Jump to content
Science Forums

Recommended Posts

I'm not sure you are a denier. I'm not sure what you are trying to do. I don't want to interfere with a genius at work.

Janus said:

For light path to be significantly bent, it has to pass very near the star and and not "far away". The equation is:

Angle of deflection = 4GM/rc^2

where M is the mass of the object and r is the distance the light passes from its center. The angle is in radians.

With our own Sun a light ray just skimming it surface is deflected by just 1.7 arc-seconds (~ 1/2100 of a degree)

A ray just skimming the surface of the Earth would be deflected by just 0.0006 arc-seconds ( less than 1/6,000,000 of a degree).

So while the gravity of a mass can deflect light, this effect is just too insignificant to account for the effect you are trying to posit.

It like trying to say that it was the collision with a bumble bee during its flight which caused a plane to be 10 min late arriving at the airport. While that collision would have had a very small brief effect on the plane's speed, It would have come nowhere close to producing enough of an effect to make the plane 10 min late.

It's not enough to say "A can effect B, therefore A can cause C", unless you can show that the effect that A has on B is significant enough to produce result C.

 

Not only that, but you can't just jump from " gravity bends light paths" to " Earth's gravity drags light with it" because one does lead to the other.

 

My answer:

Light deflected by just 0.0006 arc-seconds =1.6*10^-7 degree. (I don't know how fast it is here. I would appreciate it if anyone could tell me.)

The earth's revolution degree: 360/365*24*60*60 = 1.1415*10^- 5 degree/s.

If the time of light passing through the earth is 0.01 seconds, about 3000 km,the angle of rotation of the earth is 1.1415*10^- 7 degree. It can't be ignored!

 

Now let's analyze Eddington observation.

There are two reasons that can lead to the bending of the object's moving path, one is the effect of the force, resulting in the speed in the vertical direction, the other is the refraction caused by the inhomogeneous medium or field, resulting in the bending of the path. Then the bending of light is probably caused by the latter. The sun is surrounded by a circle of gravitational field, the stronger the gravitational field is. When the light passes through the gravitational field of the sun, the light bends like refraction due to the inhomogeneity of the gravitational field. The bending of this path is different from the bending caused by the direct action of gravity. So it is not suitable to calculate the bending angle of light with the classical theory of flat throw.

https://photos.app.goo.gl/1kPbdLVXdxm2qqVD6

In this paper, we have analyzed that no matter sun moves in the same or opposite direction or at a certain angle, the speed of light relative to sun will not change. In the calculation of the theory of flat throw, because there is an acceleration process under the pull of gravity at the beginning, before the acceleration caused by gravity becomes negative, the light will be more far away from the sun, less affected by gravity, so the deflection angle of light will be smaller. This is the reason why the deflection angle of light calculated by the classical theory of flat throw is too small. There is nothing wrong with Newtonian mechanics, but it was not used correctly that time.

Your data supports the idea that light is trapped by gravity.

The rotation of the earth does not affect the strength of the gravitational field, so we should consider the rotation of the earth around the sun.

 

I give up looking for breakthroughs in the formula of special relativity. Those are mathematics, there will be no flaws. We focus on the bending of the light.

Edited by TonyYuan2020
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 152
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Time to move this to alternate theories.

I don't judge a thing in general as right or wrong. I will analyze and ask questions one by one, waiting for the other party to answer.OK, let's continue to discuss it in depth. I hope our discussion

I did notice your red stamp in this thread.   I didn't remove it. :)

Posted Images

x = -v

Your scene is: x = (u+w)/(1+uw/c^2) = 0.862c ==> w=(x-u)/(1-ux/c^2)

E---------------------->A-------------------->B-------------------->E

.........u=0.2C...........................w=0.8C....................x=0.86C;

The combination of these three data (0.2, 0.8, 0.86) according to the formula must be right.

 

My scene is :w=(u+x)/(1+ux/c^21)=0.8C

B---------------------->E--------------------->A--------------------->B

................x=0.714C...................u=0.2C.....................w=0.8C

The combination of these three data (0.714, 0.2, 0.8C according to the formula must be right.

