- #1
... confirms Einstein's theory of general relativity with a precision that is 50 times greater than previous measurements
To my knowledge this was not quantitatively evaluated yet as a theory. But as soon as it is done it will us tell what really goes on, in terms of physics.
This method is nomally a mathematically elegant way, but causes us to forget the physics behind.
Originally posted by Coughlan
light does follow a strait path ok, but if lights path must be strait how can it traverse the curved space time?[?]
Originally posted by Coughlan
Ok so if you were to be riding on the photon then its path would apear to be strait, but if you looked at space and how the light traveled then it would be curved...sort of like walking only at slower speeds...
General Relativity of Einstein does in fact not explain gravity.... the only physics that adequately explains gravity is General Relativity
I think it is a different point.But this cannot come about until we better understand just exactly what spacetime itself is.
In this meaning it is not practical to use space and time in the way as Einstein did it. He is/was not wrong, but he was not very practical.
Einstein has not explained gravity, he only described the facts in a formal ("geometrized") mathematical way. The only quantitative parameter in gravity, the gravitational constant G, was not given by Einstein by a theoretical deduction, but was measured in experiments.
Let's start from a simple point.How do you figure? Einstein's use of space and time revolutionized physical thinking, correctly predicted many effects that were previously thought absurd, enabled the precise operation of the GPS system, and yields quantitative calculations that agree with reality better than any other known theory of gravitation.
What is the advantage to use the second way (Einstein)? We give up our traditional understanding of space (and of time in the general application). What do we get as a return?
Originally posted by Albrecht
When we look to the bending of light at the sun, which was observed at the sun eclipse experiment of 1922 (which made Einstein famous), this can be quantitatively explained by a normal refraction process.
I have asked at several occasions whether there are effects of General Relativity which cannot be explained in an analog way. Nobody told me such cases. If you can, please do, I would be really thankful.
Originally posted by Hurkyl
A more accurate understanding of space-time, gravitational bending of light, gravitational redshift, black holes, gravitational
waves, cosmic expansion (hubble redshift), GPS...
Sure, I accept special relativity. That means I accept the phenomena of contraction (of objects), dilation (of periodic processes), and the increase of mass at motion.Anyways, before I know how to respond, I must know if you accept special relativity.
That is definitely wrong.Originally posted by Ambitwistor
Gravitational light bending cannot be explained by refraction. In refraction, the angle of deflection must be dependent strongly on the wavelength of light. But experiments have shown that gravitational light bending is independent of wavelength.
Hafele-Keating is partially special relativity and is of course in agreement with the model I gave.Anyway, a "variable speed of light" theory of gravity such as you propose cannot account for the multitude of other experiments concerning gravity that do not involve the deflection of light (Hafele-Keating, Taylor-Hulse, Lense-Thirring, Friedmann cosmology, etc. etc.).
You are right that I have to prove my theory myself. But it helps me if you provide me material. So thank you for the reference given. I shall read it and then respond. I have already read something in livingreviews, but did not find conflicts yet.It is up to you to prove that your theory accounts for all known effects, not for other people to check your theory against all known effects. Get Cliff Will's book and calculate what your theory predicts for all of the standard tests of GR. (Some of these tests are summarized in http://www.livingreviews.org/Articl...me4/2001-4will/)
Originally posted by Albrecht
The velocity of light in a gravitational field does not depend on the wavelength, so the angle is also independent from the wavelength.
Hafele-Keating is partially special relativity and is of course in agreement with the model I gave. Lense-Thirring can also be explained by the refraction process, similar to the perihelion shift.
Formally what I am doing is just a mathematical transformation of the theory of Einstein into something different,
You are right that I have to prove my theory myself. But it helps me if you provide me material. So thank you for the reference given. I shall read it and then respond. I have already read something in livingreviews, but did not find conflicts yet.
No. What you are proposing does NOT fit with observations.Originally posted by Albrecht
That works also with the approach I gave you. But much easier to understand.
Thats basic classical physics except the part about gravity bending light. In any case, you said before that bending of light from the sun could be explained by the "normal refraction process." So which is it? Gravitational lensing (according to relativity) or atmosphereic refraction (according to classical physics)? Hint: only one can make predictions that fit with observations.That is definitely wrong.
