Yes, it is idiotic, not only because it pretends curved space explains
the cause of gravity. This is typical of the pretentious nature of relativity. The equivalence principle also pretends to explain the cause
of gravity and does not in the slightest. The above-cited article
discusses how Einstein modifies Newton's idea about inertial motion,
claiming that gravity is a sort of inertial motion. Since gravity causes accelerating motion, I beg to differ. The second reason it is idiotic is
that it all rests on presuming gravity can be explained similarly to electromagnetism. Einstein adopted this from Heaviside's 1893 work. Now
that the unified field theory has "failed" [-Britannica], there are few grounds to pretend gravity can be explained this way. Yet some persist,
as with gravitoelectromagnetism (abbreviated GEM), attempting to find evidence from gravity probe B. Gravity and electromagnetism have little
in common. Only that they are both forces obeying the inverse square
rule; otherwise, they are very different. One affects only some
materials, while the other affects all matter. One can be shielded while
the other cannot. Since gravity is not electromagnetism, its speed is
not c. Laplace and Van Flandern estimate its speed to be near infinite
enough to avoid any appreciable effect of angular momentum. If the speed
of gravity were c, the angular momentum would be such that the Earth
would move out twice its distance from the Sun in just 1,200 years.
Since gravity is not electromagnetism, its speed must be millions of
times that of light.
As for two things: the curvature of the sun's rays in the perisolar atmosphere, in view of the enormous ejections of matter and gas that we
see, is it not precisely due to diffractive effects?
Finally, the precession of Mercury's perihelion... Isn't a
simple RR effect possible? Either because time does not pass in the same
way (Mercury's faster speed), or because in Mercury's frame of
reference, the Sun performs a revolution different from the reciprocal
(since the frame of reference is no longer quite the same).
Le 10/09/2024 à 05:01, clzb93ynxj@att.net (LaurenceClarkCrossen) a écrit
Paul: When photons have no mass how can gravity affect them?
Yes, it's strange.
Photon ---> No mass
Ether ---> Not exists
deviation of a massless body by an ether that does not exist.
R.H.
Paul: When photons have no mass how can gravity affect them?
deviation of a massless body by an ether that does not exist.
Paul Andersen posted, without a bit of shame, the following: -----------------------------------------------------------------
GR predicts that the gravitational deflection of em-radiation---------------------------------------------------
by the Sun, observed from the Earth, is:
θ = 2GM/(AU⋅c²)⋅(1+cosφ)/sinφ
Where:
AU= an astronomical unit (distance Sun-Earth)
φ = angle Sun-Earth as observed from the Earth
c = speed of light in vacuum
G = Gravitational constant
M = solar mass
This equation predicts that when φ is 90⁰, θ = 0.0041".
The beam that hits the Earth will then be 1 AU from
the Sun at it's closest approach to the Sun.
(Like the Earth) Not much gas there, do you think?
These predictions of GR are thoroughly experimentally confirmed:
(even for angles Earth-Sun > 90⁰)
https://paulba.no/paper/PPN_gamma_Hipparcos.pdf
https://paulba.no/paper/PPN_gamma_Cassini.pdf
https://paulba.no/paper/Shapiro_2004.pdf
https://paulba.no/paper/GravDeflection.pdf
https://paulba.no/paper/Fomalont.pdf
https://paulba.no/paper/PPN_gamma_Cassini_2.pdf
You must understand that GR's predictions for gravitational
deflection of em-radiation are so thoroughly confirmed that
there is no room for doubt.
******************************************
Title: The deflection of light by the gravitational field of the Sun
(George Darwin Lecture)
Authors: Mikhailov, A. A.
Journal: Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, Vol. 119,
p.593
Aleksandr Aleksandrovich Mikhailov (April 26, 1888, Morshansk -
September 29, 1983) was a Russian astronomer who was a member of the
Soviet Academy of Science, and supported GR. He, personally,
participated in more than 9 expeditions trying to remake Eddington's
one. The article is FULL OF
MATHEMATICS and statistics, trying to find averages in the results of expeditions from 1919 to 1952.
