Quote:
On 2002-08-23 20:51, Richard J. Hanak wrote:
Gravitational lensing fits in easily with my theory of light, though I would prefer to call it gravitational refraction....If light enters a strong spherical gravitational field, it will be refracted as if by a lens and for the same reason: the change in velocity of the light. The same effect explains any gravitational bending of light.
|
No, this is wrong. You are either positing a compositional ether which is a theory that is proven false or saying that gravitational fields are a different media. If the latter is what you are suggesting, you should have a reflection effect for every light beam that crosses a denser gravitational field. Refraction does not take place outside of reflection, you see. If you wish to consider a gravitational field a different medium, then you will necessarily get reflection off that medium. Please explain to me when this phenomenon has EVER been observed. (Hint: Answer begins with an "N" and ends with "ever").
Quote:
|
The lines of force can be followed from one material body to another. What can be more physical than something that relates one material body to another?
|
A physical object that actually exists. Field lines and lines of force are mathematical short cuts to speak about energy differences and potentials. They are not actual objects in the sense AN ELECTRON is an actual object.
Quote:
|
As for metric formulations from GR and how solutions to Einstein?s field equations work, it is irrational for you to require an opposing theory to explain features of a theory it opposes.
|
This is utter baloney. Every theory that has ever supplanted another has explained why the previous theory did a good job almost getting everything right. E.g. Einstein's Theory explains why Newton was nearly right. I expect the same rigor from you. No more, no less.
Quote:
|
Einstein?s view was that in a freely falling reference frame, all laws of nongravitational physics, such as electromagnetism, should behave as if gravity were absent. My view is that electromagnetic phenomena are gravitational manifestations, as exemplified, for example, by my explanation of gravitational refraction of light. Accordingly, if a laboratory were freely falling in a strong gravitational field, the velocity of light in it would be less than if the laboratory were freely falling in a weaker gravitational field.
|
Unfortunately, it wasn't just Einstein's view. Electromagnetic processes are invariant because of Maxwell's equations. They MUST be, or Maxwell's equations are not complete. What are you going to add to maxwell's equations to make the speed of light change? How are you going to alter these fundamental relationships between magnetic and electric fields to allow for light speed to change.
Remember, you cannot appeal to ether, less you deny Michelson and Morley.
Also, you need to explain why every measurement of light speed taken (including bouncing radio waves of Venus) has been consistent.
And you need to explain, if the speed of light DOES change, how a reference frame is forbidden whereby the vacuum solution of Maxwell's Equations are not violated.