Steel Man of Einstein & Relativity.

"2. What Einstein did not believe: the geometrization of gravity:
What does it mean to say that GR ‘geometrized’ gravity? Does it
just mean that gravity is described by using particular mathematical
tools? Or does it mean that gravity has been ontologically reduced to (spacetime) geometry in some sense? In this section,
we shall see that Einstein believed that at best ‘geometrization’
means the former—and is thus trivial—and at worst it means the
latter and is wrong." - "Why Einstein did not believe that general
relativity
geometrizes gravity"

Curved space is to ontologically reduce it to geometry as a cause of
gravity. This is a purely reification fallacy and wrong.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

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.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Le 09/09/2024 à 05:33, clzb93ynxj@att.net (LaurenceClarkCrossen) a écrit
:

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.

The idea of ​​the deformation of space by bodies has always amused me. Poincaré starts from the idea that photons are perhaps not little things
that surf on the ether or in the ether, and he comes to pose a magnificent principle: there is no need for the ether to explain things, and it seems
that there is no ether, and that the void is really empty.
Einstein modifies the thought by reintroducing a kind of ether that curves space with its little muscular fingers.
This is not very rational.
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?
The same goes for galaxies, which must attract a little gas on the
periphery around them (tiny quantities but over billions of millions of kilometers). 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).

R.H.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Den 09.09.2024 14:13, skrev Richard Hachel:

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?

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.

See also:
https://paulba.no/Deflection.html https://paulba.no/pdf/GravitationalDeflection.pdf

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).

No.

https://paulba.no/PerihelionAdvance.html https://paulba.no/pdf/GRPerihelionAdvance.pdf

You are trying to "think for yourself" to find naive solutions
to problems physicist have solved and tested experimentally
a long time ago.

Maybe you should read and learn what physicists have written in
stead of claiming that all physicists are idiots and not worth reading?

---
Paul

https://paulba.no/

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

R.H.: Yes, the reification of space is an elementary fallacy, and as the article cited actually shows, it is pervasive in SR & GR. It's funny
that Einstein denies the geometrization of space and then acknowledges
it, waffling. He's like a politician who was told to deny something. The article is very ambiguous in this way.

It seems that either the doubled deflection is due to refraction or to conforming observation to theory, as is continually done in relativity.
One problem with the refraction explanation is that it would result in different results for observations on Earth and those by satellite. As
Paul correctly says, some observations have been done clearly outside
the solar corona. Edward Henry Dowdye Jr. attributes it to the solar
wind. I think we can't avoid concluding it is confirmation bias.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Paul: Maybe you are making arguments ad populum and ad verecundiam.
Galileo showed everything is affected the same by gravity regardless of
mass.
Eotvos showed everything is affected the same by gravity regardless of substance.
Therefore, since the evidence shows a doubling of Newtonian (2GM), the
effect cannot be gravitational.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Paul:
"Elegance and truth are inversely related." -- Becker's Razor

What is the basis in physics for the 2 in 2GM? There is none. Then, it
is a baseless prediction.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Paul:
Einstein got the doubling from Gerber's 1898 paper which he said was
wrongly derived.
Then what reason did he have for doubling i?

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Paul: When photons have no mass how can gravity affect them?

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Tue, 10 Sep 2024 11:02:01 +0000, Richard Hachel wrote:

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.

Not "strange" at all:

E = mc^2/sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2), p = mv/sqrt(1 - v^2/c^)

(which can be derived from the relativistic Lagrangian for a
free particle). Then

E^2 - p^2c^2 = m^2c^4/(1 - v^2/c^2) - m^2v^2c^2/(1 - v^2/c^2)
(1 - v^2/c^2)m^2c^4/(1 - v^2/c^2) = m^2c^4

E^2 - p^2c^2 = m^2c^4

Even though m = 0 for photons, they still have energy and momentum.
Energy has mass: E = mc^2

Photon ---> No mass

Ether ---> Not exists

deviation of a massless body by an ether that does not exist.

