Path: ...!local-4.nntp.ord.giganews.com!Xl.tags.giganews.com!local-3.nntp.ord.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2024 17:36:56 +0000
Subject: Re: Weakness in the results of the three tests of GR shown in rhe
 lasr century,.
Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity
References: <52e47bd51177fb5ca4e51c4c255be1a6@www.novabbs.com>
 <26ec5dc08548f7ca167c178333b2009d@www.novabbs.com>
 <9ee53574f9a20a5a9d9ed159d5c474b3@www.novabbs.com>
 <f9f73c8dd7970dacb7ac095847095d8b@www.novabbs.com>
 <02a3ec2d6e0227716a14f854e64b8a27@www.novabbs.com>
 <83224561f48101ccdde65215817f0508@www.novabbs.com>
 <ddffba4d48e6c45e43ce4d92c1722a2b@www.novabbs.com>
 <6c4e2acbcecd3dcc0f34bd1be69fea3e@www.novabbs.com>
 <c70154631f945cac40dfcaa9693c225e@www.novabbs.com>
 <b0ca0da5d500e501b3f5ebf79c93900c@www.novabbs.com>
 <d6cc121d9548e5e975093302d3f0b356@www.novabbs.com>
 <37a3c7fe54315132c3df416a0ba75b3a@www.novabbs.com>
 <vfu9d5$2ars8$1@dont-email.me>
 <307001ea0d828780884824d612e7f854@www.novabbs.com>
From: Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2024 10:36:54 -0700
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/38.6.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <307001ea0d828780884824d612e7f854@www.novabbs.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-ID: <Ificnbr648ilXb76nZ2dnZfqnPadnZ2d@giganews.com>
Lines: 93
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-aCYIJgVhdezsPNP/Ynd5XqiZG6CmrjEgml+qZJsZSqj1mRzKTmcliJp7QhttmDCUC3QG2F6PpzDcYMj!KwHvmYOmXMhIG2nLwG9C6jnsMgvr+73xjEl972mc3cxPXL+zTixjSK0RdAtKUJvj7l8Y0nLr/MgK
X-Complaints-To: abuse@giganews.com
X-DMCA-Notifications: http://www.giganews.com/info/dmca.html
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly
X-Postfilter: 1.3.40
Bytes: 6084

On 10/30/2024 06:12 PM, ProkaryoticCaspaseHomolog wrote:
> On Wed, 30 Oct 2024 21:45:10 +0000, Paul.B.Andersen wrote:
>
>> Den 30.10.2024 01:30, skrev rhertz:
>>> On Tue, 29 Oct 2024 21:35:06 +0000, LaurenceClarkCrossen wrote:
>>>
>>>> Mr. Hertz: Perhaps this source would be interesting: "Hipparcos did not
>>>> measure directly the light bending" = Serret.
>>>
>>> Of course IT DID NOT!
>>>
>>> The MAIN objective of HIPPARCOS was to measure the RELATIVE POSITION AND
>>> LATERAL MOTION of more than 100,000 stars with respect TO EACH OTHER,
>>> besides its  brightness and colors.
>>
>> Right.
>> The point with measuring the positions of the stars relative to each
>> other is that neighbouring stars have the same stellar aberration,
>> so it is not necessary to compensate for. (The correction is small.)
>> The angular distances between the neighbouring stars are measured
>> with a precision of ~1 mas. The sky is scanned over and over at
>> different times of the year so that the distances between
>> the same stars are measured many times.
>> Change in the distances between the stars can be caused by:
>> 1. Proper motion. (A constant angular velocity)
>> 2. Parallax. A yearly change in the position.
>> 3. Gravitational deflection of the Sun. A daily change in position.
>>
>> Post-procession of the data is obviously a formidable task.
>> But even you should be able to understand that it is possible
>> to find:
>> The position of each star.
>> The proper motion of each star.
>> The parallax of each star. (Distance.)
>> The gravitational deflection of some of the stars.
>
> ..and their displacements due to stellar aberration. The precision of
> Hipparcos's measurements were such that stars even a fraction of a
> degree different in declination would follow measurably different
> Bradley ellipses (or rather, overlapping Bradley ellipses from the
> spacecraft's orbit around the Sun and its orbit around the Earth.)
>
> The global displacements due to stellar aberration and gravitational
> deflection, and the individual displacements due to parallax and
> proper motion all needed to be taken in account.
>
> Hipparcos' mission was most decidedly NOT to "prove relativity right".
> Rather, adjustments of stars' measured positions due to general
> relativistic effects were among the corrections necessary to minimize
> the residuals. Otherwise it would have been IMPOSSIBLE to combine the
> data measured over a period of years into a consistent map.
>
> ======================================================================
>
>> Nothing was assumed.
>> When the position of a star was known at different times of a day,
>> the difference could only be caused by gravitational deflection.
>>
>> It was _measured_, not assumed.
>
> I would put it somewhat differently. Gravitational deflection was
> _corrected for_, otherwise the data simply wouldn't make sense.
>
> Sort of like, particle accelerators don't measure special
> relativistic effects. Rather, special relativistic effects must be
> taken into account, otherwise analysis of particle trajectories
> don't make sense.

This seems reasonable.

After "Revisit Heisenberg, Hubble, Higgs" then another touch-stone
is the Stern-Gerlach experiment, which some say "establishes the
particulate granularity or the quantum" while when Feynman sets it
up in his lecture notes it's "... as would befit a field theory, ...",
establishes continuum mechanics.

The OPTICAL here is key as with regards to both gravitational lensing,
and also large-body lensing. For example, the camera obscura, shows
that a pinhole is a lens, and there's also that simply rolling up a
piece of paper and looking through that, results OPTICAL merely
the wave-guide.

Light: is geometric and OPTICAL, and, "electromagnetic radiation",
has that optical light is special and that optical and radionuclear
radiation are _different_ than electrical field electromagnetic radio
waves.

The Nancy Roman wide-screen will be giving some more wide-field
correlations, while James Webb has thoroughly paint-canned 20'th c.
cosmology.