Path: csiph.com!weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.net!eternal-september.org!reader01.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: The Starmaker Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity,sci.physics Subject: Re: Gravitational lensing is JUST diffraction. Date: Wed, 30 Nov 2022 14:29:36 -0800 Organization: The Starmaker Organization Lines: 74 Message-ID: <6387D950.2B55@ix.netcom.com> References: <6386ECC2.65C6@ix.netcom.com> Reply-To: starmaker@ix.netcom.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Injection-Info: reader01.eternal-september.org; posting-host="e8fb9f5cc3e33abca97a24292b135406"; logging-data="2749358"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX194EJxkdM4P8t8z2sP+cnOLlY3N8BOZFIQ=" Cancel-Lock: sha1:F2bpG6eM5qwi7ncYNqvJGlBXbfU= X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.04Gold (WinNT; U) X-Antivirus-Status: Clean X-Antivirus: Avast (VPS 221130-12, 11/30/2022), Outbound message Xref: csiph.com sci.physics.relativity:596553 sci.physics:865467 The Starmaker wrote: > > Richard Hertz wrote: > > > > Distant sources of light (starlight, galaxy light) comes radially toward us, here on Earth. It's a flat frontwave because it's far enough, so components of any > > frequency travel at the same velocity. > > > > If a massive celestial object happens to be in the path of the source of light, > > a classical phenomenon of DUAL DIFFRACTION COULD HAPPEN. > > > > For this to happen (and it's NOT gravitational lensing), the diffraction index of > > the BOUNDARY of such celestial object HAS TO BE different of that of vacuum. > > > > Light pass TWICE through such BOUNDARY which, in the case of the Sun, > > can be interpreted as a spherical SHELL that surrounds the object that > > causes DIFFRACTION. > > > > As distant light ENTERS into such boundary, its components are affected > > differently due to a lower speed of light (n > 1, c' = c/n), so wavelengths > > are affected differently. BUT, when the light GETS OUT of the spherical shell, > > every component of the distant source of light IS RESTORED to its original > > wavelength. > > > > Meanwhile, in this DUAL DIFFRACTION EFFECT, frequency of light IS > > PRESERVED all the time, because THE ENERGY OF LIGHT can't change. > > > > But light path is deflected a little bit, enough to EMERGE from the boundary > > and keep moving TOWARD US, without any modification. > > > > As the DIFFRACTION EFFECT is completely dependent of the diffraction index > > AND IF the path of light was coming toward us, different PHOTOS show > > effects like: ring of light (the boundary n is constant for all the perimeter; > > light comes through ONE or TWO spots in the boundary of the interfering > > celestial body; many other effects, like the famous cross). > > > > CONCLUSION: Light diffraction by massive celestial bodies like the Sun (something that WORRIED Eddington enough to write an entire page on > > his 1919 report, claiming that it was impossible "for him") and the famous > > gravitational lensing ARE A GIANT LIE, an HOAX maintained for a century > > just to justify Einstein's calculation of 1.75 arcsec deflection. > > > > Gravitational lensing doesn't exist. It's just a mere diffraction phenomenon. > > > > And some people, of course NOT A RELATIVIST, know enough to write a > > paper about this. Of course, it's labeled as the work of a crank. But he's > > right. Here is the link (enjoy it and choke on it, Dono the cretin). > > > > Deflection of Light by Refraction, Not Gravity (Curve Geometry of Spacetime) > > > > https://medium.com/@GatotSoedarto/the-deflection-of-light-by-refraction-not-gravity-49b9bd919aba > > fake stars is wat it is... i thought i explained dis before... If you take one photo from dat Webb's space photographs... and remove/delete ALL the stars (dat you call Gravitational lensing) then you won't have anything left in the photo to look at....just a couple of...puffs. -- The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable, to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable, and challenge the unchallengeable.