In the very first page, it's shown the real expression of your formula,
which seems to be written by an ignorant lunatic, totally detached from
the opinions of REAL ASTRONOMERS, not EE like you!
----------------------------------------------------
Your formula, that you wrote with sheer cockiness claiming that it's
what GR predicts (false), contain an incredible amount of nonsense. Read the Mikhailov´s paper, if you want to write meaningful statements
Your pretentious formula couldn't be more wrong for the following:
1) You are dismissing completely the effect of swapping the Sun's
reference frame with that of the Earth.
2) You are dismissing completely the FACT that Earth is a sphere, and
that the observation of an eclipse at any given location depend on the position of the observer (latitude, longitude). Also, you FORGOT that
the position of the Sun relative to Earth's coordinates DEPEND on the
time of the year, as well the exact hour of the phenomenon.
Earth
rotates around the Sun, with reference to the ecliptic plane, with an
anual variation of +/- 11.5 degrees!!!
3) Also, the position of the Sun with reference to the LOCAL equatorial coordinate DEPENDS on the time of the day!! Because the Earth rotates
daily.
4) You FORGOT that the path of incoming light DEPENDS ON the ELEVATION
of the Sun over the horizon. This causes that the light of the Sun (and
stars behind it) SUFFER A CONSIDERABLE NUMBER OF PERTURBATIONS. One of
the most important is the REFRACTION of the light passing through
atmosphere, being minimal at noon. Even so, the elevation angle at noon CHANGES PERMANENTLY, while the Earth travels around the Sun. The
elevation is MINIMAL in winter and MAXIMAL in summer. Only in the
locations over the equatorial line, you can obtain 90 degrees of
elevation in summer time.
5) You dismiss completely the fact that the position of the Sun, in the moment of any eclipse, is almost arbitrary, and very far from being at"The position of the Sun is far from being at 90 degrees respect to the
90 degrees respect to the Sun
ARE YOU CRAZY? I ASK THIS VERY SERIOUSLY.
If you want to know HOW DIFFICULT the mathematics involved for starlight deflection grazing the Sun, read CAREFULLY Mikhailov´s paper, fully
endorsed by the Royal Astronomical Society, where he lectured in 1951.
Finally, I BEG YOU to stop with the crap of PPN, which is an aberrant linearization of GR, and is ignored by serious astronomers, NASA, ESA, ROSCOSMOS, China, etc.
Grow up or give up with your unsubstantiated credos, only celebrated by
a bunch of post-Cassini retarded.
...This implies that B is not in the frame of reference of A
Python: (snake!)
Perhaps you can explain what in physics justifies
Einstein adding the "2" in the equation, doubling the deflection when Einstein said Gerber's derivation was wrong?
Python: Guess why everyone rejected Gerber's doubling of the deflection
of light? Because gravity affects everything the same!
Python: Einstein couldn't and didn't. No one can because doubling would
not be gravity.
Le 10/09/2024 à 23:04, clzb93ynxj@att.net (LaurenceClarkCrossen) a écrit :
Python: (snake!) Perhaps you can explain what in physics justifies
Einstein adding the "2" in the equation, doubling the deflection when
Einstein said Gerber's derivation was wrong?
At the first solar eclipse, the measured deviation was twice what
Einstein predicted.
A few months later, before the second solar eclipse, Einstein corrected it.
I personally don't like this. I call it patching up.
Le 11/09/2024 à 00:15, Python a écrit :
Le 11/09/2024 à 00:13, M.D. Richard "Hachel" Lengrume a écrit :
Le 10/09/2024 à 23:04, clzb93ynxj@att.net (LaurenceClarkCrossen) a
écrit :
Python: (snake!) Perhaps you can explain what in physics justifies
Einstein adding the "2" in the equation, doubling the deflection when
Einstein said Gerber's derivation was wrong?
