[General] STR twin Paradox

Mon Jun 26 13:52:32 PDT 2017

Chandra, (and all:)

thank you for the reference to the paper. But perhaps you remember that 
we have discussed this idea of E.H. Dowdye in 2012 after he gave a talk 
at our meeting in San Diego in 2011. It was a controversy between him 
and me when I asked him to show his detailed calculation for the bending 
of light in the plasma limb of the sun. He found it sufficient what he 
had written in his mail and when I insisted in calculations he declared 
not to talk to me any longer.

I have the following concerns regarding Dowdye's approach.

1) The mentioned paper of Lebach et al. (which Dowdye knows because I 
told him about it) shows an agreement between the result of GRT and 
Lebach's measurement with an accuracy of 10^-4 . If an observed 
deflection caused by the plasma would yield the same result as GRT with 
such an accuracy, it would be a great (a "cosmic") incident. Everyone 
has to decide whether he/she believes this.

2) On the other hand the plasma limb would in this case have to be 
stable in a way that this incidental fit by 10^-4 would be constant over 
the time.

3) Dowdye says that the plasma limb does not reach far out of the sun 
(or of every other star) so that at an impact parameter >>R this 
deflection does not occur and was not observed. But this is in obvious 
conflict with the occurrence of Einstein rings. In the typical cases the 
radius of the observed Einstein rings is greater than the radius of the 
causing star by many orders of magnitude (typically a factor of  >10^5 
). How can this be explained?

What is the community saying?

By the way: It is of course possible and it was shown by many renowned 
cosmologists that the deflection of light at the sun can be treated as a 
refraction. But in that cases the known change of c in a gravitational 
field (not in plasma) is used. And the result is fully identical with 
the result of Einstein's GRT. - This is the basis of my model of gravity.

Albrecht

Am 26.06.2017 um 18:51 schrieb Roychoudhuri, Chandra:
>
> Grahame and the rest of the colleagues:
>
> Please, have a look at the attached paper by a retired NASA scientist, 
> who firmly believes that the bending of light by stars is due to the 
> refractive index-gradient produced by the plasma of the stars, not by 
> its gravity.
>
> I am just “stirring up the pot” J.
>
> Chandra.
>
> *From:*General 
> [mailto:general-bounces+chandra.roychoudhuri=uconn.edu at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org]*On 
> Behalf Of *Dr Grahame Blackwell
> *Sent:* Monday, June 26, 2017 11:27 AM
> *To:* Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion 
> <general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>
> *Subject:* Re: [General] STR twin Paradox
>
> Hi Chip (et al.),
>
> I've sent you the paper in question twice: once 25 Aug '16 in response 
> to your posting of the same date, and once specifically in response to 
> your request for same on 23rd April '17.  Let me know if you can't 
> find either one of these and I can send it again.
>
> With regard to refraction of light by gravitational fields*, this 
> follows directly from slowing of electromagnetic waves by such fields 
> (a commonsense consideration akin to swimming through a dense liquid - 
> but this is an interference effect); the bending is directly analogous 
> to causing a vehicle to turn by rotating the wheels on one side slower 
> than those on the other (the same effect also causes climbing plants 
> to curl around their supports, rate of growth being inhibited on the 
> side that's touching something).
>
> * Actually by the GRADIENT in such a field.
>
> Best,
>
> Grahame
>
>     ----- Original Message -----
>
>     *From:*Chip Akins <mailto:chipakins at gmail.com>
>
>     *To:*'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion'
>     <mailto:general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>
>
>     *Sent:*Monday, June 26, 2017 2:13 PM
>
>     *Subject:*Re: [General] STR twin Paradox
>
>     Hi Grahame
>
>     Question. Regarding your paper on gravity.
>
>     If the attractive force between unlike charges is slightly larger
>     than the repulsive force between like charges, how do we explain
>     the refraction of light by gravitational fields?
>
>     Do you have a copy of this paper you can share?
>
>     Chip
>
>     *From:*General
>     [mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org]
>     *On Behalf Of *Dr Grahame Blackwell
>     *Sent:* Sunday, June 25, 2017 5:52 PM
>     *To:* Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion
>     <general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org
>     <mailto:general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>>
>     *Subject:* Re: [General] STR twin Paradox
>
>     Al et al.,
>
>     "I'm nervous about bringing gravity in.  Really what it is, is
>     still too mysterious.  Even for AE, it is just a pregiven
>     phenomena, his only goal was to quantify it.  But, perhaps it's an
>     E&M residue resulting from the disparity in mass between + and -
>     charge carriers."
>
>     I'd refer you once again to my paper 'Cosmic System Dynamics: A
>     Cyberneticist's Perspective on Gravitation' (Kybernetes Vol 40
>     issue 9/10, Nov 2011, pp 1319-1330). In this I show in some detail
>     how the phenomenon referred to as 'gravitation' can be fully
>     explained in every detail by simply recognising that attractive
>     forces between opposite charges and repelling forces between like
>     charges are NOT precisely equal (for unit charges in each case). 
>     A tiny difference between these two effects (for which there is NO
>     scientific reason why they should be identical) - attraction being
>     infinitesimally greater than repulsion - gives rise to an overall
>     attraction between 'ponderable masses' precisely in accordance
>     with every recorded observation.  This explanation could well also
>     shed new light on those effects attributed to 'dark matter' and
>     'dark energy' - another couple of what could well be regarded as
>     'fiddle factors' comparable to Einstein's 'cosmological
>     constant'.  Like Einstein's CC they could, rather, point to a
>     feature of the cosmos that we have overlooked or wrongly assumed.
>
>     If one looks at it from this very simple perspective, gravitation
>     is far from being mysterious - it's simply a 2nd-order effect of
>     'electrostatic' attraction/repulsion (which is itself an artefact
>     of electromagnetic wave interference between non-linear
>     configurations of such waves, i.e. particles of matter) -
>     gravitation, as another separate 'force' in its own right, doesn't
>     actually exist.
>
>     Grahame
>
>         ----- Original Message -----
>
>         *From:*af.kracklauer at web.de <mailto:af.kracklauer at web.de>
>
>         *To:*general at lists...natureoflightandparticles.org
>         <mailto:general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>
>
>         *Cc:*general at lists...natureoflightandparticles.org
>         <mailto:general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>
>
>         *Sent:*Sunday, June 25, 2017 6:41 PM
>
>         *Subject:*Re: [General] STR twin Paradox
>
>         While I am not completely confident that I fully understand
>         the objections, perhaps they have to do with the following
>         point.  Ontological chages occure at (or to) the source of E&M
>         interaction. Perspective changes happen to (or at) the sink of
>         E&M interaction---not just sentient, passive observers.  The
>         actual, real efffect from the source on a sink is physcially
>         altered by the relative (deleayed) position and motion of the
>         source.  For one thing, it is Gaussian diminished (i.e.,
>         reduced by 1/r**2).  In this sense, time-dilation,
>         space-contraction are real effects (but only as far as the
>         sink is concerned!).  Sentient observers, such as those
>         emphasized by Wolf, are no more that a collection of E&M
>         sinks.  So, the "obesrver" is taken into account in this
>         formulation.
>
>         I'm nervious about bringing gravity in.  Really what it is, is
>         still too mysterious.  Even for AE, it is just a pregiven
>         phenomena, his only goal was to quantify it.  But, perhaps
>         it"s an E&M residue resulting from the disparity in mass
>         between + and - charge carriers.  Who knows???  For what it's
>         worth!  ---Al
>
>     ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>     _______________________________________________
>     If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of
>     Light and Particles General Discussion List at
>     grahame at starweave.com <mailto:grahame at starweave.com>
>     <a
>     href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/grahame%40starweave.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1">
>     Click here to unsubscribe
>     </a>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at phys at a-giese.de
> <a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/phys%40a-giese.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1">
> Click here to unsubscribe
> </a>

---
Diese E-Mail wurde von Avast Antivirus-Software auf Viren geprüft.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20170626/9d5388cd/attachment.htm>