General > General Technical Chat
"Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
<< < (298/396) > >>
aetherist:

--- Quote from: HuronKing on March 07, 2022, 04:43:48 am ---
--- Quote from: bsfeechannel on March 07, 2022, 03:19:50 am ---
--- Quote from: aetherist on March 07, 2022, 02:45:07 am ---Einstein's GTR & his field equations are wrong koz his postulates are wrong.
--- End quote ---

Yes. He chose the wrong wrong postulates.
--- End quote ---

The essential component of physics crackpottery is to focus on character assassination of Einstein - to misdirect so that the casual reader thinks physics stopped in 1905 or 1916 or even 1955.

Meanwhile, physicists are using general relativity and the field equations to accurately predict the appearance of supernova from gravitational lensing (only appropriate that this thread ought to loop back to Veritasium... somehow).
--- End quote ---
Einstein's prediction for the double Newtonian bending of light passing the Sun was impressive, but this was a lucky guess, & there are at least 3 reasons why the prediction was wrong or used postulates that were not properly explained. I will explain the main wrong.

Einstein's gedanken for the apparent downwardly bending of a ray of light crossing an upwardly accelerating chest (sometimes called an elevator) duznt predict the double Newtonian bending of light passing the Sun (ie 1.75 arcsec), & it duznt predict the kind of impressive gravitational lensing that we see in the universe around us.

The downwardly bending ray in the elevator gedanken (as originally set out) gives no more & no less than the equivalent of the well known ballistic bending (passing the Sun) calculated by Soldner (0.87 arcsec). Einstein in later years (it might have been in 1915) invoked an additional 0.87 arcsec of bending due to the slowing of light passing the Sun (proven to be true by Shapiro in about 1962), which made the total 1.75 arcsec (proven to be true by the satellite Hipparcos in about 1999). I have to give Einstein lots of credit here, his 1.75 arcsec was a brave prediction, however it was little more than a lucky guess. But i wanted to point out that the commonly held belief that Einstein's elevator gedanken gives us his well known 1.75 arcsec is wrong, it gives us only 0.87 arcsec.

But it gets worse. That there 0.87 arcsec is based on a naïve version of the elevator gedanken, which considered the path of a ray of light. A proper version considers a ray or beam of individual photons.

I usually think of a photon as being a cylinder. I know that some fellows don’t like to give a photon a size or shape, so let's describe photons as being (massless) arrows.  Hence a beam of light is a straight line of (massless) arrows (for an outside observer)(in deep outer space here).
If we look at individual photons in the beam crossing the elevator then every photon (arrow) must remain parallel to its initial alignment at all times.  After all, that there beam appears dead straight for an outside observer, at all times.

So, the beam of light crossing the elevator consists of horizontal arrows.  For an inside observer the beam appears to bend down (the elevator is accelerating up), but the arrows nonetheless remain horizontal (for the inside observer)(& for the outside observer).

Nextly we apply the elevator gedanken to a beam passing the Sun.  Now, in his gedanken, Einstein was happy to use one elevator, & he was happy to use one beam & one bend.  That simple approach does indeed give  0.87 arcsec of bending (as per Marmet, 1999). But, lets look at one beam crossing millions of elevators, each elevator accelerating radially away from the Sun.

Each time a photon (arrow) crosses an elevator its traject bends down (for an inside observer), but the arrow retains its initial angle (ie angle relative to the floor), in each elevator,  while crossing. For an outside observer, no matter how many elevators the arrow crosses, it always retains its original angle (it was originally horizontal).  And for an outside observer each (massless) arrow retains its original velocity (c km/s). 

Now, the photon (arrow) is moving tangentially to the Sun as it passes (by definition), & we can draw a centerline passing throo the Sun parallel to that tangent.

A simple examination of the traject for an arrow shows that it can never cross that centerline. When or if the arrow eventually enters the last elevator, the elevator at or next to the centerline, the acceleration of the elevator will be parallel to the arrow (the elevator is moving radially away from the Sun)(ie along or next to the centerline). The arrow will never get to the far wall of the elevator.  Or, if u like, it gets to the far wall at infinity.  But it can never cross the centerline.

