"Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?

[aetherist]

Those words were Feynman's.

This isn't what he said at all - or at least without citing page and reference I don't know what you're talking about. Feynman did write this,

Electric and magnetic forces are part of one physical phenomenon—the electromagnetic interactions of particles. The separation of this interaction into electric and magnetic parts depends very much on the reference frame chosen for the description. But a complete electromagnetic description is invariant; electricity and magnetism taken together are consistent with Einstein’s relativity.

Since electric and magnetic fields appear in different mixtures if we change our frame of reference, we must be careful about how we look at the fields E and B. For instance, if we think of “lines” of E or B, we must not attach too much reality to them. The lines may disappear if we try to observe them from a different coordinate system. For example, in system S′ there are electric field lines, which we do not find “moving past us with velocity v in system S.” In system S there are no electric field lines at all! Therefore it makes no sense to say something like: When I move a magnet, it takes its field with it, so the lines of B are also moved. There is no way to make sense, in general, out of the idea of “the speed of a moving field line.” The fields are our way of describing what goes on at a point in space. In particular, E and B tell us about the forces that will act on a moving particle. The question “What is the force on a charge from a moving magnetic field?” doesn’t mean anything precise. The force is given by the values of E and B at the charge, and the formula (13.1) is not to be altered if the source of E or B is moving (it is the values of E and B that will be altered by the motion). Our mathematical description deals only with the fields as a function of x, y, z, and t with respect to some inertial frame.

We will later be speaking of “a wave of electric and magnetic fields travelling through space,” as, for instance, a light wave. But that is like speaking of a wave travelling on a string. We don’t then mean that some part of the string is moving in the direction of the wave, we mean that the displacement of the string appears first at one place and later at another. Similarly, in an electromagnetic wave, the wave travels; but the magnitude of the fields change. So in the future when we—or someone else—speaks of a “moving” field, you should think of it as just a handy, short way of describing a changing field in some circumstances.

Emphasis mine. And what he's talking about there is an introduction to quantum field theory.

Here is what i said….

I see that Feynman waves away the catastrophe by simply saying that a magnetic field can't move. Here he is agreeing that a magnetic field is static in the aether.

However, today i can't find those words in the two links that u gave for the two Feynman articles. So i withdraw my comment that Feynman said that a magnetic field can't move.

There is in a sense no difference tween a rotating non-inertial reference frame & an inertial reference frame, in that both are irrelevant to a magnetic field.

Apparently you also flunked Newtonian mechanics. Understanding non-inertial reference frames is DEEPLY important to understanding how magnetism works in all the situations we may encounter it. There is an analogy between the Coriolis Effect and magnetism (see links below). Of course Special Relativity and General Relativity don't make sense to you - you don't get when the postulates of Special Relativity are applicable. By defining inertial frames, we also have to define non-inertial frames.

Why is the magnetic force similar to a Coriolis force?
https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1109/1109.3624.pdf
Coriolis and Magnetic Forces: The Gyrocompass and Magnetic Compass as Analogues
https://inis.iaea.org/collection/NCLCollectionStore/_Public/21/068/21068614.pdf

Skipping the stuff where you just repeat nonsense about STR being rubbish...

 

The aether solution to the Faraday Disc Paradox is simple (it aint an immensely complex problem). Except of course we don’t know what the aether is, & we don’t know what magnetism is (& we don’t know much about anything).

You haven't actually proposed anything about what that 'solution' is. Again, pseudoscience.
I'm glad to know you have a solution that you don't know what it is or how to explain it. 
I know you're not learning anything but I hope whoever is reading this is.

The solution is so simple that u  missed it. The solution is that the magnetic field is fixed in the aether. When the magnetic disc spins it leaves its magnetic field behind.

The Ehrenfest Paradox is interesting. I think that it deserves to be called a paradox, but the solution is simple. A spinning disc will suffer a shrinkage of the atoms & molecules along its circumference due to relativistic length contraction, whilst its radius is not much affected. Hence the disc can suffer radial cracks (which solves the paradox)(no GTR needed)(GTR solved a problem that did not exist). However, centrifugal forces would destroy a disc before the peripheral speed got to say c/50,000.

Oh... my... God... you can't even articulate what the paradox is. Hint: the paradox arises from idealized geometry and rigid bodies. It's not just the disc that gets destroyed - it's Euclidean geometry... which leads directly to General Relativity. And in that world rotating discs are just fine but your brain gets destroyed. 

No. The paradox is Einsteinists can't understand how a log gets radial cracks when it dries. The reason is that there is more shrinkage in the circumferential dimension than the shrinkage in the radial direction. The relativistic shrinkage for a spinning log is similar, there is more shrinkage of the circumferential dimension, actually the relativistic shrinkage in the radial direction is zero here. Both effects are real. Both must result in radial cracks (if severe enuff). So now i have explained it twice, using almost the same wording each time. I have explained the answer to the paradox. There was/is no need for a GTR explanation. If relativity destroys Euclidean geometry (it always duz) then so be it. I believe in relativistic length contraction. But not in STR length contraction. Actually i don’t believe in Lorentzian length contraction.

I don’t know why Einsteinist's keep invoking the Lorentz transformations, when they should be invoking the Einstein transformations. The two are different in that the terms have different meanings. I suspect that in the early days Einstein was aware that using the Lorentz name added wt to Einstein's silly STR.

But if u are referring to the relativistic explanation for the magnetic field near an electric wire then i have already shown in this thread that that explanation is wrong/impossible.

Because one can start with the principle of relativity and derive the Lorentz Transformations. Again - this is part of the predictive power of relativity. From first principles, theoretical predictions led to the observation of real phenomena. Feynman made note of this,
https://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/I_15.html
 

The Lorentz Transformations are not the  same as the STR transformations. The terms mean different things. Einstein's V is the relative velocity. Lorentz's V is the aetherwind.

For those who want to learn just enough about it so they can solve problems, that is all there is to the theory of relativity—it just changes Newton’s laws by introducing a correction factor to the mass. From the formula itself it is easy to see that this mass increase is very small in ordinary circumstances. If the velocity is even as great as that of a satellite, which goes around the earth at 5 mi/sec, then v/c=5/186,000: putting this value into the formula shows that the correction to the mass is only one part in two to three billion, which is nearly impossible to observe. Actually, the correctness of the formula has been amply confirmed by the observation of many kinds of particles, moving at speeds ranging up to practically the speed of light. However, because the effect is ordinarily so small, it seems remarkable that it was discovered theoretically before it was discovered experimentally. Empirically, at a sufficiently high velocity, the effect is very large, but it was not discovered that way. Therefore it is interesting to see how a law that involved so delicate a modification (at the time when it was first discovered) was brought to light by a combination of experiments and physical reasoning. Contributions to the discovery were made by a number of people, the final result of whose work was Einstein’s discovery.

Einstein's attitude to E=mcc varied over the years. In later years he did not like the idea that mass increases with speed. In aether theory an object has an absolute mass. However, i don’t rule out that an object can have an apparent mass, & that this can depend on velocity (which has to do with length contraction of our measuring rods with velocity, & ticking dilation of our clocks with velocity).

It's the combination of theoretical prediction leading to experimental verification that makes relativity so persuasive and powerful. It is why everyone who does real physics is an "Einsteinist" as you derisively say. Because it gets results. And where engineers need it... it works, beautifully. And as a mechanism for tying together so many phenomena it is elegant in its statements but complex in its application.

It elegantly gives us dozens of particles that exist in Einsteinian mathland only.

Whereas whatever aether theory you're peddling has no predictive power, no explanatory power, no consistency, no observability, and thus no usage in engineering. It's not even consistent with the other crackpots you admire which is one of the interesting things about crackpots - none of them agree with each other but they are ALL certain the rest of the world is in a conspiracy against them as you said in this thread many pages ago.