That's why we're different: (x-u)/(1-ux/c^2) != (u+x)/(1+ux/c^21).

Why does this happen? The reason for this difference is that my scene has changed the position of the earth.

Janus's : Earth......A...........B

mine: B..........Earth........A

So we only know the relative velocity between A,B and we don't know the position of the earth, we can't calculate the relative velocity to the earth. Even they're very close.

 

I give up looking for breakthroughs in the formula of special relativity. Those are mathematics, there will be no flaws. We focus on the bending of the light.

I must congratulate you for recognising you will not, after all, find flaws in the SR model.

 

This model does account for things like the cosmic ray muon observation, and the observed lifetimes of particles seen in experiments in particle accelerators. So it works when checked by experiment, which is what counts in science, however aesthetically displeasing it may be to some. 

 

I'll watch with interest now that you are attempting to move on to GR. Unless you are conversant with tensors, I have my doubts that you will get very far, but let's see. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I must congratulate you for recognising you will not, after all, find flaws in the SR model.

 

This model does account for things like the cosmic ray muon observation, and the observed lifetimes of particles seen in experiments in particle accelerators. So it works when checked by experiment, which is what counts in science, however aesthetically displeasing it may be to some. 

 

I'll watch with interest now that you are attempting to move on to GR. Unless you are conversant with tensors, I have my doubts that you will get very far, but let's see. 

A race between Newton and Einstein, who will win?

https://photos.google.com/photo/AF1QipPiogT4OFvz8gAvi-LHHCWNFKLEQUk6IGdGcgEw

 

The formula w = (u + x) / (1 + ux / C^2) looks ok

The formula t '= t * sqrt (1-v^2 / C^2) looks ok
But together, it's wrong.
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

A race between Newton and Einstein, who will win?

https://photos.google.com/photo/AF1QipPiogT4OFvz8gAvi-LHHCWNFKLEQUk6IGdGcgEw

 

The formula w = (u + x) / (1 + ux / C^2) looks ok

The formula t '= t * sqrt (1-v^2 / C^2) looks ok
But together, it's wrong.

 

That will be because you've cocked it up again.   (The second one looks wrong to me, though I'm not an expert.)  

 

Anyway these formulae have nothing to do with GR, they are SR. I thought you had conceded now that SR works. Or are you already backsliding? 

Edited by exchemist
Link to post
Share on other sites

That will be because you've cocked it up again.   (The second one looks wrong to me, though I'm not an expert.)  

 

Anyway these formulae have nothing to do with GR, they are SR. I thought you had conceded now that SR works. Or are you already backsliding? 

I am waiting for Janus's answer. He hasn't given an answer yet.

The formula of relativity mainly comes from Lorentz transformation. Maybe there have some clerical mistakes, It is important that you can understand what I mean.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Janus 58, who has given you a thorough reply on that forum, is a professional astronomer. He will know what he is talking about, so his reply will be worth considering carefully. 

He is a good physicist and we have a lot of discussion.
1. He thinks that the influence of the gravitational field on the bending of light is limited. But I think it's a big impact.
2. He thinks that special relativity is right. But I think it's wrong.
I have given a detailed analysis. Let's see his reply.
If Janus finally loses this debate, I hope you will think seriously, is special relativity really necessary?
 
Can you recommend some articles published by Janus?
Edited by TonyYuan2020
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

He is a good physicist and we have a lot of discussion.
1. He thinks that the influence of the gravitational field on the bending of light is limited. But I think it's a big impact.
2. He thinks that special relativity is right. But I think it's wrong.
I have given a detailed analysis. Let's see his reply.
If Janus finally loses this debate, I hope you will think seriously, is special relativity really necessary?
 
Can you recommend some articles published by Janus?

 

No. I do not know his real name - there are I think only 3 people I have come across on the internet whose real names I know.

 

Janus won't lose this debate, for two reasons:

 

1) SR and GR work. We know that. Both have been extensively tested by observation of nature and nobody has ever yet faulted them in their domain of application. You are not going to be able to fault either just by thought experiments. You would have to do some physics to show they give the wrong answers.