If the velocity of light depends on the wavelength (like in a glass lens), then also the refraction angle depends on the wavelength. The velocity of light in a gravitational field does not depend on the wavelength, so the angle is also independent from the wavelength. That is basic classical physics.
Hafele-Keating:Originally posted by Ambitwistor
All right, prove it: where is your calculation of the magnitude of these effects?
Your field theory has only one independent component of the gravitational field: the speed of light at an event. GR has 10 independent components.
In particular, the gravitational field you obtain for the Sun is mathematically equivalent to the metric,
ds^2 = -c(r)^2 dt^2 + dx^2 + dy^2 + dz^2
If the velocity of light depends on the position, then there is always a refraction by simple geometrical reasons (length of the light path dependent on the position; you can also use Fermat's principle). Independent on what the reason of this dependency is. This causes in this context the gravitational lensing. Of course, nothing by atmosphere.Originally posted by russ_watters
In any case, you said before that bending of light from the sun could be explained by the "normal refraction process." So which is it? Gravitational lensing (according to relativity) or atmosphereic refraction
Originally posted by Albrecht
Normally in GR the dependency of time from the gravitational potential is taken as a fundamental fact. The change in c is deduced from it.
Lense-Thirring:
I did not do calculations, but from the refraction it is clear that an effect of this kind must happen.
- the gravitational potential is 1
- the gradient of the grav. pot. are another 3
- the internal components of an elementary particle which is subject to refraction are ca. 5 more
This is Minkowski metric which I do not use. I use the classical (Euklidian) metric also for special relativity as Lorentz and Poincare did. It works!
Originally posted by Albrecht
Regarding the measurement of G: The differences of the results are greatly outside the measurement uncertainties (many standard deviations). I guess for the reason: Gravity does not depend on the mass of the gravitational source but on something different, which is however quite strongly related to the mass (e.g. the number of charges of all kinds in the source object).
We had this discussion before. With reference to the Shapiro experiment. I you observe that a photon takes more time for the way from Earth to Venus and back if the path is close to the sun than you have the choice to assume that either:Originally posted by Ambitwistor
There isn't any change in c in GR.
It is a problem of time. But look: the model I have given yields the deflection by the sun precisely (like the model of Einstein) and it yields the gravitational acceleration of an object at rest also precisely (which I do not find at Einstein). These are the fundamentals, all the rest are consequences. I do not see any reason why the rest should not work.In any case, where is your calculation? You claim you have one, but where is it?
The internal oscillations within an elementary particle are the cause or the gravitational acceleration for a particle at rest. For details please refer to the site:So the coupling to gravity depends on internal components of the particle? What internal components? How is this consistent with tests of the Einstein equivalence principle?
I agree! But I did not expect this statement from you. But it shall be mentioned that the Lorentz aether theory is much easier to understand, and it conforms to quantum mechanics in contrast to Einstein.The Lorentz aether theory is mathematically equivalent to Minkowski spacetime: that's the whole point.
Originally posted by spacetravel101
... what I have documented (including experiments) can be found at www...[/URL]
I would appreciate feedabck[/QUOTE]
I shall respond to it. But please be patient for some days, I am presently on travel.
Originally posted by Albrecht
Both assumptions yield the same results, it is just a formal transformation. But 1. can be related to physical causes, 2. cannot.
It is a problem of time. But look: the model I have given yields the deflection by the sun precisely (like the model of Einstein)
and it yields the gravitational acceleration of an object at rest also precisely (which I do not find at Einstein).
I do not see any reason why the rest should not work.
The internal oscillations within an elementary particle are the cause or the gravitational acceleration for a particle at rest. For details please refer to the site:
http://www.ag-physics.org/gravity
There is no point about the equivalence principle. It is in fact not necessary.
But it shall be mentioned that the Lorentz aether theory is much easier to understand
and it conforms to quantum mechanics in contrast to Einstein.
That is correct. I do not take that as a physical cause.No, you simply do not accept Einstein's explanation as a "physical cause".
I have used classical refraction. That works also for large angles.As far as I can tell, you only have small deflections. What about large deflections? The GR prediction has been verified out to 90 degrees and more.
How can a curve spacetime make an object at rest moving? Please explain this by physical arguments.Einstein's theory predicts the acceleration of an object at rest.
