Re SJ: Thanks will comment
Re Karl: Yes the author mentions experiments where GR and plasma predictions will differ. I have also seen some recent plans for experiments using radio waves.
Re: Bojan, you keep telling me about these guys you know? I don't care.
The first link you sent regarding experimental proof of EM and gravity makes no mention of lensing?
The next link, the lensing simulator you sent, is
exactly where i am struggling... It uses 1 solar mass at 1 parsec.
With SagA i have 2.6 million solar masses at say 8,000 parsecs.
On one hand we herald the proof of g-lenses as:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravita..._lense#History
Quote:
According to general relativity, mass "warps" space-time to create gravitational fields and therefore bend light as a result. This theory was confirmed in 1919 during a solar eclipse, when Arthur Eddington observed the light from stars passing close to the sun was slightly bent, so that stars appeared slightly out of position.
|
But now SJ is saying i cannot use the same physics to predict and measure the lensing of an object with 2.6 Million solar masses.... the black hole at SagA*
I don't get how:
1) We can use eddington's measurements as confirmation of GR, by bending of light around the sun (1 solar mass)
but
2) I cannot use the absence of bending of light around a 2.7 Million solar mass body as disproof?
Which one is it?
I don't think this is cherry picking observations, this was a 10 year observational program using sophisticated equipment, it was simply not possible to take these measurements in the past... This data does not come around everyday.
I seriously doubt how eddington was able to achieve such a highly accurate confirmation of GR. (note this is still heralded as the proof!)
Here is an interesting read on the modern interpretations of the history:
http://www.newtonphysics.on.ca/eclipse/index.html
Quote:
According to Einstein's general theory of relativity published in 1916, light coming from a star far away from the Earth and passing near the Sun will be deflected by the Sun’s gravitational field by an amount that is inversely proportional to the star’s radial distance from the Sun (1.745'' at the Sun's limb). This amount (dubbed the full deflection) is twice the one predicted by Einstein in 1908(16) and in 1911(17) using Newton's gravitational law (half deflection). In 1911, Einstein wrote: A ray of light going past the Sun would accordingly undergo deflexion to an amount of 4´ 10-6 = 0.83 seconds of arc. Let us note that Einstein did not clearly explain which fundamental principle of physics used in the 1911 paper and giving the erroneous deflection of 0.83 seconds of arc was wrong, so that he had to change his mind and predict a deflection twice as large in 1916.
In order to test which theory is right (if any), an expedition led by Eddington was sent to Sobral and Principe for the eclipse of May 29, 1919(18). The purpose was to determine whether or not there is a deflection of light by the Sun's gravitational field and if there is, which of the two theories mentioned above it follows. The expedition was claimed to be successful in proving Einstein's full deflection(18,19). This test was crucial to the general approval that Einstein's general theory of relativity enjoys nowadays.
However, this experimental result is not in accordance with mass-energy conservation(14) . This was not a real problem in those years, as we will show that the deflection was certainly not measurable. We will see that the effect of the atmospheric turbulence was much larger than the full deflection, just like the Airy disk. We will also see how the instruments could not possibly give such a precise measurement and how the stars distribution was not good enough for such a measurement to be convincing or even measurable. Finally, we will discuss how Eddington's influence worked for Einstein's full displacement and against any other possible result.
|
Any layman should be able to understand a good theory. That simulator is a good example, but when i hold it up to the sky it just don't work.
Which is what i'm trying to explore here with SJ... still struggling with it.
I don't get how a distributed cluster of galaxies can form a spherical lense, but a concentrated super massive BH at 2.7 million solar masses cannot, when the proof we have used to confirm GR is 1 solar mass.
I hope you see the logical contradictions here.
What would be really interesting is a similar paper on the SAME observational data using the interpretation SJ is familiar with. SJ if you have this i'm all ears.
It seems as far as SJ is concerned that 1 solar mass simulator is trash?
Best