• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Gravity is Bunk!!!

sol invictus said:
There's an entire subfield of astrophysics devoted to using gravitational lensing as a measure of the gravity of intervening masses.
Click to expand...

ah................. mass is causing it. Attaboy.

ie.... it sure aint 'space/time' bending.

There are thousands of observed strong lensing events. See here.
Click to expand...

ie...... they look through a telescope at mass a gazillion miles away and they cant figure out the 'shifts' and you consider that 'space/time' bending? That aint science, that is speculation.

There is not a single fact of space bending anywhere within any knowledge, that is true.

Perhaps you bent on religious beliefs just the same?


Again, you're wrong. Not only have black holes been observed that way, they've been observed much more directly - we've seen the light radiated by matter as it spirals in towards them,
Click to expand...

again, speculation as nothing has ever crossed the per se 'event horizon' and i havent heard of a star that dont spin.

Our solar system has comets going 'toward' our sun but it dont mean, space is bending.

and we've even observed individual objects (stars) perform complete orbits around them.
Click to expand...
i have watched the devlopment of hurricanes and how individual 'storms' orbit the 'eye'.....(from satalite imaging)

In the near future its probable that radio interferometry will advance to the point that we can image all the way down to very close to the horizon of the nearest, largest holes (such as Sagittarius A*).
Click to expand...

OK...............

still dont mean, space/time is bending!


Galactic rotation curves tell us that if our theories of gravity are correct,
Click to expand...
Sorry.............. it proved it was wrong. And why the physics had to invoke the creation of more mass (dark matter/energy), to fix the mathematical description of the universe.

What you just did was cloak your belief with a lie. Why not just admit the truth?

there's a lot of mass in big diffuse clouds around galaxies that we can't see in the optical or radio.
Click to expand...
funnnnnnny....:eye-poppi


that 'stuff' is just matter not within a star. Kind of like the kuiper belt of our solar system. And now if that much mass is wrapped around ONE star (the sun), then imagine how much mass is around a galaxy.

Then try comprehending that your lensing is just light passing through gazillions of miles of that same type of matter (not dark crap, not bending space/time and not magic)

Nonsense. All earth-based and solar system tests (some of which are extremely precise) are completely consistent with the theory of gravity we've had for nearly 100 years. They are inconsistent with Newton's theory from the 1700s.
Click to expand...

newton wrote the book on gravity, dood

calculus is based on it (you funny)



I've never been able to understand why people think gravity is this strange and mysterious force, but have no problem with (say) magnetism.
Click to expand...

magnetism is reproducible, gravity aint! ie.... have you ever produced gravity. in the newtonian sense of course?

It's some kind of bizarre psychological phenomenon, because it doesn't have any basis in physics.
Click to expand...

So to you, magnetism has no basis but we use it within these very computers and in about every form known of electricity and you think the math of physics is greater, than a natural, usable and reproducible phenomenon?



the bizarre psychological phenomenon is that a human being with toilet paper on the wall (phd) may often put their integrity in the trash to maintain their beliefs.


You are sharing the example of why i often compare religious wingnuts to many within the scientific community; will give up their sol to a lie!
 
Bishadi said:
ie...... they look through a telescope at mass a gazillion miles away and they cant figure out the 'shifts' and you consider that 'space/time' bending? That aint science, that is speculation.
Click to expand...

Sure.... and the earth is flat. These people that claim to have circumnavigated it just went in a circle, and the science that tells us planets are round, that's speculation!

Sorry.............. it proved it was wrong.
Click to expand...

No, Bishadi. You see, the whole point of science is that it can predict things that you didn't expect or didn't already know. In this case, observations plus our theory of gravity predicts the existence of some form of dark matter. To prove that wrong, you'll need to show no such matter is there - which (obviously) you haven't.

Alternatively you could come up with a theory that explains all the phenomena general relativity explains, and explains rotation curves without dark matter. Plenty of scientists are pursuing both avenues. For the moment, note that we already know for certain that there is a significant amount of dark matter in the universe in the form of massive neutrinos - not enough to explain the rotation curve data, but it shows that there is nothing surprising about the existence of a common form of matter we can't see easily with telescopes.

magnetism is reproducible, gravity aint! ie.... have you ever produced gravity. in the newtonian sense of course?
Click to expand...

Of course I have. Every time I move I produce gravity. Again, viewed from anything like your distance there is very little difference between gravity and electromagnetism.
 
sol invictus said:
Sure.... and the earth is flat. These people that claim to have circumnavigated it just went in a circle, and the science that tells us planets are round, that's speculation!
Click to expand...
a round earth was not predicted by the legends of the ptolemaic math, either.

ie.. the sol called mathematical minds of the time, didn't predict a round earth before observational fact and a human being suggested it.