At the first solar eclipse, the measured deviation was twice what
Einstein predicted.
A few months later, before the second solar eclipse, Einstein
corrected it.
This is a plain lie. Ceci est un complet mensonge.
I personally don't like this. I call it patching up.
Ouais, I don't like it either. This deserves a pie.
This is not a lie.
Einstein had predicted a deviation of 0.83 arc seconds in a 1914
article. However, the deflection was 1.7 arc seconds measured on
September 22, 1919.
In the meantime, two other eclipses had occurred, on which physicists
had been dispatched, but without "having been able to provide any
results because of the war(1) and because of the rain(2).
It still smells like a patch-up.
R.H.
Le 10/09/2024 à 22:41, M.D. Richard "Hachel" Lengrand a écrit :
...This implies that B is not in the frame of reference of A
Most of you cranks end up with this very same absurdity.
Hello, wake up! A frame of reference is a human construct! Its
goal is to provide a theoretical/practical way to label stuff.
All the stuff, not only a part of it, and certainly not nothing
but itself as you imply.
R.H.: I don't think
Python: (snake!) Perhaps you can explain what in physics justifies
Einstein adding the "2" in the equation, doubling the deflection when Einstein said Gerber's derivation was wrong?
R.H.: I don't think photons have mass or that an ether exists or space
curves so I don't think light is affected by gravity at all.
Le 11/09/2024 à 00:13, M.D. Richard "Hachel" Lengrume a écrit :
Le 10/09/2024 à 23:04, clzb93ynxj@att.net (LaurenceClarkCrossen) a écrit : >>> Python: (snake!) Perhaps you can explain what in physics justifies
Einstein adding the "2" in the equation, doubling the deflection when
Einstein said Gerber's derivation was wrong?
At the first solar eclipse, the measured deviation was twice what
Einstein predicted.
A few months later, before the second solar eclipse, Einstein corrected it.
This is a plain lie. Ceci est un complet mensonge.
I personally don't like this. I call it patching up.
Ouais, I don't like it either. This deserves a pie.
Gary: So massless particles are affected by gravity which only affects
mass because math has momentum and fields curve?
and fields curve?
Gary: So massless particles are affected by gravity which only affects
mass because math has momentum and fields curve?
Gary: You can't understand how utterly stupid relativity is.
Le 11/09/2024 à 18:29, clzb93ynxj@att.net (LaurenceClarkCrossen) a écrit
Gary: You can't understand how utterly stupid relativity is.
No, no, no...
Relativity is not stupid. It is a very beautiful theory both on paper
and in the experimental field.
The problem is not the theory, but physicists like John Baez, who
shout loudly, but do not know how to sing.
Things were as follows, in the period 1911-1915:
1) Einstein followed the ideas of Poisson, Faraday and Maxwell (gravity
and electromagnetism),in the sense that gravity was exerted through
FIELDS, not FORCES (Newton). To clarify, Poisson and Gauss didn't
rejected Newton, but only re-wrote Newton's equations of gravitation in
terms of fields and density.
2) In his 1911 Einstein, very stupidly, assimilated the POTENTIAL ENERGY
of electromagnetic energy (photons) to ANY gravitational potential
energy of any object raised from Earth's surface. But he APPLIED IT to photons, writing the infamous equation f=f' (1+g.h/c2). This stupid
formula was brought up to the light again in 1961, by the Pound-Rebka experiment in the paper "Do photons have mass?", which they later
reproduced by changing the name to "Red-shifting", using gamma rays from
Fe57 compound and the Mossbauer effect (no recoil).
3) Einstein was desperate to find a mathematician that could do the
dirty work since then. Firs tried with Alexander Pick, in Prague, but
the "partnership" lasted one year. He abandoned the professorship in
Prague and run to Berna, when he convinced his "friend" Marcel Grossman
to be the co-author of a paper on GR, promising him fame and glory.
