Quote:
|
Originally Posted by turbo-1
I modeled "gravitational" lensing in terms of refraction in classical optics.
|
But, the view of classical optics has also been superceded by QM. It's now an absorbtion and emittion of the photons, that slows the measured speed of the photon through the material. Gravitational lensing, in GR, is due to the paths (the null geodesic) a photon moves around a massive object. This has nothing to do with the slowing of c.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by turbo-1
I also supplied a quote from Einstein in which he says that curvature of light rays can ONLY occur if the the speed of propagation varies with location. This is classical optical refraction.
|
Again, what does this have to do with GR? In what way, in your interpretation, does this matter. Notice it doesn't say the speed of light varies due to curvature around a massive object, just that the speed of light has to vary for curvature to be valid. For instance, within GR (which uses curvature) if you use an Earth-Centered frame, anything out past the orbit of Uranus has to be moving faster than c in an inertial frame (a varying c, wouldn't you say?) and this scenario is valid in GR. So exactly how do you match up a slowing c around a mass from that statement?
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by turbo-1
However handy the mathematical model of curved space-time in GR may be, it is an approximation.
|
In what way? All physical models are approximations, even your classical optics model of lensing, so what. Some are closer than others, the decision to use on or the other is based on how well a model matches observation. What is the measured deflection of light within your idea. Also I would also ask you to produce a prediction, using your idea, for PSR B1913+16, the inspiraling binary pulsar system.
Here are the orbital particulars for it.
Here is the General Relativity prediciton and the observation points (scroll down to fig 18-1). Note the good match between GR prediction and the observations, can your idea match this?
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by turbo-1
If you will read Einstein's 1924 paper "On the Ether", contained in Saunder and Brown's book "The Philosophy of Vacuum" you will see that Einstein was quite unsatisfied by the mathematical model, and was working to identify the GR ether that he felt was responsible for the entirely local effects of gravitation, inertia, and optical effects.
|
And so? He was also quite unsatisfied that his theory predicted black holes, and he wasn't all that fond of QM. Just because he was unsatisfied, doesn't mean it invalidates either theory. I've read Saunder and Brown's book (although I no longer have it). My question is, have you read, and worked through the problems of any GR textbook (or even a SR textbook)?
I repeat: Pulling quotes off of the net or pulling them out of books, without having more than your interpretation (without some kind of math backup) of what those quotes mean, is not going to convince very many people. Please show us where exactly, within GR (not and interpretation of GR pulled from a website or non-GR textbook) these ideas are wrong.
Oh, and you seemed to miss these questions I posed to you before:
For instance, what is a major use of the Ricci Scalar in GR and what is the significance of Killing vectors in GR?