Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!news.quux.org!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity
Subject: Re: Does the Math Show A Doubling of the Gravitational Deflection of Starlight?
Date: Wed, 22 Jan 2025 11:44:58 +0200
Organization: -
Lines: 69
Message-ID: <vmqemq$ube6$1@dont-email.me>
References: <abf8cad4f878963879f7fb527ad8a82e@www.novabbs.com> <vmisdr$27m23$1@dont-email.me> <a09510415a3c9e9083ff8fa27f92840d@www.novabbs.com> <vml0qk$2vspj$1@dont-email.me> <b45b74dae10c0ca61656af3a407d1570@www.novabbs.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Wed, 22 Jan 2025 10:44:58 +0100 (CET)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="b6afbb6817329d5180690090a0eaf1ee";
	logging-data="994758"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+fbrBtF9avKXdhv4wMpq+l"
User-Agent: Unison/2.2
Cancel-Lock: sha1:mHQUyg4CNmu4WFtczW2uyy7TVbQ=
Bytes: 3898

On 2025-01-20 19:46:19 +0000, LaurenceClarkCrossen said:

> 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!

What does "they exist in more than one direction" mean? A galaxy exists in
one and only one place. If can be seen in two or more direction if there is
two or more light rays from the galaxy to us.

-- 
Mikko