Coming back to it - is there a device I can build that needs aether theory to work? Does your aetherwind affect the outcomes of any experiments? Can anyone use it to build something no one else has predicted? No modern independent experiment in our Solar System where aetherwind might be important has ever needed it.

I think that lasers can benefit from aetherwind. At present science wonders why lasers are so inconsistent,  & play up so much. We have laser drift, & we need laser stabilisation, etc. Aetherists know that the background aetherwind blows through a lab at 500 km/s, & the direction changes during a sidereal day. The aetherwind adds to the speed of light, or it gives a crosswind effect etc. The aetherwind produces length contraction of the laser glass. The aetherwind produces angle contraction of the glass ends. What works well in the northern hemisphere might not work so well in the southern hemisphere.

And probably the greatest tragedy here is how much time you've wasted on it when you could've learned some vector calculus. It's quite a shame really - if anything represents the ultimate evolution of an 'aether' theory it's the formulation of curved spacetime as described by General Relativity and quantum fields as described by Quantum Electrodynamics and some physicists do take that viewpoint that the term 'aether' gets a bad rap given what it's 19th century failure grew into. (I'm personally fine burying the 'aether' term because it's less confusing. For example, even though Newtonian Optics has similarities to QED, we don't use terms like "corpuscles" to describe light... we call them photons...)

Aether has never failed anything anytime. Every properly designed experiment has found aetherwind.

But, to you, STR, GTR and QFT is all rubbish... ah well... I guess you won't be playing nice in the sandbox. 

STR & GTR are certainly rubbish. I don’t know much about QFT. There might be some areas where QFT is not compatible with aether theory. I think that QFT invokes a weird kind of aether, which produces virtual particles that fill any hole anywhere anytime. They are so magical that it’s a shame to even try to invent a theory at all. No matter how silly the theory their shmoo particles will fill any holes. And if u feel hungry u can eat the shmoos. I heard that Dirac even used his own equations to wipe his bum, his equations were so good.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shmoo
A shmoo is shaped like a plump bowling pin with stubby legs. It has smooth skin, eyebrows, and sparse whiskers—but no arms, nose, or ears. Its feet are short and round, but dexterous, as the shmoo's comic book adventures make clear. It has a rich gamut of facial expressions and often expresses love by exuding hearts over its head. Cartoonist Al Capp ascribed to the shmoo the following curious characteristics:
•   They reproduce asexually and are incredibly prolific, multiplying faster than rabbits. They require no sustenance other than air.
•   Shmoos are delicious to eat, and are eager to be eaten. If a human looks at one hungrily, it will happily immolate itself—either by jumping into a frying pan, after which they taste like chicken, or into a broiling pan, after which they taste like steak. When roasted they taste like pork, and when baked they taste like catfish. Raw, they taste like oysters on the half-shell.
•   They also produce eggs (neatly packaged), milk (bottled, grade-A), and butter—no churning required. Their pelts make perfect bootleather or house timbers, depending on how thick one slices them.
•   They have no bones, so there's absolutely no waste. Their eyes make the best suspender buttons, and their whiskers make perfect toothpicks. In short, they are simply the perfect ideal of a subsistence agricultural herd animal.
•   Naturally gentle, they require minimal care and are ideal playmates for young children. The frolicking of shmoos is so entertaining (such as their staged "shmoosical comedies") that people no longer feel the need to watch television or go to the movies.
•   Some of the more tasty varieties of shmoo are more difficult to catch, however. Usually shmoo hunters, now a sport in some parts of the country, use a paper bag, flashlight, and stick to capture their shmoos. At night the light stuns them, then they may be whacked in the head with the stick and put in the bag for frying up later on

I can save u a lot of trouble. The time anywhere on the disc is the same. The only time that exists is the present instant, & this is universal. The ticking of clocks however is affected by motion etc. But ticking is not time.

We already know you live in another universe. No need to remind us.
I'm going to try to respond less to this thread because I have actual post-graduate homework to do but I suppose I should say thank you for giving me the opportunity to sharpen my 'Einsteinian' propaganda and hopefully share some useful knowledge to the silent observers in this thread.
You can have the last word for now because I know you must have it in order to repeat your religious devotion to an obsolete 19th century theory. Long-live phlogiston! 

I will stick to my aether, & u can stick to your Einsteinian stuff, stuff that has the distinction of being proven wrong before it was invented.

I don’t invoke aetherwind to explain the Faraday Disc Paradox, i invoke aether.

Oh right, of course, how silly of me. The aether is static when you need it to be and blowing when you need it to be. Who needs consistency in a theory when you're making it up as you go along without a shred of mathematics?

  Yes the aether is always blowing hence there is always an aetherwind. But sometimes i simply mention the aether, but i am fully aware that an in depth analysis if it gets that far will probably involve the aetherwind.

I doubt that Einsteinist's can explain away their catastrophe for the Faraday Disc Paradox by invoking GTR. However Einsteinists have an almost limitless menu of fudges twists tricks etc. The youtube i linked mentions about 6 different motions of the discs & probes. I doubt that GTR can explain even one of them.

But lets eliminate GTR by changing the spinning discs to non-spinning discs. We remove the axles. Now instead of spinning the discs we simply move them up or down either individually or together or in opposite directions, hence we have the same number of 6 different motions, & we will see the same kinds of voltages, & there is no possibility of GTR playing a role here in any way.

Are you sure? Have you done this experiment? Do you have any idea what the difference is between a rotating non-inertial reference frame and an inertial reference frame?

I havnt done the experiment. I think there are 8 combinations of motions. I would put money on the outcome. But the positioning of the probes might not be simple.

There is in a sense no difference tween a rotating non-inertial reference frame & an inertial reference frame, in that both are irrelevant to a magnetic field.

I'm going to jump ahead to something else you said to someone else because it's relevant,

I havnt studied the KVL Lewin saga. But from what i have seen it appears to me that Lewin is wrong, & Mehdi & Co are correct.

Not that I wish to dredge up the pseudoscience of Mehdi and Co. in this thread - but it is not surprising you don't understand relativity in the Faraday Disc and also agree with Mehdi and Co.
I say this because what's tricky about the Faraday Disc is that it is a rotating field - i.e. it is a non-conservative field so it also exhibits path-dependency.

Now I admit I stated this is a GR phenomena and referred you to Panofsky & Philips who themselves would refer you to Schiff so maybe you want more details. For that - I'd suggest this paper but the mathematics are ghastly and if you're weak in calculus this will just make your eyes bleed:
"Charged Particles and the Electro-Magnetic Field in Non-Inertial Frames of Minkowski Spacetime: II. Applications: Rotating Frames, Sagnac Effect, Faraday Rotation, Wrap-up Effect"
https://arxiv.org/pdf/0908.0215.pdf
If this is too hard (let's be real, it is very hard), then try these introductory texts on the trickiness of rotating reference frames:
https://phys.libretexts.org/Bookshelves/Relativity/Book%3A_Special_Relativity_(Crowell)/08%3A_Rotation/8.01%3A_Rotating_Frames_of_Reference
https://phys.libretexts.org/Bookshelves/Relativity/Supplemental_Modules_(Relativity)/Miscellaneous_Relativity_Topics/GENERAL_RELATIVITY_-_a_primer

STR is rubbish, Minkowski spacetime is rubbish. The Silberstein GTR explanation for the Sagnac Effect deserves some respect koz i respect Silberstein.
Magnetic fields are static in the aether, ie they cant rotate, koz magnetic fields cant go sideways (ie they cant crab or sidle). However i suppose that we can make a pseudo-rotating field, which appears to rotate.

And honestly, before getting all worked up about the Faraday Disc, which is an immensely complex problem, the solution to the disc is wrapped up in the same solution that the two links above are really driving at - solving the Ehrenfest Paradox (the solution to which motivated the creation of General Relativity).

The aether solution to the Faraday Disc Paradox is simple (it aint an immensely complex problem). Except of course we don’t know what the aether is, & we don’t know what magnetism is (& we don’t know much about anything).

