On Jun 22, 12:52 am, xxein <xxe... at (no spam) bellsouth.net> wrote:
On Jun 20, 2:46 am, Pentcho Valev <pva... at (no spam) yahoo.com> wrote:
On Jun 20, 5:16 am,xxein<xxe... at (no spam) bellsouth.net> wrote:
On Jun 19, 7:32 pm, Pentcho Valev <pva... at (no spam) yahoo.com> wrote:
http://streamer.perimeterinstitute.ca/mediasite/viewer/NoPopupRedirec...
Lee Smolin: "Newton's theory predicts that light goes in straight
lines and therefore if the star passes behind the sun, we can't see
it. Einstein's theory predicts that light is bent...."
Pentcho Valev
pva... at (no spam) yahoo.com
xxein: What about it? Do you have a question?
Journalists believe Newton can also bend light:
http://blogs.nature.com/news/blog/2007/09/arthur_eddington_was_innoce....
Journalists: "And contrary to popular belief, Newtonian physics did
not predict that light would remain undeflected – Einstein himself
pointed out in 1911 that Newtonian gravity should cause some deviation
too."
Who is right: Lee Smolin ("popular belief") or journalists?
Pentcho Valev
pva... at (no spam) yahoo.com
xxein: Who cares as long as we eventually get the physic right?
xxein: Who cares? I hate to say it in this way because I am such a
critic of present science theory, but the fact that light bends in
gravity is irrefutable. But I have never seen it described correctly..
Einstein described it correctly in 1911 when he deduced the equation
c'=c(1+V/c^2) showing how the speed of light varies with the
gravitational potential V. This equation is incompatible with
Einstein's 1905 light postulate (c'=c) and compatible with (more
precisely, equivalent to) the equation c'=c+v given by Newton's
emission theory of light.
Pentcho Valev
pva... at (no spam) yahoo.com
I have done a ton of work on this. No one has even has a clue as to
what physically happens to bent light and the reference time
associated to it for observational frames.
It is simple and complete, but nobody seems to catch on. Maybe
because I haven't presented it yet?
I know you read a lot and are not very satisfied with the present
physic as we think we know it. Have you ever stepped back far enough
to re-analyze it? There is a certain point like somewhere between
alchemy and chemistry that can give a good starting point to be able
to re-analyze that science. The same with any other or physical
knowledge in general. Try it for a few years. If you are any good at
logic, you will find that all is rotten (in Denmark).
It's not that hard to find info enough to make a rational
investigation and find the physical logic. I did it before the
Internet. That should say something because I am here now and still
find no rational argument or theory that can circumvent or alter the
behavior of the physic as I saw/see it.
If you buy the argument that guesses are all we have and that some
work better than others, then there is where I am at.
I will not and cannot lie to you. I can't figure out how to connect
the observations of QM to GR. QM shows no recognition of gravity. GR
has no interface with QM. We can think on terms of one or the other,
each missing components the other.
I'm not doing a half-bad job of making that connection. I can connect
a gravity between them and give reason, but not much else for detail.
Not that reason and logic should be sloughed off here, but there is a
lot we haven't examined and what we already have examined comes with a
preconceived baggage of interpretation. Iow, what the public is
presented with is basically the resultant conclusion of the data ---
not raw data.
Perhaps another way of saying all of the above will be more
convincing.
I can use a different notion of the physic and get the same results as
GPS. The end result is the same. But I used the objective form of
the physic and then translated it into the common subjective form for
our observation. A completely different process that can separate the
objective physic from the subjective observance of it.
I shouldn't be able to do this if our present theories were the only
answer. This shows that we can math manipulate theories all we want
to get the correct subjectively measured result.
But more importantly, GR was supposed to simplify the matter.
Instead, it ended up in a quagmire of math with no clear physic as an
answer (except for self-generated math to try to keep up with
subjective observation).
Do you understand?- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
