Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!i2pn.org!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: clzb93ynxj@att.net (LaurenceClarkCrossen)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity
Subject: Re: Does the Math Show A Doubling of the Gravitational Deflection of
 =?UTF-8?B?U3RhcmxpZ2h0Pw==?=
Date: Mon, 20 Jan 2025 19:46:19 +0000
Organization: novaBBS
Message-ID: <b45b74dae10c0ca61656af3a407d1570@www.novabbs.com>
References: <abf8cad4f878963879f7fb527ad8a82e@www.novabbs.com> <vmisdr$27m23$1@dont-email.me> <a09510415a3c9e9083ff8fa27f92840d@www.novabbs.com> <vml0qk$2vspj$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="340113"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="HcQFdl4zp4UQRQ9N18ivMn6Fl9V8n4SPkK4oZHLgYdQ";
User-Agent: Rocksolid Light
X-Rslight-Site: $2y$10$D9OWE1Sb9aSr0.mlFVPiSutrbTLwCH4MSPNCWTdH6EDJvjyJyt9G.
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
X-Rslight-Posting-User: a2f761a7401f13abeefca3440f16b2f27b708180
Bytes: 3498
Lines: 58

On Mon, 20 Jan 2025 8:17:24 +0000, Mikko wrote:

> On 2025-01-19 16:01:52 +0000, LaurenceClarkCrossen said:
>
>> On Sun, 19 Jan 2025 12:50:03 +0000, Mikko wrote:
>>
>>> The answer to the subject line is "no". The math says that the
>>> gravitational
>>> deflection is what the math used to say. But one mtehmatical method can
>>> say
>>> that the defilection is twice what another mathematical method says. For
>>> example, Newtons optics, which assumes that light is a stream of small
>>> particles, predicts only half of the deflection than general Relativity.
>>> A naive application of Maxwell's theory predicts that there is no
>>> defilection.
>>>
>>> On 2025-01-18 21:40:26 +0000, LaurenceClarkCrossen said:
>>>
>>>> No, because whatever the math, space is not a surface, so it cannot
>>>> bend.
>>>
>>> Nothing proves that space is not a hypersurface in a muli-dimensional
>>> hyperpshere. But the math permits that it may be curved even without
>>> any hyperspace.
>>>
>>>> A boat sailing up and downstream takes longer than one sailing the same
>>>> distance in a pond.
>>>
>>> Also longer than sailing the same distance cross-stream and back.
>>>
>>>> Contrary to what one may think, the math proves that.
>>>
>>> With reasonable assumptions (in particular that the water surface is
>>> Euclidean).
>>>
>>>> Math cannot prove space curves.
>>>
>>> Math cannot prove that space does not curve, either. But math can define
>>> what "space is curved" means and how the curvature can be described and
>>> quantifed.
>>>
>>>> Einstein said he obtained the doubling by the "curving space."
>>>
>>> In certain sense that is true.
>>>
>>>> Math pages sums up by saying the doubling is from "curved space."
>>>
>>> In the same sense.
>> Accepting that space curves requires accepting that parallel lines meet.
>> Is that rational? Can the eclipse experiments prove that parallel lines
>> meet? Then how can they prove the doubling deflection? They can't.
>
> Is it rational to accept that we can see the same object in two (or
> more)
> different directions? Doesn't matter. The fact is that some distant
> galaxies
> are observed in two or more different directions.
It is stupid to think they exist in more than one direction. You are
falling back on a subjectivist interpretation of relativity. Good luck!