No, Bishadi. You see, the whole point of science is that it can predict things that you didn't expect or didn't already know.
Click to expand...
i agree, the purpose of science is identifying a predictable explanation of phenomenon.

but the mass curve was/is evidence, that was not predicted! (ie... the math was wrong and the curve proved, what many believed had to have errors, so they created a new venue (dark matter/energy)
In this case, observations plus our theory of gravity predicts the existence of some form of dark matter.
Click to expand...
no it didn't. The original dark matter prediction had nothing to do with a 'new' material but that there is a bunch of mass within the universe that aint lit up. (fact)

but nothing in all the sciences predicted dark crap as many have begun to believe, it was another man made creation (just like words are)

To prove that wrong, you'll need to show no such matter is there - which (obviously) you haven't.
Click to expand...
i knew you held the god syndrom. (you gotta prove there is no gawd)

Alternatively you could come up with a theory that explains all the phenomena general relativity explains,
Click to expand...
then explain how life exists (upon mass). A simple amoeba would suffice; explain it all relative like!

and explains rotation curves without dark matter.
Click to expand...

no it didn't/don't.............. (that is another false claim)

Plenty of scientists are pursuing both avenues.
Click to expand...
i know that, you know that, and if both teams are so different, should give you a clue, the foundations to the physics, needs a rehash. (honestly speaking of course)

For the moment, note that we already know for certain that there is a significant amount of dark matter in the universe in the form of massive neutrinos
Click to expand...
another fib..................

that is a claim, that is bs............

a few may accept that, but it is like suggesting you have a sol and cant produce a single line items fact on that, other than a scripture (physics/math). ie.... but no evidence except what you hold as believed.




- not enough to explain the rotation curve data, but it shows that there is nothing surprising about the existence of a common form of matter we can't see easily with telescopes.
Click to expand...
common matter is not massless.

ie.... you aint eating neutrinos and poop (dark crap)

Of course I have. Every time I move I produce gravity.
Click to expand...
what is causal about that claim? i produce gravity, every time i move...........???????

motion is not producing gravity.


Again, viewed from anything like your distance there is very little difference between gravity and electromagnetism.
Click to expand...


let's talk about that!!!!!!!

have you ever heard of entanglement?

what causes it?
 
Bishadi said:
lots of mass, extending millions of miles above the Sun's surface
Click to expand...
First of all, the Sun's corona is very hot, but it is not a lot of mass. Secondly, you forgot to explain how the Sun produces a stable deflection of light exactly equal to the one predicted by Einstein.

Hot air makes the light fluctuate, the deflection caused by the Sun's mass does not fluctuate, it is stable.
 
Last edited:
Bishadi said:
ZERO proof of bent space/time. The eddington experiment has NEVER been consistant (and that is a soul invicting fact). I will claim right here, that any stars on the other side of a galaxy can/will be observed thru the eye of the 'black hole'.
Click to expand...
From this gibberish I think you mean that the original Eddington observation was wrong. That is almost right for once :eye-poppi!

The original Eddington observation is considered to be of poor quality. However the observation has been repeated several times and the result confirmed, i.e.
  1. the Sun bends light and
  2. the amount that the light bends agrees with General Relativity rather than Newtonian gravity.
 
steenkh said:
First of all, the Sun's corona is very hot, but it is not a lot of mass.
Click to expand...

the earth is 25,000 miles and the suns corona extends milllion of miles. Then you need to ask yourself, "is plasma 'mass'?

next


Secondly, you forgot to explain how the Sun produces a stable deflection of light exactly equal to the one predicted by Einstein.
Click to expand...


funny.

................One of the first considerations of gravitational deflection of light was published in 1801, when Johann Georg von Soldner pointed out that, according to the corpuscular theory of light, Newtonian gravity predicts that starlight will be deflected when it passes near a massive object. Since the particle theory of light was superceded by Maxwell's wave theory of light, this result fell into obscurity.

Noting that the action of acceleration is identical to that of gravity, according to the Equivalence principle Einstein reasoned that light thus must also be deflected by gravity[1]. Initially, in a paper published in 1911, using an early (and incomplete) formulation of General Relativity, Einstein had incorrectly calculated that the amount of light deflection would be the same as the Newtonian value.....................

.........For light grazing the surface of the sun, the approximate angular deflection is roughly 1.75 arcseconds. This is twice the value predicted by calculations using the Newtonian theory of gravity..............


>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>..Eddington developed the photographs on Principe, and attempted to measure the change in the stellar positions during the eclipse. On 3 June, despite the clouds that had reduced the quality of the plates, Eddington recorded in his notebook: "... one plate I measured gave a result agreeing with Einstein.".........................



