Re: Bending of light not well authenticated
- From: emcgraw@xxxxxxxxxx (Gene McGraw)
- Date: Mon, 23 May 2005 07:16:27 GMT
On Sun, 22 May 2005 "Koobee Wublee" wrote:
>Since you do not even know what R is which again R is not the
>radius of the sun, your integration of dH/dr from infinity to R is totally
>bogus. To do the integration properly, you have to know what R is ...
Indeed you do. As stated above, R is the radial coordinate of the
light path at the perihelion (the point of closest approach to the
gravitating mass M).
>See. Your understanding of GR is not complete. In every spacetime
>equation, there are always...
It's quite obvious that you know nothing at all about general
relativity, so there's really no point in you pretending to instruct
anyone in that subject. The question is, do you want to learn how
general relativity predicts the deflection of light, or don't you?
>What I have been trying to tell you is that your concept is wrong because
>if the mass of the sun were to be any larger, the photon cannot escape
>from the sun. There would be no deflection because the photon is
>captured by the sun.
Stop and think for just one minute. The distant star is sending out
rays of light in all directions, passing at all distances from the
Sun, some close, some far. If the mass of the Sun was suddenly
increased, the ray that had previously just grazed the Sun would now
slam into the sun, BUT... a ray that previously passed further from
the Sun would now be pulled in so it now just grazed the sun, and
that's the ray we would see. No matter how massive the Sun is, as we
look at the distant star in the sky, with the Sun getting closer and
closer, there will be a point when the star is just visible at the
edge of the Sun. And at that moment the path of light has a perihelion
distance of R, and it has a certain amount of deflection, and that's
what I showed you how to determine from the field equations of general
relativity. You're welcome.
>You are totally lost... Maybe after you have understood what I am talking
>about we can continue with our discussion.
I understand exactly what you're talking about. That's how I know
you're an ignorant self-deluded moron.
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Bending of light not well authenticated
- From: Koobee Wublee
- Re: Bending of light not well authenticated
- From: Dirk Van de moortel
- Re: Bending of light not well authenticated
- References:
- Re: Bending of light not well authenticated
- From: Randy M. Dumse
- Re: Bending of light not well authenticated
- From: Koobee Wublee
- Re: Bending of light not well authenticated
- From: Randy M. Dumse
- Re: Bending of light not well authenticated
- From: Koobee Wublee
- Re: Bending of light not well authenticated
- From: Randy M. Dumse
- Re: Bending of light not well authenticated
- From: Koobee Wublee
- Re: Bending of light not well authenticated
- From: Randy M. Dumse
- Re: Bending of light not well authenticated
- From: Koobee Wublee
- Re: Bending of light not well authenticated
- From: Randy M. Dumse
- Re: Bending of light not well authenticated
- From: ande452
- Re: Bending of light not well authenticated
- From: Koobee Wublee
- Re: Bending of light not well authenticated
- From: Gene McGraw
- Re: Bending of light not well authenticated
- From: Koobee Wublee
- Re: Bending of light not well authenticated
- From: Gene McGraw
- Re: Bending of light not well authenticated
- From: Koobee Wublee
- Re: Bending of light not well authenticated
- From: Gene McGraw
- Re: Bending of light not well authenticated
- From: Koobee Wublee
- Re: Bending of light not well authenticated
- From: Gene McGraw
- Re: Bending of light not well authenticated
- From: Koobee Wublee
- Re: Bending of light not well authenticated
- Prev by Date: Re: Bending of light not well authenticated
- Next by Date: Re: Bending of light not well authenticated
- Previous by thread: Re: Bending of light not well authenticated
- Next by thread: Re: Bending of light not well authenticated
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|