🧵 Untitled Thread
Anonymous at Tue, 10 Sep 2024 01:24:46 UTC No. 16370893
Why do some people make the claim that Einstein predicted gravitational lensing?
Thats an absurd statement, gravitational lensing of light is fully expected and predicted both under newton and even under the ballistic laws before newton so long that it is assumed that light, which has been known to have a finite speed for centuries, is also affected by gravity. The idea that photons had no mass came after Einstein (and isnt backed by either experiments nor logic, its a statement invented to make other weird theories work)
Forget about photons to, gravitational lensing is expected if photons have mass, or if you forget about photons alltogether and instead just have the axiom that light, whatever it is, is affected by gravity.
So why the Einstein lip-service? The only thing his theories introduce are paradoxes (proof of error), and the "proof" you will hear about constantly are gravity lenses, a phenomenon expected under Newton so long as light is assumed to obey gravity as well as the rest of observable matter?
Anonymous at Tue, 10 Sep 2024 01:48:41 UTC No. 16370908
Anonymous at Tue, 10 Sep 2024 03:30:29 UTC No. 16371023
bump
Anonymous at Tue, 10 Sep 2024 03:57:12 UTC No. 16371060
>>16370893
>inane brainlet ramblings
wow OP that’s crazy I’m happy for you
Anonymous at Tue, 10 Sep 2024 04:15:08 UTC No. 16371081
>>16371060
Name one incorrect thing
Anonymous at Tue, 10 Sep 2024 04:46:41 UTC No. 16371150
>>16371081
The Newtonian prediction is off by a factor of 2.
Anonymous at Tue, 10 Sep 2024 04:55:59 UTC No. 16371164
>>16371150
Thats just dark attraction, a universal constant though.
Anonymous at Tue, 10 Sep 2024 05:46:18 UTC No. 16371288
>>16371150
>The Newtonian prediction is off by a factor of 2.
Bro doesnt know about dark energy
The einsteinian prediction is off from measurements by a factor of 20 thats where the claim that the universe is made up of 95% dark energy comes from
Anonymous at Tue, 10 Sep 2024 05:57:44 UTC No. 16371297
>>16370893
>So why the Einstein lip-service?
State your loyalty to the state of Israel
Anonymous at Tue, 10 Sep 2024 06:26:25 UTC No. 16371352
>>16370893
>if photons have mass
well they dont
Anonymous at Tue, 10 Sep 2024 06:26:47 UTC No. 16371353
>>16371081
Photons are massless and we have never detected evidence to the contrary.
Anonymous at Tue, 10 Sep 2024 06:42:56 UTC No. 16371374
>>16371353
>Photons are massless
You need evidence to make an authoritative statement like that buddy
>and we have never detected evidence to the contrary.
Every single study in the last 20 years who tried to measure the rest mass of photons found a small but non 0 value
Your pretty mathematical models are falling appart
Anonymous at Tue, 10 Sep 2024 06:50:32 UTC No. 16371384
>>16371374
Why don't you stop a photon and measure its mass then?
Anonymous at Tue, 10 Sep 2024 06:58:33 UTC No. 16371412
>>16371384
There is no such thing as rest mass. Nothing is at rest. Inertial frames of reference are pure fiction. (Not that guy by the way.)
Anonymous at Tue, 10 Sep 2024 07:04:51 UTC No. 16371420
>>16371412
>Nothing is at rest.
Your mom is resting on my dick.
Checkmate
Anonymous at Tue, 10 Sep 2024 07:27:41 UTC No. 16371442
>>16371412
Based
If there are no inertial frames of reference... how do you explain might pressure (transfer of kinetic energy between light and other objects) without photons having mass?
Anonymous at Tue, 10 Sep 2024 08:47:15 UTC No. 16371536
>>16370893
>gravitational lensing of light is fully expected and predicted both under newton and even under the ballistic laws before newton
source?
Anonymous at Tue, 10 Sep 2024 09:24:22 UTC No. 16371616
>>16371374
>Every single study in the last 20 years who tried to measure the rest mass of photons found a small but non 0 value
it should be easy for you to post a specific study we can talk about that proves your claim then
Anonymous at Tue, 10 Sep 2024 09:29:35 UTC No. 16371631
>>16371374
> Every single study in the last 20 years who tried to measure the rest mass of photons found a small but non 0 value
No they didn't. Real world measurements have error bars. They found a value between zero and an ever decreasing upper limit given the accuracy of each improved experiment. Not the same thing.
Anonymous at Tue, 10 Sep 2024 12:25:38 UTC No. 16372049
>>16370893
>gravitational lensing of light is fully expected and predicted both under newton
and this moron with a few bright moments oversaw (like all you dumb idiots not able to do more as authority a,, licking) the simple fact that there is no lensing because no refraction. Gravitational bending around a globe will always be nullified when leaving the area. This is a simple geometric outcome of that "lensing" hallucination.
Anonymous at Tue, 10 Sep 2024 12:45:06 UTC No. 16372079
>>16371631
Literally the same thing.
Anonymous at Tue, 10 Sep 2024 13:27:55 UTC No. 16372172
Anonymous at Tue, 10 Sep 2024 13:37:52 UTC No. 16372186
Why don't you reference one of these predictions then? If it was expected why did no one think to measure it before Eddington was inspired by GR?
>The idea that photons had no mass came after Einstein
Photons weren't a thing in the era before Einstein.
You also haven't given any serious response to this fact:
>>16371150
>The Newtonian prediction is off by a factor of 2.
The Newtonian prediction was falsified.
Anonymous at Tue, 10 Sep 2024 14:01:41 UTC No. 16372216
>>16372079
kek you're a fucking idiot