Gravity does not cause any light bending, NASA scientist claims. But what does ?

[Marvas]

Dr. Edward Dowdye

You are a American NASA scientist who studied physics in Germany and is fluent in German, and when you read …

beyondmainstream.org

Once more, when you are looking at stars near the sun, you notice that the light is only bent when the starlight is inside the corona of the sun, but did not bend outside the corona where Einstein predicted. Einstein’s general theory of relativity predicts starlight should bend at least slightly near the sun outside the corona but this is not observed.

Dr. Dowdye points out that stars outside the corona of the sun in fact do not bend according to Einstein’s general relativity.



The reason why light bends in the sun's corona is obviously from refraction, similar to atmospheric refraction:

Atmospheric refraction
is the deviation of light or other electromagnetic wave from a straight line as it passes through the atmosphere due to the variation in air density as a function of height.[1] This refraction is due to the velocity of light through air decreasing (the refractive index increases) with increased density. Atmospheric refraction near the ground produces mirages. Such refraction can also raise or lower, or stretch or shorten, the images of distant objects without involving mirages. Turbulent air can make distant objects appear to twinkle or shimmer. The term also applies to the refraction of sound. Atmospheric refraction is considered in measuring the position of both celestial and terrestrial objects. Astronomical or celestial refraction causes astronomical objects to appear higher above the horizon than they actually are.
Refraction not only affects visible light rays, but all electromagnetic radiation, although in varying degrees.

Now we can apply this to stars, like the sun, which have atmospheres, and even to galaxies, which are enveloped in spherical halos of plasma. There is no reason to believe that light bending is caused by the gravity or spacetime curvature, especially when there IS NO LIGHT BENDING OUTSIDE THE SUN'S CORONA, as the amazing DR. Edward Dowdye from NASA has showed

 

[Marvas]

So here you have an actual NASA scientist proving that Einstein was WRONG, just like I did, and the mainstream scientific community is ignoring him. No peer review, no nothing, they just IGNORE HIM.
Because he completely destroyed their experimentally proved non-sense, and their cosmoillogical big bang universe, which is entirely based on relativistic pseudo physics and redshifts which dont exist as I have proved. Or at least they claim it is because I showed why the big bang contradicts GR and also SR, and again no one was able to disprove me.

 

[Gibsense]

There is no reason to believe that light bending is caused by the gravity or spacetime curvature, especially when there IS NO LIGHT BENDING OUTSIDE THE SUN'S CORONA, as the amazing DR. Edward Dowdye from NASA has showed

too many

 

[Classical Motion]

In the sixties, seventh grade science class, a stilled solution of sugar water bowed a flashlight beam. A density gradient can bow white light. No gravity needed. And it was bowed, not bounced.

Argued this for years to no avail. Spacetime spacetime spacetime is all you hear.

 

[billslugg]

The only reason we can't measure the bending of starlight outside the corona is the bending is too small to measure. We see it all over the universe in gravitational lensing occurring in the vacuum.

 

[Classical Motion]

I have no proof or studies, but with the age and the number of stars, and all the solar wind…..I assume a density gradient around a galaxy. Just like a star.

 

[billslugg]

Quiet Black Holes do a good job of gravitational lensing but have cleared their immediate area of matter.

 

[Gibsense]

In the sixties, seventh grade science class, a stilled solution of sugar water bowed a flashlight beam. A density gradient can bow white light. No gravity needed. And it was bowed, not bounced.

Argued this for years to no avail. Spacetime spacetime spacetime is all you hear.

Refractive index and Snell's Law for sure but what has that got to do with the issue? Surely you are not suggesting that the atmosphere of a star or Galaxy extends billions of miles out to cause refraction and that therefore General relativity is wrong - or are you?
Or maybe space is compressed near a star and this is Snell's Law operating but using space compression or flow ? So if the latter then surely this is just a different way of describing the same physics.
So can the same processes apply but substitute different mediums ( space for atmosphere)? I have no idea. Just a thought lol:-

Approaching a star, say, the curvature of space is more obvious and changes the direction of light much like how light behaves when caused by a refractive medium. The refractive medium in this analogy becomes space itself - by a theoretical increase in the density of space as the star is approached.

 

[billslugg]

Space is a high vacuum. No refraction going on there.
The interstellar medium contains about 10^6 hydrogen molecules per cubic meter.
A one square meter fishing net swept all the way to Alpha Centauri would gather about a gram of hydrogen, far to little to refract anything.

 

[Classical Motion]

I believe that a density gradient can bow light. I believe that molecular, atomic and particle entities, all have angular fields. I think this characteristic is the principle that bows the light. The gradient of such synthesizes a large angular supposition, for the incoming light flux to reference to. A two field flux interaction. An angular/linear interaction.

I think that stars and galaxies have this particle density around them. I believe that velocity keeps them there……. even surrounding the so called black holes. Which I believe are toroidal stars, not black holes.

The solar wind is the escaping part of this particle atmosphere.

A particle atmosphere would be invisible, unless you gamma shine it. Then it would wink back at you.

But you would need x-ray vision to see it.

There is probably much more particle matter now, flying thru space, than in all the stars. Moving much too fast to ever interact again.

 

[billslugg]

There is not enough matter in interstellar space to cause refraction.

 

[Classical Motion]

How do we know?

 

[billslugg]

We can look at dispersion of radio waves. We find a pure source of radio waves, could be a chemical maser in a cloud somewhere. We know how far away it is. We know what frequency band it started out as. When it gets to Earth, the signal is spread out or "dispersed". The dispersal characteristics of the interstellar medium are determined by gas density and species. We know the species by looking at absorption spectra. They plug it all into a formula and find that there are 10^6 hydrogen atoms per cubic meter in between the stars in our galaxy and there is one atom per cubic meter in between the galaxies.

