eclipse data supporting Einstein

Nonneta, concerning the second part of my question, what I was getting at is that most people on this board think that light travels in a light-carrying medium (LCM), not in a vacuum (empty space, nothingness) and light cannot exceed c in this medium (but gravity does). Can this be reconciled with general relativity? Maybe "refraction" was a poor choice of words, let's just say light-bending.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by nonneta</i>
<br />the observed deflection of electromagnetic waves is not consistent with an ordinary refraction effect, for three main reasons. ... <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">All true of "ordinary refraction", but not relevant to the question asked, which was about elysium. When you have read about LR and especially my chapter in "Pushing Gravity", you will know the basics of elysium as they pertain to refraction of EM waves by gravitational fields. As you might know, even Eddington commented on this, as did Einstein.

Thank you for the other informative answers you provided.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">If it was fair game (and I think it was) for bdw000 to suggest that Arthur Eddington was “nothing short of dishonest” for possibly being influenced by his expectations, then surely it is fair game to point out that the selection of an obscure 1922 article as the basis of one’s knowledge in 2007 could be interpreted as an illustration of the very same human tendency ... This isn’t an insult, it’s a characteristic of human beings (including scientists).<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">I appreciate your taking a constructive tone about this. We don't wish to run anyone off, and try to err on the side of light moderation rather than heavy. Perhaps we should have commented on bdw000’s remark about Eddington, for consistency if nothing else. However, our goal is to keep the teaching/learning environment fresh and constructive, not to censor.

It is therefore relevant that bdw000's ad hominem was about an historic figure who will take no offense. But yours was about a current participant who likely would. However, we have both made our points. It suffices that you better understand what we're about on this MB, and that we hope to benefit from your continuing contributions. -|Tom|-

Hey Tom, I am really sorry to clutter up your forum with a question like this, but you said:

"It is therefore relevant that bdw000's ad hominem . . ."

So, using an "if . . . then . . ." does not clear me of making an ad hominem attack?

I just want to know so I can avoid unnecessary replies.

I thought I had avoided saying "Eddington IS dishonest," and I am glad I did, since the accuracy and relevance of the book seems questionable.

Science knows much, but ignores practically everything.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by bdw000</i>
<br />I thought I had avoided saying "Eddington IS dishonest," and I am glad I did, since the accuracy and relevance of the book seems questionable.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">In general, criticizing someone's science is proper and is how we all learn and advance. Criticizing someone's motives, competency, integrity or other personal attribute is "ad hominem" (meaning against the person) as contrasted with criticisms of his/her science.

If Eddington had been a participant here, you can see that it's a whole different issue to say "Prof. Eddington, I think your eclipse results are wrong because..."; versus "Prof. Eddingron, I think you are dishonest." And that would be no less true even if Eddington was being dishonest.

In science, we keep it about the science. Good science goes even farther and places controls between the scientist and his results so that the scientist's own biases cannot influence the outcome of tests. And if ever a scientist is caught being intellectually dishonest, that is a BIG issue because it hurts the credibility of every scientist. So it should never be claimed lightly, even though we tend to do just that with politicians, lawyers, and other types of professionals. -|Tom|-

nemesis:
If by “light-carrying medium” you mean a material substance of some kind, then it’s already incompatible with Lorentzian / special relativity, before even reaching general relativity. This is because a material medium is manifestly not Lorentz covariant, so it automatically violates Lorentzian relativity. The only way to reconcile the idea of a light-carrying medium with the observed phenomena of light is by stipulating that the medium has no mechanical properties at all, i.e., it has no localizable parts with positions or states of motion. In essence, the vacuum is the medium.

By the way, you mentioned that, according to your ideas, “light cannot exceed c, but gravity does”. Be careful not to confuse the propagation of waves with the exertion of a static force. According to TVF’s ideas, electromagnetism and gravity both exert force superluminally, and both support waves that propagate at c. So (according to TVF) they do not differ in either of these characteristics. But of course, this raises an unanswerable problem for TVF: He is compelled to claim that electric force propagates superluminally, because it is well-known that there is no aberration of the electric force between uniformly moving charges, and TVF’s entire world view is based on the claim that lack of aberration implies superluminal propagation. However, to account for the Lorentzian effects observed in particle accelerators, he can only attribute them to the “fact” that the electric field propagates at c so it is unable to accelerate anything faster than c. The problem is that this directly contradicts his bedrock claim that forces without aberration must propagate superluminally. This was all discussed in a separate thread here not long ago, and TVF declined to provide any explanation for this fundamental self-contradiction.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by nonneta</i>
<br />TVF declined to provide any explanation for this fundamental self-contradiction.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">The resolution will be obvious once you get up to speed. At busy times like this, I can't provide so much one-on-one tutoring as you demand. Read the published references I provided again in the other thread. Then we'll talk. -|Tom|-