Acceleration of the Earth

I was talking about gravitational lensing.  I said it could be explained by the acceleration of the FE.

Yes, very vast. Vast just does not quite explain 100Mpc so I added a 'very'. But if you took as much time nitpicking people's grammer you could have proven your point by now. Or you can just admit that perhaps you are mistaken and we can move on.

Quote from: cbarnett97 on December 16, 2007, 01:16:44 PM

Yes, very vast. Vast just does not quite explain 100Mpc so I added a 'very'. But if you took as much time nitpicking people's grammer you could have proven your point by now. Or you can just admit that perhaps you are mistaken and we can move on.

You spelled grammar wrong.

It seems to me it would only be indistinguishable from gravitation from the FoR of the light.  Is this correct?

Quote from: Quarrior on December 13, 2007, 08:18:45 PM

Where was I wrong?

Where you said you explained in a way how mass curve space-time.

I've never seen TheEngineer to be wrong yet, so I'd bet on him; although I would prefer if he'd just put barnett out of his misery.

Why would I do that?

He's actually wrong most of the time

I think I am going to call bs on all the engineers arguments from here on out.

You claim that acceleration can account for gravitational lensing due to EP. So not you need to give that claim some substance by demonstrating using the equations you have provided how we can treat it as a 'local' FoR, ignoring the definition of EP. As well how that the equations you provided can account for the difference in the amount of deflection as well as the distance the objects away are. Now if you want to run circles and not answer the question that is fine but just let me know so we can all know that maybe you are not as smart as some of the others here think you are.

Let me make it easy with a direct question. If gravitational lensing can be described in the FE theory by the EP, please show us how it is possible if the only way EP is valid is if it is in a 'local' FoR. Or do you believe in the RE theory?

I can't believe it: when people can't win an argument, they resort in less moral attacks such as saying their opponents are clueless or BS debaters.

Quote from: Jack. on December 13, 2007, 08:33:28 PM

Quote from: Quarrior on December 13, 2007, 08:18:45 PM

Where was I wrong?

Where you said you explained in a way how mass curve space-time.

Actually thats not what I said at all, I stated that you can't explain HOW mass/energy crve space time, but rather what the physical effects of a mass/energy curved space time are.

Quote from: Quarrior on December 06, 2007, 03:28:16 AM

But General relativity does give some insight, but much of it is wrong?

Now, tell me where general relativity is wrong about black holes.

Quote from: Quarrior on December 06, 2007, 03:28:16 AM

But General relativity does give some insight, but much of it is wrong? Why? What parts are true?

What parts in GR you don't think are true?

Hardly, where's your essay.

Think of as a short essay. I'll give you a couple of days to write it. Not too long, just a general overview is fine. I'll even write an essay on it myself if you would like?

The point was if you ask me a question, I get to ask you one.

General relativity doesn't apply to the sub-atomic level.

Since you didn't bother to answer my questions, research, or write about the original black hole material (bar you're pathetic three lines that didn't answer anything), how is it fair that I waste my time even talking to you?

Except you still haven't write me an essay based on black holes. Look who's fair now?

Quote from: Jack. on December 16, 2007, 11:26:01 PM

Except you still haven't write me an essay based on black holes. Look who's fair now?

The point was for you to answer my questions first with an essay and then I would write mine...sigh

I said I wouldn't explain why it doesn't work on the sub-atomic level, anyone with any idea about physics could answer it. It was to do with my original question about black holes and general relativity. YOU WERE SUPPOSED TO ANSWER THIS QUESTION!

that would be great if gravitational lensing was caused by the earth.

Quote from: cbarnett97 on December 16, 2007, 09:49:40 PM

that would be great if gravitational lensing was caused by the earth.

Are you saying the Earth doesn't distort spacetime?

Finally found it.  I love this picture.

Quote from: TheEngineer on August 19, 2007, 03:47:41 PM

That is not what is being referred to.

Can we see how an objects gravitational field can effect rays of light, yes we can...Now ask yourself can the FE explain and predict any of these factors?

Yes.

Quote from: TheEngineer on December 12, 2007, 06:24:15 AM

Quote from: Username on December 12, 2007, 04:16:03 AM

I still don't see how acceleration would be a cause for gravitational bending of light around planets, unless the entire universe is accelerating in directions based on when light passes by planets.

I could have sworn I said gravitation was the cause of that.

You are right, I am sorry.  I totally missed that.