R.H.

A more realistic question is, how can a massive body affect
ANY particle at a distance when there is nothing in between?
Hence the presumption of fields. Are fields real? Feynman
said, "photons are particles." By extension, gravitons are
also particles, and particles don't need an ether, and a field
is merely an approximation of the behavior of a large number
of particles.

Admittedly, gravitons would be a bit "strange" :-)

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

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.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Den 10.09.2024 03:19, skrev rhertz:

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!

The 'formula' on the very first page is the Newtonian prediction:

α = 2fM/c²r

Mikhailov writes:
"If Einstein's deduction is right this angle should be doubled."

So Mikhailov's GR prediction is:

α = 4fM/c²r

where:
f is the gravitational constant,
M is the mass,
r is the impact parameter


Look at this paper:
https://paulba.no/pdf/GravitationalDeflection.pdf

On page 2 under "Predicted total deflection"
you will find the exact same equation as equation (3).

θₜ = (1+γ)⋅2GM/bc²

where:
γ = PPN parameter, γ = 1 means prediction is according to GR,
γ = 0 means prediction is according to Newton
b = the impact parameter, closest approach to Sun
c = speed of light in vacuum
G = gravitational constant
M = solar mass

On page 3 under "Predicted deflection observed from the Earth"
You find "my" equation above as equation (5).

θ = (1+γ)⋅GM/(AU⋅c²)⋅(1+cosφ)/sinφ

γ = PPN parameter, γ = 1 means prediction is according to GR,
γ = 0 means prediction is according to Newton
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

----------------------------------------------------

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

One can possibly not expect that ignoramuses like Rickard Hertz
will know the difference between "total deflection" and
"deflection observed from the Earth".

But Mikhailov's is excused:
In 1959 when Mikhailov´s paper was written, the only measurements
of the deflection ever done was by observing the stars close to
the sun at solar eclipses, a notoriously imprecise method.

For a sunbeam gracing the sun the predicted deflections are:
total deflection: 1.752161"
deflection observed by from Earth: 1.752151"

The difference is so small that either equation would do
for these very imprecise measurements.

But all these observations of the deflections are from 2004 and later.

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

And all of them are made from the Earth with
angles up to more than 90⁰ between the Sun and the star.

When the angle is 90⁰, the impact parameter is 1 AU
and the "total" deflection is 0.00815" while the deflection
observed from the Earth is 0.00407", only half the total deflection.

So in this case the formula written by REAL ASTRONOMERS wouldn't
work, while the one written by an ignorant lunatic works perfectly.

(Of course both are written by astronomers.)

---------------

I should have snipped the rest, but what you write is so ridiculous
that I can't resist the temptation to ridicule you.
Sorry, I have a sick sense of humour!

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.

????!!! :-D

What would the equation
θ = 2GM/(AU⋅c²)⋅(1+cosφ)/sinφ
be without this swapping?

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.

I see.

The equation: θ = 2GM/(AU⋅c²)⋅(1+cosφ)/sinφ
is wrong because it doesn't include that the Earth is a sphere,
the position on the Earth, the time of the year, and the exact time.

But the equation α = 4fM/c²r
is correct despite the fact that it doesn't include that the Earth
is a sphere, the position on the Earth, the time of the year, and
the exact time.

Earth
rotates around the Sun, with reference to the ecliptic plane, with an
anual variation of +/- 11.5 degrees!!!

Do I have to point out your blunder? :-D

Hint:
What defines the ecliptic plane?
The angle between the ecliptic plane and the equatorial plane is 23.4⁰.

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.

I see.
The equation: θ = 2GM/(AU⋅c²)⋅(1+cosφ)/sinφ
is wrong because it doesn't include the position of the Sun with
reference to the LOCAL equatorial coordinate.

But the equation α = 4fM/c²r
is correct despite the fact that it doesn't include the position of
the Sun with reference to the LOCAL equatorial coordinate.

Do you really not realise how ridiculous this is? :-D

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.

Good grief, is it no limit to your idiocy?

Do you really claim that the equation
θ = 2GM/(AU⋅c²)⋅(1+cosφ)/sinφ
is wrong because it doesn't include refraction?

It is obviously those who make the observations that must take
care of correction for refraction.

Of the references above, there is only one that has measured
the refraction of visible light, namely this one: https://paulba.no/paper/PPN_gamma_Hipparcos.pdf

As you would know if you had read it, Hipparcos
is a satellite, so there is no refraction. Hipparcos is
capable of measuring angles as small as one mas, 0.001".
It isn't possible to measure so small angles from inside
the atmosphere.

The other observations refereed above are made with
arrays of radio telescopes, mostly in the microwave band.
They are less sensitive to refraction due to the size
of the arrays. See "Very Long Baseline Interferometry".

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
90 degrees respect to the Sun

"The position of the Sun is far from being at 90 degrees respect to the
Sun" ? :-D

The statement is obviously meaningless, but you seem to be
talking about the measurement of deflection of light gracing
the Sun at eclipses.

I have told you before:

In those measurements, φ in the equation θ = 2GM/(AU⋅c²)⋅(1+cosφ)/sinφ is 0.266⁰, and θ = 1.752151".

What have I 'dismissed'?

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.

Have you still not got it?

Mikhailov's paper is hopelessly outdated.
In 1959, nobody new anything about the modern methods of measuring
the gravitational deflection of EM-radiation.

Since 1952 nobody will, and nobody has, tried to measure the deflection
of light gracing the Sun at an eclipse, because it is a hopelessly
imprecise method. The error bar is more than 10%.

In the Hipparcos measurements, the error bar is ~0.003 (0.3%)
In the radio-telescope measurements, the error bar is ~5e-5 (0.005%)

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.

Don't be ridiculous.

The equation θ = (1+γ)⋅GM/(AU⋅c²)⋅(1+cosφ)/sinφ
mean that the Newtonian prediction is θ = GM/(AU⋅c²)⋅(1+cosφ)/sinφ while the GR prediction is θ = 2GM/(AU⋅c²)⋅(1+cosφ)/sinφ

No astronomer will dispute that.

Grow up or give up with your unsubstantiated credos, only celebrated by
a bunch of post-Cassini retarded.

Well, you have demonstrated what an idiot I am, haven't you? :-D

But keep it up, Richard. The sky is the limit.
I am sure you can make an even bigger fool of yourself!

--
Paul, having fun

https://paulba.no/

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

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.

Seriously, what are the problem with you?

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Le 10/09/2024 à 23:04, LaurenceClarkCrossen a écrit :

Python: (snake!)

Boo!

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?

Yes I can. Could you?

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Le 10/09/2024 à 23:29, LaurenceClarkCrossen a écrit :

Python: Guess why everyone rejected Gerber's doubling of the deflection
of light? Because gravity affects everything the same!

yawn

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

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.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Le 11/09/2024 à 00:07, LaurenceClarkCrossen a écrit :

Python: Einstein couldn't and didn't. No one can because doubling would
not be gravity.

Sure Laurence. Doubling is multiplying by two while gravity is another
thing.

An apple pie is also not a dog. So what?

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

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.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Le 11/09/2024 à 00:42, Richard "Hachel" Lenflure a écrit :

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.

I meant Eddington.

Your post is nothing but a bunch of lies. Provide sources is you
dare, sinister piece of shit!

Your pie will be loaded.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

W dniu 10.09.2024 o 22:52, Python pisze:

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.

Your idiot guru, however, was too stupid
for the task, his "frame of reference"
provides nothing.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Gary: So massless particles are affected by gravity which only affects
mass because math has momentum and fields curve?

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Le 10/09/2024 à 22:03, LaurenceClarkCrossen a écrit :

R.H.: I don't think

We've all noticed.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

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.

R.H.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Le 10/09/2024 à 22:03, clzb93ynxj@att.net (LaurenceClarkCrossen) a écrit
:

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.