If you accept gravitation as a process of refraction then all corresponding experiments (Eötvös etc.) are completely explained.The equivalence principle is an experimental fact
I do not follow the Lorentzian aether. The only difference to Einstein is that there is an absolute system at rest (which is required by quantum mechanics to my knowledge) and to assume that the phenomena: contraction, dilation, mass increase have true physical causes, not only a geometrized description. And if we use this understanding, we can understand a lot more in physics as main stream does now; and by the way: it is much easier.Special relativity is much easier to understand, for it gives the same results with fewer entities. It also explains why all effects should propagate at light speed, not just electromagnetic effects; Lorentz's aether supports electromagnetic waves, but there is no intrinsic reason why it should support other waves in the same way;
Originally posted by Albrecht
That is correct. I do not take that as a physical cause.
My opinion (which is shared by prominent physicists) is: we should go back to physics!
I have used classical refraction. That works also for large angles.
The question is, does it agree with the data at large angles. I seriously doubt you have even studied the data.
How can a curve spacetime make an object at rest moving? Please explain this by physical arguments.
Since you reject a priori that geometry is physical, of course I cannot make an argument concerning geometry that you would regard as "physical".
Nevertheless, general relativity correctly predicts the gravitational acceleration of a body at rest.
If you accept gravitation as a process of refraction then all corresponding experiments (Eötvös etc.) are completely explained.
I'm sorry, I only accept actual derivations and proofs, not your repeated assertions.
And if we use this understanding, we can understand a lot more in physics as main stream does now; and by the way: it is much easier.
As I mentioned in more detail earlier, you don't even have a theory, let alone one that is known to agree with all observations, let alone one that is "easier".
This seems to me as the fundamental logical error.Originally posted by Ambitwistor
You're welcome to your opinion, but the fact is that the geometry of spacetime is physically measurable and determines the dynamics of physical processes.
To my knowledge the Austian physicist Roman Sexl was not happy with Einstein's relativity. But he alway stated it very cautiously ("between the lines"). He gave me the idea to explain gravity by refraction. I guess he has tried it but was not successful. My model of an elementary particle ("basic particle model") made it working. This model, by the way, explains a lot of other things like e.g. the origin of (inertial) mass, quantitatively correct.Please do not pretend that prominent physicists reject Einstein's theory of gravity or its geometric interpretation.
(That means the equivalence principle)I'm sorry, I only accept actual derivations and proofs, not your repeated assertions.
Originally posted by Albrecht
This seems to me as the fundamental logical error.
You can measure the extension of objects, not of space. You can measure the speed of clocks, not of time.
To my knowledge the Austian physicist Roman Sexl was not happy with Einstein's relativity.
But he alway stated it very cautiously ("between the lines"). He gave me the idea to explain gravity by refraction. I guess he has tried it but was not successful. My model of an elementary particle ("basic particle model") made it working.
From the refraction approach of gravity the equivalence principle follows immeditately.
I do not know any other theory which explaines this.
I shall give you another example of the ability of this model: the determination of the Schwarzschild radius.
Question: which is the radius at which a photon is just captured by the gravitational field of an object into it's orbit?
The orbital acceleration of the photon in the orbit is
a = c^2/r
This has to be compensated by the gravitational acceleration
a = 2GM/r^2 (the grav. accel. of a light-like object)
Result by equating a:
r= 2GM/c^2
Actually, that's YOUR fundamental logical error. Or rather your misunderstanding of what "science" is on a most basic level.Originally posted by Albrecht
This seems to me as the fundamental logical error...
Space and time are entities of human abstraction. So we are free to define them at it seems practical to us. And I do not state that Einstein was not right, but I state that he was not practical for use in physics with his way of geometrization (what it in fact is).
Which type of circle do you mean? A circle of space? What would that mean?Originally posted by Ambitwistor
If you, for instance, measure the ratio of the circumference of a circle to its diameter, and it doesn't come out to π, space is not flat, by definition.
Roman Sexl was to my knowledge one of the best known specialists for relativity worldwide. He died middle of the 1980ies. No one should guess that he did not understand relativity.Lots of people weren't happy with the theory when it first came out. That's because it was new and different, and didn't have much experimental support.
