Gravitational lensing not caused by bending of space

[BazBear]

Originally Posted by Anders Lindman

You seem to believe that Einstein's relativity has been confirmed by thousands of experiments. I suspect that's wrong, and that basically all scientists just take Einstein's relativity for granted.

I've seen you suspect a lot of things, Anders, and I've yet to see you be right about any of your trollish suspicions.

Accounting for relativity is necessary for GPS, as well as the Russian GLONASS, Chinese Compass, and EU Galileo sat nav systems. These are not experiments, these are real world, mission critical applications.

[BazBear]

Originally Posted by Anders Lindman

So said the priests hundreds of years ago when they read from the Bible to the masses in Latin.

Dixit et troglodytam ad rationalem populus.

[Anders Lindman]

Originally Posted by BazBear

I've seen you suspect a lot of things, Anders, and I've yet to see you be right about any of your trollish suspicions.

Accounting for relativity is necessary for GPS, as well as the Russian GLONASS, Chinese Compass, and EU Galileo sat nav systems. These are not experiments, these are real world, mission critical applications.

Can you show that Einstein's relativity has to be compensated for in the GPS receivers? That would be a stronger evidence imo than merely changing the clock frequency in the satellites which are controlled by very few people and therefore easily can be faked.

[Fizil]

Originally Posted by Anders Lindman

To be fair, this looks to me like a pretty good evidence for Einstein's special relativity:

"The impact of Einstein’s theory of special relativity on particle accelerators

Abstract

We describe the consequences of the theory of special relativity on
particle accelerators and present a historical overview of their evolution and
contributions to science and the present limitations of existing accelerator
technology. We report recent results of our experiment where we succeeded
in accelerating relativistic electrons with visible light in vacuum. The
experimental demonstration is the first of its kind and is the proof of
principle for future linear laser-driven particle acceleration schemes in vacuum
that may lead to the realization of electron–positron colliders beyond the
TeV scale." -- http://www.stanford.edu/~rlbyer/PDF_...s/2005/407.pdf

From the paper: "Einstein already predicted that accelerating electrons gain arbitrarily large kinetic energies as they approach the speed of light, which he argued they can never reach [1]. Thus, once a particle’s speed is close to c, its kinetic energy increases by its apparent increase of mass and not by a change in speed."

Not even I with my humongous conspiracy theories can explain away the fact of increasing energy of particles nearing the speed of light. Hmm... Still, it may be a way of explaining that without the need for Einstein's relativity. Maybe.

Special Relativity is incredibly well founded, and modern quantum mechanical theories take it into account in their equations. General Relativity is merely the logical consequence of Einstein's attempt to extend Special Relativity to cover gravity.

In fact the integration of Special Relativity into Quantum Field Theory is pretty fascinating. I'm not sure if I will explain this well, but there are invariances that have to hold in quantum systems. If an invariant property of a particle changes it has to change across the entire wave function. However Special Relativity tells us that cannot happen because it would require information on the state of the system to travel faster than light. Therefore the theories have to be formulated in such a way as to allow the wave function to have say spin +1/2 here, and -1/2 there so to speak. This breaks the wave equation that describes to evolution of the system. The solution was to add correcting terms. This is something like doing a math problem and coming up with an answer of 3, then looking in the back of the book and seeing your answer is -3, then going back and adding a 'times -1' at the end of the calculation and adding the minus sign in the answer. However, what the theorists discovered was that these seemingly arbitrary corrections described something. In a particle that interacts with the electromagnetic field, there was a correction that describes the electromagnetic interaction. In particle that interacts with the weak force, there are several corrections for the various ways to interact with the weak force (there are three different interaction particles for the weak force), and so on and so forth.

Essentially special relativity forced interaction terms into the mathematics to deal with local gauge invariance. I'm sure someone else could explain it better, since this subject is on the very edge of my understanding of quantum mechanics.