There has been quite a bit of literature written on the electrodynamics of rotating reference frames. This isn't even the tip of the tip of the iceberg:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/0031891464901065?via%3Dihub

A part of that iceberg is Cohn's electrodynamics, which preceded Einstein's, Einstein even used Cohn's heading, & then Einstein did not mention Cohn in his index.

And I'm not terribly interested in parsing your interpretation of Biot-Savart and Ampere. I'm much more persuaded by the fact that we can start with Lorentz transformations and Gauss' Law and use relativity to derive Ampere's Law mathematically:
https://www.damtp.cam.ac.uk/user/tong/em/el4.pdf

I don’t know why Einsteinist's keep invoking the Lorentz transformations, when they should be invoking the Einstein transformations. The two are different in that the terms have different meanings. I suspect that in the early days Einstein was aware that using the Lorentz name added wt to Einstein's silly STR.

But if u are referring to the relativistic explanation for the magnetic field near an electric wire then i have already shown in this thread that that explanation is wrong/impossible.

@bsfeechannel - if you're reading this, then the links above are utterly fascinating to me as the circular train clock synchronization scenario reminds me of line integration around a circulating magnetic field adding up to non-zero EMF as predicted by Faraday's Law. The synchronization of the clocks is also non-zero. In the second link, even though Clocks 1 and 2 are both on they disk, both rotating at the same rate, they do not read the same times after circumventing different closed paths. It gives me a lot of amazing things to ponder about the physical meaning of line integration.

I can save u a lot of trouble. The time anywhere on the disc is the same. The only time that exists is the present instant, & this is universal. The ticking of clocks however is affected by motion etc. But ticking is not time.

[PlainName]

STR is rubbish, Minkowski spacetime is rubbish.

Aetherwind is rubbish. Electons are a spelling mistake.

There, I believe that refutes your suppositions appropriately and you can now see the light.

[SiliconWizard]

That's quite fun. Even the string theory is not as funky as this, and it's already pretty twisted (no pun intended).

[aetherist]

That's quite fun. Even the string theory is not as funky as this, and it's already pretty twisted (no pun intended).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shmoo                               https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shmoo_plot
"Shmoo plot" is a technical term relating to the graphical display of test results in electrical engineering, dating back at least to 1966.[29] The name most likely arose because the shape of the two-dimensional plots often resembled a shmoo. The term is also a verb: to "shmoo" means to run the test.

The wiki article re shmoos fails to advise that kigmy shmoos had a large target painted on their bums, koz they loved being kicked. If u had a pet shmoo u would kick it every time say your team lost.

Us aetherists know what kigmy shmoos feel like.

[aetherist]

Stephen Crothers explains that GTR invokes pseudo-vectors, & that Einstein lacks an understanding of vectors.

HAHAHAHAHAHA. You're seriously going to cite Stephen Crothers at me? HAHAHAHA.

Man, it is striking to see how the argument of these crackpots obey the same pattern. He thinks that pseudovectors are something someone who doesn't understand of vectors "invokes".
From wikipedia:

Physical examples of pseudovectors include torque, angular velocity, angular momentum, magnetic field, and magnetic dipole moment.

It's the same thing with the KVLiars, who think that "invoking" the concept of non-conservative fields to explain why KVL doesn't hold for a circuit immersed in a varying magnetic field means that energy is not conserved and therefore Walter Lewin doesn't understand how magnetic induction works.

And thank you for the eye-opening videos from Professor Dave Explains about the debunking of those pseudo-science con artists' claims. They show that misleading the audience has become a lucrative business for incompetent people with a hidden agenda.

prof Dave appears to have lots of good stuff in his youtube site. He has 1.85 million subscribers & 158 million views.
Dr Pierre-Marie Robitaille has 37k subscribers & 1.7 million views.
prof Dave got 512k views for his debunking footage. Dr Pierre-Marie Robitaille got 49k views for his debunking of prof Dave's debunking. And clearly Dr Pierre-Marie Robitaille's debunking wins 100 to zero. prof Dave can be seen to be very ignorant in the CMBR area.

I have emailed Crothers to ask him if the wiki pseudo vectors are in the same category as the Einstein (GTR) pseudo vectors.

Einstein’s Pseudotensor- a Meaningless Concoction of Mathematical Symbols   Stephen J. Crothers   23 January 2020
Abstract: In an attempt to make his General Theory of Relativity comply with the usual conservation of energy and momentum for a closed system which a vast array of experiments has ascertained, Mr. A. Einstein constructed, ad hoc, his pseudotensor. That it is not a tensor is outside the very mathematical structure of his theory. Beyond that, it violates the rules of pure mathematics. It is therefore a meaningless concoction of mathematical symbols.

https://vixra.org/pdf/2001.0499v1.pdf
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudovector

I havnt studied the KVL Lewin saga. But from what i have seen it appears to me that Lewin is wrong, & Mehdi & Co are correct.
I dont remember what eev-Dave said.
The  probes can deceive.
This probe problem shows up in the Faraday Disc Paradox too.

Hi Stephen.
Is Einstein’s (non-ok) pseudovectors the same as the wiki (ok-ish) pseudovectors.
Aetherist. March 2022.

https://vixra.org/pdf/2001.0499v1.pdf
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudovector
https://vixra.org/pdf/2104.0006v1.pdf


Hi Aetherist.
Thankyou for your query. The short answer is no.
In the case of a given vector, irrespective of the coordinate system employed, the vector is not altered. The pseudovector you have cited is a change in orientation of a vector with some operation, such as the cross product a x b which is 180 degrees out of phase with b x a because a x b = - b x a, where a and b are vectors.

In tensor language a vector is a tensor of rank 1. In the case of Einstein's pseudotensor the rank is 2. According to Einstein and his followers it acts 'like a tensor' under linear transformations of coordinates. Tensors of rank 2 can have two superscripts (called contravariant)  or two subscripts (called covariant) or one superscript and one subscript (called mixed). As explained in my article, Einstein's pseudotensor is defined in its mixed form. Since it acts 'like a tensor' it can be contracted 'like a tensor', as explained in my article. When a tensor is contracted its order decreases by 2 because one superscript and one subscript drop out under the tensor operation of contraction. So a 2nd-rank mixed tensor, when contracted, produces a tensor of rank 0, which is simply a scalar, i.e. an invariant. Now the contraction of Einstein' pseudotensor produces an invariant.

Examination of the resultant expression for the invariant reveals that it is constructed solely from the components of the metric tensor and its first-derivatives: that is, a first-order intrinsic differential invariant:- first order because only the first-derivatives appear in it and intrinsic because no terms other than those of the metric tensor itself appear in the invariant.

But the pure mathematicians proved in 1901 that it is in fact impossible to construct an invariant solely from the components of the metric tensor and their 1st-derivatives. That is, 1st-order intrinsic differential invariants do not exist. Thus, by the method of reductio ad absurdum, Einstein's pseudotensor is a meaningless concoction of mathematical symbols, so anything that employs it is similarly meaningless.

But Einstein's field equations can be written explicitly in terms of his pseudotensor (his unimodular coordinate form), which he employed in his 1915 paper on his theory. Hence his field equations are nonsense, bearing in mind that his field equations must hold for all systems of coordinates. Since they do not, his theory is nonsense from day one. Case closed. Attached is my full published paper on this issue.
Yours faithfully, Steve Crothers

https://www.academia.edu/68876325/Response_to_Crothers_Exposition_of_Unimodular_Defect

[bsfeechannel]

The short answer is no.

Of course the answer is no. Einstein is wrong according to the new definition of pseudovector. The same thing in Mehdi's claims, where Lewin is wrong according to the new definition of voltage. And Kirchhoff, who is wrong according to Robitaille's new definition of the law of thermal radiation.

While these clowns redefine the definitions to suit their misconceptions they're laughing at you (and probably taking your money).

[adx]

Well spotted. But the ratio of total force is still in error.