So, the arrow traject bends towards the Sun on approach, in a ballistic way, & then is parallel to the Sun at closest approach, & after passing the Sun the traject must reverse, such that the arrow never reaches the centerline. Hence the traject follows an S kind of traject.  The arrow at some time reaches a point of closest approach to the centerline (which passes through the center of the Sun), & then diverges away & leaves the centerline, & much later its traject becomes nearnuff parallel to its original traject, albeit displaced sideways towards the Sun.

Hence according to a proper application of Einstein's elevator gedanken we can never see an Einsteinian Ring. All we can see at any one time & place is a small part of a half-baked ring.  However, we know that Einsteinian Rings exist. Hence Einstein's elevator gedanken is false (re the bending of light).

If the beam of light originates at a light-source on the aforementioned centerline of the massive body, & if the massive body is super massive such that the S trajects of the beams/photons/arrows almost meet & touch the centerline on the far side, briefly, before diverging, & if the converged photons are somehow seen by an observer located at that location, then that observer will see a patch of light, not a ring, & that patch will appear to be at the centerline of the super massive body.

I am not saying that such an S traject exists (it duznt), all i am saying is that a proper application of Einstein's elevator gedanken (simply applied) must give that kind of S traject.

Einstein's elevator gedanken for the equivalence of inertial mass & gravitational mass is also completely stuffed up. I might explain that one other day.

Oh, getting back to the 0.87 arcsec of bending. That was for a naive ray of light crossing the elevator. For a beam of photons (arrows) crossing the elevator, it will be a bit less than 0.87 arcsec, due to the S traject.
In the real world there is no S traject, koz each photon (ie each arrow) bends along its own length (ie no arrow is straight), & the overall traject bends 0.87 arcsec, & the effect of the slowing of light near mass adds 0.87 arcsec.
HuronKing:
Some might wonder why I waste time with nonsense. I see it like analyzing perpetual motion machines. Someone presents you a perpetual motion machine - we know it's wrong, but how is it wrong? It's easy to spend lots of time wandering in Simanek's Museum of Unworkable Devices but it'll help sharpen your ability to spot cons, frauds, and crackpots:
https://www.lockhaven.edu/~dsimanek/museum/unwork.htm

But this latest one...

--- Quote ---So, the beam of light crossing the elevator consists of horizontal arrows.  For an inside observer the beam appears to bend down (the elevator is accelerating up), but the arrows nonetheless remain horizontal (for the inside observer)(& for the outside observer).
--- End quote ---

There isn't even a coherent description of the elevator thought-experiment here to debunk... the light bends and is straight for the same observer? LoL. So this one doesn't even merit any additional time wasting.

Now I do want to draw attention to this utterly laughable claim,

--- Quote ---his 1.75 arcsec was a brave prediction, however it was little more than a lucky guess
--- End quote ---

LoL... ahh yes - Einstein can only be right because he guessed.

I admit the mathematics of Einstein's original paper or any graduate level mathematical textbook of the subject is dense and very, very hard. This is why I am grateful for Epstein and Hewitt's efforts to make this stuff a little less impenetrable (their textbook on Conceptual Physics was mine in high school).

The mathematical derivation of the predicted deflection here is a little tedious but its not inscrutable for anyone who understands integral calculus:
https://www.relativity.li/en/epstein2/read/i0_en/i2_en

Which is the same result Einstein derived in the 1916 paper and in many other subsequent texts on the subject (McVittie, General Relativity and Cosmology, p241).

To anyone who doesn't understand integral calculus, I suppose this is all just luck to predict *exactly* the right value later observed by experiments. But gee, we seem to get lucky a lot when we use math!


Alex Eisenhut:

--- Quote from: aetherist on March 07, 2022, 07:10:00 am ---I usually think of a photon as being a cylinder. I know that some fellows don’t like to give a photon a size or shape, so let's describe photons as being (massless) arrows.  Hence a beam of light is a straight line of (massless) arrows (for an outside observer)(in deep outer space here).
If we look at individual photons in the beam crossing the elevator then every photon (arrow) must remain parallel to its initial alignment at all times.  After all, that there beam appears dead straight for an outside observer, at all times.