The point is, not only is Special Relativity well supported by loads of evidence, but it feels true because of the way it interacts with our other theories of nature in such........ natural ways.

[Hercules Rockefeller]

Originally Posted by Anders Lindman

Can you show that Einstein's relativity has to be compensated for in the GPS receivers? That would be a stronger evidence imo than merely changing the clock frequency in the satellites which are controlled by very few people and therefore easily can be faked.

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the JREF. The JREF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

[dasmiller]

Originally Posted by Anders Lindman

Can you show that Einstein's relativity has to be compensated for in the GPS receivers? That would be a stronger evidence imo than merely changing the clock frequency in the satellites which are controlled by very few people and therefore easily can be faked.

Actually, when you count up the people involved in specing, procuring, manufacturing, testing, and and operating the clocks, I don't think you could keep a secret like that with "very few" people. And a number of them are friends and coworkers of mine; it's inconceivable to me that they'd all be conspiring to cover up a massive hoax coordinated among the Air Force, Boeing, Lockheed-Martin, ITT, Aerospace Corp, NRL, and SAIC (off the top of my head).

And that doesn't include Galileo, GLONASS, the entire field of astrophysics, NASA . . .

[Fizil]

Originally Posted by dasmiller

Actually, when you count up the people involved in specing, procuring, manufacturing, testing, and and operating the clocks, I don't think you could keep a secret like that with "very few" people. And a number of them are friends and coworkers of mine; it's inconceivable to me that they'd all be conspiring to cover up a massive hoax coordinated among the Air Force, Boeing, Lockheed-Martin, ITT, Aerospace Corp, NRL, and SAIC (off the top of my head).

And that doesn't include Galileo, GLONASS, the entire field of astrophysics, NASA . . .

The only explanation is that you are in on it.

[Anders Lindman]

Originally Posted by Fizil

Special Relativity is incredibly well founded, ...

BUT, I now came to think of possible conspiracy theory even for the particle accelerators:

That they speeds they claim the particles have, that that is NOT a direct measurement and instead a DERIVED value from Einstein's special relativity itself!

Such as:

"How Fast?

How fast was it going? Pretty fast. The total mass-energy of a particle is given in special relativity by the equation: " -- http://www.fourmilab.ch/documents/ohmygodpart.html/

In the quoted example, it's not a proof of Einstein's special relativity and instead a value for the speed of the particle derived from SR via its energy.

[dasmiller]

Originally Posted by Fizil

The only explanation is that you are in on it.

Well, shouldn't I be getting paid for it, then? I don't conspire for free!

[Fizil]

Originally Posted by Anders Lindman

BUT, I now came to think of possible conspiracy theory even for the particle accelerators:

That they speeds they claim the particles have, that that is NOT a direct measurement and instead a DERIVED value from Einstein's special relativity itself!

Such as:

"How Fast?

How fast was it going? Pretty fast. The total mass-energy of a particle is given in special relativity by the equation: http://www.fourmilab.ch/documents/oh...igures/eq1.png" -- http://www.fourmilab.ch/documents/ohmygodpart.html/

In the quoted example, it's not a proof of Einstein's special relativity and instead a value for the speed of the particle derived from SR via its energy.

I don't see what that has to do with particle accelerators, that page is talking about the measurement of cosmic ray. Furthermore they know what they detected was a proton. Since we know the rest mass of a proton, and the measured mass is DIFFERENT, what causes the difference? The freakin velocity of the proton that is what. What theory tells us that mass changes with velocity...... Special Relativity.

[Fizil]

Originally Posted by dasmiller

Well, shouldn't I be getting paid for it, then? I don't conspire for free!

It's all about the perks man, like the ski chalet we have in Aspen.

Opps!

[Anders Lindman]

Originally Posted by Fizil

I don't see what that has to do with particle accelerators, that page is talking about the measurement of cosmic ray. Furthermore they know what they detected was a proton. Since we know the rest mass of a proton, and the measured mass is DIFFERENT, what causes the difference? The freakin velocity of the proton that is what. What theory tells us that mass changes with velocity...... Special Relativity.

