Einstein proved right in another galaxy

June 21, 2018, University of Portsmouth
Hubble Space Telescope imaging of the gravitational lens ESO325-G004. Credit: NASA, ESA, Hubble Heritage Team (STScI / AURA).

An international team of astronomers have made the most precise test of gravity outside our own solar system.

By combining data taken with NASA's Hubble Space Telescope and the European Southern Observatory's Very Large Telescope, their results show that gravity in this galaxy behaves as predicted by Albert Einstein's general theory of relativity, confirming the theory's validity on galactic scales.

In 1915 Albert Einstein proposed his general theory of relativity (GR) to explain how gravity works. Since then GR has passed a series of high precision tests within the solar system, but there have been no precise tests of GR on large astronomical scales.

It has been known since 1929 that the Universe is expanding, but in 1998 two teams of astronomers showed that the Universe is expanding faster now than it was in the past. This surprising discovery—which won the Nobel Prize in 2011—cannot be explained unless the Universe is mostly made of an exotic component called dark energy. However, this interpretation relies on GR being the correct theory of gravity on cosmological scales. Testing the long distance properties of gravity is important to validate our cosmological model.

Dr. Thomas Collett of the Institute of Cosmology and Gravitation at the University of Portsmouth, explains how they used a nearby galaxy as a gravitational lens to make a precise test of gravity on astronomical length scales. Credit: University of Portsmouth

A team of astronomers, led by Dr. Thomas Collett of the Institute of Cosmology and Gravitation at the University of Portsmouth, used a nearby galaxy as a gravitational lens to make a precise of gravity on astronomical length scales.

Dr. Collett said: "General Relativity predicts that massive objects deform space-time, this means that when light passes near another galaxy the light's path is deflected. If two are aligned along our line of sight this can give rise to a phenomenon, called strong gravitational lensing, where we see multiple images of the background galaxy. If we know the mass of the foreground galaxy, then the amount of separation between the multiple images tells us if General Relativity is the correct theory of on galactic scales."

A few hundred strong gravitational lenses are known, but most are too distant to precisely measure their mass, so they can't be used to accurately test GR. However, the galaxy ESO325-G004 is amongst the closest lenses, at 500 million light years from Earth.

The gravitational lens from LRG 3-757 galaxy taken with the Hubble Space Telescope's Wide Field Camera 3. Credit: ESA/Hubble & NASA.

Dr. Collett continues: "We used data from the Very Large Telescope in Chile to measure how fast the stars were moving in E325—this let us infer how much mass there must be in E325 to hold these stars in orbit. We then compared this mass to the strong lensing image separations that we observed with the Hubble Space telescope and the result was just what GR predicts with 9 per cent precision. This is the most precise extrasolar test of GR to date, from just one galaxy."

"The Universe is an amazing place providing such lenses which we can then use as our laboratories," adds team member Professor Bob Nichol, Director of the Institute of Cosmology and Gravitation. "It is so satisfying to use the best telescopes in the world to challenge Einstein, only to find out how right he was."

The research is published today in the journal Science.

An image of the nearby galaxy ESO 325-G004, created using data collected by the NASA/ESA Hubble Space Telescope and the MUSE instrument on the VLT. MUSE measured the velocity of stars in ESO 325-G004 to produce the velocity dispersion map that is overlaid on top of the Hubble Space Telescope image. Knowledge of the velocities of the stars allowed the astronomers to infer the mass of ESO 325-G004. The inset shows the Einstein ring resulting from the distortion of light from a more distant source by intervening lens ESO 325-004, which becomes visible after subtraction of the foreground lens light. Credit: ESO, ESA/Hubble, NASA

Explore further: Cosmic voids and galaxy clusters could upend Einstein

More information: T.E. Collett el al., "A precise extragalactic test of General Relativity," Science (2018). science.sciencemag.org/cgi/doi … 1126/science.aao2469

Related Stories

Cosmic voids and galaxy clusters could upend Einstein

June 5, 2018

It will be possible to use new astronomical mappings of hundreds of thousands of cosmic voids and galaxy clusters to test Einstein's theory of relativity by looking for small deviations in gravity at vast distances – a ...

Hubble spots a green cosmic arc

June 4, 2018

This NASA/ESA Hubble Space Telescope image shows a cluster of hundreds of galaxies located about 7.5 billion light-years from Earth. The brightest galaxy within this cluster, named SDSS J1156+1911, is visible in the lower ...

Verlinde's new theory of gravity passes first test

December 16, 2016

A team led by astronomer Margot Brouwer (Leiden Observatory, The Netherlands) has tested the new theory of theoretical physicist Erik Verlinde (University of Amsterdam) for the first time through the lensing effect of gravity. ...

Most distant gravitational lens helps weigh galaxies

October 17, 2013

An international team of astronomers has found the most distant gravitational lens yet—a galaxy that, as predicted by Albert Einstein's general theory of relativity, deflects and intensifies the light of an even more distant ...

Recommended for you

Fiber optic sensor measures tiny magnetic fields

September 19, 2018

Researchers have developed a light-based technique for measuring very weak magnetic fields, such as those produced when neurons fire in the brain. The inexpensive and compact sensors could offer an alternative to the magnetic ...

The hunt for leptoquarks is on

September 19, 2018

Matter is made of elementary particles, and the Standard Model of particle physics states that these particles occur in two families: leptons (such as electrons and neutrinos) and quarks (which make up protons and neutrons). ...

Researchers push the boundaries of optical microscopy

September 19, 2018

The field of optical microscopy research has developed rapidly in recent years. Thanks to the invention of a technique called super-resolution fluorescence microscopy, it has recently become possible to view even the smaller ...

Searching for errors in the quantum world

September 19, 2018

The theory of quantum mechanics is well supported by experiments. Now, however, a thought experiment by ETH physicists yields unexpected contradictions. These findings raise some fundamental questions—and they're polarising ...

Extremely small and fast: Laser ignites hot plasma

September 19, 2018

When light pulses from an extremely powerful laser system are fired onto material samples, the electric field of the light rips the electrons off the atomic nuclei. For fractions of a second, a plasma is created. The electrons ...

244 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

granville583762
3.1 / 5 (9) Jun 21, 2018
Will a nearby galaxy bend light the same as measuring stars velocity in the Andromeda galaxy calculating its mass is more accurate as it is closer than 500million light years at 2.2milllion light years.
Measuring the Andromeda galaxies galactic mass in relation to stellar numbers and luminosity then applied to E325 luminosity will give a more accurate data than measuring E325 directly regarding its mass.
Whydening Gyre
2.7 / 5 (7) Jun 21, 2018
G'ville
There is the possibility it might be TOO close...
Benni
1.8 / 5 (15) Jun 21, 2018
G'ville
There is the possibility it might be TOO close...
.....but a far greater one that you don't know what you're talking about, yet again.
rrwillsj
2.3 / 5 (6) Jun 21, 2018
WG, I didn't think of that.... It can be difficult to see the forest when a big ol' tree is in your way.

gv5, you may be correct in your evaluation. However, every damn time I turn around, some putzer is insisting on changing the estimated mass of the Andromeda. Usually smaller these days. That poor galaxy gets any smaller we're going to have to start calling it the Andromiddlin' Galaxy!

Bennie, you bad puppy! Pissing on other peoples comments. Now shoo, shoo. Go outside and chase the squirrels up a tree yapping at'em. That tree that's blocking your view.

Reg Mundy
2 / 5 (8) Jun 21, 2018
I wonder what the refractive index of a very diffuse bubble of hydrogen gas would be, with concentration diminishing away from a central point, for instance, a galaxy.....
If it was very small, there might be no discernible difference in defraction of various wavelengths of light, i.e. no detectable aberration....
To form an image, you need a lens. Gravity is stronger the closer you are to mass, so light passing closer to a galaxy should be bent more than parallel light passing further away. Ergo, no image should be formed. But if you consider the lensing effect of a ball of gas.....
granville583762
4.2 / 5 (5) Jun 21, 2018
There are two parts
The first - will lensing occur the same at the correct distance, I knew the distance was to close
Whydening Gyre> G'villeThere Whydening Gyreis the possibility it might be TOO close

but a far greater one that you don't know what you're talking about, yet again

This second part - Measuring the Andromeda galaxies galactic mass in relation to stellar numbers and luminosity then applied to E325 luminosity will give a more accurate data than measuring E325 directly regarding its mass was using the Andromeda galaxy as a yard stick because it is closer enabling more accurate measurement of a galaxy to obtained
Whydening Gyre and Benni your well experienced with my texts, there is all ways an angle hidden in there some where
THE actual question is "Measuring the Andromeda galaxies galactic mass in relation to stellar numbers and luminosity then applied to E325 luminosity will give a more accurate data than measuring E325 directly"
granville583762
4.2 / 5 (5) Jun 21, 2018
Whydening Gyre and Benni not only have you fallen foul of the RNP and antialias_physorg scientific tunnel vision approach where they have fallen foul of their own approach, you're not taking into account, have another look at my text.
granville583762
5 / 5 (4) Jun 21, 2018
Whydening Gyre and Benni I deliberately used the Andromeda galaxy to obtain measurements because it is closer to the telescopes, stars in Andromeda are clearer than E325, and because it is a large galaxy.
How many large galaxies 2million Lys distance are to us that can be used as a standard candle, only one I think.
jonesdave
3.8 / 5 (10) Jun 21, 2018
Will a nearby galaxy bend light the same as measuring stars velocity in the Andromeda galaxy calculating its mass is more accurate as it is closer than 500million light years at 2.2milllion light years.
Measuring the Andromeda galaxies galactic mass in relation to stellar numbers and luminosity then applied to E325 luminosity will give a more accurate data than measuring E325 directly regarding its mass.


You are totally missing the point. They could infer the mass of Andromeda, but then how do they check if it is correct? With ESO-325 they can infer the mass in the same way, and then test that by seeing how strongly it lenses the distant galaxy. If Andromeda isn't lensing anything, how can we check our assumptions?
Whydening Gyre
4.2 / 5 (5) Jun 21, 2018
Whydening Gyre and Benni not only have you fallen foul of the RNP and antialias_physorg scientific tunnel vision approach where they have fallen foul of their own approach, you're not taking into account, have another look at my text.

Benni has ALWAYS been afoul. I just take artistic license, on occasion...
RobertKarlStonjek
4 / 5 (4) Jun 21, 2018
Considering that the equation fails to account for the rotation of the galaxy and requires Dark Matter to correct it I would say that it still, potentially, requires adjustment. Picking out properties already confirmed and reconfirming them is not proof that the equations also work where they have not been tested, for instance with respect to calculating the orbital speed of stars within a galaxy, on the nature of Black Hole Event Horizons and Singularities etc.
Da Schneib
4.1 / 5 (9) Jun 21, 2018
Seems to work fine for Mercury. So it looks like Mercury's orbit disagrees with galaxy rotations.

What now?
Whydening Gyre
3.7 / 5 (3) Jun 22, 2018
Considering that the equation fails to account for the rotation of the galaxy and requires Dark Matter to correct it I would say that it still, potentially, requires adjustment.

As do all things...
Picking out properties already confirmed and reconfirming them is not proof that the equations also work where they have not been tested, for instance with respect to calculating the orbital speed of stars within a galaxy, on the nature of Black Hole Event Horizons and Singularities etc.

For some reason, I thought we had galactic orbit speeds worked out. As in. we know pretty well how long it takes Earth to complete a galactic rotation. Or the conundrum that stars within our galaxy are all moving at the same speed, rather than like slower inside/faster on the outside (centrifugally).
(Which, btw, might be explained by gravity effecting itself at the speed of light, rather than instantaneously...)
granville583762
4.2 / 5 (5) Jun 22, 2018
granvill583762> Will a nearby galaxy bend light the same as measuring stars velocity in the Andromeda galaxy calculating its mass is more accurate as it is closer than 500million light years at 2.2milllion light years.
Measuring the Andromeda galaxies galactic mass in relation to stellar numbers and luminosity then applied to E325 luminosity will give a more accurate data than measuring E325 directly regarding its mass.

jonesdave> You are totally missing the point. They could infer the mass of Andromeda, but then how do they check if it is correct? With ESO-325 they can infer the mass in the same way, and then test that by seeing how strongly it lenses the distant galaxy. If Andromeda isn't lensing anything, how can we check our assumptions?

Just an idea to obtain galactic mass through M31s luminosity
granville583762
4.2 / 5 (5) Jun 22, 2018
M31 as a Galactic Candle
phys.org> We used data from the Very Large Telescope in Chile to measure how fast the stars were moving in E325—this let us infer how much mass there must be in E325 to hold these stars in orbit

It is far more accurate to measure stellar velocity and there for stellar mass and M31s luminosity at 2M Lys than 500M Lys - Galactic mass is directly related to Luminosity and M31 is a large galaxy very close at 2M Lys.
If I am right, M31 will make a very accurate Galactic candle, enabling speedy calculations of any galaxies mass that is gravitationally lensing
humy
3.4 / 5 (5) Jun 22, 2018
Title:
"Einstein proved right in another galaxy"

First line
"An international team of astronomers have made the most precise test of gravity outside our own solar system."

So I take it then that this article is saying that an international team of astronomers outside our own solar system (because the above says "...most precise test of gravity OUTSIDE our own solar system") and in another gallaxy proved Einstein right; an excellent example of a demonstration of replicability in scientific method!

granville583762
4.2 / 5 (5) Jun 22, 2018
Measuring Galactic Mass and Gravitational Lensing
phys.org> We used data from the Very Large Telescope in Chile to measure how fast the stars were moving in E325—this let us infer how much mass there must be in E325 to hold these stars in orbit

GALAXIES are the same, their stars rotate at a constant velocity irrespective of radius from their centre of mass, and apart from our commenting ideas on why this is so, there is no officially recognised reason why this is so!
The mass of a galaxy cannot be accurately obtained with such an important point in what is maintaining galactic stars in a constant velocity of orbit irrespective of radius from the galaxies centre of mass – This glaringly obvious omission in Galactic stellar velocity is being overlooked because at the moment there is no answer, consequently Einstein's lensing can be no more accurate than it already is!
granville583762
4.2 / 5 (5) Jun 22, 2018
Andromeda and its dwarf status
rrwillsj> gv5, you may be correct in your evaluation. However, every damn time I turn around, some putzer is insisting on changing the estimated mass of the Andromeda. Usually smaller these days. That poor galaxy gets any smaller we're going to have to start calling it the Andromiddlin' Galaxy!

My apologies rrwillsj, I didn't realize the Pluto Diminishing Committee were hard at work on Andromeda in making it a dwarf galaxy because it had not cleared its orbit of close by Milkyway's
dirk_bruere
2 / 5 (4) Jun 22, 2018
Einstein - the infallible god of physics triumphs again!
ZoeBell
Jun 22, 2018
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
milnik
1 / 5 (6) Jun 22, 2018
All these measurements based on the existence of dark matter and the net curvature of the space of time, which Einstein invented and deceived the science, these are fatamorgas and tempting theories. The first untruth and stuttering theory is that gravity curves light. Since light does not have mass, how gravity can affect the light. Nonsense !!. Magnetism is the one that affects the light and can turn it away, because the light is electromagnetic. Here is another proof that science does not know the true path of the celestial bodies, nor the galaxies. The proof for this is: no one from science or any of you who are discussing this, does not know why our moon has, always, one side to the Earth. With this proof, the following can be found: the true path of the celestial bodies,
milnik
1 / 5 (5) Jun 22, 2018
in general, the precession of the perihel of the planet, the retrograde movement of celestial bodies, the slowing of spin, the correction of Kepler's laws. Why waste your energy in vain, using false theories and "evidence"?
humy
4.5 / 5 (8) Jun 22, 2018
All these measurements based on the existence of dark matter and the net curvature of the space of time, which Einstein invented and deceived the science...

milnik

Einstein did NOT invent dark matter theory.
Jacobus Kapteyn invented dark matter theory, NOT Einstein.
ZoeBell
Jun 22, 2018
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
RNP
3.8 / 5 (13) Jun 22, 2018
@ZoeBell
This is great work and very interesting result - because it would indicate, that
this galaxy is essentially free of dark matter (DM), which would otherwise affect
the speed of stars at their orbit (rotational curves).


I am afraid that you have misunderstood. The paper shows that the masses derived from
stellar motion and gravitational lensing agree, confirming Einstein's GR. However, BOTH give
a result that require the presence of dark matter. The paper then IN NO WAY suggests
that there is no dark matter present in the galaxy.
Benni
1.9 / 5 (13) Jun 22, 2018
The paper then IN NO WAY suggests that there is no dark matter present in the galaxy.
.......or that there is, you are the one who as usual has misunderstood.

You are also another one of those here who does not believe in the periodic table, one who thinks 1 electron + 1 proton=> 1 neutron instead of 1 hydrogen atom. Of course you'll deny you made statements promoting this kind of funny farm pseudo-science, but just wait until the next time we get into a discussion about Neutron Stars & you'll be singing a completely different tune mister freelance journalist who never saw a Differential Equation you could solve.
RNP
4.1 / 5 (13) Jun 22, 2018
@Benni, @ZoeBell
From the actual paper ( open access; https://arxiv.org...8300.pdf )

" We simultaneously fit a 20 parameter model to both the MUSE and HST data (15). The parameters describe the mass-to-light ratio of the stellar component observed with HST, including a mass-to-light gradient, *****a dark matter halo*****, and a central supermassive black hole."

So, dark matter IS required.
jonesdave
3.6 / 5 (14) Jun 22, 2018
who never saw a Differential Equation you could solve.


Says the loon who can't even do a simple calculation to solve the Schwarzschild radius! Who thinks that visible light doesn't cause warming! Who thinks that a half-life is the time it takes for half the mass to disappear!
Get back to us when you have actually learned some science beyond kindergarten level.
jonesdave
3.3 / 5 (14) Jun 22, 2018
We used data from the Very Large Telescope in Chile to measure how fast the stars were moving in E325—this let us infer how much mass there must be in E325 to hold these stars in orbit. We then compared this mass to the strong lensing image separations that we observed with the Hubble Space telescope and the result was just what GR predicts with 9 per cent precision..
This is great work and very interesting result - because it would indicate, that this galaxy is essentially free of dark matter (DM), which would otherwise affect the speed of stars at their orbit (rotational curves). It's just very difficult to believe it.... ;-).....


Idiot. Didn't read the paper, did you, woo boy? Or did you just fail to understand it?
jonesdave
3.4 / 5 (10) Jun 22, 2018
So, just for the hard of thinking, let us try to summarise what this paper is saying;

In the limit of a weak gravitational field, the metric of space-time is characterized by two potentials —the Newtonian potential, phi, and the curvature potential, psi. In GR, the two potentials are the same, but many alternative gravity models invoked to explain the accelerated expansion of the Universe [such as f(R) gravity (3)] predict the ratio of the two potentials (gamma = psi/phi) to be scale-dependent.


So, in GR, gamma = 1.

These alternative models of gravity remove the need for a dark energy to accelerate the expansion of the Universe. Testing the scale dependence of gamma therefore discriminates between GR and these alternative gravities.


We conclude that g = 0.97 ± 0.09. Our result implies that large deviations from gamma = 1 can only occur on scales greater than ~2 kpc,


So, these alternative models are inconsistent with observation.
jonesdave
3.4 / 5 (10) Jun 22, 2018
For anybody interested, the reference to an example of one of these alternative models, given in the paper is:

Models of f(R) Cosmic Acceleration that Evade Solar-System Tests
Hu, W. & Sawicki, I.
https://arxiv.org...1158.pdf

To cut to the chase, scroll down to Eq. (32), and the text immediately preceding and following it. They predict gamma = 1/2. The latest study precludes such models.
Reg Mundy
2.2 / 5 (10) Jun 22, 2018
It all comes down to this:- If gravity works the way the establishment says it does, DM must exist. But it doesn't. Ergo, our theories of gravity are wrong, and need to be re-examined. The equations are just a model of reality although approximately right on a local basis.
jonesdave
3.5 / 5 (13) Jun 22, 2018
If gravity works the way the establishment says it does, DM must exist. But it doesn't.


Yes, it does. And I'm assuming that by 'establishment', you mean those who actually understand science?
ZoeBell
Jun 22, 2018
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
jonesdave
3.5 / 5 (11) Jun 22, 2018
This is just the problem I'm talking about, because the dark matter is already known and confirmed to violate general relativity theory.


No, it doesn't. Mass is mass, regardless of whether it is visible or not.

after all, if it wouldn't we wouldn't invent "modified gravity" theories for it


Well, you need to invent some more, because the neutron star merger, and the study above, rule out a whole swathe of them.

So we cannot have relativity confirmed and violated at the same moment - and something is wrong with the above observation.


Wrong. That is just you failing to understand a pretty straightforward paper. Who'd have thought?

Gorgar
1.7 / 5 (6) Jun 22, 2018
If photons have zero rest mass, how does gravity bend light? And how do they travel at the "speed of light" until they hit my prism, apparently slow down, and emerge at full speed again on the other side?
jonesdave
3.3 / 5 (12) Jun 22, 2018
If photons have zero rest mass, how does gravity bend light?


Gravity doesn't bend light. It curves spacetime.
Da Schneib
3 / 5 (6) Jun 22, 2018
Gravity affects momentum, not mass. This should be obvious from the fact that symmetry of physical law across location in space implies conservation of momentum under Noether's Theorem.
Da Schneib
3.6 / 5 (9) Jun 22, 2018
Let me put this another way: energy and momentum are conserved quantities. Mass is not.
Gorgar
1.8 / 5 (5) Jun 22, 2018
"Gravity affects momentum, not mass. " Can you have momentum without mass? Is it because the photon is resisting rotational acceleration somehow? Edit: Then conserved quantity and not kinetic momentum?
Reg Mundy
1.7 / 5 (11) Jun 22, 2018
If photons have zero rest mass, how does gravity bend light?


Gravity doesn't bend light. It curves spacetime.

Spacetime, huh.... You combine three apples and a pear and treat them as four apples.
Spacetime is a meaningless concept.
I presume in your imaginary spacetime chunks of DM whiz about powered by mighty DE while the whole thing simultaneosly expands and contracts. I think you need to lie down...
antialias_physorg
4.6 / 5 (10) Jun 22, 2018
Can you have momentum without mass?

Of course. Photons have no mass, but they have momentum.

You can convert mass to energy but even if you convert all mass to energy (e.g. by bringing an equal amount of matter and antimatter together) momentum is conserved. The sum over all the momenat of all the created photons is still the same as the momentum of the lumps of mass was before you banged them together.
jonesdave
3.8 / 5 (13) Jun 22, 2018
If photons have zero rest mass, how does gravity bend light?


Gravity doesn't bend light. It curves spacetime.

Spacetime, huh.... You combine three apples and a pear and treat them as four apples.
Spacetime is a meaningless concept.
I presume in your imaginary spacetime chunks of DM whiz about powered by mighty DE while the whole thing simultaneosly expands and contracts. I think you need to lie down...


I think you need to get an education.
ZoeBell
Jun 22, 2018
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
jonesdave
3.5 / 5 (13) Jun 22, 2018
Once the mass remains invisible, it must be attributed into space-time.


WTF is that? Seriously? You cranks are hilarious!
ZoeBell
Jun 22, 2018
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
ZoeBell
Jun 22, 2018
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
ZoeBell
Jun 22, 2018
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
ZoeBell
Jun 22, 2018
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
jonesdave
3.8 / 5 (13) Jun 22, 2018
Gravity doesn't bend light. It curves spacetime.
Ironically just the above study has been made by utilization of https://i.ytimg.com/vi/nhAUiLLMAsk/maxresdefault.jpg just be bending of path of light - not space-time curving during 1919 eclipse.


Wrong.
ZoeBell
Jun 22, 2018
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
jonesdave
4 / 5 (12) Jun 22, 2018
Despite that this experiment is an iconic demonstration of mass-energy equivalence, just the usage of photons in it makes it a taboo of physics and you can nowhere read about it.


Outright lie. You can find it on Google Scholar with 33 citations! Stop lying, and go away. You obviously didn't understand the paper.

jonesdave
4 / 5 (12) Jun 22, 2018
....just the usage of photons in it makes it a taboo of physics and you can nowhere read about it.


Let me guess.............. you thought the use of a photon to achieve an excited state in an atom, which has a greater mass, means that the photon has mass? Correct? Oh dear. It's to do with binding energy. As is made abundantly clear in the freely available paper you linked. In other words, the binding energy needs to increase in an excited atom. As E = mc^2, and c can't change, then what happens?
ZoeBell
Jun 22, 2018
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
jonesdave
3.8 / 5 (10) Jun 22, 2018
you thought the use of a photon to achieve an excited state in an atom, which has a greater mass, means that the photon has mass
Of course, especially if we imagine, that this photon was generated by deexcitation of another atom nuclei, which has lost its mass during it. We can literally imagine how piece of matter jumped from one atom nuclei into another one in form of photon: the small gravitational lens of curved space-time, which transfers it's curvature from one atom to another one. Ironically for quantum gravity theorists the physicists are looking for gravitons - the quanta of mass - whereas they have them before their eyes all the time.


Wrong. You misinterpreted the paper, lied about it being suppressed, and now are inventing woo to cover your embarrassment. Usual stuff with #physicscranks. Why don't you go write it up?
ZoeBell
Jun 22, 2018
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
ZoeBell
Jun 22, 2018
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
jonesdave
3.8 / 5 (10) Jun 22, 2018
^^^^^^^^^Another Gish-gallop of scientific illiteracy!
ZoeBell
Jun 22, 2018
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
jonesdave
3.9 / 5 (11) Jun 22, 2018
This will be basis of physics for few next centuries...


What - word salad? Nope. Write it up, and come back when you have done so. And not before.
Da Schneib
4.6 / 5 (11) Jun 22, 2018
E = mc² is only correct when momentum is zero. This is appropriate only when things are not moving. For things that are moving, the correct equation is E = p²c² + (mc²)² where p is momentum. Photons, having zero mass, obey the equation E = p²c² since m being zero cancels that term. This is a demonstration of why you need math to understand physics.
ZoeBell
Jun 22, 2018
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
ZoeBell
Jun 22, 2018
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
ZoeBell
Jun 22, 2018
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
ZoeBell
Jun 22, 2018
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Da Schneib
4 / 5 (8) Jun 22, 2018
Oopsie, I forgot to square the E. That would make the correct equation

E² = p²c² + (mc²)²
somefingguy
5 / 5 (9) Jun 23, 2018
you'll be singing a completely different tune mister freelance journalist who never saw a Differential Equation you could solve.

You keep using this argument whenever you post (or at least a lot of the time; I've seen it in four comments from you in the last two weeks), regarding people's inability to solve differential equations. You never address my actual concern regarding your lack of basic knowledge about physics so I'll try the psychological route. Not a single person mentions the solving of differential equations, and you go out of your way to drag it into the conversation. That is hardcore projection. You never actually try to argue your point or look into other people's points; you are bitter that you do not have the knowledge that the people, whom you attack, possess and thus resort to constant ad hominem argumentation. Please just leave this site if you don't ever contribute anything useful to the community.
Da Schneib
3.9 / 5 (7) Jun 23, 2018
So basically @ZoeBell is @LenniTheLiar using a new sockpuppet. Otherwise it wouldn't be whining about differential equations.
humy
4.6 / 5 (9) Jun 23, 2018
The widespread misinterpretation that light has no mass originates from Maxwell's theory, which recognizes spherical waves only - but no photons.

ZoeBell

1, Maxwell's theory may have not predict photons BUT nor did it contradict them.

2, photons have no mass. So saying Maxwell's theory didn't predict photons isn't an argument that photons have no mass.

3, modern physics doesn't depend on (at least not solely) Maxwell's theory to predict photons.

Much of what you say in these posts is at odds with modern physics and the known scientific facts and shows you have several severe misunderstandings.
In particular, you seem to believe the old aether modal, which special relativity proved wrong (via various experimental proofs) a long time ago. You really should study modern physics properly before commenting and I strongly suggest you should do so before momenting further.
ZoeBell
Jun 23, 2018
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
ZoeBell
Jun 23, 2018
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
milnik
1 / 5 (6) Jun 23, 2018
Why did you change your name, you are a mackit, because you are using some model of dense ether. What is your ether?
For all of you and the whole scientific armada - a note:
There is no vacuum in the infinite universe, which represents an absolutely empty space. There must be something in the universe that forms matter. This substance must also have some residual hereditary properties and the substance from which matter forms. This substance affects the kind of matter how to behave. There are only two types of matter that cause phenomena: gravity and magnetism.
This substance that fills the infinite universe is neither matter nor energy, because it is something that can neither be measured nor mathematically or modelarily described, with any tools of matter and energy.
milnik
1 / 5 (6) Jun 23, 2018
It is the Aether which is managed by the Spiritual Entity of the Universe (SEU). Since most scientists do not respect the existence of a SEU, they remain stunned and punished in terms of having awareness and intuition, which connects us to the SEU, and thus find out the true causes of the phenomenon.
When matter is formed by Aether, through high vibrations of the same (work of the SEU). forming particles of opposite spins, which form two types of matter through a series of processes: a "solid state" that causes gravity with Aether, which has the task of returning matter back to the form of Aether (black holes), which are renewable processes that take place in eons years. The second form is the "liquid state" of matter, composed of annihilation of these particles of opposite spins, which is the energy state that causes the appearance of magnetism with Aether.
milnik
1 / 5 (6) Jun 23, 2018
When this doctrine perceives and accepts, then the vietides are all the past tempting theories, only the tools for enrichment on false settings, and that is why the present science is a tycoon of science, which has no idea about the structure of the universe and only invents something dark, virtually formed from nothing.
This is evidence that most scientists do not know themselves or the causes of their existence and origin. ZoeBell you are mackita !!
granville583762
5 / 5 (5) Jun 23, 2018
The rest mass of particles are proportional to their gravity which is their inertial mass as under the acceleration of force their velocity is kinetic energy, where kinetic energy being energy is massless having no inertial mass, where our particles increase their energy due to excitations due to photons, the photonic energy does not increase the particles mass, does not increase inertial mass and consequently does not increase the particles gravity because their increase in energy just as kinetic energy is massless photonic energy is massless.
humy
4.6 / 5 (10) Jun 23, 2018
Maxwell's theory may have not predict photons BUT nor did it contradict them
Maxwell's theory predicts spherical field and waves around dipoles - at the moment when something else can be observed around them, then the theory gets violated.

ZoeBell

What on earth are you talking about?
What kind of 'dipoles' are your referring to here? Electric or magnetic dipoles?
What sort of 'waves' are you referring to here? If electromagnetic waves, how would you say their passing are affected by dipoles and by what observation and via what sort of dipoles?
And what has this got to do with photons? Or have you suddenly changed the subject completely?

humy
4.6 / 5 (10) Jun 23, 2018
It is the Aether which is managed by the Spiritual Entity of the Universe (SEU). Since most scientists do not respect the existence of a SEU, they remain stunned and punished in terms of having awareness and intuition, which connects us to the SEU, ...

milnik

What the hell are you on?
Whatever you're smoking, I don't want it.
NO scientists is "stunned and punished" by your fictitious aether god.
granville583762
5 / 5 (5) Jun 23, 2018
We feel atoms as they vibrate on our skin as our sense of temperature
granville583762> The rest mass of particles are proportional to their gravity which is their inertial mass as under the acceleration of force their velocity is kinetic energy, where kinetic energy being energy is massless having no inertial mass where our particles increase their energy due to excitations due to photons, photonic energy does not increase the particles mass, does not increase inertial mass and consequently does not increase the particles gravity because their increase in energy just as kinetic energy is massless photonic energy is massless.

Electromagnetic radiation is frequency - as in waves in the atomic lattice, phonons are energy they do not increase the inertial mass of atoms, atoms oscillate with frequency when their energy increases we feel atoms vibrating on our skin as we feel increasing temperature by sensing the vibrating atoms
All energy is in the form of frequency
ZoeBell
Jun 23, 2018
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
ZoeBell
Jun 23, 2018
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
ZoeBell
Jun 23, 2018
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
jonesdave
3.2 / 5 (11) Jun 23, 2018
^^^^^^^Oh do shut up you boring crank. Go away and pollute some other board. Jesus, what a loon.
ZoeBell
Jun 23, 2018
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
jonesdave
3.3 / 5 (12) Jun 23, 2018
LOL, I'm the only person on the world, who KNOWS what this stuff is all about


Then sod off and write it up, collect your Nobel Prize, and quit boring everybody on here to death with your crankery.
ZoeBell
Jun 23, 2018
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
somefingguy
4.6 / 5 (10) Jun 23, 2018
LOL, I'm the only person on the world, who KNOWS what this stuff is all about.. :-)


I dare you to publish a paper/book and prove all of us wrong. Since you're the only person on the whole planet to know the objective truth (I am astounded by the amount of displaced narcissism), it shouldn't be that difficult.
jonesdave
3.3 / 5 (12) Jun 23, 2018
I just wrote about it. Which planet are you coming from?


No, you spammed a load of crap on phys.org. Wow! Not like a bunch of cranks have never done that before, eh? What do you hope to achieve? Other than annoying the hell out of people?
ZoeBell
Jun 23, 2018
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
somefingguy
5 / 5 (8) Jun 23, 2018
You even don't know, how science works.


Excuse me for not blindly believing a person who claims to know everything about the universe, yet is not able to use commas correctly.
ZoeBell
Jun 23, 2018
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
jonesdave
3.8 / 5 (13) Jun 23, 2018
You cannot prove anyone wrong by writing a book. The proof in physics is all about experiments - and I just linked http://www.rexres...sig.htm. You even don't know, how science works.


Yes I do. Do the experiments under controlled conditions. Write up the experiments and the results in detail. Publish it. Allow other people access to any further data they need to confirm any findings that you claim. Simple.
Your link is to some crankery about instantaneous communication, because the author believes gravitational waves travel faster than the speed of light. In case you haven't noticed, that has definitively been shown to be wrong.
ZoeBell
Jun 23, 2018
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
jonesdave
3.4 / 5 (10) Jun 23, 2018
What author believes in is not crucial, how it names it the less - only experiments. After all, Hodowanec didn't detect any waves - just a noise of variable intensity. The noise induced by dark matter.


Hodowanec was a complete loon, who believed ET was talking to him from Mars! Go away with your crankery.
ZoeBell
Jun 23, 2018
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
jonesdave
3.7 / 5 (9) Jun 23, 2018
And the scientists believe in WIMPs, SUSY and strings which are way way more expensive to research - yet equally problematic. Your problem simply is, you're not interested about dark matter nature - only about things, which aren't related to it at all (books, commas and talking with ET's). But your private problems aren't my problems. I don't care what the people believe in - only about facts.


Yep, linking us to a fruit loop electrical engineer, who thought he was talking to aliens, is obviously a highly impressive fact!
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
3 / 5 (8) Jun 24, 2018
And the scientists believe in WIMPs, SUSY and strings which are way way more expensive to research - yet equally problematic. Your problem simply is, you're not interested about dark matter nature - only about things, which aren't related to it at all (books, commas and talking with ET's). But your private problems aren't my problems. I don't care what the people believe in - only about facts.


Yep, linking us to a fruit loop electrical engineer, who thought he was talking to aliens, is obviously a highly impressive fact!

says jones

It is wonderful that you have such great insight, perception and complete knowledge of the universe and all that it entails, that affords you an ability to say unequivocally and with such powerful practicality that you are able to so succinctly condemn the possibility of a human having the gift of communicating with "aliens". Kindly alert us mere mortals as to the moment when you have submitted your paper for peer review on it.
milnik
1 / 5 (6) Jun 24, 2018
@hymu,
What the hell are you on?
The biggest punishment is when a person loses his / her consciousness and does not know anything about himself nor does he respect the one who formed him. If most people were not punished by the loss of consciousness, science would not wander and fabricate various false and devastating theories about the behavior of the universe. As for the phenomena in the universe, you can in your own way to discuss and invent phamamorgans for thousands of years, but you will never find out any truth about the phenomena in the universe if you do not accept the existence of the SEU.
It is more natural to listen to frogs that croak into puddles than to discussions in such articles. And I am now asking simply the question: Why do you, and you, go as far away from Earth as you can find out some phenomena,
milnik
1 / 5 (5) Jun 24, 2018
such as the movements of heavenly bodies, and the unknown answer is not the cause: why is our Moon always facing one side to the Earth? If it does not, everything else is futile and stupid.
ZoeBell
Jun 24, 2018
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
ZoeBell
Jun 24, 2018
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
ZoeBell
Jun 24, 2018
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Reg Mundy
2.5 / 5 (8) Jun 24, 2018
@ZoeBell
Sorry to drag you back to your earlier stuff, but
Gravity doesn't bend light. It curves spacetime.

Ironically just the above study has been made by utilization of bending of light by gravitational lens in exactly the same way, in which optical lenses bend the light... ;-)

is wrong, bending of light by gravitational lens is EXACTLY the OPPOSITE of bending light by optical lens. Just think about it logically, an optical lens bends light more the FURTHER from its centre the light is passing, a gravitational lens bends light (or warps space if you must!) so that light bends more the CLOSER it passes to the centre.
Light from distant galaxies forms images when bent by intervening galaxies being surrounded by balls of gas increasingly diffuse as distance from the centre of mass increases, i.e. forming a gigantic lens with extremely low diffractive index so that aberration due to differing wavelengths is negligible. Gravitational lensing is a load of crap..
jonesdave
3.7 / 5 (9) Jun 24, 2018
Kindly alert us mere mortals as to the moment when you have submitted your paper for peer review on it.


Don't be a tit. He thought he was getting instant communication. Because he thought gravity travels faster than light. It doesn't. He thought psychic processes could be picked up by his equipment! He was a frigging loon. I said nothing about SETI searching for EM signatures. Only about this particular fruit loop. Why would anybody need to go into print in the peer-reviewed literature to counter crap like that?
ZoeBell
Jun 24, 2018
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
ZoeBell
Jun 24, 2018
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
jonesdave
3.9 / 5 (7) Jun 24, 2018
Gravitational lensing is a load of crap..


Nope. Proven beyond a shadow of doubt. Scientifically. And let's be honest; what the hell would you know?
ZoeBell
Jun 24, 2018
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Reg Mundy
1.6 / 5 (7) Jun 24, 2018
bending of light by gravitational lens is EXACTLY the OPPOSITE of bending light by optical lens
- it isn't which is also why the gravitational lenses are http://inspirehep...3/plots. How did you got into it?

Why don't you try reading a book on classical optics? (Proven by countless experiments.....).
ZoeBell
Jun 24, 2018
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Reg Mundy
1.6 / 5 (7) Jun 24, 2018
Gravitational lensing is a load of crap..


Nope. Proven beyond a shadow of doubt. Scientifically. And let's be honest; what the hell would you know?

No it wasn't. And please refrain from personal insults, I am much better at it than you. However, there's an old saying that, when you wrestle with a pig, you both get covered in shit. But the pig likes it... so I will refrain from reciprocating.
jonesdave
3.9 / 5 (7) Jun 24, 2018
Gravitational lensing is a load of crap..


Nope. Proven beyond a shadow of doubt. Scientifically. And let's be honest; what the hell would you know?

No it wasn't. .


Ahh, that proves it then! The wooist Meg Rundy says so, ergo it must be true!
jonesdave
3.7 / 5 (9) Jun 24, 2018
Gravitational lensing is a load of crap..


Nope. Proven beyond a shadow of doubt. Scientifically. And let's be honest; what the hell would you know?

No it wasn't. And please refrain from personal insults, I am much better at it than you. However, there's an old saying that, when you wrestle with a pig, you both get covered in shit. But the pig likes it... so I will refrain from reciprocating.


Just FYI, the whole of the scientific community that are involved in this sort of research take it to be proven. Nobody, as far as I know, has come up with a scientifically sensible alternative. That would require extraordinary evidence. Where is it? Who wrote it? Where can I read it? Would love to see this alternative, and the unavoidable maths.
milnik
1.8 / 5 (5) Jun 24, 2018
For all of you :
From your discussions you can see that you do not know anything about what it is:
  -matter
  -energy
  - the light
  -heat
  -gravitation
  -Magnetism
  nor do you know the processes of their phenomena, and you have infinitely many "philosophical" expressions and fictional and unnatural "proofs." You have all inherited this from your favorite teachers who have contaminated the doctrines of wrong and stuttering theories.
ZoeBell
Jun 24, 2018
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
ZoeBell
Jun 24, 2018
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Da Schneib
3.9 / 5 (11) Jun 24, 2018
The rightwingnut doesn't like relativity because Einstein was Jewish. Which is about as relevant as not liking electricity because Tesla was Serbian. Teh stupid, it burnz.
ZoeBell
Jun 24, 2018
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Reg Mundy
1.7 / 5 (6) Jun 24, 2018
@jonesdave
Just FYI, the whole of the scientific community that are involved in this sort of research take it to be proven. Nobody, as far as I know, has come up with a scientifically sensible alternative. That would require extraordinary evidence. Where is it? Who wrote it? Where can I read it? Would love to see this alternative, and the unavoidable maths.
So they "take it to be proven" do they? What more solid scientific proof can there be than that! Nobody has come up with an alternative? Did you read what I posted? Isn't that an alternative, you nincompoop!
You want to see this alternative, and the unavoidable maths? Look in any classical physics optical book and read about lenses, see the experiments, you can even perform them yourself with a glass lens and piece of paper, a couple of pins. a ruler and a pencil. Of course, most of us did this stuff before reaching puberty, but I guess you haven't attained that level just yet.
ZoeBell
Jun 24, 2018
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
ZoeBell
Jun 24, 2018
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
jonesdave
3 / 5 (6) Jun 24, 2018
@jonesdave
Just FYI, the whole of the scientific community that are involved in this sort of research take it to be proven. Nobody, as far as I know, has come up with a scientifically sensible alternative. That would require extraordinary evidence. Where is it? Who wrote it? Where can I read it? Would love to see this alternative, and the unavoidable maths.
So they "take it to be proven" do they? What more solid scientific proof can there be than that! Nobody has come up with an alternative? Did you read what I posted? Isn't that an alternative, you nincompoop!
You want to see this alternative, and the unavoidable maths? Look in any classical physics optical book and read about lenses, see the experiments, you can even perform them yourself with a glass lens and piece of paper, a couple of pins. a ruler and a pencil..


Hey, shit for brains; spell it out. Where is this crap written up? Do tell us, wanker.
jonesdave
2.7 / 5 (7) Jun 24, 2018
Anybody else think that the eejit Veg Sunday is just a sock puppet of the loon Thornhill? He is dumb enough to be! Anything else you'd like to add, Madge? Seriously, mate, you need to piss off and get an education. Eh?
ZoeBell
Jun 24, 2018
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Da Schneib
3.9 / 5 (7) Jun 24, 2018
The German mathematician David Hilbert submitted an article containing the correct field equations for general relativity five days before Einstein.
Any questions? Tolja. Anybody can find this bullshit these rightwingnuts propagate. Notice I get no answer on Einstein being Jewish.

The Nazis always lie and think they get away with it by indirection. Go suck your swastika you gaping farting stinking Nazi.

Pretty soon sociologists will start publishing articles about opposition to relativity due to racism.
ZoeBell
Jun 24, 2018
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Da Schneib
3.4 / 5 (5) Jun 24, 2018
When ideology and racial politics starts interfering with science people with integrity start pointing it out. Science isn't racial; if they can prove it it's right it doesn't matter what their ideology is. Math doesn't care about ideology. Neither does physics. Wingnuts never get this.

Go fuck some brown babies then stuff your swastika up your ass and suck the shit off from it, Nazi.
ZoeBell
Jun 24, 2018
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Da Schneib
3 / 5 (4) Jun 24, 2018
Nice, now we get the bullshit about Teh Jooooz. This is obvious and scurrilous, if not scandalous. It's always nice when racists blow their cover because they can't help themselves. Note that this respondent cannot mask its hatred for [insert ethnical group here except for white people].
ZoeBell
Jun 24, 2018
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Da Schneib
3 / 5 (4) Jun 24, 2018
Good lord now it's making excuses for being racist. Have you ever stopped sticking your swastika up your ass? If so for how long?

Just askin'.

On edit: And notice now we got Illuminati. That was a book written in 1975. It was fiction.
ZoeBell
Jun 24, 2018
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Da Schneib
2.3 / 5 (3) Jun 24, 2018
I particularly laughed at Richard Nixon being Keeper of the Sacred Chao. It was pretty good fiction, but it was only fiction.
Da Schneib
3 / 5 (2) Jun 24, 2018
I've had Jewish colleagues in software design meetings and found them considerably superior to rightwingnuts who don't know any math and think anyone who does is subversive.
ZoeBell
Jun 24, 2018
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Da Schneib
3 / 5 (2) Jun 24, 2018
LOLOL

The wingnuts always betray themselves.

All you have to do is poke a little bit and you get Illuminati and The Protocols of the Elders of Zion. Next we'll be dealing with astrology and talking about how cellphones make brain cancer and vaccines cause autism.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.6 / 5 (5) Jun 25, 2018
Nice, now we get the bullshit about Teh Jooooz. This is obvious and scurrilous, if not scandalous. It's always nice when racists blow their cover because they can't help themselves. Note that this respondent cannot mask its hatred for [insert ethnical group here except for white people].


says Da

It is odd that the subject of the Jews and Jewishness has been brought into a science site, where perhaps the majority of the readers/commenters are atheists who reject the existence of God (the Creator), and who DEMAND evidence of such existence.
However, atheistic unbelief in a Creator would surely negate the whole concept of the Jew and Jewishness. The whole existence of the Jew AS A JEW depends on the existence of the Creator and his Holy Angels since the whole purpose of the Bible is to convey the message that the Creator God does exist...and always has existed.
To refer to a Jew who practices the Jewish religion, and yet negate the existence of God is negating all Jews.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.6 / 5 (5) Jun 25, 2018
-CONTINUED-
The negation of Jews not only condemns the Judaic religion as mythology, a fairytale, or WOO, but it also negates the right of Jews to a homeland in Israel. And further, it disallows such people who refer to themselves as Jews to be regarded as "the Chosen People". An atheist might, and rightly so, question the right of self-proclaimed Jews to lay claim to that territory in the Middle East when most Jews are not even Semitic wrt their DNA. And this general fact means that Judaism is a religion that has nothing to do with ethnicity or race.
Jews are known for their smart business sense and there is a benefit to that. And they help each other attain wealth and fame. Most non-Jews would do well to emulate such good business practices.
Many Jews are also atheists, which is an oxymoron since if they are atheists, then how are they able to refer to themselves as JEWS? And yet they do.
savvys84
1 / 5 (3) Jun 25, 2018
Title:
"Einstein proved right in another galaxy"

First line
"An international team of astronomers have made the most precise test of gravity outside our own solar system."

So I take it then that this article is saying that an international team of astronomers outside our own solar system (because the above says "...most precise test of gravity OUTSIDE our own solar system") and in another gallaxy proved Einstein right; an excellent example of a demonstration of replicability in scientific method!


Lol nice one.
there is no gravitational lensing as it is impossible to bend space.
the observations are consistent with refraction of light when passing thru gas clouds
Da Schneib
3.7 / 5 (3) Jun 25, 2018
I'm not the one who dissed relativity because it was discovered by a Jewish person. Perhaps you should address the bigot instead of me.
savvys84
1 / 5 (3) Jun 25, 2018
@zoebell

Upton Sinclair — 'It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it.'

hey you are correct. all the nutcases on here that think GR is correct fall in this category
Da Schneib
3.7 / 5 (3) Jun 25, 2018
I'm seriously considering whether all the nuticases that think GR is wrong are anti-Jewish bigots. You look like one of them, @racist86.
jonesdave
3.4 / 5 (5) Jun 25, 2018
Lol nice one.
there is no gravitational lensing as it is impossible to bend space.
the observations are consistent with refraction of light when passing thru gas clouds


Lol. What an idiot!
jonesdave
3.4 / 5 (5) Jun 25, 2018
So they "take it to be proven" do they? What more solid scientific proof can there be than that! Nobody has come up with an alternative? Did you read what I posted? Isn't that an alternative, you nincompoop!
You want to see this alternative, and the unavoidable maths? Look in any classical physics optical book and read about lenses, see the experiments, you can even perform them yourself with a glass lens and piece of paper, a couple of pins. a ruler and a pencil. Of course, most of us did this stuff before reaching puberty, but I guess you haven't attained that level just yet.


Hey, sh1tforbrains, how about spelling out how this applies in an astrophysical setting? Dumbo. What is causing it? Where is it written up and calculated? Do you have trouble with comprehension? Point us to the work. Stop making sh1t up. Idiot.
jonesdave
3.4 / 5 (5) Jun 25, 2018
Look in any classical physics optical book and read about lenses, see the experiments, you can even perform them yourself with a glass lens and piece of paper, a couple of pins. a ruler and a pencil.


So, according to the loon Meg Rundy, Carl Zeiss have built a bunch of enormous lenses, and fired them off into outer space! Neat trick! Where do these cranks come up with this crap from?
Hyperfuzzy
1.8 / 5 (5) Jun 25, 2018
No. no such thing as gravitational lensing. Remove any thoughts of Einstein being correct. 1. if m is a function of v then momentum is a function of displacement (Nonsense!); the speed of light is the relative speed of the wavelet, the wavelet is not changed, maybe interfered, attenuated; but, without a responsible media, the original wavelength is the same; therefore, its speed is its original wavelength divided by the measured period; but, each wave is unique, belonging to a single charge, "center". You are probably confused; all that exists is the geometrical center of the field. I know, confusing even an MSEE; but, i figured it out. Thanks to CERN, showing all that exist is charge via what is a neutron; funny puzzle glueons? neutrino, separation syndrome, oscillation! ta da
Hyperfuzzy
2 / 5 (4) Jun 25, 2018
I think the image is backward in time; calculate V, everywhere, you'll get it! a? da/dt? are vectors
Hyperfuzzy
1.8 / 5 (5) Jun 25, 2018
for lensing type media applied to these objects? First define line of attack?
Reg Mundy
1.6 / 5 (7) Jun 25, 2018
@jonesdave
Hey, sh1tforbrains, how about spelling out how this applies in an astrophysical setting? Dumbo. What is causing it? Where is it written up and calculated? Do you have trouble with comprehension? Point us to the work. Stop making sh1t up. Idiot.

Wow, I'm stunned by your erudition! An amazing command of English (I think its English...). You are wasting your talents here, you need to be where you would be appreciated for what you are. I expect several people are trying to organize this for you even now, so don't be frightened when you are approached by large gentlemen in white uniforms carrying big butterfly nets...
jonesdave
3.4 / 5 (5) Jun 25, 2018
@jonesdave
Hey, sh1tforbrains, how about spelling out how this applies in an astrophysical setting? Dumbo. What is causing it? Where is it written up and calculated? Do you have trouble with comprehension? Point us to the work. Stop making sh1t up. Idiot.

Wow, I'm stunned by your erudition! An amazing command of English (I think its English...). You are wasting your talents here, you need to be where you would be appreciated for what you are. I expect several people are trying to organize this for you even now, so don't be frightened when you are approached by large gentlemen in white uniforms carrying big butterfly nets...


#And the sh1tfor brains eejit fails to come up with anything even remotely scientific! Hey, Reggie boy; you aren't the idiot Thornhill in disguise are you?
I'll repeat this for those with an IQ below 70; where is your fu**ing lens? Idiots. Spell it out. With maths. Jeez, how thick are you loons?
jonesdave
3.7 / 5 (6) Jun 25, 2018
Wow, I'm stunned by your erudition! An amazing command of English (I think its English...). You are wasting your talents here, you need to be where you would be appreciated for what you are. I expect several people are trying to organize this for you even now, so don't be frightened when you are approached by large gentlemen in white uniforms carrying big butterfly nets...


This is what a wanker sounds like when asked to actually do some science. Eh, Meg? No chance of your idiot self actually doing some science, is there, dear? Course not. Tosser.
jonesdave
3.7 / 5 (6) Jun 25, 2018
.......word salad incoming.......Meg Rundy has books to sell - to scientifically illiterate loons. Guess what Rag Munday can't do? Yes, boys and girls - science. Eh, Rag?
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
3 / 5 (4) Jun 25, 2018
I'm not the one who dissed relativity because it was discovered by a Jewish person. Perhaps you should address the bigot instead of me.
says Da

Perhaps I must have missed the post where ZoeBell expresses bigotry against Jews. I cannot locate that comment. I have only found THIS by ZoeBell:

"The German mathematician David Hilbert submitted an article containing the correct field equations for general relativity five days before Einstein. Hilbert submitted his article on 20 November 1915, five days before Einstein submitted his article containing the correct field equations. Einstein's article appeared on 2 December 1915 but the proofs of Hilbert's paper (dated 6 December 1915) do not contain the field equations."
No mention of Jews in that.

@Da
Would you kindly locate his comment wrt Jewish bigotry for all of us to see? Thank you. I would be very interested in determining if, as you say, Jewish bigotry is involved.

Da Schneib
3.7 / 5 (3) Jun 25, 2018
If you're just going to lie, @Sodomy_Egg_Unit, I see no point in engaging you. You just look like another of the swastika-sucking Russian trolls. e

I see no use in prettying up the pig and letting it pretend to be a duchess.

This individual reveals racism in no uncertain terms and you deny it. Obviously you are an agent provocateur.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
3.7 / 5 (3) Jun 25, 2018
I'm seriously considering whether all the nuticases that think GR is wrong are anti-Jewish bigots. You look like one of them, @racist86.

says Da

Exactly WHO is this "racist86" person, Da? I have looked all over this thread for this person and can't locate the name anywhere. Identify him/her, please.

I am curious as to your reason for conflating opponents of General Relativity with anti-Jewish bigotry. Most everyone who has ever lived has, at one time or another, been bigoted over something or someone they did not like. I'm almost certain that even YOU have had some bigoted thoughts in the past or present.
Einstein's religion had nothing to do with his math equations/theories
.
However, ZoeBell seems to believe that Hilbert's correct Field Equations for GR disappeared from his paper that was submitted earlier than Einstein's, while Einstein's correct Field Equations for GR were retained in HIS submission.
Was there favoritism involved?

Surveillance_Egg_Unit
3.7 / 5 (3) Jun 25, 2018
If you're just going to lie, @Sodomy_Egg_Unit, I see no point in engaging you. You just look like another of the swastika-sucking Russian trolls. e

I see no use in prettying up the pig and letting it pretend to be a duchess.

This individual reveals racism in no uncertain terms and you deny it. Obviously you are an agent provocateur.

says Da

I haven't detected ANY form of "racism" in any of ZoeBell's comments in this thread or any other. I have already mentioned previously that the Jewish religion has nothing to do with racism, simply because it is ONLY a RELIGION, like so many other religions of Earth. ALL religions are man-made and Judaism is no exception.
There are Chinese Jews and there is a group of Papuans in New Guinea who claim to descend from Jews. Their other ancestors are said to have been cannibals. There are Jews in Iran, Morocco, and other nonWhite nations. So which of these suffer from racism?
Hyperfuzzy
1 / 5 (3) Jun 26, 2018
Don't think your race has anything to do with the nonsense; but, most of came from white people. But, Coulomb and Maxwell; so, I guess the nonsense belongs to the very clever illogicals.
Da Schneib
3 / 5 (2) Jun 26, 2018
Actually I was just askin'. I was surprised not to get a response, and it's obvious the conclusions to be drawn from that.
savvys84
1 / 5 (3) Jun 26, 2018
Lol nice one.
there is no gravitational lensing as it is impossible to bend space.
the observations are consistent with refraction of light when passing thru gas clouds


Lol. What an idiot!


Lol nice one.
there is no gravitational lensing as it is impossible to bend space.
the observations are consistent with refraction of light when passing thru gas clouds


Lol. What an idiot!

Lol. What a wanker
jonesdave
3.4 / 5 (5) Jun 26, 2018
Lol nice one.
there is no gravitational lensing as it is impossible to bend space.
the observations are consistent with refraction of light when passing thru gas clouds


Lol. What an idiot!


Lol nice one.
there is no gravitational lensing as it is impossible to bend space.
the observations are consistent with refraction of light when passing thru gas clouds


Lol. What an idiot!

Lol. What a wanker


Show us the science, woo boy.
granville583762
3.7 / 5 (6) Jun 26, 2018
Interesting. All energy is massless
Da Schneib> E = mc² is only correct when momentum is zero. This is appropriate only when things are not moving. For things that are moving, the correct equation is E = p²c² + (mc²)² where p is momentum. Photons, having zero mass, obey the equation E = p²c² since m being zero cancels that term.

In relativity, all the energy that moves with a proton contributes to the total mass of the proton as a measure of how much it resists acceleration all of the protons potential and kinetic energy adds to its the mass.
A substantial minefield for those who believe energy has mass
ZoeBell
Jun 26, 2018
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Da Schneib
3.7 / 5 (3) Jun 26, 2018
I asked and you didn't deny it. I found that pretty interesting. You still haven't. And I'm still finding it interesting. It was just a shot in the dark. Very interesting to have it hit.
milnik
1 / 5 (4) Jun 26, 2018
Gentlemen,
You poorly understand the process of forming matter, going from quarks and gluons to galaxies. Using high vibrations of the Aether substance, which fills an infinite universe, two forms of matter are formed: the "solid" and the "liquid" state of matter. The "solid" state is a 3 quark particle and 3 gluon binders. This condition with Aether causes the appearance of gravity, which has the task of returning matter back to the form of Aether (renewable processes of formation and disappearance of matter.) Another form of matter is the state of energy of matter - the "liquid" state, these are free gluons obtained by annihilation of electrons and positrons. AEHER state causes the appearance of magnetism This is the basis of all possible phenomena in the material energy entity of the universe (MEEU) Particle 3 quark and 3 gluon bonds is not quark gluon plasma Quark gluon plasma is a mixture of 3kg particles and free
milnik
1 / 5 (4) Jun 26, 2018
These glues form the celestial body of a magnet.
When the free gluon decays, the positron enters the 3kg particle and proton forms, and when the electron establishes the balance of the energy state of that particle, a hydrogen atom forms.
This is my copyright law and from this I can prove everything that today's science does not understand. Heaven's bodies as star systems arise from gases after the supernova explosion, and when the critical mass and gravity reach, due to gravity, from these star systems, black holes are formed, where the material is transformed back into the form of Aether from which matter is formed.
Reg Mundy
1 / 5 (5) Jun 26, 2018
Show us the science, woo boy!

savvy is right, you are a wanker. Here's the "science" you crave, though I don't expect you to understand it!
https://www.googl...;bih=693
Following that, here's an extract from an old posting:-
Suppose I postulate that the speed of light is always not quite "c" depending on what medium it is travelling thru'. So, in almost perfect vacuum, it is 99.999999999999etc. %c. Interesting then that depending on medium, light would always experience refraction as it progresses between different densities of matter, e.g from extremely tenuous in intergalactic space thru' merely tenuous as it passes huge clumps of matter. As the refractive index change is extremely small, there would be miniscule defraction differential between wavelengths, almost achromatic..... So, do we need gravitic lensing? No, we don't!
jonesdave
3.7 / 5 (6) Jun 26, 2018
^^^^^Zero science as usual Reggie boy. Just word salad. Show me the papers where this has been proven. You know - by scientists, who understand this sort of thing, as opposed to woo merchants like yourself with little to no understanding of astrophysics. Where is your lens? What is the power of a plasma to bend light compared to the already proven gravitational lensing? Papers, woo boy, or you are just making sh!t up, as usual.
jonesdave
4.2 / 5 (5) Jun 26, 2018
Suppose I postulate that the speed of light is always not quite "c".......


Total woo. Who made that crap up? Not a scientist, I'll wager.
jonesdave
4 / 5 (8) Jun 26, 2018
As it happens, plasma lensing has been looked at by real scientists, and is detectable - at nowhere near the strength of gravitational lensing.

Effects of plasma on gravitational lensing
Xinzhong Er, Shude Mao
https://arxiv.org...310.5825
Reg Mundy
1 / 5 (4) Jun 26, 2018
^^^^^Zero science as usual Reggie boy. Just word salad. Show me the papers where this has been proven. You know - by scientists, who understand this sort of thing, as opposed to woo merchants like yourself with little to no understanding of astrophysics. Where is your lens? What is the power of a plasma to bend light compared to the already proven gravitational lensing? Papers, woo boy, or you are just making sh!t up, as usual.

I show you the papers and you come back with this shit? Can't you read?
Reg Mundy
1.7 / 5 (6) Jun 26, 2018
Suppose I postulate that the speed of light is always not quite "c".......


Total woo. Who made that crap up? Not a scientist, I'll wager.

Are you saying that the speed of light is constant for all media? You are a total cretin, aren't you?
I am bored talking to you, you ignore quoted scientific papers and persist in silly insults.
I will start to ignore you from the next stupid comment you make.
On second thoughts, as you are manifestly either a creep or a site provocateur sock puppet, make that from now,
Da Schneib
4.2 / 5 (5) Jun 26, 2018
As it happens, plasma lensing has been looked at by real scientists, and is detectable - at nowhere near the strength of gravitational lensing.
More to the point, gravitational lensing is insensitive to wavelength-- but plasma lensing is quite specific to wavelength.

But never mind reality, the anti-Jewish racists can't stand for Einstein to be right.
jonesdave
3.7 / 5 (6) Jun 26, 2018
^^^^^Zero science as usual Reggie boy. Just word salad. Show me the papers where this has been proven. You know - by scientists, who understand this sort of thing, as opposed to woo merchants like yourself with little to no understanding of astrophysics. Where is your lens? What is the power of a plasma to bend light compared to the already proven gravitational lensing? Papers, woo boy, or you are just making sh!t up, as usual.

I show you the papers and you come back with this shit? Can't you read?


What papers? You provided a link to Google images of frigging optical lenses!
jonesdave
3.7 / 5 (6) Jun 26, 2018
Suppose I postulate that the speed of light is always not quite "c".......


Total woo. Who made that crap up? Not a scientist, I'll wager.

Are you saying that the speed of light is constant for all media? You are a total cretin, aren't you?
I am bored talking to you, you ignore quoted scientific papers and persist in silly insults.
I will start to ignore you from the next stupid comment you make.
On second thoughts, as you are manifestly either a creep or a site provocateur sock puppet, make that from now,


Oooooh diddums, the scientifically illiterate woo merchant is going to ignore me! Just like real science ignores him! Idiot.
Hyperfuzzy
1.8 / 5 (5) Jun 26, 2018
Lol nice one.
there is no gravitational lensing as it is impossible to bend space.
the observations are consistent with refraction of light when passing thru gas clouds


Lol. What an idiot!


Lol nice one.
there is no gravitational lensing as it is impossible to bend space.
the observations are consistent with refraction of light when passing thru gas clouds


Lol. What an idiot!

Lol. What a wanker

WTF is being said
that it true, a constant, not logic, rules; there are only parrots and anyone that argues with the parrot is put down
granville583762
4.2 / 5 (5) Jun 26, 2018
Energy is massless
There is mass and inertial mass, E=MC* is energy equals mass x C* because mass is not inertial mass.
only inertial mass has gravity where inertial masses kinetic energy can be expreesed in tems of mass KE/C* =mass as m is not real mass but dimensional units, it is just a convenient mathematical expression of expressing KE in terms of mass because mass m is massless as energy is massless
Only inertial mass has actual measurable mass as in weight which by its velocity* is KE is energy which does not increase inertial mass where KE can be expressed in terms of mass
Hence the confusion of energy equalling inertial mass, it does not, Energy is massless
Only inertial mass exhibits gravity.
Hyperfuzzy
1.8 / 5 (5) Jun 26, 2018
mass is undefined; personally, i can do without it
jonesdave
3.3 / 5 (7) Jun 26, 2018
mass is undefined; personally, i can do without it


Your IQ is that of a brain damaged trilobite. Correct? So, why are you even commenting, you fool?

Surveillance_Egg_Unit
3.4 / 5 (5) Jun 26, 2018
mass is undefined; personally, i can do without it

says Hyper Fuzzball

LOL only in your dreams, literally.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.3 / 5 (6) Jun 26, 2018
As it happens, plasma lensing has been looked at by real scientists, and is detectable - at nowhere near the strength of gravitational lensing.
More to the point, gravitational lensing is insensitive to wavelength-- but plasma lensing is quite specific to wavelength.

But never mind reality, the anti-Jewish racists can't stand for Einstein to be right.

says Da

You were doing fine until you reverted back to your "anti-Jewish racist" shtick, even after I had already said in my comment that JUDAISM IS A RELIGION - NOT A RACE...which you have so blithely chosen to ignore.
Perhaps you yourself are Jewish or married to a Jew, or have deep feelings for people who are of the Jewish faith. If so, that's all fine and dandy. But you seem to have an agenda wrt your imagined projection of racism upon fellow phys.org commenters for their bias against GR. That bias has nothing to do with Einstein being a Jew. And yet you PERSIST in vomiting it back again and again.
Da Schneib
3.7 / 5 (3) Jun 26, 2018
Hey, when I hit a target that straight shooting in the dark, I don't forget it- and neither should you. That you argue against it after such good evidence says that you're not interested in the evidence. It's all right up there in black and white.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.6 / 5 (5) Jun 26, 2018
@Da
You appear to have forgotten my request that you provide the evidence in this thread that ZoeBell has said anything of a racist or bigoted nature wrt Einstein being a Jew. We are still waiting and hope to read it soon (without any intentional/deliberate changes in the text).
Da Schneib
3.4 / 5 (5) Jun 26, 2018
Read

The

Thread.

That is all.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
3.4 / 5 (5) Jun 27, 2018
@ Da
Done. Your evidence is still missing. Nonexistent. Totally nada. You have imagined it and it is all in the deep dark recesses of your imagination. Otherwise, if you were an honorable person, you would have produced that evidence by now. In the meantime, your credibility is slowly slipping away, and the texts in these forums remain on the internet for everyone to read - forever.
Da Schneib
2.3 / 5 (3) Jun 27, 2018
If you can't read I don't see any point in talking to you. But the truth is, you're lying, and it's obvious from the fact you're smart in one post and stupid in the next. Nice try, @Bigot_Egg_Unit. Go post on Stormfront or some other dirty Nazi site where they welcome your racism. You're tagged here and you'll never get rid of it.

Oh, and Einstein was right and you're an idiot who's more interested in your bigotry than in science. Bye now.
Da Schneib
3 / 5 (4) Jun 27, 2018
Like I said elsewhere, the thing about racists is they're stupid. Easy meat.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.6 / 5 (5) Jun 27, 2018
Like I said elsewhere, the thing about racists is they're stupid. Easy meat.

says Da

You have described yourself perfectly. You have been self-projecting your own racism and bigotry onto others in order to assuage your own guilt and fears. Such self-projection onto others is a common occurrence with those who have hangups on race to begin with. Perhaps a good few sessions with a psychiatrist would assist you to improve your mental health and enlighten you enough to rid yourself of your racial hangups and your apparent hatred of humanity. Good luck with that.
jonesdave
3 / 5 (6) Jun 27, 2018
WTF is being said
that it true, a constant, not logic, rules; there are only parrots and anyone that argues with the parrot is put down


What is being said is beyond your ability to understand. Get back to your crack pipe, and leave science to those that actually have a basic understanding of it. Yes?
granville583762
4.7 / 5 (3) Jun 27, 2018
Mass and the de Broglie frequency
A consequence of matter waves is the velocity of the proton; there are two velocities the atoms velocity as in v*=KE and its oscillation which is its de Broglie frequency wavelength=h/p=h/mv are matter waves, all energy is frequency which is massless energy
The energy of the physically oscillating proton is contained in its de Broglie frequency where its wavelength is proportional to C
Matter frequency x wavelength is the protons matter wave velocity where the protons linear velocity v* is the protons KE. It goes without saying the sum of matter wave velocity and linear velocity cannot sum greater than C. This implies KE and matter wave frequency is stored in the de Broglie frequency
Mass approaching C under constant force is taking longer to reach C where FxL =KE will reach infinite energy at C
There is a relationship between linear velocity, kinetic energy, mass, matter waves and the De Broglie Frequency.
ZoeBell
Jun 27, 2018
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
ZoeBell
Jun 27, 2018
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
ZoeBell
Jun 27, 2018
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
granville583762
5 / 5 (3) Jun 27, 2018
ZoeBell> Note that every change of general relativity by adding another artificial terms (like the torsion as applied by Cartan gravity, MOD and TeVeS) also makes general relativity more dimensional and as such potentially violating equivalence principle, which is valid for 4D geometry only. Every attempt to make general relativity more faithful description of hyperdimensional reality around us would also make it more inconsistent and similar to string theory with wide landscape and swamplands of unphysical solutions. This is easily understandable, because once we apply extrinsic perspective to strictly intrinsic model, then this new perspective actually enables to handle new model from many sides and directions at the same moment. Which is also why these modifications of relativity never gained wider support of scientific community.

Are you foreseeing everybody adding their additional little master piece's, till eventually it amounts to a mole hill of epic proportions
jonesdave
2.7 / 5 (7) Jun 27, 2018
Which is also why these modifications of relativity never gained wider support of scientific community.


No, it is because they are wrong.

ZoeBell
Jun 27, 2018
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Hyperfuzzy
1 / 5 (1) Jun 27, 2018
The covariant version of general relativity wasn't actually changed from 1918, when Einstein has published it. Many changes done later were reverted because they violated one or more postulates of relativity in their consequences. I'm just explaining, why it is so: only unmodified relativity remains background independent (in similar way, like the Maxwell theory). This is also why Einstein got priority over Hilbert at the end - his version wasn't fully covariant (ironically it could be more precise physically regarding dark matter). The similar destiny did happen with Maxwell's theory: his original theory was more physically precise, than contemporary textbook version. But - it wasn't fully background independent, so it was symmetrized and abandoned later by Lorentz on behalf of covariant version. But our physical reality simply isn't fully covariant at large or quantum scales. It wasn't problem until our telescopes didn't manage to observe it.

Maxwell is not a theory;
Hyperfuzzy
1 / 5 (2) Jun 27, 2018
none of this is theory, mostly nonsense; no axiomatic structure; statements not part of universe of discourse; childish? Asinine;

without merit; stupid
Da Schneib
2.3 / 5 (3) Jun 27, 2018
Hey @Bigot_Meat_Unit, turns out you're another nutjob religionist fundie. I guess I should have known. Why are you posting on the science site? Warrior for jebus, perhaps? What an idiot. What do you do for an encore, gargle peanut butter? You now have no cred here. Why don't you go post on Stormfront or some other dirty Nazi place? Obviously you think jebus was a Nazi based on your posting history.

Why is it that these assholes all turn out to be Nazi warriors for jebus?
Hyperfuzzy
2.3 / 5 (3) Jun 27, 2018
Hey @Bigot_Meat_Unit, turns out you're another nutjob religionist fundie. I guess I should have known. Why are you posting on the science site? Warrior for jebus, perhaps? What an idiot. What do you do for an encore, gargle peanut butter? You now have no cred here. Why don't you go post on Stormfront or some other dirty Nazi place? Obviously you think jebus was a Nazi based on your posting history.

Why is it that these assholes all turn out to be Nazi warriors for jebus?

you must really love bigot_meat; only lovers talk like that; well married lovers!
granville583762
3.7 / 5 (6) Jun 27, 2018
Mass and the de Broglie frequency as an electromagnetic frequency
What we perceive as a solid mass of collection of protons is not reality, just like the electron, the oscillating 3qaurks of the proton is in actuality an oscillating electromagnetic field, the de Broglie frequency of the proton is an oscillating electromagnetic field, it just feels solid to us,
Just as photons diffract as an a electromagnetic field so do protons,
This has implications for the KE of the proton, it can be stored as a frequency as part of the de Broglie frequency as energy is frequency increasing the protons velocity up to C as mv= wavelength/h mass and velocity and KE can be derived from de Broglie frequency where mass is the form of an electromagnetic frequency.

Hyperfuzzy
1 / 5 (3) Jun 27, 2018
Mass and the de Broglie frequency as an electromagnetic frequency
What we perceive as a solid mass of collection of protons is not reality, just like the electron, the oscillating 3qaurks of the proton is in actuality an oscillating electromagnetic field, the de Broglie frequency of the proton is an oscillating electromagnetic field, it just feels solid to us,
Just as photons diffract as an a electromagnetic field so do protons,
This has implications for the KE of the proton, it can be stored as a frequency as part of the de Broglie frequency as energy is frequency increasing the protons velocity up to C as mv= wavelength/h mass and velocity and KE can be derived from de Broglie frequency where mass is the form of an electromagnetic frequency.


That's what I call nonsense explained with nonsense!
granville583762
3.9 / 5 (7) Jun 27, 2018
Mass and the de Broglie frequency as an electromagnetic frequency
What we perceive as a solid mass of collection of protons is not reality, like the electron, the oscillating 3qaurks of the proton is in actuality an oscillating electromagnetic field, the de Broglie frequency of the proton is an oscillating electromagnetic field, it just feels solid to us,
Just as photons diffract as an a electromagnetic field so do protons,
This has implications for the KE of the proton, it can be stored as a frequency as part of the de Broglie frequency as energy is frequency increasing the protons velocity up to C as mv= wavelength/h mass and velocity and KE can be derived from de Broglie frequency where mass is the form of an electromagnetic frequency.

Hyperfuzzy> That's what I call nonsense explained with nonsense!

Just like your nonsensical comment Hyperfuzzy
Why not try a constructive comment Hyperfuzzy or will that not contradict your nonsensical comment Hyperfuzzy
jonesdave
3.3 / 5 (7) Jun 27, 2018

Just like your nonsensical comment Hyperfuzzy
Why not try a constructive comment Hyperfuzzy or will that not contradict your nonsensical comment Hyperfuzzy


Hyperf*ckw1t doesn't do science, to be fair. Then again, Granville, I haven't got a clue what you are on about, either. Probably better for everybody's sanity if you both stop posting. Yes? Neither of you seem to have a clue.
Da Schneib
4 / 5 (4) Jun 27, 2018
In my observation @granville needs tutoring, not pushing. But you'll do as you will, @jonesey. Bear sarcasm in mind.
Hyperfuzzy
5 / 5 (1) Jun 28, 2018
I dunno, can't caculate a response to those without logic. I mean this respectfully. Your comments create an asinine argument, no insult intended. Your turn. Are we riding society or proving how illogical we are?
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
3 / 5 (4) Jun 28, 2018
Hey @Bigot_Meat_Unit, turns out you're another nutjob religionist fundie. I guess I should have known. Why are you posting on the science site? Warrior for jebus, perhaps? What an idiot. What do you do for an encore, gargle peanut butter? You now have no cred here. Why don't you go post on Stormfront or some other dirty Nazi place? Obviously you think jebus was a Nazi based on your posting history.

Why is it that these assholes all turn out to be Nazi warriors for jebus?

you must really love bigot_meat; only lovers talk like that; well married lovers!

says Hyper Fuzzball replying to Da who desperately needs psychiatric help.

I am not religious, although I DO believe in the existence of the Creator, who is and was the very first SCIENTIST. Even the best human scientists cannot CREATE LIFE no matter how hard they try. The only thing that they create/make is something that has its genesis from something that had lived/existed already. They cannot create LIFE.
granville583762
4.3 / 5 (6) Jun 28, 2018
Why have a commenting section if were encouraged not to comment
Da Schneib> In my observation @granville needs tutoring, not pushing. But you'll do as you will, @jonesey. Bear sarcasm in mind.

Da Schneib:- I don't mind sarcasm, criticism and constructive constructivism, but it is a puzzle when the rating system (a system for excellence) is used to rate a text one does not understand
jonesdave> Then again, Granville, I haven't got a clue what you are on about, either. Probably better for everybody's sanity if you both stop posting

There is no way of understanding a text if J.Ds. constructive criticism is; don't post any more texts.
Why does J.D. think I encourage commenting, for one it is far better than expletives and exercises J.Ds. grey cells which are growing greyer by the diminishing commenting he doesn't understand – Dr Jarosław Duda used to say, why have a commenting section if were encouraged not to comment, he summoned up it in that brief sentence!
savvys84
2.3 / 5 (3) Jun 28, 2018
@ Indiana Jonesy
Lol nice one.

Show us the science, woo boy.
I trust you have read my papers and watched the video. If not, here ya go
hhhts://www.scribd.com/savvys84
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
3.9 / 5 (7) Jun 28, 2018
@granville
Da and a few others have formed what amounts to a "high school clique" where they have become the immoral equivalent of Maxine Waters, the alleged 'lady' who wishes to dominate and shut out all those that she opposes politically and socially. Da S and his/her goombahs cannot stand ANY sort of competition wrt ideas, theories, and opinions that are not also theirs, so they will do all in their power to prevent you from posting your opinions, etc. It offends these schoolyard bullies that you have thoughts of your own which, perhaps they never thought of also.
Ad hominem attacks and outright lies about your character and other methods of vilification. They will follow you from article to article, to attack and vilify you to others, as though anyone in his or her right mind could care less about their bullying.
It is amusing and that's about all it is.
granville583762
4 / 5 (4) Jun 28, 2018
Mellowing with age, no one is has immunity any more
Surveillance_Egg_Unit> have formed what amounts to a "high school clique"

I thought we'd plumbed the depths of J.Ds expletives; apparently we're only scraping the surface
Even so the "high school clique" has its limits, it appears as J.D. mellows with age, no one has any immunity any more, even that cherished "high school clique!
granville583762
4.2 / 5 (5) Jun 28, 2018
Clueless; it must be the way you tell them J.D.
jonesdave> I haven't got a clue what you are on about. Probably better for everybody's sanity if you both stop posting. Yes? Neither of you seem to have a clue

It must be the way you tell them J.D. as you haven't got a clue either, do we take it your including yourself in that bit about not posting as well!
ZoeBell
Jun 28, 2018
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
434a
3 / 5 (8) Jun 28, 2018
But the black hole already must have nonzero mass, right? So from which moment we got this mass into black hole? Now you can also understand, why Einstein reason: it would flagrantly violate his own pet theory...!


This is you.

Science says all pigs are unicorns in disguise. They chop their horns off so we don't notice.
Actually all pigs are chickens, look I found a feather inside a sausage (which I made out of chickens but I'm not telling you that).
Science is wrong.

The tripe you write is so wrong it's beyond wrong. It's an insult to wrong.

If you put how wrong you are on a ruler, with right at one end and actual wrong in the middle
we'd need to build a bijou extension to our Universe to fit your wrongness on the other end.

I suspect the reason you don't actually bother to study any physics is the fear you have of catching fire with the burning shame you'd feel when you realised just what crap you have been writing all these years.
Hyperfuzzy
1.8 / 5 (5) Jun 28, 2018
Charge exists, charge composes all; charge is necessary and sufficient; then gravity is illogical, i.e. not necessary! QED
jonesdave
2.3 / 5 (6) Jun 28, 2018
I trust you have read my papers and watched the video. If not, here ya go
hhhts://www.scribd.com/savvys84


Non-peer reviewed garbage. Stick to engineering.
Da Schneib
2.3 / 5 (3) Jun 28, 2018
@granville, I was speaking of your sarcasm, not @jonesey's. His sarcasm is pretty blunt; you tend to get a bit more esoteric. And you have quite a lot to learn about physics, I've observed. But I've noticed you seem to be generally sincere. I am now testing that with you, so don't get squirrely with me.
Hyperfuzzy
5 / 5 (1) Jun 28, 2018
I trust you have read my papers and watched the video. If not, here ya go
hhhts://www.scribd.com/savvys84


Non-peer reviewed garbage. Stick to engineering.

I have no Logical Peer Reviews, ever! So, is it all garbage?
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.6 / 5 (5) Jun 28, 2018
I trust you have read my papers and watched the video. If not, here ya go
hhhts://www.scribd.com/savvys84


Non-peer reviewed garbage. Stick to engineering.

I have no Logical Peer Reviews, ever! So, is it all garbage?
says Hyper Fuzzball (granville included)

Why do you take what they say so seriously? You have the right to submit your ideas and opinions in these forums.

According to my dictionary:
forum | ˈfôrəm |
noun (plural forums)
1 a place, meeting, or medium where ideas and views on a particular issue can be exchanged: it will be a forum for consumers to exchange their views on medical research.
• a website or web page where users can post comments about a particular issue or topic and reply to other users' postings.

This website is for ALL commenters, whether or not everyone agrees with opinions stated. Don't get into a tizzy and start feeling sorry for yourself over the comments from dumb cucks.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.7 / 5 (7) Jun 28, 2018
@granville & Hyper Fuzzball

The best laid plans of mice and men often begin with the required huddle that, first of all, sets the stage to strike any errors and inconsistencies out of the mix. Everyone will have their input taken into consideration no matter how hare-brained it sounds. Nobody gets thrown out. The understanding is that a great idea may start out as one that is initially assailable, but in retrospect and after much circumspection, the idea is studied at length and opinions are exchanged by all wrt its feasibility.

THIS forum is NOT a means to evaluate and test anyone's ideas. It is, basically a social club where everyone comes to see and be seen, as though at a Broadway casting. Your opinions don't necessarily mean that YOU are automatically accepted by the physorg clique even if your opinions/ideas have great merit. If they like YOU, they give you a five. Otherwise, a lot of ad hominem may ensue plus a lot of character assassination.

Don't sweat it.
434a
4 / 5 (8) Jun 29, 2018
@SEU

Imagine you went to an art appreciation club. You sat down to listen to a woman who knew Mark Rothko all her life, had watched him paint, photographed him painting, and had written a biography of his life's work, which he had signed and had written the foreword for.

The Guggenheim have kindly lent the club his painting Black and Gray for the evening, a painting she knew well and has pictures of him painting.

You sit back and listen to the lecture, challenged by art that is not in your usual purview.

At the end of the evening the woman asks, "Are there any questions?"

From the front a man stands up and tells her Rothko was a 17th century Japanese woman, who was the founder of cubist surrealism and the picture and all of the photographs are fake and that she is a liar. And a bunch of other muppets stand up and defend his right to an evidence free, baseless opinion because they want to stick their 2 cents in.

Welcome to physorg.
granville583762
3.4 / 5 (5) Jun 29, 2018
The Clique is Doomed to Fail
Surveillance_Egg_Unit> THIS forum is NOT a means to evaluate and test anyone's idea basically a social club where everyone comes to see and be seen as though at a Broadway casting. Your opinions don't necessarily mean that YOU are automatically accepted by the physorg clique even if your opinions/ideas have great merit. If they like YOU, they give you a five Otherwise a lot of ad hominem may ensue plus a lot of character assassination

5s and 1s are more in line with who's in and who's out, those in are running the clique to ground, to keep a clique no one can be ignored the expletives are attempt to keep the clique. It doesn't work I've seen it fail not just because of the expletives it ultimately failed because zero texts were encouraged Surveillance_Egg_Unit, a self defeating extinction exercise resulted in no one commenting at all, and now in another world, yet again from one in the clique. The Clique is Doomed to Fail !
granville583762
2.7 / 5 (7) Jun 29, 2018
This forum is an all inclusive social club
In other words Surveillance_Egg_Unit, this forum is an all inclusive social club where a degree in science is recommended, but all are welcome from whatever walk of life you may come!
Da Schneib
3.3 / 5 (7) Jun 29, 2018
Unfortunately this forum is a dumping ground for rightwingnuts, religious nutbar bigots, and physics conspiracy theorists, not to mention lying climate change denialists.

We fight them off as best we can. A lot of times it's not pretty.
Hyperfuzzy
1 / 5 (3) Jun 29, 2018
Unfortunately this forum is a dumping ground for rightwingnuts, religious nutbar bigots, and physics conspiracy theorists, not to mention lying climate change denialists.

We fight them off as best we can. A lot of times it's not pretty.

OK, since 1900
jonesdave
2 / 5 (4) Jun 29, 2018
Unfortunately this forum is a dumping ground for rightwingnuts, religious nutbar bigots, and physics conspiracy theorists, not to mention lying climate change denialists.

We fight them off as best we can. A lot of times it's not pretty.


You forgot those with very low IQs, and sod all knowledge of the relevant science. Otherwise, I agree with you!
jonesdave
2.3 / 5 (6) Jun 29, 2018
This forum is an all inclusive social club


No, it isn't. It is not a forum. It is a comments section of a sci-news aggregate. You want a forum to discuss woo with physicists? Astrophysicists? Plasma physicists? Etc? There are a few. Go join one. Spew your woo there, and get told the same thing we are telling you here. In other words, grow a pair, and try to get this past real scientists, where they aren't limited to 1000 characters. All of these wooists do not possess the cojones to do that. Which is why we have to put up with their crap here. They are idiots.
Hyperfuzzy
1 / 5 (2) Jun 29, 2018
This forum is an all inclusive social club


No, it isn't. It is not a forum. It is a comments section of a sci-news aggregate. You want a forum to discuss woo with physicists? Astrophysicists? Plasma physicists? Etc? There are a few. Go join one. Spew your woo there, and get told the same thing we are telling you here. In other words, grow a pair, and try to get this past real scientists, where they aren't limited to 1000 characters. All of these wooists do not possess the cojones to do that. Which is why we have to put up with their crap here. They are idiots.

Beautiful Nonsense as what? dunno!
granville583762
3.7 / 5 (6) Jun 29, 2018
Da Schneib and jonesdave
Da Schneib> Unfortunately this forum is a dumping ground for rightwingnuts, religious nutbar bigots, and physics conspiracy theorists, not to mention lying climate change denialists.

We fight them off as best we can. A lot of times it's not pretty.

Unfortunately Da Schneib, you cannot fight them of what ever this commetary is called, there is only one soloution Da Schneib and jonesdave and it is effective and works which is why Da Schneib and jonesdave if you want to see how effective it is, just carry on in the same old way and one day when log on, you say whats the need to log, no ones home pages will be there any more
Hyperfuzzy
1 / 5 (1) Jun 29, 2018
Da Schneib and jonesdave
Da Schneib> Unfortunately this forum is a dumping ground for rightwingnuts, religious nutbar bigots, and physics conspiracy theorists, not to mention lying climate change denialists.

We fight them off as best we can. A lot of times it's not pretty.

Unfortunately Da Schneib, you cannot fight them of what ever this commetary is called, there is only one soloution Da Schneib and jonesdave and it is effective and works which is why Da Schneib and jonesdave if you want to see how effective it is, just carry on in the same old way and one day when log on, you say whats the need to log, no ones home pages will be there any more

Well, maybe you should honor us with Logic & Wisdom! Please spell check.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.6 / 5 (5) Jun 29, 2018
@SEU

Imagine you went to an art appreciation club. You sat down to listen to a woman who knew Mark Rothko all her life, had watched him paint, photographed him painting, and had written a biography of his life's work, which he had signed and had written the foreword for.

The Guggenheim have kindly lent the club his painting Black and Gray for the evening, a painting she knew well and has pictures of him painting...

At the end of the evening the woman asks, "Are there any questions?"

From the front a man stands up and tells her Rothko was a 17th century Japanese woman, who was the founder of cubist surrealism and the picture and all of the photographs are fake and that she is a liar. And a bunch of other muppets stand up and defend his right to an evidence free, baseless opinion because they want to stick their 2 cents in.

Welcome to physorg.
says 434a

If you are referring the Russian-Jewish artist, Mark Rothko (Rothkowitz)
-CONTINUED-
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.6 / 5 (5) Jun 29, 2018
-CONTINUED-
...Wikipedia gives Rothko's history thusly:
"
Mark Rothko
Photo of Mark Rothko by James Scott in 1959.jpg
Rothko visiting the Scott family in 1959
Born Markus Yakovlevich Rothkowitz

September 25, 1903

Dvinsk, Vitebsk Governorate, Russian Empire

(now Daugavpils, Latvia)
Died February 25, 1970 (aged 66)

New York City, U.S.
Nationality American
Education Lincoln High School, Portland, Oregon
Alma mater Yale University
Known for Painting
Movement Abstract expressionism, Color Field
Spouse(s) Edith Sachar (1932–1943)

Mark Rothko (/ˈrɒθkoʊ/), born Markus Yakovlevich Rothkowitz (Russian: Ма́ркус Я́ковлевич Ротко́вич, Latvian: Markuss Rotkovičs; September 25, 1903 – February 25, 1970), was an American painter of Russian Jewish descent. Although Rothko himself refused to adhere to any art movement, he is generally identified as an abstract expressionist."
-CONTINUED-
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.6 / 5 (5) Jun 30, 2018
-CONTINUED-
IF you are referring to the Mark Rothko mentioned above, perhaps you can explain why you have chosen to summarise an allegorical scenario which, while amusing, falsely implies that Rothko was a Japanese woman. Your scenario may be read and rendered to the gullible as gospel truth.
It would have been much more credible if you had completed the rest of the story.

It may be that you are using this as an allegory to imply that at least SOME physorg commenters are comparable to the man in the audience who is apparently suffering from a delusion, as well as his "muppets" who defend his right to tell lies about Rothko. In this case, the female photographer has the onus on her to further provide proof of her relationship to her subject. Proof that is readily available. Interesting as well as motivating. It motivated me to search for you Mark Rothko.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
3.7 / 5 (3) Jun 30, 2018
This forum is an all inclusive social club


No, it isn't. It is not a forum. It is a comments section of a sci-news aggregate. You want a forum to discuss woo with physicists? Astrophysicists? Plasma physicists? Etc? There are a few. Go join one. Spew your woo there, and get told the same thing we are telling you here. In other words, grow a pair, and try to get this past real scientists, where they aren't limited to 1000 characters. All of these wooists do not possess the cojones to do that. Which is why we have to put up with their crap here. They are idiots.

says jonesdave

You really should consult your computer's dictionary for the exact definition of the word "forum". You will find that it describes perfectly the physorg comments section of this and any other article on Phys.org.
savvys84
1 / 5 (2) Jun 30, 2018
I trust you have read my papers and watched the video. If not, here ya go
hhhts://www.scribd.com/savvys84


Non-peer reviewed garbage. Stick to engineering.

Hey

I trust you have read my papers and watched the video. If not, here ya go
hhhts://www.scribd.com/savvys84


Non-peer reviewed garbage. Stick to engineering.

,

I trust you have read my papers and watched the video. If not, here ya go
hhhts://www.scribd.com/savvys84


Non-peer reviewed garbage. Stick to engineering.

are

I trust you have read my papers and watched the video. If not, here ya go
hhhts://www.scribd.com/savvys84


Non-peer reviewed garbage. Stick to engineering.

Are you f..kg blind. The peer review is cited in the Acknowledgements
granville583762
5 / 5 (2) Jun 30, 2018
@granville, I was speaking of your sarcasm, not @jonesey's. His sarcasm is pretty blunt; you tend to get a bit more esoteric. And you have quite a lot to learn about physics, I've observed. But I've noticed you seem to be generally sincere. I am now testing that with you, so don't get squirrely with me.

Noted, the Pennines have a divide.
434a
2.3 / 5 (3) Jun 30, 2018
@SEU

In this case, the female photographer has the onus on her to further provide proof of her relationship to her subject. Proof that is readily available.


And this is how we know you are no scientist as you fail to take away what is so evident to everyone else.

Even Zoebell. or is it Makita or Zeph, so many socks, even they understand it, hence the lovely 1 (such an easy way for you to show everyone that you own the point I was making, so to speak)

And bless you for copying great chunks out of wikipedia, but I am well aware of Mark and his work, having photographed much of it over the years.

Have a lovely day.
Hyperfuzzy
5 / 5 (1) Jun 30, 2018
Disrespect seldom leads to wisdom.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
3 / 5 (4) Jul 02, 2018
@SEU

In this case, the female photographer has the onus on her to further provide proof of her relationship to her subject. Proof that is readily available.


And this is how we know you are no scientist as you fail to take away what is so evident to everyone else.

Even Zoebell. or is it Makita or Zeph, so many socks, even they understand it, hence the lovely 1 (such an easy way for you to show everyone that you own the point I was making, so to speak)

And bless you for copying great chunks out of wikipedia, but I am well aware of Mark and his work, having photographed much of it over the years.

Have a lovely day.

says 434a

LOL
At no time in ANY of my posts on physorg have I EVER claimed to be a scientist. I am an interested observer and scholar. For you to take the liberty of ASSUMING without questioning first is a clear indication that you are a CRANK who is seeking to victimise whomever is available and who is not in the PhysOrg Clique.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
3 / 5 (4) Jul 02, 2018
For many years I have been reading the comments in the PhysOrg forums, and on occasion someone will come up with an idea that even the scientists/researchers in the article haven't thought of. At some point later, the commenter's idea shows up in a future article, which proves to me that even scientists can always profit by some "unknown" in a physorg forum arriving at an hypothesis which the scientists/researchers had overlooked.

I may, in the future, be considered a "citizen scientist". It may be a long way off, but I am patient enough to continue my education in the sciences.

WRT the 1's and 5's rating system, I have made comments which immediately scored 1 or more 5's, which were then later devalued to a lower rating by 2 or more CRANKS and other members of the PhysOrg Clique with automatic 1's.

It is too bad that this website has attracted such CRANKS who very seldom offer any comment of value and only live to demean the comments of others. Such a shame.

Surveillance_Egg_Unit
5 / 5 (2) Jul 02, 2018
said savvy84

Perhaps you are not aware of it, but when you clicked the QUOTE button for the "woo boy" comment, you included THAT post to your own comment, thus resulting in both his and your comments rendered in the gray text as though yours was a continuation of his comment.

I hope that I have explained it well enough to be comprehensible.

@savvy84
The text that is in the gray color cannot be linked to. Please give it another try, only this time do not add it with someone's previous quote. Thanks.
Hyperfuzzy
1 / 5 (1) Jul 02, 2018
If i were the center of any charge; i would observe the entire world as a +/- charge at +/- r; therefore the sum :QED
Hyperfuzzy
1 / 5 (1) Jul 02, 2018
Charge is infinite and unique; there appears to be an infinite number of polar pairs. The motion of the equal potential spheres as the center moves, is described by Maxwell. Initial wavelengths is typically related to some contained space; either stationary or moving relative to me. ... PhD?
Hyperfuzzy
1 / 5 (1) Jul 02, 2018
Fields aren't allowed to screw with a previously defined field; thus fields only affect field centers; field centers always respond to the field no matter where they are !... from -infinity to +infinity, immortal centers and ever changing fields.
RobertKarlStonjek
not rated yet Aug 18, 2018
Whydening Gyre, yes we do have orbital velocities measured, but not the reason for the orbital velocities of stars within galaxies. The outer stars are too fast and/or the inner stars are too slow for the mass of the galaxy which is why Dark Matter is arbitrarily added to the mix.

See this essay for some ideas on what an alternative solution might look like.
https://www.faceb...2216884/
Hyperfuzzy
not rated yet Aug 18, 2018
Whydening Gyre, yes we do have orbital velocities measured, but not the reason for the orbital velocities of stars within galaxies. The outer stars are too fast and/or the inner stars are too slow for the mass of the galaxy which is why Dark Matter is arbitrarily added to the mix.

See this essay for some ideas on what an alternative solution might look like.
https://www.faceb...2216884/

I'm beginning to sound repetitive; first disprove the logical; charge is only the center of an infinite E Field; Only Zero at infinity, whatever that is.; these fields have always existed therefore each is infinite. We don't know the value any where? Relative to what? So I don't know WTF you guys are doing.

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.