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

Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #480450 > unrolled thread

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

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity

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: 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

#480450 — Re: Does Gravity Actually Bend Light? Or Are We Fooling Ourselves -- Again?

On 13/12/2018 16:22, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> kenseto wrote:

>> Gravity does not bend light. Massive body such as the sun will cause the medium that transmits light to be curved and thus light is being transmitted by these curved medium.
> 
> The only problem with that approach is that your "medium" does not have any
> measurable mass.

The medium which transmits light does have mass Thomas, it's
just ordinary matter of finite density, and it is certainly
going to be increasingly dense as one approaches the star's surface,
just as the air on this planet is more dense at ground level

Admittedly you were talking to Ken, and maybe you are
correct in saying that "Ken's medium" does not have mass,
but the "actual medium" certainly does have mass, and therefore
there will be refraction, causing light to bend (at least
to some extent) around any star, as Ken says eh!

keith stein

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#480453

On Saturday, December 22, 2018 at 7:18:09 PM UTC-8, Keith Stein wrote:

> The medium which transmits light does have mass...

So, let's see your empirical evidence to support that claim.

https://www.livescience.com/21456-empirical-evidence-a-definition.html

"Empirical evidence is information acquired by observation or experimentation. Scientists record and analyze this data. The process is a central part of the scientific method."

Put up or shut up, OK? Your constant drivel and empty claims don't matter at all.

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

#480456

On 12/22/18 9:18 PM, Keith Stein wrote:
> The medium which transmits light does have mass Thomas, it's
> just ordinary matter of finite density, 

NONSENSE! Ordinary matter does NOT "transmit light", because it is made 
of atoms, and "something" must "transmit light" between them. Of course 
in modern physics there is no "medium which transmits light", because 
light consists of photons (which propagate through the vacuum between 
atoms).

	Note that today the word "medium" in this context does
	refer to ordinary matter -- it RETARDS light, not
	"transmits" it.

You REALLY need to LEARN about the subject before attempting to write 
about it. Essentially everything you say is nonsense, because you refuse 
to STUDY. Just making stuff up and pretending it is true is HOPELESS, 
even when based on ancient texts.

Tom Roberts

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

#480492

On 23/12/2018 15:13, Tom Roberts wrote:
> On 12/22/18 9:18 PM, Keith Stein wrote:
>> The medium which transmits light does have mass Thomas, it's
>> just ordinary matter of finite density, 
> 
> NONSENSE! Ordinary matter does NOT "transmit light", because it is made 
> of atoms, and "something" must "transmit light" between them. Of course 
> in modern physics there is no "medium which transmits light", because 
> light consists of photons (which propagate through the vacuum between 
> atoms).
> 
>      Note that today the word "medium" in this context does
>      refer to ordinary matter -- it RETARDS light, not
>      "transmits" it.
> 
> You REALLY need to LEARN about the subject before attempting to write 
> about it. Essentially everything you say is nonsense, because you refuse 
> to STUDY. Just making stuff up and pretending it is true is HOPELESS, 
> even when based on ancient texts.
> 
> Tom Roberts

The truth is Mr.Roberts, that it is YOU who does not UNDERSTAND,
                   about MACROSCOPIC THEORY.
MAXWELL'S ELECTROMAGNETIC THEORY is a MACROSCOPIC theory, which means
that it treats everything, be it solid,liquid,or gas, as CONTINUOUS.
There are no atoms in "MACROSCOPIC" theory.
One could say that "NO ATOMS" is
  what "MACROSCOPIC" means eh!


The  "density" at every point throughout ALL SPACE,
will have a FINITE,non zero ,value,
  and yet ironically
"DENSITY" does not exist
     at a "POINT".

  Dose it
Mr.Roberts ?

keith stein

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

#480493

Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> writes:

>On 23/12/2018 15:13, Tom Roberts wrote:
>> On 12/22/18 9:18 PM, Keith Stein wrote:
>>> The medium which transmits light does have mass Thomas, it's
>>> just ordinary matter of finite density, 
>> 
>> NONSENSE! Ordinary matter does NOT "transmit light", because it is made 
>> of atoms, and "something" must "transmit light" between them. Of course 
>> in modern physics there is no "medium which transmits light", because 
>> light consists of photons (which propagate through the vacuum between 
>> atoms).
>> 
>>      Note that today the word "medium" in this context does
>>      refer to ordinary matter -- it RETARDS light, not
>>      "transmits" it.
>> 
>> You REALLY need to LEARN about the subject before attempting to write 
>> about it. Essentially everything you say is nonsense, because you refuse 
>> to STUDY. Just making stuff up and pretending it is true is HOPELESS, 
>> even when based on ancient texts.
>> 
>> Tom Roberts

>The truth is Mr.Roberts, that it is YOU who does not UNDERSTAND,
>                   about MACROSCOPIC THEORY.
>MAXWELL'S ELECTROMAGNETIC THEORY is a MACROSCOPIC theory, which means
>that it treats everything, be it solid,liquid,or gas, as CONTINUOUS.