..........Oh leave the Wise our measures to collate
One thing at least is certain, light has weight
One thing is certain and the rest debate
Light rays, when near the Sun, do not go straight. ”


—Arthur Stanley Eddington, RAS dinner

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Carcharoth/Article_incubator/Eddington_experiment

Hot air makes the light fluctuate, the deflection caused by the Sun's mass does not fluctuate, it is stable.
Click to expand...



perhaps you try the experiment, yourself............

a hot highway is about as consistant as the ONE PLATE from eddington that matched the prediction.


the predicted measurement has NEVER been consistent and that is a fact few comprehend.
 
Reality Check said:
From this gibberish I think you mean that the original Eddington observation was wrong. That is almost right for once :eye-poppi!

The original Eddington observation is considered to be of poor quality. However the observation has been repeated several times and the result confirmed, i.e.
  1. the Sun bends light and
  2. the amount that the light bends agrees with General Relativity rather than Newtonian gravity.
Click to expand...



show the evidence.

share the consistancy of an eclipse experiment.

bring it on!
 
The Photon under Newton's Law of Gravity would not change its path when going by the sun or any other mass because it is without mass, but it does change its path and so helps to show that Einstein is on the right path.

Paul

:) :) :)
 
Last edited:
Reality Check said:
Look up the 1922 Lick Observatory observation and the 1973 Texas University observation.

The consistency is shared.

brought it on!

ETA
Since you have a track record of being unable to do simple researchg before posting here is the 1973 observation:
Gravitational deflection of light: solar eclipse of 30 June 1973 I. Description of procedures and final result.
Click to expand...


that link is perhaps how you like science; a listing of why it is inconsistent.

ie... the majority of the paper is ranting on why so many errors and why the experiment is so inconsistent.

and then, the final resolve was; a difference from einsteins predictions




funny how you provide a paper in 1973, that is still consistent with what any honest person could have read from eddingtons experimentSSSSSSS.................... they are ALL inconsistent and always have been



honestly speaking, of course!
 
Bishadi said:
here is a link to give a few an idea of the experiment

http://www.public.iastate.edu/~cfehr/201 sp01 Eddington experiment diagram.htm

as simple as it is, that is what is being measured and the funny part is a mirage is just as consistent as the method of descibing the phenomenon as any math, by even einstein!
Click to expand...
That diagram shows that the experiment is really simple and nothing to do with a mirage.
Perhaps you are one of the few that has no idea of the experiment.
 
Reality Check said:
That diagram shows that the experiment is really simple and nothing to do with a mirage.
Perhaps you are one of the few that has no idea of the experiment.
Click to expand...


out of 18 plates from eddington, only ONE was good.................. (per eddington)

"

On 3 June, despite the clouds that had reduced the quality of the plates, Eddington recorded in his notebook: "... one plate I measured gave a result agreeing with Einstein.".........................


If that was the hadron, with a million per second, 1 out of 18 is not even a measure to speculate with.

The gibberish is you believe far more than you comprehend.

i offered the diagram so a few can see what the experiment was about and then what was measured as well, what the experimental results were.

what have you done besides put your credibility in the trash!
 
Last edited:
Bishadi said:
out of 18 plates from eddington, only ONE was good.................. (per eddington)
...
Click to expand...
I know that. And that ONE was good! So what?

Why are you obsessing with the Eddington experiment? Are you still ignorant of the other observations of the Sun bending light?

what have you done besides put your credibility in the trash!
 
Gravity??

For us dumbed down folks.. Well try jumping up and down real hard and see how high you can get. Minus the bong hits of course.....
 
General question to anyone:
I thought that orbits were influenced by gravity in a not so obvious way. Take the Moon and Earth. My basic understanding is that the Moon is constantly falling towards Earth but its velocity causes it to constantly miss. Is this correct and is it how all orbits work?
 
Nancarrow said:
Worm's post basically explained it all pretty well, but I thought I'd add something anyway. The theory we have to explain how things move is called Newtonian Mechanics. Well, it works well enough for things from the size of dust motes to the size of stars anyway. In order to work out how things move, you've got to consider ALL the forces acting on those things, not just some of them. "Centrifugal force"* is slinging you away from the earth, but "gravitational force" is pulling you towards the earth, and the latter is much much stronger than the former.

If we could spin the earth faster and faster, the centrifugal force would increase. Eventually it would indeed become so large that it would be bigger than the gravitational force keeping us down, and so we would be slung off into space. As would pieces of the earth itself I expect.


*nitpick - "centrifugal force" is a very mildly dodgy concept, you really need to learn about frames of reference in order to understand it properly, but that's not really something to go into here.
Click to expand...
Or move to centripetal force which is the preferred term now (and for a number of years (yes, I am old enough to have originally been taught centrifugal)), last I checked.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom