Does space bend In a pure vacuum ?

Status
Not open for further replies.
river said:
↑
Click to expand...
We should be unambiguous with our terms.

Gravitational lensing and refraction of light are not the same thing. (I wasn't positive myself, but I had enough suspicion to make me check.)

In case there's any doubt:
Refraction of light through an optical medium is chromatic - different wavelengths refract at different angles.
Gravitational lensing of light is achromatic - all wavelengths are bent to the same degree.

So, we should stop using the term refraction.
 
Last edited:
DaveC426913 said:
We should be unambiguous with our terms.

Gravitational lensing and refraction of light are not the same thing. (I wasn't positive myself, but I had enough suspicion to make me check.)

In case there's any doubt:
Refraction of light through an optical medium is chromatic - different wavelengths refract at different angles.
Gravitational lensing of light is achromatic - all wavelengths are bent to the same degree.

So, we should stop using the term refraction.
Click to expand...

Yet gravitational lensing occurs because of the gravitational pull that dark matter exerts .
 
river said:
Yet gravitational lensing occurs because of the gravitational pull that dark matter exerts .
Click to expand...
??? Gravitational lensing occurs because of the warping/curving of spacetime by Baryonic matter and DM.
But how does that have anything to do with your monstrous wrong claims re refraction?
Like I said a few posts back, you did not know what refraction was.
 
river said:
Yet gravitational lensing occurs because of the gravitational pull that dark matter exerts .
Click to expand...
Gravity does not exert a pull. Not in the 20th/21st century.
Gravity is the manifestation of curved spacetime.

Gravitational lensing occurs because of the mass of a galaxy (normal matter and dark matter) curves spacetime and light follows that curve.
 
Last edited:
river said: ↑
Yet gravitational lensing occurs because of the gravitational pull that dark matter exerts .
Click to expand...


paddoboy said:
??? Gravitational lensing occurs because of the warping/curving of spacetime by Baryonic matter and DM.
But how does that have anything to do with your monstrous wrong claims re refraction?
Like I said a few posts back, you did not know what refraction was.
Click to expand...

I knew , and know you know .
 
river said:
DM is not like Baryonic matter , otherwise they would call it , Baryonic matter , not DM .

Logically .
Click to expand...
Wrong again river. Logic and you are actually diametrically opposite.
DM is different to Baryonic matter in that it only can interact " gravitationally"
That means it warps/curves spacetime just like Baryonic matter, but while Baryonic matter also interacts electromagnetically we can see it while we don't see DM

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_matter
Dark matter is a form of matter thought to account for approximately 85% of the matter in the universe and about a quarter of its total energy density. Its presence is implied in a variety of astrophysical observations, including gravitational effects that cannot be explained by accepted theories of gravity unless more matter is present than can be seen. For this reason, most experts think that dark matter is abundant in the universe and that it has had a strong influence on its structure and evolution. Dark matter is called dark because it does not appear to interact with observable electromagnetic radiation, such as light, and so it is undetectable by existing astronomical instruments
 
paddoboy said:
Wrong again river. Logic and you are actually diametrically opposite.
DM is different to Baryonic matter in that it only can interact " gravitationally"
That means it warps/curves spacetime just like Baryonic matter, but while Baryonic matter also interacts electromagnetically we can see it while we don't see DM

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_matter
Dark matter is a form of matter thought to account for approximately 85% of the matter in the universe and about a quarter of its total energy density. Its presence is implied in a variety of astrophysical observations, including gravitational effects that cannot be explained by accepted theories of gravity unless more matter is present than can be seen. For this reason, most experts think that dark matter is abundant in the universe and that it has had a strong influence on its structure and evolution. Dark matter is called dark because it does not appear to interact with observable electromagnetic radiation, such as light, and so it is undetectable by existing astronomical instruments
Click to expand...

Because dark matter has not yet formed enough to give off light . DM has not yet evolved or formed to the point of being able to give off electromagnetic radiation .

I mentioned this in my theory over a year ago .

Only matter gives off light , such as Galaxies , Quasars , Stars can give off light energy .

Light energy is actually the lowest form of energy in the Universe .
 
river said:
Because dark matter is has not yet formed enough to give off light .

I mentioned this in my theory over a year ago .

Only matter gives off light , such as Galaxies , Quasars , Stars can give off light energy .

Light energy is actually the lowest form of energy in the Universe .
Click to expand...
:D
There we have it Ladies and Gentleman!! river's new theory about DM not yet fully formed, despite the 13.83 billion years.
Ahh well, we are in pseudoscience!
 
New
↑
Because dark matter is has not yet formed enough to give off light .

I mentioned this in my theory over a year ago .

Only matter gives off light , such as Galaxies , Quasars , Stars can give off light energy .

Light energy is actually the lowest form of energy in the Universe .
Click to expand...


paddoboy said:
:D
There we have it Ladies and Gentleman!! river's new theory about DM not yet fully formed, despite the 13.83 billion years.
Ahh well, we are in pseudoscience!
Click to expand...

Well DM does not give off EMR does it .

I have explained why .
 
river said: ↑
Well DM does not give off EMR does it .

I have explained why .
Click to expand...

All EMR needs an object in which the magnetic field can manifest to the point of manifestation .

No magnetic field exists without a physical object . A core from which it eminates . From the sub-quantum , quantum , to Galaxies , Quasars , Stars etc.
 
river said:
All EMR needs an object in which the magnetic field can manifest to the point of manifestation .

No magnetic field exists without a physical object . A core from which it eminates . From the sub-quantum , quantum , to Galaxies , Quasars , Stars etc.
Click to expand...
There we have that same lack of comprehension by river again. Or just the usual trolling and avoiding the scientific facts that spacetime geometry is gravity and light follows geodesics in that curved spacetime.
Spacetime warping/curving/twisting and waving, have all been observationally and experimentally observed and verified...Gravitational lensing is just one form and cause of this geometry.

But we are in pseudoscience so river can spout more of his unsupported, unevidenced fairy tales, in opposition to anything he sees as mainstream....quite a fanatical, medical phobia in that regards.
Over to you river, for more laughs...not quite as funny as your ignorance in the Earth/Moon thread, but getting there! :rolleyes:
 
paddoboy said:
There we have that same lack of comprehension by river again. Or just the usual trolling and avoiding the scientific facts that spacetime geometry is gravity and light follows geodesics in that curved spacetime.
Spacetime warping/curving/twisting and waving, have all been observationally and experimentally observed and verified...Gravitational lensing is just one form and cause of this geometry.

But we are in pseudoscience so river can spout more of his unsupported, unevidenced fairy tales, in opposition to anything he sees as mainstream....quite a fanatical, medical phobia in that regards.
Over to you river, for more laughs...not quite as funny as your ignorance in the Earth/Moon thread, but getting there! :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Spacetime has nothing to do with real physical objects .
 
Last edited:
Sorry river, been neglecting your education again...good excuse though...I do some meal deliveries for " meals on wheels" for our local indigenous and aged community.
river said:
Spacetime has nothing to do with real physical objects .
Click to expand...
No, just more pseudoscience crap river. Spacetime is what evolved from the BB, and everything arose from that.
Of course if you have a reputable reference to support your nonsense, then I'll withdraw. But seeing the wholesale ignorance with regards to the Moon, I think we can put this down to more " river-factual" bullshit.:p
 
paddoboy said:
Sorry river, been neglecting your education again...good excuse though...I do some meal deliveries for " meals on wheels" for our local indigenous and aged community.

No, just more pseudoscience crap river. Spacetime is what evolved from the BB, and everything arose from that.
Of course if you have a reputable reference to support your nonsense, then I'll withdraw. But seeing the wholesale ignorance with regards to the Moon, I think we can put this down to more " river-factual" bullshit.:p
Click to expand...

Highlighted

So BB came Before spacetime .
 
river said:
Highlighted

So BB came Before spacetime .
Click to expand...
Spacetime evolved at the BB.
What's up river? backed yourself into a corner again?
Anyway enough of this with Bozo. There's plenty of articles in the sciences section river....You may be banned from participating, but you can read....well OK, poorly, but you can read basics.
 
From pads post #417

Spacetime is what evolved from the BB, and everything arose from that.
Click to expand...


river said: ↑
Highlighted

So BB came Before spacetime
Click to expand...


paddoboy said:
Spacetime evolved at the BB.
What's up river? backed yourself into a corner again?
Anyway enough of this with Bozo. There's plenty of articles in the sciences section river....You may be banned from participating, but you can read....well OK, poorly, but you can read basics.
Click to expand...

You backed yourself into your own corner . pad.

You have no idea what you said . In your post #417 .
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top