Grossman, old pal from college, was specialized in differential
geometry, but his know-how was FAR AWAY from what was needed to write
even the first sketch of GR (Entwurf I, 1913).
4) Looking for HELP to find a mathematics that could cover spacetime
(four variables), he got the advice and full support of Levi-Civita, an italian mathematician that (in his school), had expanded Riemann's
theory of N-Dimensions space with the use of Ricci tensors and
Christoffen symbols. Using it for 4-space dimensions posed a problem
because, as it described 4D objects of any form, as a point was used to navigate such 4D surface, it suffered TORSIONS. There was only ONE
SOLUTION to avoid the problem of variant and contravariant variables and
IT WAS to use a Ricci's connector, which was torsion-free. Yet, the
solution was used ONLY for 4 dimensions of space!
5) What Grossman did was to replace the fourth spatial coordinate for
ct, which IS NOT A SPATIAL DIMENSION. By doing so, he created the tensor notation of GR with spacetime embedded. When Grossman presented his
solution to Einstein, he went bananas and BEGGED to Grossman to develop
the mathematical framework of GR (1913 solution). Simplifying the
complex set of equations by using a context of ONLY ONE MASS in vacuum,
at the center of reference, it was all set to present it in society.
Only that it didn't work, because neither Grossman nor Einstein did
accept the hysterical advices of Levi-Civita, who detailed to them the
errors while using contravariant expressions.
6) Prior to the start of WWI, and the moving of Einstein to Berlin in
March 1914, a second publication with both names (Entwurf II) was
published, but was MATHEMATICALLY WRONG
7) It took, for Einstein, more than 1.5 years and THE ADVICES of
Levi-Civita, Schwarzschild, Hilbert and other advisors like Lorentz (to
cite a few of the impressive staff supporting him), to obtain a MATHEMATICALLY CORRECT STRUCTURE OF GR, just exactly in November 1915). Einstein promptly presented to the Prussian Academy of Science
(Schwarzchild was present that day) HIS SOLUTION for the Mercury's
problem. In the same paper included a few cryptic lines about that he obtained a new value for the deflection of starlight grazing the Sun's surface. He used APPROXIMATIONS to solve Mercury's problem, and NEVER
EVER presented any written proof of his assertion about startlight deflection. Yet, by then HE DIDN'T UNDERSTAND THE MATHEMATICS THAT HE PRESENTED!
As a gentleman he was, Hilbert taught Einstein about the field equations composition, what took up to March 1916. Einstein did thank Hilbert IN A LETTER (also to Levi-Civita. Incredibly, he was more than UNGRATEFUL to Scharzschild, who provided THE ONLY ANALYTICAL SOLUTION to the case of
GR with only one mass in December 1915. A solution that remained unique
until 1962, with the Kerr's solution for a rotating mass. At any case,
due to complexities, Schawrzchild's solution (with a minor correction published by Hilbert in 1917) is the FAVORITE SOLUTION for relativists
AS OF TODAY.
8) That GR equations implied a twisted and retorted spacetime (IDIOTIC, IMPOSSIBLE) was not a problem for the new generation of "apostles of physics", avid to use the complex mathematical set of GR to invent any possible (and stupid) new theory mounted on it (Black Holes,
Gravitational Waves, space moving faster than light, support for the
BBT, etc.).
9) The core of the theory, for laymen, is that heavy gravitational
masses (like the Sun) bend space. So, the gravitational field (a result
of GEOMETRICAL DISTORTIONS OF SPACE) produce A WELL INTO SPACE, through
which objects FALL TOWARDS THE CENTER, where the heavy mass is located).
As you can see, GRAVITY in GR is not caused by FORCES, but by objects
that accelerate while falling toward the center of the spatial
depletion.
Einstein plagiarized 1898 Gerber's equation, which gave the exact and
desired value for the advance of Mercury's perihelion.