A simplification is the continuous version of Maxwell's Theory.
Much simpler to treat the dielectric in a capacitor as a continuous
substance than a bunch of individual atoms...

>>There are no atoms in "MACROSCOPIC" theory.
>One could say that "NO ATOMS" is
>  what "MACROSCOPIC" means eh!

Which is why the macroscopic version isn't valid for a very sparse vacuum,
where the distance between atoms is large compared to wavelength. In such
a case, the light really does travel through a perfect vacuum between 
encounters with the odd gas molecule.

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

And a finite, zero value between atoms, for light with short enough
wavelength.

Tom's point was that a physical medium such as interstellar gas just
gets in the way of the light, slowing it slightly.

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.

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

#480498

                  MACROSCOPIC THEORY.
MAXWELL'S ELECTROMAGNETIC THEORY is a MACROSCOPIC theory, which means
that it treats everything, be it solid,liquid,or gas, as CONTINUOUS.
There are no atoms in "MACROSCOPIC" theory.
One could say that "NO ATOMS" is
  what "MACROSCOPIC" means eh!


The  "density" at every point throughout ALL SPACE,
will have a FINITE,non zero ,value,
  and yet ironically
"DENSITY" does not exist
     at a "POINT".

  Dose it
Mr.MORONEY ?


On 24/12/2018 17:30, Michael Moroney wrote:
> Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> writes: 
>> On 23/12/2018 15:13, Tom Roberts wrote:
>>> On 12/22/18 9:18 PM, Keith Stein wrote:

>>>> The medium which transmits light does have mass Thomas, it's
>>>> just ordinary matter of finite density,

>>> NONSENSE! Ordinary matter does NOT "transmit light", because it is made
>>> of atoms, and "something" must "transmit light" between them. Of course
>>> in modern physics there is no "medium which transmits light", because
>>> light consists of photons (which propagate through the vacuum between
>>> atoms).
>>>
>>>       Note that today the word "medium" in this context does
>>>       refer to ordinary matter -- it RETARDS light, not
>>>       "transmits" it.
>>>
>>> You REALLY need to LEARN about the subject before attempting to write
>>> about it. Essentially everything you say is nonsense, because you refuse
>>> to STUDY. Just making stuff up and pretending it is true is HOPELESS,
>>> even when based on ancient texts.
>>>
>>> Tom Roberts
> 
>> The truth is Mr.Moroney, that it is YOU who does not UNDERSTAND,
>>                    about MACROSCOPIC THEORY.
>> MAXWELL'S ELECTROMAGNETIC THEORY is a MACROSCOPIC theory, which means
>> that it treats everything, be it solid,liquid,or gas, as CONTINUOUS.
> 
> A simplification is the continuous version of Maxwell's Theory.
> Much simpler to treat the dielectric in a capacitor as a continuous
> substance than a bunch of individual atoms...
> 
>>> There are no atoms in "MACROSCOPIC" theory.
>> One could say that "NO ATOMS" is
>>   what "MACROSCOPIC" means eh!
> 
> Which is why the macroscopic version isn't valid for a very sparse vacuum,
> where the distance between atoms is large compared to wavelength. In such
> a case, the light really does travel through a perfect vacuum between
> encounters with the odd gas molecule.
> 
>> The  "density" at every point throughout ALL SPACE,
>> will have a FINITE,non zero ,value,
> 
> And a finite, zero value between atoms, for light with short enough
> wavelength.
> 
> Tom's point was that a physical medium such as interstellar gas just
> gets in the way of the light, slowing it slightly.
> 
> 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,
Mr. Moroney, and that speed is relative to the macroscopic medium,
not the observer, Mr.Moroney.

keith stein

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

#480508

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

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

#480522 — Re:MACROSCOPIC THEORY.

            MACROSCOPIC THEORY.

MAXWELL'S ELECTROMAGNETIC THEORY is a MACROSCOPIC theory, which means
that it treats everything, be it solid,liquid,or gas, as CONTINUOUS.
There are no atoms in "MACROSCOPIC" theory.One could say that
     "NO ATOMS" is what "MACROSCOPIC" means.


On 25/12/2018 01:33, Michael Moroney wrote:
> 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".
> 
> 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.

You miss the "POINT" Mr. Moroney. The point is that no POINT can
contain even a whole proton let alone a whole atom eh!, and i repeat
            "DENSITY" does not exist at a "POINT".

The same could also be said of other macroscopic parameters like
pressure, temperature, and even electric and magnetic field, because
in Maxwell's theory, as written by Maxwell, these latter parameters
do not vary according to the proximity of the electrons of an atom.
This is no doubt why Maxwell's theory does indeed break down at the 
atomic level.