That was my thought too - of your initial post line above prior to edit where IIRC you said something like lambda involved a squaring (thereby implying the alleged relativistic magnetic force was a nonlinear function of drift velocity). Yet I still went against my suspicion and presented it as though it was linear. That is because I don't know, and I don't want to look too much like a crackpot, with a choice between:

(a) conventional theory and a published paper including a back and forth over the same kind of issue you subsequently brought up ("But (like Einstein in his bending of light), i had the correct answer for the wrong reason(s).") and its resultant debug cycle correcting some mistake(s), and

(b) thoughts and words (mine and yours), without any illustration of the nonlinearity in action (and the subsequent claim was later removed by you).

So I picked a side, without checking, and just assumed that the velocity is so minuscule compared to the speed of light that the Lorentz transformation works out linear, or some other effect takes the squaring out, or anything else that makes the world seem rational. Was it wrong of me to intentionally go against my suspicion and make a claim I didn't believe? That's a question for philosophy, but I'll note no one needs to know how I arrived at my opinion, and as such, I'm entitled to be wrong. Also I'm not a physicist, and being endlessly right has its disadvantages (see aforementioned "debug cycle") so there's something bigger at play here (along the lines of trust in distrust, or even trust in error).

But I can't get far past the fact that someone (this includes all 'competent' alt-scientists) can go against a well established calculation like this one without checking their assertions, and just jump onto the first apparent contradiction that occurs to them, hand-wave away the rest - then be so assured they are right. I can understand it - don't get me wrong. I just can't go far past it. So I didn't.

Remember I don't know what the answer is to my complete satisfaction (I won't look at the equation properly until after posting this).

Edits: To reduce confusion over which post I am talking about. BTW I did check the equations but it would go against my point to post the result here.

[aetherist]

The short answer is no.

Of course the answer is no. Einstein is wrong according to the new definition of pseudovector. The same thing in Mehdi's claims, where Lewin is wrong according to the new definition of voltage. And Kirchhoff, who is wrong according to Robitaille's new definition of the law of thermal radiation.

While these clowns redefine the definitions to suit their misconceptions they're laughing at you (and probably taking your money).

Einstein's GTR & his field equations are wrong koz his postulates are wrong.
And the definition goes back to 1901, or at least the problem with the pseudovector goes back to 1901, hence it aint exactly a new thing.
And his elevator equivalence gedanken is wrong. A proper look at  Einstein's elevator gedanken shows no equivalence tween gravity & inertia (for lots of reasons)(or at least i should say u can see it in lots of ways, gedanken wise).

And while we are on the subject, his elevator or chest gedanken predicts a reversed bending of light, ie in the wrong direction to what we observe, plus the numerical value for the bending is different (i worked it out in Excel).

[bsfeechannel]

Einstein's GTR & his field equations are wrong koz his postulates are wrong.

Yes. He chose the wrong wrong postulates.

[HuronKing]

Einstein's GTR & his field equations are wrong koz his postulates are wrong.

Yes. He chose the wrong wrong postulates.

The essential component of physics crackpottery is to focus on character assassination of Einstein - to misdirect so that the casual reader thinks physics stopped in 1905 or 1916 or even 1955.

Meanwhile, physicists are using general relativity and the field equations to accurately predict the appearance of supernova from gravitational lensing (only appropriate that this thread ought to loop back to Veritasium... somehow).

 

[aetherist]

Einstein's GTR & his field equations are wrong koz his postulates are wrong.

Yes. He chose the wrong wrong postulates.

The essential component of physics crackpottery is to focus on character assassination of Einstein - to misdirect so that the casual reader thinks physics stopped in 1905 or 1916 or even 1955.

Meanwhile, physicists are using general relativity and the field equations to accurately predict the appearance of supernova from gravitational lensing (only appropriate that this thread ought to loop back to Veritasium... somehow).

Einstein's prediction for the double Newtonian bending of light passing the Sun was impressive, but this was a lucky guess, & there are at least 3 reasons why the prediction was wrong or used postulates that were not properly explained. I will explain the main wrong.

Einstein's gedanken for the apparent downwardly bending of a ray of light crossing an upwardly accelerating chest (sometimes called an elevator) duznt predict the double Newtonian bending of light passing the Sun (ie 1.75 arcsec), & it duznt predict the kind of impressive gravitational lensing that we see in the universe around us.

The downwardly bending ray in the elevator gedanken (as originally set out) gives no more & no less than the equivalent of the well known ballistic bending (passing the Sun) calculated by Soldner (0.87 arcsec). Einstein in later years (it might have been in 1915) invoked an additional 0.87 arcsec of bending due to the slowing of light passing the Sun (proven to be true by Shapiro in about 1962), which made the total 1.75 arcsec (proven to be true by the satellite Hipparcos in about 1999). I have to give Einstein lots of credit here, his 1.75 arcsec was a brave prediction, however it was little more than a lucky guess. But i wanted to point out that the commonly held belief that Einstein's elevator gedanken gives us his well known 1.75 arcsec is wrong, it gives us only 0.87 arcsec.

But it gets worse. That there 0.87 arcsec is based on a naïve version of the elevator gedanken, which considered the path of a ray of light. A proper version considers a ray or beam of individual photons.

I usually think of a photon as being a cylinder. I know that some fellows don’t like to give a photon a size or shape, so let's describe photons as being (massless) arrows.  Hence a beam of light is a straight line of (massless) arrows (for an outside observer)(in deep outer space here).
If we look at individual photons in the beam crossing the elevator then every photon (arrow) must remain parallel to its initial alignment at all times.  After all, that there beam appears dead straight for an outside observer, at all times.

So, the beam of light crossing the elevator consists of horizontal arrows.  For an inside observer the beam appears to bend down (the elevator is accelerating up), but the arrows nonetheless remain horizontal (for the inside observer)(& for the outside observer).

Nextly we apply the elevator gedanken to a beam passing the Sun.  Now, in his gedanken, Einstein was happy to use one elevator, & he was happy to use one beam & one bend.  That simple approach does indeed give  0.87 arcsec of bending (as per Marmet, 1999). But, lets look at one beam crossing millions of elevators, each elevator accelerating radially away from the Sun.

Each time a photon (arrow) crosses an elevator its traject bends down (for an inside observer), but the arrow retains its initial angle (ie angle relative to the floor), in each elevator,  while crossing. For an outside observer, no matter how many elevators the arrow crosses, it always retains its original angle (it was originally horizontal).  And for an outside observer each (massless) arrow retains its original velocity (c km/s). 

Now, the photon (arrow) is moving tangentially to the Sun as it passes (by definition), & we can draw a centerline passing throo the Sun parallel to that tangent.

A simple examination of the traject for an arrow shows that it can never cross that centerline. When or if the arrow eventually enters the last elevator, the elevator at or next to the centerline, the acceleration of the elevator will be parallel to the arrow (the elevator is moving radially away from the Sun)(ie along or next to the centerline). The arrow will never get to the far wall of the elevator.  Or, if u like, it gets to the far wall at infinity.  But it can never cross the centerline.

So, the arrow traject bends towards the Sun on approach, in a ballistic way, & then is parallel to the Sun at closest approach, & after passing the Sun the traject must reverse, such that the arrow never reaches the centerline. Hence the traject follows an S kind of traject.  The arrow at some time reaches a point of closest approach to the centerline (which passes through the center of the Sun), & then diverges away & leaves the centerline, & much later its traject becomes nearnuff parallel to its original traject, albeit displaced sideways towards the Sun.

Hence according to a proper application of Einstein's elevator gedanken we can never see an Einsteinian Ring. All we can see at any one time & place is a small part of a half-baked ring.  However, we know that Einsteinian Rings exist. Hence Einstein's elevator gedanken is false (re the bending of light).

If the beam of light originates at a light-source on the aforementioned centerline of the massive body, & if the massive body is super massive such that the S trajects of the beams/photons/arrows almost meet & touch the centerline on the far side, briefly, before diverging, & if the converged photons are somehow seen by an observer located at that location, then that observer will see a patch of light, not a ring, & that patch will appear to be at the centerline of the super massive body.

