Gravitational Lensing

kannadassasn Says:

May 24, 2012 - For einstein, he don't need to refer a paper for universal phenomenon - Gravity. He took fundametal theories from kepler, maxwell and newton. He has gone beyond them, a true perspective of reality, an another dimentional aspect...

fertilizerspike Says:

May 24, 2012 - Eat my ass, you fucking troll.

bishoptutuspants Says:

May 23, 2012 - Lol what's it to you if I occasionally enjoy sexual intercourse with the bumholes of beautiful women? Sort out your inferiority complex and anger issues before you engage the people of youtube in conversation again. And while you're at it, wash your mouth out with soap or make use of a dictionary to supplement your innane and childish insults. Yo momma dint raise you right, boy.

fertilizerspike Says:

May 23, 2012 - Speak for yourself, assfucker, I'm not angry.

bishoptutuspants Says:

May 22, 2012 - Lot of anger you have there.. I'd see someone about that.

fertilizerspike Says:

May 22, 2012 - Einstein didn't have any equations, every equation he published (without citing a single reference) was taken from the published work of actual physicists. Einstein was a proven fraud and a plagiarist. And yes, equations ARE sheer mathematical speculation. Learn the fucking language, dumbshit, you can't seem to discern fantasy from reality.

bishoptutuspants Says:

May 22, 2012 - OK... Einstein's field equations are 'sheer mathematical speculation' and you are right about everything. Sorry supreme being. I'll let you get on with running the universe.

fertilizerspike Says:

May 22, 2012 - Yes yes, and the world is full of jesus worshippers who would have a similar belief about jesus. They're wrong, too. I haven't stated my opinions once, I've stated flatly, Eddington cited measurements in excess of his instruments' capacity to detect. In other words he committed scientific fraud. There is no other explanation except your feeble toy-theory based on your faith. The "existence of black holes" is sheer mathematical speculation, not science.

bishoptutuspants Says:

May 21, 2012 - Eddington is not, "a proven fraud." That is you asserting an opinion of his work, which is fine. However, scientific evidence holds sway over beliefs. Hence why the opinions you outline are not valid in science. The existence of black holes proves unequivocally that gravity interacts with electromagnetic radiation. So to dismiss this as such on the premise that it is impossible for humans to experimentally simulate the stongest known gravitational force in the universe, is truly ludicrous.

fertilizerspike Says:

May 21, 2012 - Eddington is a proven fraud, he published measurement in excess of his instruments capability to provide. As to whether or not he observed any "lensing", he made no provision to exclude other possible explanations. And all of this on a SINGLE observation. It's ludicrous on its face, and Eddington's "observations" were not experiments. To date no experiment has ever shown "gravity" having any effect at all on electromagnetic radiation of any kind, of which light is just one. bgaede

bishoptutuspants Says:

May 20, 2012 - So if you have a problem with this, I suggest you redirect your quams at Einstein. And in that, I wish you all the best! The greatest minds in science are still trying to improve upon his ideas almost a century later.

bishoptutuspants Says:

May 20, 2012 - May 29th, 1919 - Arthur Eddington observes the distortion of distant staright passing around the sun while observing a solar eclipse. His findings are the first accepted proof of Einstein's theory of general relativity. One repercussion of this theory is the ability for light to be manipulated by a gravitational field, arising from a curvature in the spacetime light must travel through to reach an observer.

fertilizerspike Says:

Apr 20, 2012 - If you don't see that space is nothing but a virtual coordinate system, not something real that can be manipulated in any fashion, then you're more stupid than I first thought.

Gunner3210 Says:

Apr 17, 2012 - Lol I am not sure if you are just trolling or truly believe that. Either way, it doesn't matter to me.

fertilizerspike Says:

Apr 17, 2012 - As for "curvature of space", that's an utterly nonsensical notion. Space is a virtual coordinate system, not something real that can be "curved". Light is electromagnetic radiation, and as such it is utterly unaffected by "gravity". Your belief system is about a hundred years out of date. Welcome to the twenty-first century.

fertilizerspike Says:

Apr 17, 2012 - What you're choosing to call "physics" is nothing more than a collection of fables propped up by nothing but wishful thinking and flights of fancy. To date there is no experimental verification of this concept of "gravitational lensing". Gravity has never been shown to have any effect of any kind on light. I suggest instead of simply repeating a cherished fable you should actually learn the scientific method and use it to cull your belief system down to what's real.

Gunner3210 Says:

Apr 16, 2012 - I do not think you know much about physics. I work in physics for a living. So having a discussion with you would be like an adult arguing with a child. There have been many experiments that confirm gravitational lensing. Some even from very long back in the 60's and 70's. I suggest you look them up. In short, gravity modifies the curvature of space itself. So light travelling in straight lines through curved space-time causes it to deflect in a manner that causes lensing.

fertilizerspike Says:

Apr 16, 2012 - I'm well familiar with "gravitational lensing" mythology. To date no experiment has ever shown "gravity" to have any effect of any kind on light. Light is electromagnetic radiation, as such is it influenced by electric and magnetic forces, not "gravity".

Gunner3210 Says:

Apr 15, 2012 - We know precisely how gravitational lensing occurs. You on, the other hand, do not.

fertilizerspike Says:

Mar 19, 2012 - @jimim22 you have a code on your computer huh, that's fascinating

CACBCCCU Says:

Mar 19, 2012 - I'll need to know what you suppose you're up to with your question before answering that.

jimim22 Says:

Mar 19, 2012 - also, are you deliberately trying to make your sentences as dense as possible?

jimim22 Says:

Mar 19, 2012 - er....no? we know exactly how it works! I even have a code on my computer which describes binary lenses exactly!

mabuhayguy Says:

Dec 2, 2011 - OKAY