Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.physics > #865479

Re: Gravitational lensing is JUST diffraction.

Cross-posted to 2 groups.

Show all headers | View raw

The Starmaker wrote:
> 
> The Starmaker wrote:
> >
> > 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.
> 
> go ahead...remove all stars (dat you call  Gravitational lensing)
> https://media-cldnry.s-nbcnews.com/image/upload/rockcms/2022-07/220711-james-webb-telescope-first-image-high-res-ew-628p-44ff0c.jpg
> 
> they are all...fake stars.

Now, anyone can open the image in Photoshop and let's say
'Enlarge'/close-up the bottom left half of the photo and you
will see that the stars have been CLONED next to each other...exactly.

Someone took Photoshop clone tool and copy and paste the same star over
and over again.

It's all fake stars....down to the itty bitty ones.


It's fake.

FRAUD.









-- 
The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
 to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable,
and challenge
 the unchallengeable.

Back to sci.physics | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

Re: Gravitational lensing is JUST diffraction. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2022-11-30 14:29 -0800
  Re: Gravitational lensing is JUST diffraction. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2022-11-30 14:32 -0800
    Re: Gravitational lensing is JUST diffraction. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2022-11-30 22:09 -0800
    Re: Gravitational lensing is JUST diffraction. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2022-12-06 23:33 -0800
  Re: Gravitational lensing is JUST diffraction. Sergi o <invalid@invalid.com> - 2022-11-30 17:01 -0600
  Re: Gravitational lensing is JUST diffraction. Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> - 2022-11-30 17:33 -0800

csiph-web