I am not saying that such an S traject exists (it duznt), all i am saying is that a proper application of Einstein's elevator gedanken (simply applied) must give that kind of S traject.

Einstein's elevator gedanken for the equivalence of inertial mass & gravitational mass is also completely stuffed up. I might explain that one other day.

Oh, getting back to the 0.87 arcsec of bending. That was for a naive ray of light crossing the elevator. For a beam of photons (arrows) crossing the elevator, it will be a bit less than 0.87 arcsec, due to the S traject.
In the real world there is no S traject, koz each photon (ie each arrow) bends along its own length (ie no arrow is straight), & the overall traject bends 0.87 arcsec, & the effect of the slowing of light near mass adds 0.87 arcsec.

[HuronKing]

Some might wonder why I waste time with nonsense. I see it like analyzing perpetual motion machines. Someone presents you a perpetual motion machine - we know it's wrong, but how is it wrong? It's easy to spend lots of time wandering in Simanek's Museum of Unworkable Devices but it'll help sharpen your ability to spot cons, frauds, and crackpots:
https://www.lockhaven.edu/~dsimanek/museum/unwork.htm

But this latest one...

So, the beam of light crossing the elevator consists of horizontal arrows.  For an inside observer the beam appears to bend down (the elevator is accelerating up), but the arrows nonetheless remain horizontal (for the inside observer)(& for the outside observer).

There isn't even a coherent description of the elevator thought-experiment here to debunk... the light bends and is straight for the same observer? LoL. So this one doesn't even merit any additional time wasting.

Now I do want to draw attention to this utterly laughable claim,

his 1.75 arcsec was a brave prediction, however it was little more than a lucky guess

LoL... ahh yes - Einstein can only be right because he guessed.

I admit the mathematics of Einstein's original paper or any graduate level mathematical textbook of the subject is dense and very, very hard. This is why I am grateful for Epstein and Hewitt's efforts to make this stuff a little less impenetrable (their textbook on Conceptual Physics was mine in high school).

The mathematical derivation of the predicted deflection here is a little tedious but its not inscrutable for anyone who understands integral calculus:
https://www.relativity.li/en/epstein2/read/i0_en/i2_en

Which is the same result Einstein derived in the 1916 paper and in many other subsequent texts on the subject (McVittie, General Relativity and Cosmology, p241).

To anyone who doesn't understand integral calculus, I suppose this is all just luck to predict *exactly* the right value later observed by experiments. But gee, we seem to get lucky a lot when we use math!

[Alex Eisenhut]

I usually think of a photon as being a cylinder. I know that some fellows don’t like to give a photon a size or shape, so let's describe photons as being (massless) arrows.  Hence a beam of light is a straight line of (massless) arrows (for an outside observer)(in deep outer space here).
If we look at individual photons in the beam crossing the elevator then every photon (arrow) must remain parallel to its initial alignment at all times.  After all, that there beam appears dead straight for an outside observer, at all times.

Interesting, so what distinguishes your version of light from a laser?

[aetherist]

Some might wonder why I waste time with nonsense. I see it like analyzing perpetual motion machines. Someone presents you a perpetual motion machine - we know it's wrong, but how is it wrong? It's easy to spend lots of time wandering in Simanek's Museum of Unworkable Devices but it'll help sharpen your ability to spot cons, frauds, and crackpots: https://www.lockhaven.edu/~dsimanek/museum/unwork.htm

I don’t know how u got onto perpetual motion machines.

But this latest one...

So, the beam of light crossing the elevator consists of horizontal arrows.  For an inside observer the beam appears to bend down (the elevator is accelerating up), but the arrows nonetheless remain horizontal (for the inside observer)(& for the outside observer).

There isn't even a coherent description of the elevator thought-experiment here to debunk... the light bends and is straight for the same observer? LoL. So this one doesn't even merit any additional time wasting.

To the inside observer the beam appears to bend down, but the individual photons (arrows) remain horizontal. 
To the outside observer all photons (arrows) have a horizontal traject all the time, & all photons (arrows) remain horizontal all the time.

Now I do want to draw attention to this utterly laughable claim,

his 1.75 arcsec was a brave prediction, however it was little more than a lucky guess

LoL... ahh yes - Einstein can only be right because he guessed.

I admit the mathematics of Einstein's original paper or any graduate level mathematical textbook of the subject is dense and very, very hard. This is why I am grateful for Epstein and Hewitt's efforts to make this stuff a little less impenetrable (their textbook on Conceptual Physics was mine in high school).
The mathematical derivation of the predicted diffraction here is a little tedious but its not inscrutable for anyone who understands integral calculus:
https://www.relativity.li/en/epstein2/read/i0_en/i2_en
Which is the same result Einstein derived in the 1916 paper and in many other subsequent texts on the subject (McVittie, General Relativity and Cosmology, p241). !

Einstein's derivation was based on the inclination of a wavefront of a ray of light passing say the Sun.
He predicted that the part  of the wavefront closer to the Sun would be slowed due to the nearness of the mass of the Sun (i am happy with that)(it accords with his slowing of light near mass postulate)(this postulate was proved correct by Shapiro using radar reflexions from i think Venus in about 1962).
And Einstein says that therefore the wavefront leans as it passes the Sun (i am happy with that).

But then Einstein introduces a hidden postulate, he assumes that the leaning wavefront automatically means that the traject of the parent ray of light bends. No. It might bend, or it might not. Einstein treats the wavefront as if it is refracted when meeting an inclined pane of say glass. But Einstein fails to explain this assumption, ie this postulate. And he fails to provide a reason why the traject might bend.

If i layed 10 identical panes of glass flat on top of each other on a say table, but the lower panes having a slightly greater refractive index than the higher panes, & if i sent 10 photons into the panes, 1 photon per pane, entering into the edge of each pane, then they would all go straight through to the other end of each pane, & the higher photons would exit before the lower photons. But, all photons would go straight, all the way, there would be no bending of their individual trajects, & there would be no bending of their combined traject, even tho they would in effect give us a kind of leaning wavefront.

Now, if we replaced the 10 panes with an equivalent single pane which had a gradual increase in refractive index from top to bottom, then we would all agree that the 10 photons would all have a bent (curved) trajectory. But Einstein did not explain that in his gedanken the nearness of mass would result in a refraction of the same kind that we know we get when light passes through mass. He should have explained that he was invoking this as a postulate. And then he should have provided good reasons for that postulate. But there was no transparency (pun alert). Now, had he, i would have been happy with that, i mean its his gedanken, he makes the rules. I would have been happy for him to invoke Huyghen's refraction of light in mass, ie to apply it to the refraction of light near mass.

I wonder how Einstein would have explained the bending (curving) of a single solitary photon passing the Sun. He would have no ray to play with. No wavefront to play with. Poor poor Einstein.

To anyone who doesn't understand integral calculus, I suppose this is all just luck to predict *exactly* the right value later observed by experiments. But gee, we seem to get lucky a lot when we use math.

I understand the postulates of integral calculus, but i don’t understand the math & equations.
However as i mentioned the other day i have checked the math for Einstein's bending of light passing the Sun by using Excel & i found that Einstein's postulates did indeed give the correct numbers for bending (ie 0.87 arcsec for the bending of space, & 0.87 arcsec for the bending of time).
But my Excel check did not say anything about Einstein's equation for bending, i didn’t use his equation, i used his postulates.
I would be happy to send a copy of my Excel to anyone who wants, but it might be hard to follow (i probably couldn’t follow it myself today)(i was lazy re explaining what was what & why).
I remember that the difficult part of my Excel was the Huyghens refraction part. I had to use some clever arithmetic to mimic Einstein's integration.