 

[Atlan0001]

"Onions have layers" -- Shrek.

The electromagnetic interaction scales (observed to do so) vastly microcosmically and macrocosmically! within the fractal zooms gravitational (vectoring) structure of the universe.

 

[Classical Motion]

Thanks for that explanation. I’ve often wondered why they say the things they do.

But those measurements and concepts would not apply to what I’m trying to convey. The spacial matter that I am referring to is isolated change, not atomic or molecular matter.

The fastest matter in the cosmos is charged matter. It’s much faster than neutral matter. And much smaller. Seems to be immune to EM and G force. We have no idea of when, where and at what velocity Sol’s winds comes to, or where it goes.

A charge “atmosphere” would be invisible. A charge density would be invisible. We have a probe now that is dipping Sol. Even though it doesn’t come close to the surface, the densities will be interesting.

Atomic and molecular “dust” should have a much lower velocity than wind and cosmic rays. And display the qualities you mentioned.

Even if we could irradiate the wind with strong controlled gamma, it still might not react. It might be immune to all interaction at those velocities. A physical catch and count would be necessary. If you could catch it. And know what was caught and what was not.

 

[Marvas]

I have no proof or studies, but with the age and the number of stars, and all the solar wind…..I assume a density gradient around a galaxy. Just like a star.

In the case of planets and stars, the density gradient occurs due to the arrangement of atmospheric gases in layers by their gravitational field. The bottom layers have higher density than the upper layers because they are more compressed by the force of gravity which is stronger at lower radius and weaker at higher radius, and by the weight of the gases above them which presses against them (this is why atmospheric pressure always decreases with height).
The same logic applies to galactic atmospheres or halos, such as this one:

Hubble Maps Giant Halo Around Andromeda Galaxy - NASA Science

In a landmark study, scientists using NASA’s Hubble Space Telescope have mapped the immense envelope of gas, called a halo, surrounding the Andromeda galaxy, our nearest large galactic neighbor. Scientists were surprised to find that this tenuous, nearly invisible halo of diffuse plasma extends...

science.nasa.gov

They also found that the halo has a layered structure, with two main nested and distinct shells of gas. This is the most comprehensive study of a halo surrounding a galaxy.

 

[Marvas]

Refractive index and Snell's Law for sure but what has that got to do with the issue? Surely you are not suggesting that the atmosphere of a star or Galaxy extends billions of miles out to cause refraction and that therefore General relativity is wrong - or are you?

Yes, this is exactly what I am suggesting. And I have the evidence to prove it:

In a landmark study, scientists using NASA’s Hubble Space Telescope have mapped the immense envelope of gas, called a halo, surrounding the Andromeda galaxy, our nearest large galactic neighbor. Scientists were surprised to find that this tenuous, nearly invisible halo of diffuse plasma extends 1.3 million light-years from the galaxy—about halfway to our Milky Way—and as far as 2 million light-years in some directions. This means that Andromeda’s halo is already bumping into the halo of our own galaxy.
They also found that the halo has a layered structure, with two main nested and distinct shells of gas. This is the most comprehensive study of a halo surrounding a galaxy.

There is not enough matter in interstellar space to cause refraction.

Tell that to NASA. Not only did they find there is a huge amount of invisible matter aka plasma gas around Andromeda galaxy, but they also found it bumps into our galactic halo, such is the scale of these galactic halos ! Which totally confirms what I said, and infirms what you say.

The only reason we can't measure the bending of starlight outside the corona is the bending is too small to measure.

How convenient. It starts to become immeasurably small exactly where the corona ends and there is no gas to refract in. What an incredible coincidence ! So incredible that I just can't believe it.

And neither does DR Ed Dowdye from NASA, who points out that General Relativity predicts noticeable light bending outside the sun's corona. It is absurd to claim that his theory predicts observable light bending only in the space occupied by the sun's corona, or in a plasma filled space, when his spacetime curvature extends at least as far as the farthest planet orbits. And Einstein claims that space is so curved there that it makes Neptune move in circles on his curved spacetime. And Uranus, and all the planets which are obviously not in the sun's corona. Yet there is no light bending observed in that curved spacetime at all. Because space is not curved at all and his theory is a absolutely wrong, a clear pseudo-science which confuses refraction with gravitation. And its clear that Einstein was a meta-physicist and a curly haired crackpot- just like Tesla concluded after he reviewed his general bullshit theory. How's that for a peer review, Einstein ?

And Tesla was not some guy on a forum, he was the smartest man alive, according even to Einstein. Who at least had the modesty to acknowledge he was not as bright as Tesla.

 

[Marvas]

too many

Actually I don't drink beer at all, and don't smoke pot like that curly haired crackpot either.

 

[Classical Motion]

Oh my, where to begin. Who here knows the person that has measured the refractive index of isolated charge? The refractive index of molecules has nothing to do the refractive index of raw charge. Does charge even have a refractive index of the visible spectrum?

And there is no way to detect or measure isolated charge in space. Especially high velocity charge.

Cosmic particles might just be solar wind that has years of acceleration. When you catch or detect them, what percentage do you catch?

The only reason that gravity even has a problem is because of redshift. And science believes that shift is Doppler.

Doppler redshift is your problem, not gravity.

Your greatest dogma….. c is the problem. The proper understanding of light will dismiss redshift and space expansion for what it is, an illusion. An intellect illusion. With math to prove it.

Math is loved. Because it can prove any imagination. Or speculation. It’s truly universal.

Your greatest authority, has none. The authority is imaginative. It makes some warm inside.

The only authority this cosmos respects is mechanical. No math or information is needed. Or used.