The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: A stupid question.  (Read 3897 times)

Offline socratus

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 329
    • View Profile
A stupid question.
« on: 30/05/2009 07:15:33 »
A stupid question.
#
According to Einsteinís GRT the strong gravitation bends a space
 and this space will be curved. For example, the space around
the Sun  is curved and therefore some quantum of light bends its
 moving from the straight line.
The scientists named such space a Curved Universe. 
A stupid question:
Do astronauts see from Cosmos what we live in the
Curved space, in the Curved Universe?
===== . .
S.


 

Offline Vern

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2072
    • View Profile
    • Photonics
A stupid question.
« Reply #1 on: 30/05/2009 12:21:50 »
Astronauts would see starlight displaced when it is in close proximity to the sun if they could block the sunlight interference. This is taken as evidence that Einstein's theory of relativity is correct. The starlight is bent twice as much as it would be in Newton's version of gravity.

This article details Eddington's experiment
Quote from: the link
    *

      In 1915, Einstein finished his theory of general relativity, and found that the prediction for the deflection of starlight due to the Sun would be twice the prediction he published in 1911.
    *

      In 1919, Arthur Eddington led one expedition to observe the total solar eclipse, and found that the light was bent by the amount predicted by General Relativity.

Based on this timeline, prior to the 1919 eclipse, astronomers could have expected one of three results: no deflection at all, assuming a massless photon and Newtonian gravity; some deflection, assuming massless photon that was still accelerated in a Newtonian gravity well; or full deflection, assuming a massless photon in General Relativity.

It's interesting to note that there is some question as to whether or not the equipment and results of the 1919 eclipse expeditions really had the sensitivity to detect the starlight deflections that Eddington claimed. It may be that the researchers injected some of their expectations into the reported results. However, many subsequent (and more robust) observations have been performed, all of which confirm the reported deflection of starlight as that predicted by General Relativity.
« Last Edit: 30/05/2009 12:28:00 by Vern »
 

witsend

  • Guest
A stupid question.
« Reply #2 on: 30/05/2009 16:46:41 »
Space dont expanding or curving/bending!

JukriS - yet again I am entirely captivated by your post.  So Zen.  Do you ever constrain your thinking to known physical principles?

 
 

lyner

  • Guest
A stupid question.
« Reply #3 on: 02/06/2009 21:57:00 »
witsend
Was that one of the politest put-downs I have ever seen, or what?
 

witsend

  • Guest
A stupid question.
« Reply #4 on: 02/06/2009 23:09:45 »
sophiecentaur

I had no idea when joined this forum that there were so many people with so many extraordinary ways of looking at the world or expressing themselves.  I find it immensely entertaining.  I've read your profile and see that you're constantly exposed to 'unique' theories.  I'd love to know of these.  You already know my own 'take'.  I do sincerely hope it's half way as entertaining as I find these contributions.
 
 

Offline jerrygg38

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 781
  • Thanked: 27 times
    • View Profile
A stupid question.
« Reply #5 on: 11/06/2009 22:20:48 »
Astronauts would see starlight displaced when it is in close proximity to the sun if they could block the sunlight interference. This is taken as evidence that Einstein's theory of relativity is correct. The starlight is bent twice as much as it would be in Newton's version of gravity.
This article details Eddington's experiment
Quote from: the link

Vern I have never really studied this much. How would you calculate what Newton would calculate? Would he take the equivalent mass and then fly past the sun at the speed of light?
 
Since one second of my photon is 186,000 miles long, I would have to use a distributed mass that long each second. It seems that this line of mass would bend quite a lot.

  Also in my Doppler Space Time equations, the forward mass of the photon is high and the rearward mass is zero.

  Anyway I await what you say and then I will see if I can duplicate Einsteins equations an alternate way.
 I agree with Einstein because the gravitational field produces all the bends but Einsteins space time merely produces an equivalent solution to the real more complex gravitational solution.
   
 

Offline Vern

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2072
    • View Profile
    • Photonics
A stupid question.
« Reply #6 on: 11/06/2009 22:31:11 »
Quote from: jerrygg38
Anyway I await what you say and then I will see if I can duplicate Einsteins equations an alternate way.
 I agree with Einstein because the gravitational field produces all the bends but Einsteins space time merely produces an equivalent solution to the real more complex gravitational solution.

