What did Einstein mean by saying “Then I would have been sorry for the dear Lord”?
Are there any other means to test the bending of light near massive objects than optical and mathematical? What problems did Einstein’s theory solve and what it didn’t? Bending the light makes it’s way much longer than a straight line between two points - is the speed of light measured by the long way or is it just an optical error?
When did Einstein say this and what was he talking about? Your post is very confusing.
Gravitational lenses, a consequence of the bending of light by massive objects, have been observed (google) in astronomy and are used to detect black holes.
From the viewpoint of the light particle, it is moving on a straight line.
Time dilation has been observed by particle physicists,who compared the lifetimes of short-lived particles moving at different speeds (google).
Light travels where it travels. It’s not like the light beam set out to travel from a random star to the Earth and decided to take the scenic route. Light travels in a straight line except where diverted by gravity. To say that there was a “shorter route” is to assume that the light had a destination in mind. It doesn’t - light gets here from wherever by whatever route it takes.
That said, you might look into refraction for some interesting data on light taking the fastest route (not the shortest, but the fastest). Fascinating stuff.
A ray of light moves in a path known as a “geodesic”, which is analagous to a straight line in curved space-time. It is like a path drawn on a map versus a path connecting the same points on a globe—the “Great Circle” path on a globe looks “curved” on the flat map, but is really the shortest distance between the two points.
Fascinating yes, but I see more waves than particles here. I started this thread to get non-particle support. Even though Einstein was a genius, let the Lord be wiser.
katunari, that post is even more confusing than your OP.
It is impossible to ever prove that a theory is correct.
Under the scientific method, a hypothesis is a tentative explanation that attempts to explain observations that have been made. A hypothesis that survives numerous attempts to test it and to disprove it gradually achieves the status of a theory. A theory is a tested explanation of the behavior of nature. It is impossible to perform every possible test that might show a theory is actually incorrect, so we can never be absolutely sure the theory is correct. However, it takes just one observation that does not agree with a theory to demonstrate that the theory is incorrect.
What Einstein was saying (in a tongue-in-cheek manner) was that his elaborate general theory of relativity explained all of the various observations that had been made (such as the bending of light) so well, that if the theory was actually “wrong,” that it was a shame that such an elegant theory would be incorrect.
However, in practice, theories are rarely completely dismissed if a new observation demonstrates a problem with the theory. Instead, the theory is refined to take the new observation into account.
Sometimes this is more difficult to do. For example, we actually know now that Einstein’s general theory of relativity cannot be completely correct, because it does not take quantum effects into consideration.
Huh? Non-particle = wave, surely?? At least in this context. 
I think you need to study a little Jewish humor. Specifically the stuff like Sholem Aleichem’s tales, which might illuminate Einstein’s attitude towards the Almighty and His works.
When a Jew jokes about God, it can sound downright disrespectful to a Capital-C Christian listener.
This is the opposite of true. It means you don’t understand the basic point involved.
First, the concept of a straight line in space is more complicated than drawing a connector between two points on a flat surface. Look up geodesic. By definition a geodesic is the shortest path locally and by definition light follows a geodesic.
That’s what created the problem. Scientists looked at some star positions and found that they were not where their calculations, based on their understandings of a geodesic, placed them. Einstein had an explanation.
Let me quote from Warped Passages by Lisa Randall.
Gravity does not care about waves and particles. That’s a matter for quantum mechanics not relativity. Gravity is described as the curvature of spacetime.
And as far as we know, Einstein is right about this. There might be places where relativity is incomplete, such as singularities, but hundreds of alternate theories about gravity have been developed over the last century and none of them come close to the success of general relativity.
If you want to find Einstein wrong, you at a minimum have to have the slightest understanding of what he actually said. I’d recommend Randall’s book as a start. In the meantime, I have to agree with the others that your OP was incoherent because it assumes a dozen wrong things.
Einstein was not religious. In fact, when he applied as professor at Princeton, he was advised by friends to put “Jewish” rather than “athiest” in the religion spot on the application because it was easier to get hired as a Jew than as an athiest at certain institutions. Apparently being a pivotal figure in science for that century and a Nobel prize winner was not enough.
“…I feel sorry for the dear Lord” as others explained is a little cultural humour. My reading - Basically he’s saying that he would feel sorry for God if the theory was not proven correct, since God would have missed an opportunity to structure the universe correctly, in accordance with Einstein’s calculations. Not as hubris, but more he’s saying “how could reality be any different than this??” The theory worked out so simply and elegantly that it MUST be correct. Except for some minor details at the extremes, it is.
I should certainly hope that Princeton, of all places, would not hire somebody who wrote “athiest” on his application.
Kind of goes against their motto doesn’t it?
“…Princeton seeks to achieve the highest levels of distinction in the discovery and transmission of knowledge and understanding…”
I hope you’re being sarcastic. Otherwise…
How does this in any way mitigate against atheists?
That’s why I am asking, but let me put a part of my question in other words:
Are there any recent studies that manifest light bending more in massive gravity than less massive gravity without optical intruments envolved? Space and time concept is only an effect for this cause only.
It doesn’t but it mitigates against people who spell it “athiest”.
Let me see if I understand you: are you suggesting that the “light-bending” effects discussed in Einstein’s Theory of Relativity are entirely due to “optical errors” in the instruments used to measure them?
There must be thousands of studies, but can the phenomenon be observerved by other means than optics?
This implies that scientists were aware of gravitational lensing prior to General Relativity. The standard mythology about Einstein (and I mean “mythology” in completely respectful terms) is that scientists went looking for gravitational lensing during that full eclipse in order to test his hypothesis. Just curious - did they really know about gravitational lensing prior to General Relativity or did they go looking for it afterward based on the prediction raised by the theory?
Sincere question here - I’m honestly curious.