Gerber final equation for the extra advance ε (giving the 43"/century)
was published as follows (I merged the two final Gerber's equations into
a single one):
𝜖 = 24π³ a²/[c² T² (1 - e²)]
On his Nov. 1915 paper, Einstein reached to this equation (N° 13, in geometrical units)
𝜖 =3π [α/[a.(1 - e²)]]
The gravitational potential α had been declared in the first part of the paper as Φ = -α/2r. So, he HACKED the value of α by DOUBLING IT, in
order to obtain Gerber's equation.
In the last equation of the 1915 paper, he transformed Eq. 13 into Eq.
14, which is EXACTLY the Gerber's equation written above.
To do so, and using an equivalence funded in the Third Kepler law, he INSERTED in Eq.13 this value of α:
α = 8π² a³/[c² T²] = 2 GM/c² (curiously, it's the Schwarzschild radius
for the Sun).
The above equation is "based" on Kepler's 3rd. law, which states that:
a³ ∝ T² (proportional to)
By 1900, it was accepted that the proportion was:
a³/T² = GM/(4π²)
but the crook used THIS ONE:
a³/T² = 2GM/(8π²) , which allowed to match EXACTLY 1898 Gerber's
formula, by replacing α with it.
There is NO EXPLANATION in the 1915 paper on Mercury about THE REASON by which he DOUBLED the value of α.
The only possible explanation is that he commited FRAUD, in order to
obtain the 43"/cy. Otherwise, he only would have got 21.5"/cy, very
close to what he written with his own hand (18") in some place of the 54 pages of the lost Einstein-Besso manuscript, that only saw the light in
1954, after Besso's death.
Finally, I'm shure that his ADVISOR Schwarzschild had a cut in the 1915
paper that he presented to the Prussian Academy of Science. Even when he
was serving as a Lieutenant on the Eastern Front (WWI), Schwarzschild
made sure to be present on that day (Nov. 18, 1915). After all, he was
not at the vanguard of the eastern front.
Just ONE MONTH AFTER THIS PRESENTATION, Schwarzschild came out with his analytical solution that formally introduced what is known today as the Schwarzschild´s radius formula.
TOO MANY COINCIDENCES AND TOO MUCH ROTTEN FISH AROUND GR INTRODUCTION IN SOCIETY.
α = 8π² a³/[c² T²] = 2 GM/c² (curiously, it's the Schwarzschild radius
for the Sun).
The only possible explanation is that he commited FRAUD, in order to
obtain the 43"/cy.
Finally, I'm shure that his ADVISOR Schwarzschild had a cut in the 1915
paper that he presented to the Prussian Academy of Science. Even when he
was serving as a Lieutenant on the Eastern Front (WWI), Schwarzschild
made sure to be present on that day (Nov. 18, 1915). After all, he was
not at the vanguard of the eastern front.
Just ONE MONTH AFTER THIS PRESENTATION, Schwarzschild came out with his analytical solution that formally introduced what is known today as the Schwarzschild´s radius formula.
TOO MANY COINCIDENCES AND TOO MUCH ROTTEN FISH AROUND GR INTRODUCTION IN SOCIETY.
Paul, I verify one more time that your values of ethic and morality are
very, very low.
Anything is OK, if it helps you to defend relativity (SR or GR).
And about your list of historical proofs of relativity, I can make aI note with interest that Richard Hertz is claiming that all
deep forensic analysis of them, proving beyond any reasonable doubt,
that relativists are members of a MAFFIA, and profit from it. This is
because the different results are COOKED with the help of statistical manipulations, fraud, cooking and peer complicit
Sysop: | Keyop |
---|---|
Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
Users: | 366 |
Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
Uptime: | 07:07:36 |
Calls: | 7,826 |
Calls today: | 9 |
Files: | 12,930 |
Messages: | 5,769,253 |
Posted today: | 1 |