Yeah, but what is the velocity? And how is it measured? Is the speed of light in vacuum really constant at c?

"I seem to remember being taught in high school physics that radio waves only travelled at 200 million m/s, but can't find anything to back that up." -- http://www.blurtit.com/q536187.html

That's only 2/3 of c! What if the speed of electromagnetic radiation is proportional to its frequency?! Pretty huge conspiracy theory again, but anyway.

[Anders Lindman]

Extremely unreliable source, but I found it fascinating (about the speed of radio waves in air):

"No, definately a far cry from the speed of light.

FM waves travels at different speeds depending on their wavelength. Same with AM." -- http://forums.anandtech.com/archive/.../t-787519.html


Different speed depending on frequency!

[Anders Lindman]

Here is the ordinary mainstream explanation:

"The speed of light in air (at standard temperature and pressure) is very close to the speed of light in vacuum (the refractive index of air, n, is 1.0002926, meaning that the speed of electromagnetic waves in air is c/n ≈ c)." -- http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/electromagnetic_wave

That is to say, all electromagnetic waves travel at the same speed regardless of frequency. But is that really true?

[Fizil]

Originally Posted by Anders Lindman

Yeah, but what is the velocity? And how is it measured? Is the speed of light in vacuum really constant at c?

"I seem to remember being taught in high school physics that radio waves only travelled at 200 million m/s, but can't find anything to back that up." -- http://www.blurtit.com/q536187.html

That's only 2/3 of c! What if the speed of electromagnetic radiation is proportional to its frequency?! Pretty huge conspiracy theory again, but anyway.

Well someone thinking they were taught that in high school, that is incredibly strong evidence for a variable speed of light..... Are you seriously using that as some sort of evidence?

[phunk]

Originally Posted by Anders Lindman

Yeah, but what is the velocity? And how is it measured? Is the speed of light in vacuum really constant at c?

If you understood how accelerators worked, you'd know that they could not work at all without the speed being exactly what it is expected to be. The electromagnets that accelerate the particles have to be energized with precise timing.

[Hercules Rockefeller]

Originally Posted by Anders Lindman

Extremely unreliable source, but I found it fascinating (about the speed of radio waves in air):

"No, definately a far cry from the speed of light.

FM waves travels at different speeds depending on their wavelength. Same with AM." -- http://forums.anandtech.com/archive/.../t-787519.html


Different speed depending on frequency!

No.

http://www.aip.org/enews/physnews/19...t/pnu432-2.htm

[Anders Lindman]

Originally Posted by Hercules Rockefeller

No.

http://www.aip.org/enews/physnews/19...t/pnu432-2.htm

But what if the gamma ray burst is of a single frequency, and when it hits the Earth's atmosphere it becomes smeared out over a spectrum of frequencies? Has this kind of measurement been done far away from Earth in space?

[Anders Lindman]

Originally Posted by phunk

If you understood how accelerators worked, you'd know that they could not work at all without the speed being exactly what it is expected to be. The electromagnets that accelerate the particles have to be energized with precise timing.

If special relativity is correct, then the electrons for switching the magnets would travel in the electric wires with a velocity relative to the particles being accelerated. Is that kind of effect really taken into account? How to time the switches correctly with that kind of relativistic speeds (both the accelerated particles and the electrons in the wires are traveling near the speed of light)?

[dlorde]

Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim

You are, of course, free to have whatever opinion about whatever you like. It's just if you're at all concerned about whether your opinions accurately reflect reality or not that you'll need to educate yourself.

This ^

[Alareth]

Why is this in Conspiracy Theories?

[Anders Lindman]

Originally Posted by Fizil

Well someone thinking they were taught that in high school, that is incredibly strong evidence for a variable speed of light..... Are you seriously using that as some sort of evidence?

