0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

* 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.

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....sorry, you cannot view external links. To see them, please REGISTER or LOGINQuote from: the linkVern 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.

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.

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.

Quote from: jerrygg38Anyway 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. []

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.

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.

Quote from: jerrygg38Anyway 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.