/sci/ - Science & Math

>>9419575

>>9419578
Chicanery item #2: Gravitational lensing Pt Un

What is it? Allegedly, it's "light bending around objects." Gravitational lensing is considered THE best evidence for general relativity.

Let's analyse that statement "light bends around objects." So what exactly was the observation? Did we invent a telescope that observes light rays? Did we invest a telescope that can see photons? No. The observation is essentially an eclipse. An opaque object exists between an observer and light source. One would think that the observer would not be able to see the light. But, somehow the observer can see the light. That's the observation. No more, no less.

How that phenomenon has come to be interpreted as "light bends around objects" can be perceived as nothing short of fraud. That's a biased way to interpret it. Scientists went into that observation looking for a result that proves "light bends."

What are scientists leaving out? Tell me, has any scientist told you that gravitational lensing only occurs around hot objects? Probably not. But it's true, an observer will see light from a light source despite an opaque blockade ONLY when the blockade is hot. I encourage you to prove this wrong- find an image of light reaching our galaxy from a distant cold galaxy. It simply does not exist. The only images we have of gravitational lensing occur from the sun and nearby galaxies. Both are hot compared to far away cold galaxies.

Is this not peculiar to you "scientists?" Does this not suggest a more complex mechanic of light evading a blockade than "light bends?" There is something else going on there.

>>9419575
>>9419578
Please try harder.

>>9419581
Chicanery item #2: Gravitational lensing Pt Deux]

Note the picture of the lens. What do you notice? It's circular and there are multiple bodies in the ring.

According to gravitational lensing, gravity is SO STRONG in this ring that it is actually bending light. WOW! Now THAT is a fierce strength.

So, if gravity is so strong in this ring, why aren't the gravitational bodies attracted to each other? Why, if gravity is so strong, don't the bodies collide into each other?

Does this too not suggest a more complex explanation of what is called gravitational lensing?

>>9419585
Chicanery item #3: Single slit experiment

This will tie into GR in a minute, be patient.

It is claimed that when you shoot a particle through a double slit, there is an interference pattern that results on the far wall. And indeed, that is observably true.

The mainstream explanation of this phenomenon is that the particles collapse into waves and interfere with each other. Okay.

Now, let's look at the single slit. According to the mainstream, a single particle going through a single slit will not have an interference pattern. Makes sense, a wave cannot interfere with itself and there is no other wave to interact with. The prediction is that a dot will appear on the far wall.

But now look at the results of the single slit experiment.

It's not a dot as predicted. There is a smaller version of the wider "interference" pattern of the double slit.

What does this suggest? This suggests that waves may not be the explanation for the pattern on the far wall. Instead, that pattern is caused by something else. It puts the entire "wave" theory of light in danger.

Now why is this important for gravitational lensing? Because the idea that light may not be a wave aligns with the idea that lightwaves may not be bending around objects. By tossing out the "wave" theory of light, two major errors in physics have been rectified.

So now I open the floor to you all. Thoughts?

>>9419581
>Gravitational lensing is considered THE best evidence for general relativity.
IMO the perihelion shift of Mercury, Pound-Rebka, and Gravity Probe B are all better candidates for the best evidence.
>>9419588
>It puts the entire "wave" theory of light in danger
It's not the 19th century any more Great-Grandpa. Also I'd like you to explain Hertz experiment without waves or a wave model.
What I'm trying to say is read more brainlet.

>>9419611
If this thread gains traction, Ill explain the problems with gravitational redshift and other concepts. Otherwise cbf on my phone

>>9419627
>phone
Why are phoneposters always the worst?

>>9419575
Why is every single one of these brainlet threads "debunkable" by xkcd or smbc? Why can't these people just read smbc or xkcd and not waste space on /sci/?

>>9419581
If you got any better theories / interpretations just publish them otherwise pls fuck off from here

>>9419588
>This will tie into GR in a minute, be patient.
I'm waiting

I'm curious about how you'll debunk GM using basic QM experiments

>>9419575
What the fuck am i reading?
>zir is a gender neutral pronoun
Oh i get it, this is bait.
7/10
I almost rage posted, but then i kek’d.

>>9419575
>The bending of space itself is not enough to move the small mass on its own.
You know what? You are correct here. But maybe you should look into what GR actually says before you debunk it. The bending of spaceTIME is what causes objects to move together. Bent space alone would only bend a path through space, not cause falling.

>>9419575
The bending flat plane explanation is just used to help brainlets like yourself understand GR. Its difficult to imagine warping of a 3D/4D space because we have only ever experienced 3D. Its pretty well illustrated by this anon...>>9420489
The oject doesn’t stay put because if it did it would (in terms you can understand) “fall down the slope” of bent space. Note the use of quotations, dont take this description literally.

>>9419581
>But it's true, an observer will see light from a light source despite an opaque blockade ONLY when the blockade is hot.
Nope. It just so happens that objects that are large and dense enough to cause gravitational lensing to be visible TO THE HUMAN EYE(this is the important part) tend to be hot. If you need evidence that the path of light is indeed affected by gravity just look at GPS satilite communications. Timing of signals is very important in this application and requires them to use time dialation formulas and gravitational lensing calculations to get the signal timing right. If they didnt your GPS would be off by a few miles on your location.

>>9419585
1) The stars in your picture may not be close enough to feel gravitational attraction from eachother. Just because they apprear close in the x-y plane does not mean they aren’t separated by vast distances on the z axis.
2) Even if they are close, given a fast enough orbital period, 2 bodies can orbit as close as you want them to. Black holes will orbit eachother inside of their event horizons for a while before (tidal forces or friction we are assuming) slows them down enough to merge.

>>9419588
https://youtu.be/a8FTr2qMutA

Any other schizophrenic delusions you would like debunked while im here?

>>9420555
BTFO. Trips of mothafuckin truth.

>>9419585
Those are all the same object, that's the entire point you fucking retard. The light bending in different directions produces different images of the same object.

You're not good at what you're trying to do.

>>9419588
>a wave cannot interfere with itself
there's your problem right there
the explanation is that the wave function of the particle interferes with itself producing an interference pattern even though there's only one slit

itt faggots so desperate in proving their intelligence that they're not acknowledging op is a troll