Why doesn't light orbit the sun if space-time is curved by it ?

Given that according to general relativity the planets orbit the sun because they are following the curvature of space-time and its 'geodesics', shouldn't light do the same thing ? Except it doesn't.

Because there is no such thing as the curvature of space-time, or space-time for that matter, or geodesics there of. Geodesics by definition can only exist on a surface, while space-time does not have any physical surface on which geodesics can physically exist and influence the trajectory of physical objects.

If Einstein's theory of gravity was correct then light would have to orbit the sun like the planets do. Because it would have to follow the same 'geodesics' which makes the earth orbit the sun, or even orbit the earth like the moon does. Light cant just go in a straight line if space is so curved by massive objects that it makes planets go in circles instead of a straight line. Except it does. There is no light bending what so ever at the distance where the moon is orbiting the earth. Just like there is no light bending what so ever at the distance where the planets are orbiting the sun. The only light bending is seen in the sun's corona, because of refraction and possibly a magnetic distorsion of the plasma medium.

This fact was also stated by a NASA scientist, doctor Edward Dowdie, and completely refutes Einstein's space bending non-sense.

 https://youtu.be/B_ixkOI4k8c?si=FmOs19I45cH3ytSr

https://beyondmainstream.org/scientist/dr-edward-dowdye/



Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

An introduction to Refractional Redshift, and how it was confused with gravitational redshift (updated)

Image
  AN INTRODUCTION TO REFRACTIONAL REDSHIFT, AND HOW IT WAS CONFUSED WITH GRAVITATIONAL REDSHIFT. GENERAL RELATIVITY DEBUNKED. Marius L. Vasile @Vasile Effect   In this paper I will prove that refraction causes a redshift, which I cleverly named Refractional redshift, and that this redshift was not so cleverly confused with gravitational redshift by the world's finest scientists- we're talking Harvard, Nobel prize level here- which were either ignorant of refraction, or doctors in doctoring experiments with it. Refractional redshift is by far the most common and yet unknown type of redshift- certainly for astronomers, who have no ideea that it exists. It is caused due to the fact that during refraction the speed of light changes, but the frequency remains constant. Since f=v/lambda, where lambda is the wavelength, it immediately follows that the wavelength changes too in order to preserve the frequency. This results in an increase of wavelength or a redshift when the s
Read more

Refractional redshift completely disproves General Relativity & Big Bang theory

Image
  An introduction to Refractional redshift, and how it was confused with gravitational redshift Marius L. Vasile - absolute skeptic    ' Astronomers know of three sources of redshift/blueshift: Doppler shifts; gravitational redshifts (due to light exiting a gravitational field); and cosmological expansion (where space itself stretches)' -Wikipedia ' Astronomers don't know anything '- Vasilepedia In this paper I will prove that refraction  causes a redshift, which I cleverly named Refractional redshift, and that this redshift was not so cleverly confused with gravitational redshift by the world's finest scientists- we're talking Harvard, Nobel prize level here- which were either ignorant of refraction, or doctors in doctoring experiments with it. Refractional redshift is by far the most common and yet unknown type of redshift- certainly for astronomers, who have no ideea that it exists. It is caused due to the fact that during refraction the speed of lig
Read more

Refraction causes redshift, gravity does not. General relativity is wrong.

Image
The theory of general relativity (which is the basis of the big-bang theory) is wrong, and I say this because, besides the fact that Einstein abberates that gravity is not a force, but a curvature of space and time, which is an absolute non-sense, not relative, and attributes geodesics to space and time, which is absolutely illogical because space does not have a surface (a geodesic is by definition related to a surface), and time does not have a surface either (the 'surface of time' is an aberration, as well as the 'surface of space', respectively the 'surface of space-time'), the experiments that have allegedly confirmed it are extremely illogical, if not downright stupid. There are three main tests of general relativity, and all of them disprove general relativity if they are interpreted correctly. I will first reffer to the one in which the Nobel laureates, scientists Pound and Rebka, used a Helium bag and air to demonstrate that gravity produces the change
Read more