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

Groups > sci.physics > #865467 > unrolled thread

Re: Gravitational lensing is JUST diffraction.

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.

Contents

  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

#865467 — Re: Gravitational lensing is JUST diffraction.

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.

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#865468

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.


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

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#865479

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.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#865664

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.

https://www.prodigitalsoftware.com/StarSpikesPro4.html


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

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#865471

On 11/30/2022 4:29 PM, 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.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 

....puffs on your bong is calling you....

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#865474

On Wednesday, November 30, 2022 at 2:29:29 PM UTC-8, 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. 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable, 
> to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable, 
> and challenge 
> the unchallengeable.

Put the bong down...

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics

csiph-web