Nevertheless Maxwell's theory works fine at the MACROSCOPIC LEVEL,
and you should note, Mr.Moroney, that there ain't nothing more
macroscopic than the intergalactic medium eh!

keith stein

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

#480531 — Re: MACROSCOPIC THEORY.

On 12/26/18 3:52 AM, Keith Stein wrote:
> MAXWELL'S ELECTROMAGNETIC THEORY is a MACROSCOPIC theory, which means
> that it treats everything, be it solid,liquid,or gas, as CONTINUOUS.
> There are no atoms in "MACROSCOPIC" theory.One could say that
>      "NO ATOMS" is what "MACROSCOPIC" means.

OK. But today we know that all such theories are WRONG, and are at best 
APPROXIMATIONS.

>             "DENSITY" does not exist at a "POINT".

In a CONTINUOUS theory it does -- you can take the limit as volume->0 of 
(mass in volume)/(volume) where the volume includes the point in 
question -- that DOES yield the density at that point.

	You confuse "macroscopic" with "continuous".

Of course this does not hold in the world we inhabit, because we KNOW 
that matter is not continuous, but is composed of discrete atoms.

> Nevertheless Maxwell's theory works fine at the MACROSCOPIC LEVEL,
> and you should note, Mr.Moroney, that there ain't nothing more
> macroscopic than the intergalactic medium eh!

As we keep telling you, this is WRONG. You confuse "macroscopic" with 
"continuous"; the assumption that the intergalactic medium is continuous 
is BLATANTLY WRONG, because there are MACROSCOPIC distances between 
discrete atoms.

NOBODY [#] uses Maxwell's original theory today, because we KNOW its 
assumptions are not valid (which include more than continuity). 
Physicists and engineers do use classical electrodynamics in regimes 
where its assumptions are valid, at least approximately. This includes 
astronomy, where the intergalactic medium is approximated as perfect 
vacuum. That approximation is valid for all practical purposes.

	[#] This includes YOU. You just posture and pretend. If
	you actually did use it, you would have calculated the
	effect of the intergalactic medium on the GRB that
	accompanied GW170817. We KNOW you have never done this,
	because those of us who have done so know that the
	answer implies that your claims are WRONG.
	Hint: the delay of the GRB was measured to be less than
	2 seconds over 40 MPc.

You keep making things up and pretending they are true, when it is QUITE 
CLEAR they do not apply in the world we inhabit. Your FANTASIES are 
HOPELESS.

Tom Roberts

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

#480532 — Re: MACROSCOPIC THEORY.

Tom Roberts wrote:

> On 12/26/18 3:52 AM, Keith Stein wrote:
>> MAXWELL'S ELECTROMAGNETIC THEORY is a MACROSCOPIC theory, which means
>> that it treats everything, be it solid,liquid,or gas, as CONTINUOUS.
>> There are no atoms in "MACROSCOPIC" theory.One could say that
>>      "NO ATOMS" is what "MACROSCOPIC" means.
> 
> OK. But today we know that all such theories are WRONG, and are at best
> APPROXIMATIONS.

Based on the above, relativity must be an approximation, as well. Its 
equation saying, that empty space or "spacetime" outputs energy, makes it 
directly wrong. It violates everything.

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

#480537 — Re: MACROSCOPIC THEORY.

Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> writes:

>            MACROSCOPIC THEORY.

>MAXWELL'S ELECTROMAGNETIC THEORY is a MACROSCOPIC theory, which means
>that it treats everything, be it solid,liquid,or gas, as CONTINUOUS.
>There are no atoms in "MACROSCOPIC" theory.One could say that
>     "NO ATOMS" is what "MACROSCOPIC" means.

1) As Tom points out, you confuse "continuous" with "macroscopic".
2) As I pointed out many times, for short wavelength light, your
macroscopic (continuous) approximation doesn't work since it is NOT
continuous.  Vacuum...vacuum...vacuum...vacuum...Atom!...vacuum...vacuum...
THAT is what a (short wavelength) wave sees.

>On 25/12/2018 01:33, Michael Moroney wrote:
>> 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".
>> 
>> 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.

>You miss the "POINT" Mr. Moroney. The point is that no POINT can
>contain even a whole proton let alone a whole atom eh!, and i repeat
>            "DENSITY" does not exist at a "POINT".

You miss the POINT that you have just disproved your own claim! For
small volumes the density is NOT a continuous value, it depends on
whether it contains an atom/proton/part of a proton or not. So the
intergalactic density is NOT continuous at a small level, so the
Macroscopic approximation of Maxwell's Equations does NOT work for short
enough wavelengths.
Vacuum...vacuum...vacuum...vacuum...Atom!...vacuum...vacuum...vacuum...