I said that Einstein was lucky. I said that koz i know that the aether inflow in to the Sun gives 0.87 arcsec of bending. I have calculated that using Excel. It is based on the velocity of the aether inflow being exactly the same as the velocity of a particle falling to the Sun. Hence aetherists can calculate the velocity of the aether inflow at any location by simply using Newton's equation for escape velocity. In effect the aether inflow bending is the same as the bending of  Poor's falling particle.

Einstein used the escape velocity in his equation for the slowing of light near mass. He inserted that V into his equation for his gamma in his equation for length contraction, to get his radial component for the space part of his bending. And he inserted that V into his equation for his gamma in his equation for time dilation, to get the time part of his bending. Just a little reminder here that the time part is a scalar, whilst the space part is a vector (probably not important today).

If my aetheric bending (0.87 arcsec) is true, & if Einstein's bending (1.75 arcsec) is true, then the total bending should be 2.62 arcsec, which is 0.87 arcsec too great. If the aetheric bending is correct then the Einsteinian bending should be only 0.87 arcsec. I assume that slowing gives 0.87 arcsec, plus my aetheric 0.87 arcsec gives 1.75 arcsec. If i am correct then this leads me to say that Einstein was lucky, he got the correct answer using wrong reasoning.

[aetherist]

I usually think of a photon as being a cylinder. I know that some fellows don’t like to give a photon a size or shape, so let's describe photons as being (massless) arrows.  Hence a beam of light is a straight line of (massless) arrows (for an outside observer)(in deep outer space here).
If we look at individual photons in the beam crossing the elevator then every photon (arrow) must remain parallel to its initial alignment at all times.  After all, that there beam appears dead straight for an outside observer, at all times.

Interesting, so what distinguishes your version of light from a laser?

My photon (arrow) analogy applies to a solitary photon & to photons in a ray & to photons in a beam & to photons in a laser beam.
I am not sure about the bending of radio waves, i think that there is no such thing as a radio wave arrow (radio waves are not photons).
Neutrinos are paired photons sharing the same helical axis, hence my analogy applies to neutrino arrows too.

So, any kind of light crossing Einstein's chest (elevator) is/acts/bends the same. But it aint that simple.
What made that photon or ray or beam or laserbeam?
Was it a ray of starlight from a faraway star, entering through a hole in the wall, or through window glass.
Einstein didn’t say.
I take it to be individual photons from a faraway star entering through a hole (or through glass might be ok too).

Photons from a laser sitting gainst the wall are a problem.
Do these photons come out of the horizontal laser horizontally?
Are photons horizontal as they come out?

If the head of a photon comes out & goes horizontally, & if later the laser has risen a small distance (in space)(but is the same distance from the floor) when the tail exits, & if the tail goes horizontally, then we have a photon going horizontally, but the head is lower than the tail.

Or, is the photon initially going horizontally according to the outside observer. Or to the inside observer.

Lasers are a problem for the elevator gedanken. I prefer photons from a faraway star, entering through a hole.

[HuronKing]

But then Einstein introduces a hidden postulate, he assumes that the leaning wavefront automatically means that the traject of the parent ray of light bends. No. It might bend, or it might not. Einstein treats the wavefront as if it is refracted when meeting an inclined pane of say glass. But Einstein fails to explain this assumption, ie this postulate. And he fails to provide a reason why the traject might bend.

... the postulate is the principle of equivalence - that an accelerating reference frame is equivalent to a gravitational frame.

Of course you're confused - you have the postulates of the thought-experiment completely backwards.

I wonder how Einstein would have explained the bending (curving) of a single solitary photon passing the Sun. He would have no ray to play with. No wavefront to play with.

The wave-front helps us visualize the net effect mathematically (as Epstein showed in the link I posted), but, and here is where your brain is going to explode...

The photon is not bending... it is the SPACETIME that it travels through that is bending.

You apparently have this picture of GR that space is flat and objects are getting knocked around. That's not the picture at all - the actual space is warping. That's what makes it so profound, kinda crazy too, I admit, but it works and the equations predict over and over experimentally accurate results.

And it really ought not to be so surprising or crazy though. For example, a triangle drawn on the surface of the Earth does not have angles that add up to 180 degrees. Our universe is not Euclidean. Space curves.
https://www.relativity.li/en/epstein2/read/h0_en/h6_en

And you will be doomed to never understanding this because you don't accept/understand Minkowski (nor mass-energy equivalence based on a few pages ago). Which is sad because it's really the ultimate evolution of anything like an 'aether.' You just have to surrender absolute reference frames.

I understand the postulates of integral calculus, but i don’t understand the math & equations.

Not the same thing. I wish I could've tried that excuse on my math teachers - I might've gotten better grades. 

If my aetheric bending (0.87 arcsec) is true, & if Einstein's bending (1.75 arcsec) is true, then the total bending should be 2.62 arcsec, which is 0.87 arcsec too great. If the aetheric bending is correct then the Einsteinian bending should be only 0.87 arcsec. I assume that slowing gives 0.87 arcsec, plus my aetheric 0.87 arcsec gives 1.75 arcsec. If i am correct then this leads me to say that Einstein was lucky, he got the correct answer using wrong reasoning.

Or maybe... just maybe... your aetheric bending is "krapp," general relativity is all we need to explain these effects, and all your efforts on this are wasted...

Nah, this is going to be your next post...

[penfold]

[...] I understand the postulates of integral calculus, but i don’t understand the math & equations.
[...]
Einstein used the escape velocity in his equation for the slowing of light near mass. He inserted that V into his equation for his gamma in his equation for length contraction,[...]

Reading between the lines there, I assume that all this analysis you quote on Einstein's theory being incorrect is not your own? Any chance you could point me in the direction of something written mathematically that explains the breakdown in this specific case? Unfortunately, Crothers' "critiques" are just too fundamentally flawed.

But this latest one...

So, the beam of light crossing the elevator consists of horizontal arrows.  For an inside observer the beam appears to bend down (the elevator is accelerating up), but the arrows nonetheless remain horizontal (for the inside observer)(& for the outside observer).

There isn't even a coherent description of the elevator thought-experiment here to debunk... the light bends and is straight for the same observer? LoL. So this one doesn't even merit any additional time wasting.

To the inside observer the beam appears to bend down, but the individual photons (arrows) remain horizontal. 
To the outside observer all photons (arrows) have a horizontal traject all the time, & all photons (arrows) remain horizontal all the time.

Why are the photons now arrows and what properties of the photons are the arrows showing? By what mechanism does either the inside or outside observer, observe those arrows?

[aetherist]

But then Einstein introduces a hidden postulate, he assumes that the leaning wavefront automatically means that the traject of the parent ray of light bends. No. It might bend, or it might not. Einstein treats the wavefront as if it is refracted when meeting an inclined pane of say glass. But Einstein fails to explain this assumption, ie this postulate. And he fails to provide a reason why the traject might bend.

... the postulate is the principle of equivalence - that an accelerating reference frame is equivalent to a gravitational frame.
Of course you're confused - you have the postulates of the thought-experiment completely backwards.

Einsteinist's added (tried to add) equivalence to Einstein's elevator gedanken in later years, to try to resurrect Einstein's canonical gedanken, but they failed, which i wont go into today. I am talking about the original gedanken, not the pathetic failed modern faux-elevator gedanken version.

I wonder how Einstein would have explained the bending (curving) of a single solitary photon passing the Sun. He would have no ray to play with. No wavefront to play with.

The wave-front helps us visualize the net effect mathematically (as Epstein showed in the link I posted), but, and here is where your brain is going to explode...
The photon is not bending... it is the SPACETIME that it travels through that is bending.
You apparently have this picture of GR that space is flat and objects are getting knocked around. That's not the picture at all - the actual space is warping. That's what makes it so profound, kinda crazy too, I admit, but it works and the equations predict over and over experimentally accurate results.

And it really ought not to be so surprising or crazy though. For example, a triangle drawn on the surface of the Earth does not have angles that add up to 180 degrees. Our universe is not Euclidean. Space curves.