 

2) You are still making errors in algebra and in understanding, both of which are being pointed out to you regularly. I even found one myself, in your time dilation formula yesterday - and as a chemist I can barely do SR, let alone GR.  So I'm afraid you just don't have anything like the credibility to take on Janus, Albert and the whole of c.20th physics. 

 

What may happen of course, and I have alluded already to this, is that Janus and the others may get bored with you and stop responding. They are not single-issue obsessives, after all. You can always declare victory at that point, if you like. But you will be the only person who believes it.    

Link to post
Share on other sites

No. I do not know his real name - there are I think only 3 people I have come across on the internet whose real names I know.

 

Janus won't lose this debate, for two reasons:

 

1) SR and GR work. We know that. Both have been extensively tested by observation of nature and nobody has ever yet faulted them in their domain of application. You are not going to be able to fault either just by thought experiments. You would have to do some physics to show they give the wrong answers.

 

2) You are still making errors in algebra and in understanding, both of which are being pointed out to you regularly. I even found one myself, in your time dilation formula yesterday - and as a chemist I can barely do SR, let alone GR.  So I'm afraid you just don't have anything like the credibility to take on Janus, Albert and the whole of c.20th physics. 

 

What may happen of course, and I have alluded already to this, is that Janus and the others may get bored with you and stop responding. They are not single-issue obsessives, after all. You can always declare victory at that point, if you like. But you will be the only person who believes it.    

I will analyze it according to the specific data given by Janus. See if it's a rigorous calculation and a rigorous logical deduction.The scenario I designed is not complicated, so I believe Janus can give the answer directly.

I also give the calculation of the bending of light. The gravitational field of the earth really affects the bending of light, and this influence is decisive and cannot be ignored.

It is hoped that our discussion will affect the future of physics. So I'll put all my abilities into this discussion. For me, he is the best opponent.

Edited by TonyYuan2020
Link to post
Share on other sites
There are several scenarios here. The distances between A and B are the same.

If you are interested, you can try to answer the following questions based on these scenarios.


What is the relative speed of AB?

 


What is the relative speed of AB?

 


What is the relative speed of AB?

 



What are the speeds of A and B relative to C? 

A and B who will reach Earth first?

 



What are the speeds of A and B relative to C? 

A and B who will reach Earth first?


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's an excuse for the losers, and I'm sure Janus won't do it.

Janus, being a scientist and a good explainer, won't see this as a competition with a "winner" and a "loser". You sound like Trump :) .  

 

I think Janus will continue to explain how SR works, until he starts to feel he is wasting his time. At which point he will just stop responding and leave you dancing imbecilically up and down, chortling that you've "won", when all that's happened is he and the other readers have given you up as a hopeless case. How soon that moment arrives is in your hands, but your attitude (combative but seemingly unable to learn and adapt) suggests to me it could arrive quite soon.  

Link to post
Share on other sites

Janus, being a scientist and a good explainer, won't see this as a competition with a "winner" and a "loser". You sound like Trump :) .  

 

I think Janus will continue to explain how SR works, until he starts to feel he is wasting his time. At which point he will just stop responding and leave you dancing imbecilically up and down, chortling that you've "won", when all that's happened is he and the other readers have given you up as a hopeless case. How soon that moment arrives is in your hands, but your attitude (combative but seemingly unable to learn and adapt) suggests to me it could arrive quite soon.  

We are only pursuing scientific truth. No intention to offend anyone. I will respond to anyone who asks me questions. This is my respect for them and for myself.

Hope our efforts can reduce doubt for more people.

Edited by TonyYuan2020
Link to post
Share on other sites

Some friends asked me why the refraction of light can indicate that the speed of light has changed. Here is my explanation. This is the law of refraction.

https://photos.app.goo.gl/37wqMvBY1c9RvNQS8
Let the speed of light in media 1 and 2 be v1 and v2, and take the width of the beam as d.
If the left end of the beam is in contact with the interface at t = 0, then the right end of the beam will only touch the interface when t = dsinθ1 / v1, at this point, the left end of the beam has advanced v2 * dsinθ1 / v1.
sinθ2=(v2*dsinθ1 / v1)/d.
n1=c/v1; n2=c/v2, then we can get the well-known law of refraction: sinθ1/sinθ2 = v1/v2 = n2/n1.
The refraction of light must be due to a change in speed, either faster or slower. From the direction of light bending through the sun, the speed is slower.

Hope my explanation can help you understand my point.

Link to post
Share on other sites

https://photos.app.goo.gl/LbJoTK2q5dX11TBe7
There are usually two reasons that can cause the object's motion path to bend. One is the velocity caused by the force in the vertical direction, and the other is the refraction caused by the unevenness of the medium or the unevenness of the field. Then the bending of the light is probably caused by the latter. The sun is surrounded by the gravitational field. The gravitational field is stronger as it goes inside. When light passes through the gravitational field of the sun, the light is bent similarly to refraction due to the unevenness of the gravitational field. The curvature of this path is different from the curvature caused by the direct action of gravity on an object. Therefore, it is not appropriate to calculate the bending angle of light using the classic flat throw theory.
https://photos.app.goo.gl/fcHk2UjEQufwdmw1A
This is because the theory of flat throw thinks that there is a co-directional acceleration process under the pull of gravity at the beginning, before the acceleration caused by gravity becomes negative, the light will be farther away from the sun and the influence of gravity will be smaller. The deflection angle will also be smaller. This is the reason why the angle of light deflection calculated by the classic flat throw theory is too small. Newtonian mechanics is not wrong, but this time it was not used correctly.
The rotation of the earth does not affect the strength of the gravity field. We should consider the revolution of the earth around the sun, and the gravitational field moves with the earth. The data we calculated are basically consistent with the experimental observation data given by Janus. But Janus thinks that the gravitational field of the earth is too weak to affect the bending of light, which is wrong.

Light deflected by just 0.0006 arc-seconds =1.667*10^-7 degree. This is the observation data given by Janus.
The earth's angular speed360/365*24*60*60 = 1.1415*10^- 5 degree/s.This is my calculated angular speed of the Earth's revolution around the sun.
If the time of light passing through the earth is 0.01 seconds, about 3000 km,the angle of rotation of the earth is 1.1415*10^- 7 degree. It can't be ignored!

 

 I think that on the one hand, the gravitational field will cause the refraction of light, and on the other hand, because light will be pulled by gravity, the speed of light will be superimposed on the gravitational field, that is, the speed of the earth's revolution around the sun. So the speed of light relative to the earth is constant.

Note: Light is held by the gravitational field and the speed of light will be superimposed on the gravitational field. This is different from the classic flat throw theory.

Edited by TonyYuan2020
Link to post
Share on other sites

https://photos.app.goo.gl/jDgewZHgjeCPr4jG9
The strength of the gravitational field at a position X in space is not only related to the mass of the planet and the distance between them, but also to the relative speed of X and the planet's relative motion. This is a bit similar to the Doppler effect. If the planet is near the position X, the intensity of the gravitational field X will be greater than when it is relatively stationary. When the planet is away from the position X, the intensity of the gravitational field X will be less than their relative static intensity. The intensity of the gravitational field affects the speed of light. The stronger the gravitational field, the slower the speed of light, and the weaker the gravitational field, the faster the speed of light. If light enters a space with a constant gravitational field, the speed of light will no longer change.
 

I often mention that the speed of light on the earth is superimposed on the speed of the earth's revolution around the sun. The root cause of this superposition is that the gravitational field becomes stronger or weaker due to the relative speed of the earth and space, which affects the speed of light.

 

Have you ever thought that it would be easier to analyze this process with a moving gravitational field, and Newton's classical mechanics can calculate the planetary trajectory. This trajectory is exactly the geodesic described by general relativity. Although this deviation will be small relative to the stationary gravitational field, it is sufficient to explain Mercury's precession.

Edited by TonyYuan2020
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...