No, not really. That's pretty much a useless reference. But I thought it was an interesting remark. I like to check even the most crazy conspiracy theories, to cover all the bases.

[dlorde]

Originally Posted by Anders Lindman

Do you have any reliable sources?

Fizil gave you some.

[Hercules Rockefeller]

Originally Posted by Anders Lindman

But what if the gamma ray burst is of a single frequency, and when it hits the Earth's atmosphere it becomes smeared out over a spectrum of frequencies? Has this kind of measurement been done far away from Earth in space?

Yes, I'll see if I can find it.

[Mudcat]

Originally Posted by Alareth

Why is this in Conspiracy Theories?

Because its an Anders Lindman thread. Einstein's theories are fraud, so free energy. Or no nukes. Or government coverup. Or some stupid like that.

[Anders Lindman]

Originally Posted by dlorde

Fizil gave you some.

Just theories isn't enough for me. For example, the electromagnets at the CERN particle accelerator must be HUGE, so how the heck can they switch those magnets on and off at incredible frequencies? Even if that would be possible in theory in some way, how can they achieve something like that in practice?

[dlorde]

Originally Posted by Alareth

Why is this in Conspiracy Theories?

There doesn't seem to be a troll forum.

I keep wondering which is more probable:

That Einstein's GR/SR is a 100 year-old global conspiracy by hundreds of thousands of people, for no apparent reason, requiring all new students to be recruited or silenced, and that all experiments and calculations be faked or suppressed by no-one knows who and for reasons no-one knows why;

Or that Anders is an idiot or a troll...

Tricky one.

[BazBear]

Originally Posted by Anders Lindman

Can you show that Einstein's relativity has to be compensated for in the GPS receivers? That would be a stronger evidence imo than merely changing the clock frequency in the satellites which are controlled by very few people and therefore easily can be faked.

You're the one making the claim that they don't have to account for it...your extraordinary claim, your burden of proof.

[Hercules Rockefeller]

Originally Posted by Hercules Rockefeller

Yes, I'll see if I can find it.

Here you go Anders.

http://news.stanford.edu/news/2009/o...ry-102809.html

Quote:

A pair of gamma-ray photons – one possessed of a million times the energy of the other – arrived at virtually the same instant at NASA's orbiting Fermi Gamma-ray Space Telescope, where the Large Area Telescope, for which Stanford's Peter Michelson is principal investigator, detected them after a 7.3 billion year race across the universe. Some proponents of alternatives to Einstein's theory of gravity would have predicted that the more energetic would have interacted with more matter along the way and thus been much farther behind the less energetic one. They were wrong – Einstein wins this round.

[phunk]

Originally Posted by Anders Lindman

Just theories isn't enough for me. For example, the electromagnets at the CERN particle accelerator must be HUGE, so how the heck can they switch those magnets on and off at incredible frequencies? Even if that would be possible in theory in some way, how can they achieve something like that in practice?

They don't. The magnets are used for steering the beam, they aren't switched on and off. The acceleration is done with electric fields switched on and off at the right frequency.

[dudalb]

Interesting bit of Anders Wierdness,but I don't see much of a conspiracy here. Maybe it should be moved to the Science Section?

[BazBear]

Originally Posted by dudalb

Interesting bit of Anders Wierdness,but I don't see much of a conspiracy here. Maybe it should be moved to the Science Section?

I think Anders started it elsewhere, and a mod dumped it in here.

[Anders Lindman]

Originally Posted by Hercules Rockefeller

Here you go Anders.

http://news.stanford.edu/news/2009/o...ry-102809.html

That could be true, OR, to be super skeptical, it could be that a single high-energy photon got shattered (hitting space dust) just in front of the detector into two photons! Or NASA has totally fabricated the data since it's so easy to do that when it comes to measurements in space since so few people have access to that.