--- End quote ---

Interesting, so what distinguishes your version of light from a laser?
aetherist:

--- Quote from: HuronKing on March 07, 2022, 08:35:39 pm ---Some might wonder why I waste time with nonsense. I see it like analyzing perpetual motion machines. Someone presents you a perpetual motion machine - we know it's wrong, but how is it wrong? It's easy to spend lots of time wandering in Simanek's Museum of Unworkable Devices but it'll help sharpen your ability to spot cons, frauds, and crackpots: https://www.lockhaven.edu/~dsimanek/museum/unwork.htm
--- End quote ---
I don’t know how u got onto perpetual motion machines.
--- Quote from: HuronKing on March 07, 2022, 08:35:39 pm ---But this latest one...
--- Quote ---So, the beam of light crossing the elevator consists of horizontal arrows.  For an inside observer the beam appears to bend down (the elevator is accelerating up), but the arrows nonetheless remain horizontal (for the inside observer)(& for the outside observer).
--- End quote ---
There isn't even a coherent description of the elevator thought-experiment here to debunk... the light bends and is straight for the same observer? LoL. So this one doesn't even merit any additional time wasting.
--- End quote ---
To the inside observer the beam appears to bend down, but the individual photons (arrows) remain horizontal. 
To the outside observer all photons (arrows) have a horizontal traject all the time, & all photons (arrows) remain horizontal all the time.
--- Quote from: HuronKing on March 07, 2022, 08:35:39 pm ---Now I do want to draw attention to this utterly laughable claim,
--- Quote ---his 1.75 arcsec was a brave prediction, however it was little more than a lucky guess
--- End quote ---
LoL... ahh yes - Einstein can only be right because he guessed.
--- End quote ---


--- Quote from: HuronKing on March 07, 2022, 08:35:39 pm ---I admit the mathematics of Einstein's original paper or any graduate level mathematical textbook of the subject is dense and very, very hard. This is why I am grateful for Epstein and Hewitt's efforts to make this stuff a little less impenetrable (their textbook on Conceptual Physics was mine in high school).
The mathematical derivation of the predicted diffraction here is a little tedious but its not inscrutable for anyone who understands integral calculus:
https://www.relativity.li/en/epstein2/read/i0_en/i2_en
Which is the same result Einstein derived in the 1916 paper and in many other subsequent texts on the subject (McVittie, General Relativity and Cosmology, p241). !
--- End quote ---
Einstein's derivation was based on the inclination of a wavefront of a ray of light passing say the Sun.
He predicted that the part  of the wavefront closer to the Sun would be slowed due to the nearness of the mass of the Sun (i am happy with that)(it accords with his slowing of light near mass postulate)(this postulate was proved correct by Shapiro using radar reflexions from i think Venus in about 1962).
And Einstein says that therefore the wavefront leans as it passes the Sun (i am happy with that).

But then Einstein introduces a hidden postulate, he assumes that the leaning wavefront automatically means that the traject of the parent ray of light bends. No. It might bend, or it might not. Einstein treats the wavefront as if it is refracted when meeting an inclined pane of say glass. But Einstein fails to explain this assumption, ie this postulate. And he fails to provide a reason why the traject might bend.

If i layed 10 identical panes of glass flat on top of each other on a say table, but the lower panes having a slightly greater refractive index than the higher panes, & if i sent 10 photons into the panes, 1 photon per pane, entering into the edge of each pane, then they would all go straight through to the other end of each pane, & the higher photons would exit before the lower photons. But, all photons would go straight, all the way, there would be no bending of their individual trajects, & there would be no bending of their combined traject, even tho they would in effect give us a kind of leaning wavefront.

Now, if we replaced the 10 panes with an equivalent single pane which had a gradual increase in refractive index from top to bottom, then we would all agree that the 10 photons would all have a bent (curved) trajectory. But Einstein did not explain that in his gedanken the nearness of mass would result in a refraction of the same kind that we know we get when light passes through mass. He should have explained that he was invoking this as a postulate. And then he should have provided good reasons for that postulate. But there was no transparency (pun alert). Now, had he, i would have been happy with that, i mean its his gedanken, he makes the rules. I would have been happy for him to invoke Huyghen's refraction of light in mass, ie to apply it to the refraction of light near mass.

I wonder how Einstein would have explained the bending (curving) of a single solitary photon passing the Sun. He would have no ray to play with. No wavefront to play with. Poor poor Einstein.

