giordano bruno

Ive been checking the forums, seems any creativity is crackpotery and you must submit to what the authorities say Any creative thinking here seems to be in the trash can or right next to it in speculations If we take this forum as indicative of mainstream science i totally agree with the original poster Seems people tend to think the truth is democratical or what is even worse dictated by the guys who have the thickes glasses

Our maths teacher was explaining the other day limits and put an example of a turtle that advances half of the way each time The turtle runs one meter, then half meter, then a quarter of meter... so the turtle limit is 2 without never ever reaching it Several costudents were questioning the teacher lesson, most would say they thought the turtle would reach destination After the class a friend gave a solution to this: The turtle advances one meter, in one second, half meter, in half second quarter of meter, in a quarter of second... so obviously by second 2 will have reched destination and by second 3 will have traspass it Seems the same to me with mathematical limits: You add 1 in one second, 0.5 in half second 0.25 in quarter of second So by two seconds adding you will have added up to 2 and by 3 seconds you will have added up to 3 This limits thing is like i set my limit on two, all right but i set as the turtel my own limits its not like i say now every one of your unit of distance, each meter, i divide it by a number that tends to zero so i cursed you into a restricted space of 1 m since you can not go beyond it I dont know the english name for this kind of thinking in spanish we call it pajas mentales

I found this researching the subject: https://arxiv.org/pdf/1004.1467.pdf BENDING OF LIGHT NEAR A STAR: THE ALTERNATIVE EXPLANATION 3.1 THE PRINCIPLE: DEVIATION DUE TO REFRACTION Refraction of light rays is a well known optics-phenomenon [27]. This provides an alternative explanation of bending of light near a star. When light ray, from space (near vacuum), enters the star’s atmosphere (medium); the light ray bends near the star due to refraction. To illustrate the bending due to refraction, consider a spherical water-droplet as shown in Figure(1.a). When light ray enters from lighter medium (air) to denser medium (water), the droplet works as prism and thus the light-ray bends due to refraction. Similarly, when light ray enters from space-vacuum (lighter medium) to star’s atmosphere (denser medium) it bends due to refraction as shown in Figure(1.b). The atmosphere extends to great heights, it becomes rarer and rarer, however; a reasonable equivalent height is shown in the figure. The amount of bending (maximum deviation) can be estimated semi-empirically (δ = 2(µ − 1) as shown in section 3.3) as follows. Consider the limiting case when the light ray enters the atmosphere touching at point A and leaves touching at point C. The incident ray touches at i = 900 & refraction angle is r at point A and vice-versa at point C as shown in Figure- 2. The angle r is thus critical angle (µ = 1 sinr ), and for maximum deviation the line AC touches the star-core at point B. From the star-geometry of Figure-2, Cosec® = R / R where R/ & R are atmospheric-radius and core-radius of the star. Thus µ = R / R = (R+h) R = 1 + h R where h is the equivalent-height of atmosphere above the star-core (estimated in the following section 3.2). For max deviation situation (Figure-2) thus, ESTIMATION OF BENDING (DEVIATION) OF LIGHT NEAR A STAR DUE TO REFRACTION-PHENOMENON The angular deviation at entry point A (Figure(2)) is (i − r), and similar deviation of the ray occurs at exit point C. So, the total deviation (bending) δ = 2(i − r). From optics consideration and using simplification & approximation, and also noting that deviation is more for higher µ & that there is no-deviation for µ = 1; it can be shown that deviation (i − r) ≈ (µ − 1). Hence the expressions for total deviation δ are given as in Eq. 5, as in Eq. 6 (using Eqs. 5 & 3) and as in Eq. 7 (using Eqs. 6 & 4): δ = 2(µ − 1) (5) = χ (6) = 2kGM c 2R (7) The total deviation (bending of light) δ = 2kGM c 2R given by Eq. 7 is same (for fuzz factor k = 2) as that predicted by the celebrated general-relativity and found experimentally correct. The approach (physics) of the present explanation, however, is altogether different and is much simpler. The new approach is based on the commonly well-known phenomenon of refraction of light; there is, however, a fuzz-factor k to account for uncertainty such as in estimation of star’s atmospheric height & its refractive index. The authors aim to emphasize that though refraction-phenomenon approach and general-relativity approach are in agreement as far as result is concerned but the physics of both the approaches are quite different. 3.4 GRAVITATIONAL-LENSING (IN NEW LIGHT AS REFRACTION-BENDING) In perspective of refraction phenomenon discussed for bending of light, the so called gravitational-lensing [29] is in fact ‘real’ refraction-lensing of light due to refraction through atmospheric-layer of star or galaxy (note-both star & galaxy are surrounded with cloud of gases/materials, both can cause refraction-bending of light and thus lensing). In fact the word ‘lensing’ here literally means real lensing (bending of light due to refraction). But through optical-lens deviation occurs with some dispersion too, causing chromatic aberration. It is expected that here too, if the lensing is due to refraction (as said in the present paper), a little dispersion (chromatic aberration) can also occur which may possibly be found experimentally. The sky as if will look more colorful, and it is the color which will differentiate between the object & its image. edit: In Asimovs End of Eternity theres a conspiracy to supress space travel to keep getting advantage of time travel Relativity is the thing that makes no worth bothering to try to go to the stars

Our teacher was explaining us relativity history when one of my coestudents made an interesting question: Wouldnt the huge sun helium atmosphere cause refraction and hence move the star any way? The teacher seemd lost to this question but soon he answered that Einstein knew the exact amount of refraction and accounted for it to measure gravitational lensing So my question is how did Eisntein know the exact amount of refraction caused by the sun atmosphere if it hadnt been measured before and how did he distinguished it from gravitational lensing And how much of the movenment of that star during that eclipse was due to suns atmosphere refraction and how much due to gravitational lensing?