I do not have and I do not need a specific theory of gravity. I refer mostly to classical physics. Refraction is not my invention but really classical physics, and it does happen in the context we discuss here. Refraction is not at all an option but an inevitable fact. The only special point is that I use particle physics as well. I use the internal oscillation of a particle as it follows from the Dirac equation for the electron, and I assume the same oscillation for a quark. Nothing more is necessary!An amusing claim, considering that (a) you don't have a theory of gravity, and (b) you don't know if the theory you do have works.
Of course I have. Please look to page 2 of my gravity website. I deduce from refraction:As I said, I do not accept repeated assertions, only derivations and proofs. You can claim all you want that thus-and-such follows from your theory, but you have not demonstrated it.
What do you mean by "explains this"? You can derive the equivalence principle from the axioms of either Newton's or Einstein's theory.
Can you please refer to an experiment which proves this?Light cannot escape GR black holes at all.
Thank you for this information. This is a good point to decide which way is correct. Can you please also for this case tell us an experiment (or direct observation) which can be used to make a decision?General relativity's prediction is r = 3GM/c2 for a circular photon orbit. It is r = 2GM/c2 for the Schwarzschild radius.
True, the words are all human inventions. But the word "size" (of an object) means something different than "space". And the size of something is measurable, space is not measurable.Originally posted by russ_watters
Time, space, mass, heat, etc are words invented by humans which are used to describe very real and measurable things.
I do not change definitions. But I try to show that the classical understanding of space and time was a practical one (not my invention), and that it is more related to a physical (instead of geometrized) understanding of the world to assume e.g. the contraction of objects rather than the contraction of space. Because we have very concrete physical causes for the contraction of objects; we do not have any similar for space.You cannot change definitions
Originally posted by Albrecht:
Formally what I am doing is just a mathematical transformation of the theory of Einstein into something different, which gives us the possibility to understand it as physical phenomena. So the results will not be different.
Originally posted by Albrecht
Which type of circle do you mean? A circle of space? What would that mean?
Roman Sexl was to my knowledge one of the best known specialists for relativity worldwide. He died middle of the 1980ies. No one should guess that he did not understand relativity.
I do not have and I do not need a specific theory of gravity.
Refraction is not my invention but really classical physics, and it does happen in the context we discuss here. Refraction is not at all an option but an inevitable fact.
Please look to page 2 of my gravity website. I deduce from refraction:
a = 2*GM/r^2 (for a light like object; for an object at rest it is half of it).
The equivalence principle was not derived from axioms of either Newton's or Einstein's theory, but it is an axiom in both theories.
Can you please refer to an experiment which proves this?
Can you please also for this case tell us an experiment (or direct observation) which can be used to make a decision?
No, it is meant that both statements are equivalent.Originally posted by Hurkyl
May I take your last post as an admission that this claim is incorrect?
How do you fix the radius? How do you measure the circumference? You will have to use some kind of mechanical (or optical) equipment. This equipment undergoes changes in a gravitational field. So there cannot be an independent measurement of the space itself.Originally posted by Ambitwistor
I mean, take a piece of string, sweep out a curve of fixed radius with it... .
Now I can ignore all your claims that your theory predicts gravitational effects, like influencing the orbits of planets.
The variance of the speed of light near a big object is an experimentally proven fact. Shapiro and his followers have made very precise measurement of it.This variable light speed theory you have concocted is not a "fact", and it is not ordinary refraction, either.
Of course, I said that. In the equation which I have derived, there is that factor between 1 and 2 which depends on the speed of the object. (And a factor very close to 1 causes the perihelion shift). But the result does not depend on properties of the object, that is the essential point of the equivalence principle.The equivalence principle applies to everything, not just light-like objects.
Both axioms you mention are "equivalent" to the equivalence principle. So one has the choice which version to take formally as the axiom.An axiom of Newton's theory is that F = GMm/r2. From that you can derive the equivalence principle. An axiom of Einstein's theory is that objects in gravitational motion along geodesics.
That was my question: How behave black holes in nature? Which experiment exists that shows it with sufficient precision?The point is that although you can "easily" derive properties of black holes in Newtonian gravity, they do not behave like black holes in Einsteinian gravity --- and they also do not behave like black holes in nature.
My question was: where is the experiment which is precise enough to decide about the factor of 1.5 ?This has been observed astronomically: the accretion disks outside black holes vanish abruptly close to the hole.