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


Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #480508

Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again?

From moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney)
Newsgroups sci.physics.relativity
Subject Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again?
Date 2018-12-25 01:33 +0000
Organization The World : www.TheWorld.com : Since 1989
Message-ID <pvs1cn$6bj$3@pcls7.std.com> (permalink)
References (15 earlier) <P7DTD.43782$jz5.10565@fx41.am4> <BeGdnVpd2bm4O4LBnZ2dnUU7_8xg4p2d@giganews.com> <W68UD.54340$jz5.3833@fx41.am4> <pvr538$fp8$2@pcls7.std.com> <8Q9UD.128158$nd2.44517@fx22.am4>

Show all headers | View raw


Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> writes:


>The  "density" at every point throughout ALL SPACE,
>will have a FINITE,non zero ,value,

Wrong. Only as a simplification can this be done, when the simplification
is valid.

>  and yet ironically
>"DENSITY" does not exist
>     at a "POINT".

>  Dose it
>Mr.MORONEY ?

For very small volumes, the density will be 0 if the small volume does not
contain an atom, or nonzero if it contains an atom.

For larger volumes (such as with radio waves) the large volumes will
always contain about the same number of atoms, so their density will all
be about the same.

If the wavelength is large enough, you can use this simplification of 
Maxwell's Equations.

>> You want to argue that interstellar gas is continuous for radio waves?
>> Fine, an excellent model. You want to argue that interstellar gas is
>> continuous for X-rays?  Sorry, not valid.


>Radio waves, light waves, and x-rays, all travel at the same speed,

No, there is a small frequency dependent component for actual interstellar
space. This is used to guesstimate distance to pulsars.

>Mr. Moroney, and that speed is relative to the macroscopic medium,
>not the observer, Mr.Moroney.

Disproven by experiment. Ever since Fizeau and tests of the speed of light.

Remember:
"It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how
smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong."

-Richard P. Feynman

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


Thread

Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-12-23 03:18 +0000
  Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? pnalsing@gmail.com - 2018-12-22 20:12 -0800
  Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-12-23 09:13 -0600
    Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-12-24 16:50 +0000
      Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-12-24 17:30 +0000
        Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-12-24 18:46 +0000
          Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-12-25 01:33 +0000
            Re:MACROSCOPIC THEORY. Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-12-26 09:52 +0000
              Re: MACROSCOPIC THEORY. Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-12-26 09:33 -0600
                Re: MACROSCOPIC THEORY. Edko Czka <ziue@wuasrvi.kw> - 2018-12-26 17:19 +0000
              Re: MACROSCOPIC THEORY. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-12-26 18:10 +0000
              Re: MACROSCOPIC THEORY. yeurohenry@gmail.com - 2018-12-26 13:10 -0800
                Re: MACROSCOPIC THEORY. maluwozniak@gmail.com - 2018-12-26 13:21 -0800
      Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again? Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-12-24 18:26 -0600

csiph-web