I've seen the equations but I would be afraid to try and recall from memory. The phenomenon made headlines when Eddington measured the offset. There is still some contention as to whether Eddington fudged the numbers but it is generally known now that the phenomenon does exist. Light bends its path twice as much as gravity alone can account for when it passes close to a star.

I have a different take on it. I suspect that bending the path of light creates an electric field on the outside of the bend that bends the path more in the same direction. The fine-structure constant is the ratio of the bend radius to the charge amplitude. This is the source of the electron's charge. :)

 

Offline jerrygg38

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 781
  • Thanked: 27 times
    • View Profile
A stupid question.
« Reply #7 on: 12/06/2009 02:12:10 »
Quote from: jerrygg38
Anyway I await what you say and then I will see if I can duplicate Einsteins equations an alternate way.
 I agree with Einstein because the gravitational field produces all the bends but Einsteins space time merely produces an equivalent solution to the real more complex gravitational solution.
.

I've seen the equations but I would be afraid to try and recall from memory. The phenomenon made headlines when Eddington measured the offset. There is still some contention as to whether Eddington fudged the numbers but it is generally known now that the phenomenon does exist. Light bends its path twice as much as gravity alone can account for when it passes close to a star.

I have a different take on it. I suspect that bending the path of light creates an electric field on the outside of the bend that bends the path more in the same direction. The fine-structure constant is the ratio of the bend radius to the charge amplitude. This is the source of the electron's charge. :)



That certainly is a possibility. You have a bipolar electron with the negative on the outside. I have a bipolar plus negative electron.  Both are possibilities
 

Offline Vern

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2072
    • View Profile
    • Photonics
A stupid question.
« Reply #8 on: 12/06/2009 02:27:24 »
Yes; negative outside; positive inside. I hope that there may be a way to test this hypothesis. Your idea is good. Maybe it could be real.
 

Offline jerrygg38

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 781
  • Thanked: 27 times
    • View Profile
A stupid question.
« Reply #9 on: 12/06/2009 02:37:32 »
Yes; negative outside; positive inside. I hope that there may be a way to test this hypothesis. Your idea is good. Maybe it could be real.


One thing good is that we basically agree on the electrical universe. You have a single universe. I have a triple universe of positive, negative and neutral.
  I do not have the fancy universe of string theory. The first time I saw their pictures I laughed. However it helped me to understand my simple universe where the distances between all the universes are only the plank radius.
  What I like about my universe is that the plus universe and the minus universe form a battery. Thus there is a constant electric field between the positive and negative universe. We live in the middle.

  Your bipolar photons can still exist in my triple universe. The plus side of your photon is in one universe and the negative side is in the negative universe. Therefore your electron has the negative universe on the outside and the positive universe on the inside.
  Then we end up with a little bit of string theory for your photons. thee is a lot of action at the plank radius. many dimensions are involved. It looks simple in your diagrams but in reality the interactions occur at very tiny distances.
  Anyway consider your photons to be part of the plus and minus universe and consider that a little bit of string theory can be added to your model. Then there will be only a little difference between us.
 

Offline Vern

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2072
    • View Profile
    • Photonics
A stupid question.
« Reply #10 on: 12/06/2009 13:39:03 »
Quote from: jerrygg38
Anyway consider your photons to be part of the plus and minus universe and consider that a little bit of string theory can be added to your model. Then there will be only a little difference between us.
I suspect that there is very little about string theory that is a connection to the real world except for the mathematical constructs. It is an exercise in arithmetic. But I suspect it is removed from reality otherwise.
 

Offline jerrygg38

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 781
  • Thanked: 27 times
    • View Profile
A stupid question.
« Reply #11 on: 12/06/2009 13:51:24 »
Quote from: jerrygg38
Anyway consider your photons to be part of the plus and minus universe and consider that a little bit of string theory can be added to your model. Then there will be only a little difference between us.
I suspect that there is very little about string theory that is a connection to the real world except for the mathematical constructs. It is an exercise in arithmetic. But I suspect it is removed from reality otherwise.

Yes. In many respects it is strange and funny. Not very practical. Not for Engineers.
 

The Naked Scientists Forum

A stupid question.
« Reply #11 on: 12/06/2009 13:51:24 »

 

SMF 2.0.10 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
SMFAds for Free Forums