[Anders Lindman]

Originally Posted by phunk

They don't. The magnets are used for steering the beam, they aren't switched on and off. The acceleration is done with electric fields switched on and off at the right frequency.

Ok, but the electrons that switch on and off the electric fields will have to be timed relativistically, or? Maybe they use fiber optics going around the accelerator to switch the electric fields, but that still would require relativistic calculations of the timing of the photons.

[Anders Lindman]

Ouch, stars are pinpoints of white light, and white light has a broad spectrum of frequencies, and if the different frequencies of light would travel at different speeds then the picture of the star seen from Earth would become smeared out, since the stars move relative to Earth over such vast distances where it takes light years to travel.

So the speed of light is constant at a value of c. Obvious fact, but I just wanted to make sure, from a super paranoid conspiracy perspective.

[Anders Lindman]

Is it possible that light is always emitted at a speed of c, yet with Newtonian physics, so that for example light from a star moving towards us at a velocity v has the speed c+v and light from a star moving away from us at a velocity u has the speed c-u relative to Earth?

Has the speed of light from stars (or other astronomical objects such as galaxies) ever been measured?

ETA: Oops, I guess variable speed of light wouldn't work:



De Sitter double star experiment -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Sitt...tar_experiment

Will investigate it a bit more though to confirm De Sitter's experiment.

[Anders Lindman]

Here is a counter argument to De Sitter's experiment:

"Willem De Sitter conducted a study of double stars in 1913 wherein he
observed double stars hoping to see a warped image of them that he
anticipated would emerge if the speed of light is variable. (1) He
reasoned that if the speed of light is variable, that the photons emitted
when the stars was coming into our general direction would interfere with
those coming toward us with the star in retrograde.

This however would not happen if the speed of light isn't constant, for the
two sets of photons would never have a chance to interfere with one another
until they reach us, because the orbit of stars, like the orbit of planet
Earth, is elliptical in nature - they don't just oscillate on the Z plane,
but rather there is movement on the X and/or Y plane as well. The two sets
of photons would never intersect until reaching us unless two microscopic
photons collide and happen to veer toward us as a result, but with the
distance involved and the size of photons this would be the exception not
the rule, and all things considered we probably wouldn't notice." -- http://pseudochaos.blogspot.se/2011/...xperiment.html

[Anders Lindman]

After doing some web searches I couldn't find any source about measuring the speed of light from stars, except perhaps some old measurement from the 16 hundreds or something like that.

It would be very easy to measure for example the radio signals from pulsars with two different receivers placed at different altitudes and then compare the signals to determine the speed of the electromagnetic radiation. And then repeat that for different pulsars, some who move towards Earth and others who move away from us.

[Anders Lindman]

If Einstein's relativity is a hoax and for example gravitational lensing is caused by photons having actual rest mass, then why not just expose that publicly? I don't think it's a crime to create hoax theories, even though I don't know if it's a particularly moral thing to do, hehe. No, the problem is more likely that public mainstream science has a 'reputation' of 'authority' to uphold, and so in that sense the professional scientists will become like cranky little children if their emperor Einstein is shown to have 'no clothes'. And a more serious reason may be that the real science and knowledge is too dangerous still to be let out in the public society. And so that we can't handle the truth yet so to speak.

[Anders Lindman]

But isn't Einstein's theory of gravity more accurate than Newton's theory? That may be so, but with gravity as a Casimir effect it may be possible to get at least as good prediction as Einstein's gravity and also without the need for gravity to be some extra force since the Casimir effect is simply the cancelling out of wavelengths between objects. And without the need to bend space or time.

With gravity as a Casimir effect, when objects are close together, then the topology becomes significant and the sources of gravity can no longer be approximated as being points of center of mass without the errors getting large. So for example planet Mercury is so close to the sun that the topology, especially the size of the sun as a sphere, needs to be taken into account in the calculations, which will show a slightly stronger gravitational force between Mercury and the sun, and that is what we observe (if I have got that correct ).