And you will be doomed to never understanding this because you don't accept/understand Minkowski (nor mass-energy equivalence based on a few pages ago). Which is sad because it's really the ultimate evolution of anything like an 'aether.' You just have to surrender absolute reference frames. 

Yes i am aware that according to Einstein light duznt bend near the Sun, it is spacetime that bends.

I might have a better understanding of Einstein's mass-energy stuff if & when Einsteinist's can agree about it. In the meantime i will stand back & watch their silly little civil wars.

I understand the postulates of integral calculus, but i don’t understand the math & equations.

Not the same thing. I wish I could've tried that excuse on my math teachers - I might've gotten better grades. 

I thort that that might get a laugh.

If my aetheric bending (0.87 arcsec) is true, & if Einstein's bending (1.75 arcsec) is true, then the total bending should be 2.62 arcsec, which is 0.87 arcsec too great. If the aetheric bending is correct then the Einsteinian bending should be only 0.87 arcsec. I assume that slowing gives 0.87 arcsec, plus my aetheric 0.87 arcsec gives 1.75 arcsec. If i am correct then this leads me to say that Einstein was lucky, he got the correct answer using wrong reasoning.

Or maybe... just maybe... your aetheric bending is "krapp," general relativity is all we need, and all your efforts on this are wasted...
Nah, this is going to be your next post...

I am still working on my aetheric bending of light. I have a number of aetheric candidates that can give me the extra 0.87 arcsec that i need.

But that would need the Einsteinian bending due to the nearness of mass to be 0.00 arcsec. It might indeed be 0.00 arcsec, if the Huyghen refraction in mass duznt apply to Einstein refraction near mass.

Shapiro said that the speed of light near the Sun did not produce fringes. We know that Huyghen refraction gives fringes. If Einstein refraction duznt give fringes then that to me indicates that Einstein refraction duznt give bending. In which case the Einsteinian bending is indeed 0.00 arcsec.

[aetherist]

[...] I understand the postulates of integral calculus, but i don’t understand the math & equations.[...]
Einstein used the escape velocity in his equation for the slowing of light near mass. He inserted that V into his equation for his gamma in his equation for length contraction,[...]

Reading between the lines there, I assume that all this analysis you quote on Einstein's theory being incorrect is not your own? Any chance you could point me in the direction of something written mathematically that explains the breakdown in this specific case? Unfortunately, Crothers' "critiques" are just too fundamentally flawed.

I can't remember what any sources said. And i don’t know of any Crothers papers re Einstein's bendings.
But that V stuff describes exactly what i did in my Excel for bending, & i got the correct Einsteinian bendings.

But this latest one...

So, the beam of light crossing the elevator consists of horizontal arrows.  For an inside observer the beam appears to bend down (the elevator is accelerating up), but the arrows nonetheless remain horizontal (for the inside observer)(& for the outside observer).

There isn't even a coherent description of the elevator thought-experiment here to debunk... the light bends and is straight for the same observer? LoL. So this one doesn't even merit any additional time wasting.

To the inside observer the beam appears to bend down, but the individual photons (arrows) remain horizontal. 
To the outside observer all photons (arrows) have a horizontal traject all the time, & all photons (arrows) remain horizontal all the time.

Why are the photons now arrows and what properties of the photons are the arrows showing? By what mechanism does either the inside or outside observer, observe those arrows?

I use arrows for photons to show the angles of the photons, ie the photons (arrows) remain horizontal at all times, but the apparent trajectory (for the inside observer) of the photons (ie of say their center points) has a downwardly curve.

The mechanism for observing the arrows, ie their trajectory, & their angle, has to be invented. We as usual assume that a suitable mechanism is possible. Which is a fair enuff assumption, unless it can be shown that that kind of mechanism is an impossibility.

There is a difficulty for the stationary outside observer. She is left well behind, or under really, as time passes, hence it is difficult to invent a mechanism whereby she can see up & into the speeding elevator & can see small angles & small distances involving small photons at huge distances.

In fact the inside observer will have trouble too, koz photons are invisible, unless they hit your eye.

But lets say that there is only one observer, the inside observer. However, before the gedanken, she inspects the photons from the faraway star in question. She travels up in the elevator, slowly, stopping at intervals to check the starlight, & then satisfied that the starlight photons are all always horizontal, & all always propagate horizontally, she takes the elevator back down & does the test.

[HuronKing]

Einsteinist's added (tried to add) equivalence to Einstein's elevator gedanken in later years, to try to resurrect Einstein's canonical gedanken, but they failed, which i wont go into today. I am talking about the original gedanken, not the pathetic failed modern faux-elevator gedanken version.

So am I. And Einstein himself told us about the original thought-experiment and his realization of the equivalence between gravitational frames and accelerated frames.
https://web.archive.org/web/20151222085312/http://inpac.ucsd.edu/students/courses/winter2012/physics2d/einsteinonrelativity.pdf

It seems apparent you don't understand any description of the elevator experiment.

Yes i am aware that according to Einstein light duznt bend near the Sun, it is spacetime that bends.

Then why are you asking idiotic questions about what general relativity says about a single photon in a gravitational field like it's some big 'gotcha' question if you're so aware of it? The answer is right there in the theory.   

I am still working on my aetheric bending of light. I have a number of aetheric candidates that can give me the extra 0.87 arcsec that i need.

But that would need the Einsteinian bending due to the nearness of mass to be 0.00 arcsec. It might indeed be 0.00 arcsec, if the Huyghen refraction in mass duznt apply to Einstein refraction near mass.

I'd wish you luck with proving that but the amount of luck you'd need would probably collapse into a black hole singularity.

[aetherist]

Einsteinist's added (tried to add) equivalence to Einstein's elevator gedanken in later years, to try to resurrect Einstein's canonical gedanken, but they failed, which i wont go into today. I am talking about the original gedanken, not the pathetic failed modern faux-elevator gedanken version.

So am I. And Einstein himself told us about the original thought-experiment and his realization of the equivalence between gravitational frames and accelerated frames.
https://web.archive.org/web/20151222085312/http://inpac.ucsd.edu/students/courses/winter2012/physics2d/einsteinonrelativity.pdf

It seems apparent you don't understand any description of the elevator experiment.

The elevator gedanken for equivalence was a different gedanken. It helped Einstein to develop his 1915 GTR. His bending of light elevator gedanken dates back some years before that.

Modern Einsteinist's invoke a modification to the classic elevator gedanken. They insert a clock near the floor & a clock near the ceiling, & they invoke a postulate or something whereby the clocks tick at different rates, due to their different elevations, even tho both clocks are subject to the same acceleration in the elevator. Believe it or knot. What a disaster. Einstein never invoked thems silly clocks.

Yes i am aware that according to Einstein light duznt bend near the Sun, it is spacetime that bends.

Then why are you asking idiotic questions about what general relativity says about a single photon in a gravitational field like it's some big 'gotcha' question if you're so aware of it? The answer is right there in the theory.   

Show me where Einstein's theory accounts for the horizontality of the arrow.

I am still working on my aetheric bending of light. I have a number of aetheric candidates that can give me the extra 0.87 arcsec that i need.

But that would need the Einsteinian bending due to the nearness of mass to be 0.00 arcsec. It might indeed be 0.00 arcsec, if the Huyghen refraction in mass duznt apply to Einstein refraction near mass.

I'd wish you luck with proving that but the amount of luck you'd need would probably collapse into a black hole singularity.

No, i have a candidate for the extra 0.87 arcsec. It is that a photon has mass, in which case besides the photon getting a ride in the aether accelerating into the Sun, the photon also at the same time falls through the aether, due to its mass, like a particle, both giving 0.87 arcsec, adding to 1.75 arcsec. This is the aetheric theory that i came up with years ago, but then i decided that Einstein's slowing of light near mass (which is true) would explain the bending, but today i am starting to think that Einstein's invoking of Huyghens refraction (for light in mass) is not valid (for light near mass). Refraction in mass gives fringes (the starlight has different colours on the side nearer the Sun & on the side farther from the Sun)(a sort of rainbow effect), but Einstein's refraction near mass does not have such fringes (according to Shapiro).

