantum.
#
Now, let us put an elemenrary particles in the cold Kelvin space:
T = 2,7K —> 0K. Which geometrical form they can have ?
The answer is: ‘ They must be flat particles.’
Why?
Because according to Charle’s law and the consequence of the
third law of thermodynamics as the thermodynamic temperature
of a system approaches absolute zero the volume of particles
approaches zero too. It means the particles must have flat forms.
They must have geometrical form of a circle: pi= c /d =3,14 . . . .
#
All formulas, equations and laws of ‘ an Ideal Gas’
is possible to use to the Infinire Vacuum T=0K.
There isn’t thermodynamics without the ‘ Ideal gas’.
There isn’t thermodynamics of cosmos without the ‘ Ideal gas’.
==.===…
All the best.
Israel Sadovnik Socratus.
===.
P.S.
Today.
Today physicists refuse to take vacuum T=0K as
a fundament of Universe. Book : ‘Dreams of a final theory’
by Steven Weinberg. Page 138.
‘ It is true . . . there is such a thing as absolute zero; we cannot
reach temperatures below absolute zero not because we are not
sufficiently clever but because temperatures below absolute zero
simple have no meaning.’
/ Steven Weinberg. The Nobel Prize in Physics 1979 /
My opinion.
It is true we cannot reach the zero temperature T=0K.
But just because we cannot reach this Vacuum’s
parameter, does it mean that it have no meaning ?
#
If a tree falls in a forest and no one is around to hear it,
does it make a sound?
If unseen virtual antiparticles can appear from vacuum (!)
( Vacuum’s fluctuations / transformation / polarization )
and we can observe them as a real particles doesn’t it mean
that vacuum itself is an Absolute Reference Frame which
has its own physical parameter – Absolute Zero: T=0K.
#
Tomorrow.
When the next revolution rocks physics,
chances are it will be about nothing—the vacuum,
that endless infinite void.
http://discovermagazine.com/2008/aug/18-nothingness-of-space-theory-of-everything
=.
Best wishes.
Israel Sadovnik Socratus.
=.