Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Mendel
I don't think they are immune from being lensed, they just don't get lensed as much as you claim they would. And they are a bit harder to observe.
|
Logically one would expect the path of something WITH mass to be bent in a gravitational well. Logically we would expect something with presumably exists without mass to be affected LESS THAN something with a measurable amount of mass. Something isn't on the up and up here. If photons are lensed, the neutrinos must also be lensed. You can't have one arguement without accepting the other.
Quote:
Well, you would expect the photons, or any other objects, to travel through a straight line in space unless any force, or say, gravity affected them. (gravity isn't seen as a real force by the relativity btw)
Now, according to relativity, objects with (huge) mass bend and curve the space around them. Now, in a curved space (say, near our sun) the straight line isn't very obvious to us. Hence it looks like the photons curved around the sun. The amount of curvature of spacetime depends on the mass of the sun alone.
So, do you disagree with relativity in this particular case OR do you agree that current calculations of sun's mass add up? You really can't do both!
|
Well, I'm having a tough time simply ignoring the fact that relative gravity measurements within our solar system seem to work quite well. There must be another force at play, and I suspect that force is centrifical force of movement in the vertical direction. That would explain how "relative" gravity makes it 'appear' that the sun is lighter than it actually is. That's the angle I'm persuing at the moment.
I still fail to see why a particle with mass is NOT lensed, whereas a particle that supposedly has no mass at all *IS* lensed. This doesn't add up any better than my gravity issue. If I have to address the gravity issue head on, then someone needs to deal with and explain that issue head on too.