But there i go again. I mentioned the slowing of light. Silly me. Einstein tells us that light duznt slow, & it duznt bend, it is spacetime that bends etc. I keep forgetting. Light has only one speed.

[penfold]

Why are the photons now arrows and what properties of the photons are the arrows showing? By what mechanism does either the inside or outside observer, observe those arrows?

I use arrows for photons to show the angles of the photons, ie the photons (arrows) remain horizontal at all times, but the apparent trajectory (for the inside observer) of the photons (ie of say their center points) has a downwardly curve.
[...]

Where in relation to the photon's position does the arrow locate? What determines the direction of the arrow? There's a wave vector and 'something' tangental to the path we could call velocity... is it one of those?

The apparent trajectory, velocity/path, is something that can be related back to the observer by observing a reflection of the beam, repeating the thought experiment enough times for enough points to resolve a trajectory.
Side note: {But would the mirror necesarily need to be coplanar with any surface of the lift (translated: elevator)? and would it need to be moving with the same velocity profile as the lift?}
Would the apparent discrepancy between elevator-time and photon's time result in an apparent change in wave-vector direction?

Modern Einsteinist's invoke a [...]

I don't think I've ever met one (an Einsteinist) in person, I've no doubt there are some who exclusively follow the theories of Einstein. Actually, I don't think I "follow" any particular interpretation, professionally I use a reasonably fixed set of models and equations because they are well-validated within the environment in which they are used. In any other cases, rather than follow, I went off my on my own path kinda-sorta in the direction that somebody was gesturing, I think he was Poynting.

[aetherist]

Why are the photons now arrows and what properties of the photons are the arrows showing? By what mechanism does either the inside or outside observer, observe those arrows?

I use arrows for photons to show the angles of the photons, ie the photons (arrows) remain horizontal at all times, but the apparent trajectory (for the inside observer) of the photons (ie of say their center points) has a downwardly curve. [...]

Where in relation to the photon's position does the arrow locate? What determines the direction of the arrow? There's a wave vector and 'something' tangental to the path we could call velocity... is it one of those?

The apparent trajectory, velocity/path, is something that can be related back to the observer by observing a reflection of the beam, repeating the thought experiment enough times for enough points to resolve a trajectory.
Side note: {But would the mirror necesarily need to be coplanar with any surface of the lift (translated: elevator)? and would it need to be moving with the same velocity profile as the lift?}
Would the apparent discrepancy between elevator-time and photon's time result in an apparent change in wave-vector direction?

Modern Einsteinist's invoke a [...]

I don't think I've ever met one (an Einsteinist) in person, I've no doubt there are some who exclusively follow the theories of Einstein. Actually, I don't think I "follow" any particular interpretation, professionally I use a reasonably fixed set of models and equations because they are well-validated within the environment in which they are used. In any other cases, rather than follow, I went off my on my own path kinda-sorta in the direction that somebody was gesturing, I think he was Poynting.

I imagine a photon as having a central helix. Here below is some wordage that i wrote a while ago. Today i might have to add a few words re my (recent) electons, ie electricity, ie photons that are hugging a conductor. A photon is not a wave, & it is not a particle, it is a quasi-particle. Photons, being the fundamental building block, make particles (eg electrons).

Photons have a central/internal part (the central helix) & an external part (the photaeno).
The central helix has a front end & a rear end, & is (possibly) 1 wavelength long. The wavelength is simply one turn of the helix (there is no wave).
The central helix is an annihilation of aether. Annihilation of aether gives gravitational mass & inertial mass.
The track of the annihilation forms a helix. The helical annihilation moves axially throo the aether at the speed of light c, & along its helical track at more than c.
Photaenos radiate out (to infinity) from the central helix.
Photaenos annihilate aether, hence they have gravitational mass & inertial mass.
Photaenos include a vibration (excitation) of the aether.
Photaenos propagate outwards throo the aether at perhaps 5c in the near field (approx 2 m) & perhaps c in the far field (wolfgang g gasser).
https://www.electronicspoint.com/forums/threads/experimental-evidence-for-v-c-in-case-of-coulomb-interaction.168813/
Photaenos radiate from fixed locations in the aether, ie from fixed locations along the central helix.
Photaenos do not have a sideways velocity in the aether, ie each photaeno is shed from the central helix as the rear end of the central helix passes.
In a free photon every photaeno is initially attached to the central helix, & later it detaches.
In a confined photon the central helix has formed a continuous loop, in which case the photaenos do not detach (the central helix has no rear end).
Electrons & other elementary particle are confined photons.
Photaenos give us charge fields & electromagnetic fields.
An attached photaeno gives a high field strength, an unattached photaeno gives a weaker field.
Hence a free photon has 3 parts, the central helix, the attached photaenos, & the unattached photaenos. A confined photon has 2 parts, it has no unattached photaenos.
Man-made radio signals are carried by photaenos, they are not carried by photons.
A photon with a (natural) 10 mm wavelength (the length of its central helix), is a different animal to a radio wave with a (forced) 10 mm wavelength (which has no central helix).
Free photons are slowed by the nearness of mass (confined photons), as suggested/proven by Shapiro (Shapiro Delay).
Shapiro Delay is due to the photaenos (from the free photon)(& from the confined photon) fighting for the limited use of the aether.
Fighting/congestion slows the photaenos & this slowing feeds back to the central helix, slowing the central helix.
I call this slowing "photaeno drag". It contributes to the bending of light. It gives us diffraction near an edge.
Photaeno drag is very strong inside mass (air water glass). It gives us refraction, & reflexion.

I would like to add a comment re my Excel confirmation of Einstein's bending of light passing the Sun.
My Excel is the only (as far as i know) proper confirmation of Einstein's bending in history.
It is based on Einstein's postulates.
The equations derived from Einstein's postulates are not a first rate confirmation, in that they rely on maths, ie they introduce other postulates (of a mathematical kind).
The equations are a second rate confirmation.
If u have not got the time to carry out thousands of calculations, following the light, inch by inch, & then add, then u will need to use the usual (second rate) short cut of deriving an equation.
My Excel is a first rate confirmation. Just saying (hero).

[penfold]

[...]
I would like to add a comment re my Excel confirmation of Einstein's bending of light passing the Sun.
My Excel is the only (as far as i know) proper confirmation of Einstein's bending in history.
It is based on Einstein's postulates.
The equations derived from Einstein's postulates are not a first rate confirmation, in that they rely on maths, ie they introduce other postulates (of a mathematical kind).
The equations are a second rate confirmation.
If u have not got the time to carry out thousands of calculations, following the light, inch by inch, & then add, then u will need to use the usual (second rate) short cut of deriving an equation.
My Excel is a first rate confirmation. Just saying (hero).

You are mixing and matching concepts from your theory in there with the previous thought experiment, so it doesn't disprove anything there, it just says that the two are not compatible.

I'm curious though as to what difference an iterative integration should have when compared with an analytical one if the expressions exist in excel, and the iteration is done in excel then I don't see why an analytical solution couldn't produce the exact result, i.e. minimum rounding error.

Would you consider sharing the spreadsheet? I'm intrigued if nothing else, doesn't matter if it's undocumented or messy, I can guarantee I've worked with far worse and deliberately obfuscated spreadsheets.

[adx]

Photaenos propagate outwards throo the aether at perhaps 5c in the near field (approx 2 m) & perhaps c in the far field (wolfgang g gasser).
https://www.electronicspoint.com/forums/threads/experimental-evidence-for-v-c-in-case-of-coulomb-interaction.168813/

We were taught 3c 'nearnuff', decades ago, at university. It was an interesting observation on near vs far field propagation, and how simplistic thoughts of things propagating through space can lead one astray.