>The same could also be said of other macroscopic parameters like
>pressure, temperature, and even electric and magnetic field, because
>in Maxwell's theory, as written by Maxwell, these latter parameters
>do not vary according to the proximity of the electrons of an atom.

Absolutely wrong. I just need one of his equations to demonstrate this.
div(E) = rho/E0.
Meaning for any closed surface, Gauss' Law describes the enclosed charge.
Which could be an electron or proton.

Did you ever read this from Wikipedia?

"[Maxwell's] equations have two major variants. The microscopic Maxwell
equations have universal applicability, but are unwieldy for common
calculations.  They relate the electric and magnetic fields to total
charge and total current, including the complicated charges and currents
in materials at the atomic scale. The "macroscopic" Maxwell equations
define two new auxiliary fields that describe the large-scale behaviour of
matter without having to consider atomic scale charges and quantum
phenomena like spins.  However, their use requires experimentally
determined parameters for a phenomenological description of the
electromagnetic response of materials."

'Microscopic' equations work everywhere. 'Macroscopic' work only
under certain conditions.  As I have been saying all along!
>This is no doubt why Maxwell's theory does indeed break down at the 
>atomic level.

>Nevertheless Maxwell's theory works fine at the MACROSCOPIC LEVEL,
>and you should note, Mr.Moroney, that there ain't nothing more
>macroscopic than the intergalactic medium eh!

How big space is is irrelevant. Repeating a mistake a zillion times does
not correct it! It is the scale of 'the medium' compared to the light
wavelength that matters. For better and better vacuums, longer and longer
wavelength light experiences perfect vacuum conditions.

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

#480538 — Re: MACROSCOPIC THEORY.

On Wednesday, December 26, 2018 at 1:51:51 AM UTC-8, Keith Stein wrote:
> Maxwell's theory works fine at the MACROSCOPIC LEVEL...

Not true, since you use the term "Maxwell's theory" to refer to what James Clerk Maxwell thought, as distinct from what is commonly called Maxwell's theory today.  Maxwell interpreted his equations as being strictly applicable only in the rest frame of the luminiferous aether, which he very explicitly explained is *not* ordinary matter, and he was well aware that the aether is not appreciably dragged by ordinary matter (like air) with index of refraction very close to 1.  This is why (for example) he expected an experiment like the one Michelson later performed to yield fringe shifts proportional to (v/c)^2 where v is the orbital speed of the earth.  His expectation was falsified.  

It turned out that Maxwell's equations are actually more universal than he realized, and they apply in terms of every system of inertial coordinates (as do all the other equations of physics, including mechanics), not just one particular one.

It's easy to disprove the classical wave theory, such as by an Ives-Stilwell type of experiment.  The classical wave theory predicts 2(v/c)^2, consistent with what Maxwell thought, whereas the measured result is (v/c)^2, consistent with the modern understanding of Maxwell's equations and special relativity.

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

#480540 — Re: MACROSCOPIC THEORY.

On Wednesday, 26 December 2018 22:10:33 UTC+1, yeuro...@gmail.com  wrote:

> It's easy to disprove the classical wave theory, such as by an Ives-Stilwell type of experiment.  The classical wave theory predicts 2(v/c)^2, consistent with what Maxwell thought, whereas the measured result is (v/c)^2, consistent with the modern understanding of Maxwell's equations and special relativity.

Proving and disproving is always easy for a fanatic idiot. In real
world, however - measurement result depends on measurement procedure.

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

#480506

On 12/24/18 10:50 AM, Keith Stein wrote:
> On 23/12/2018 15:13, Tom Roberts wrote:
>> On 12/22/18 9:18 PM, Keith Stein wrote:
>>> The medium which transmits light does have mass Thomas, it's
>>> just ordinary matter of finite density, 
>>
>> NONSENSE! Ordinary matter does NOT "transmit light", because it is 
>> made of atoms, and "something" must "transmit light" between them. Of 
>> course in modern physics there is no "medium which transmits light", 
>> because light consists of photons (which propagate through the vacuum 
>> between atoms).
>>
>>      Note that today the word "medium" in this context does
>>      refer to ordinary matter -- it RETARDS light, not
>>      "transmits" it.
>>
>> You REALLY need to LEARN about the subject before attempting to write 
>> about it. Essentially everything you say is nonsense, because you 
>> refuse to STUDY. Just making stuff up and pretending it is true is 
>> HOPELESS, even when based on ancient texts.
>>
>> Tom Roberts
> 
> The truth is Mr.Roberts, that it is YOU who does not UNDERSTAND,
>                    about MACROSCOPIC THEORY.

Not so. It is YOU who does not understand what APPROXIMATION means. 
Because that is what any macroscopic theory actually is.

Tom Roberts

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity

csiph-web