--- Quote from: HuronKing on March 07, 2022, 08:35:39 pm ---To anyone who doesn't understand integral calculus, I suppose this is all just luck to predict *exactly* the right value later observed by experiments. But gee, we seem to get lucky a lot when we use math.
--- End quote ---
I understand the postulates of integral calculus, but i don’t understand the math & equations.
However as i mentioned the other day i have checked the math for Einstein's bending of light passing the Sun by using Excel & i found that Einstein's postulates did indeed give the correct numbers for bending (ie 0.87 arcsec for the bending of space, & 0.87 arcsec for the bending of time).
But my Excel check did not say anything about Einstein's equation for bending, i didn’t use his equation, i used his postulates.
I would be happy to send a copy of my Excel to anyone who wants, but it might be hard to follow (i probably couldn’t follow it myself today)(i was lazy re explaining what was what & why).
I remember that the difficult part of my Excel was the Huyghens refraction part. I had to use some clever arithmetic to mimic Einstein's integration.

I said that Einstein was lucky. I said that koz i know that the aether inflow in to the Sun gives 0.87 arcsec of bending. I have calculated that using Excel. It is based on the velocity of the aether inflow being exactly the same as the velocity of a particle falling to the Sun. Hence aetherists can calculate the velocity of the aether inflow at any location by simply using Newton's equation for escape velocity. In effect the aether inflow bending is the same as the bending of  Poor's falling particle.

Einstein used the escape velocity in his equation for the slowing of light near mass. He inserted that V into his equation for his gamma in his equation for length contraction, to get his radial component for the space part of his bending. And he inserted that V into his equation for his gamma in his equation for time dilation, to get the time part of his bending. Just a little reminder here that the time part is a scalar, whilst the space part is a vector (probably not important today).

If my aetheric bending (0.87 arcsec) is true, & if Einstein's bending (1.75 arcsec) is true, then the total bending should be 2.62 arcsec, which is 0.87 arcsec too great. If the aetheric bending is correct then the Einsteinian bending should be only 0.87 arcsec. I assume that slowing gives 0.87 arcsec, plus my aetheric 0.87 arcsec gives 1.75 arcsec. If i am correct then this leads me to say that Einstein was lucky, he got the correct answer using wrong reasoning.
aetherist:

--- Quote from: Alex Eisenhut on March 07, 2022, 10:02:44 pm ---
--- Quote from: aetherist on March 07, 2022, 07:10:00 am ---I usually think of a photon as being a cylinder. I know that some fellows don’t like to give a photon a size or shape, so let's describe photons as being (massless) arrows.  Hence a beam of light is a straight line of (massless) arrows (for an outside observer)(in deep outer space here).
If we look at individual photons in the beam crossing the elevator then every photon (arrow) must remain parallel to its initial alignment at all times.  After all, that there beam appears dead straight for an outside observer, at all times.
--- End quote ---
Interesting, so what distinguishes your version of light from a laser?
--- End quote ---
My photon (arrow) analogy applies to a solitary photon & to photons in a ray & to photons in a beam & to photons in a laser beam.
I am not sure about the bending of radio waves, i think that there is no such thing as a radio wave arrow (radio waves are not photons).
Neutrinos are paired photons sharing the same helical axis, hence my analogy applies to neutrino arrows too.

So, any kind of light crossing Einstein's chest (elevator) is/acts/bends the same. But it aint that simple.
What made that photon or ray or beam or laserbeam?
Was it a ray of starlight from a faraway star, entering through a hole in the wall, or through window glass.
Einstein didn’t say.
I take it to be individual photons from a faraway star entering through a hole (or through glass might be ok too).

Photons from a laser sitting gainst the wall are a problem.
Do these photons come out of the horizontal laser horizontally?
Are photons horizontal as they come out?

If the head of a photon comes out & goes horizontally, & if later the laser has risen a small distance (in space)(but is the same distance from the floor) when the tail exits, & if the tail goes horizontally, then we have a photon going horizontally, but the head is lower than the tail.

Or, is the photon initially going horizontally according to the outside observer. Or to the inside observer.

Lasers are a problem for the elevator gedanken. I prefer photons from a faraway star, entering through a hole.
Navigation
Message Index
Next page
Previous page
There was an error while thanking
Thanking...

Go to full version
Powered by SMFPacks Advanced Attachments Uploader Mod