That's what I think too.
As for photons, after forty years of thinking about the subject, I
strongly agree with the recent thinking of a physicist whose name I didn't
have time to note, and who thinks that it is possible that the photon does
not exist.

We must have clear thoughts about these things. For me, the photon is only
an instantaneous transaction of a quantity of energy between two entities
A and B in the frame of reference of B.

That is to say in the frame of reference of the receiver.

It is the receiver that instantly tears the quantum from the source.

We will say: "It is not possible because it is indeed the source that
heats up before emitting" and the emitting role comes from it.

You know Richard Hachel, and if you have a minimum of intelligence (which
I doubt in my peers) you will understand very well why this idea does not
hold, and why it is obviously the receiver that tears the "prepared"
quantum from the source.

In short, a body absolutely isolated in an empty universe, and "heated to white" could not emit anything at all.

I was talking about the frame of reference of B. This implies that B is
not in the frame of reference of A, and that the notion of "present time",
or simultaneity is relative by positional change.

But I have already explained that a hundred times.

R.H.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

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.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Tue, 10 Sep 2024 20:08:06 +0000, LaurenceClarkCrossen wrote:

Gary: So massless particles are affected by gravity which only affects
mass because math has momentum and fields curve?

Wow! Crossen should get a Nobel for demonstrating that
MATH has momentum!

and fields curve?

Oops! Take away Crossen's Nobel. He clearly can't read:

"a field is merely an approximation of the behavior of a
large number of particles."

Is a large number of particles affected by a gravitational
field? Are those that come closer to the source affected
more?

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Le 10/09/2024 à 22:08, clzb93ynxj@att.net (LaurenceClarkCrossen) a écrit
:

Gary: So massless particles are affected by gravity which only affects
mass because math has momentum and fields curve?

Oh yeah, the curvature of the field.

Harry Potter is soundly defeated.

The physicists, who spit on Hachel with probably many reasons to spit, are convinced of their ridiculous mathematics.

Except that they are incapable of solving a rule of three.

You ask them how much six vases will cost if 18 are worth 360 dollars.
They do not know how to answer.

I do not blame them, they are just stupid.

Where I blame them is when they come to talk to me about the curvature of
the field while swaying their shoulders.

It is obscene.

R.H.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

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.
When it was necessary to sing, in the fifties, they brought Elvis Presley,
and not Jean-Michel Affoinez.
Today, the monkey business of the world has become such that when it is necessary to sing relativity, they bring in morons, and by Richard Hachel.
The interpretation is therefore not quite the same.

We must judge on the interpreter.

If the interpreter does not know how to sing, the song will not be
listenable,
people will get up and leave.

This is what happens to the theory of relativity in the media.

People only listen with half an ear: because it is not beautiful.

R.H.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Gary: You can't understand how utterly stupid relativity is.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Wed, 11 Sep 2024 16:43:08 +0000, Richard Hachel wrote:

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.

Kook fight :-))

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Am Montag000009, 09.09.2024 um 03:58 schrieb rhertz:

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.

You should see 'space' as antagonistic to 'matter' and both as 'relative'.

This can be obtained, if you regard time as 'imaginary scalar'.

So time is defining an imaginary axis, to which a real 'inverse'
belongs, which we call 'space'.

If you would regard a common spacetime diagramm as a variant of an
Argand diagramm, you would draw time upwards and spacelike axes horizontal.

Since these spacelike axes are actually three (say: x, y and z), we
would need to multiply a flat (2-dimensional) spacetime diagramm by three.

Then the axis of time is a an imaginary scalar and 'perpendicular' to
the axes of space.

The axis of time defines actually, what we call 'matter', while the axes
of space define, what we call 'vacuum'.

Now: what is actually matter?

I would say: matter is actually 'timelike stable structures'.

This means: what is matter in one space isn't necessarily matter in
another space.

This is kind of odd and difficult to understand, because humans are kind
of 'hard wired' to think 'materialistic'.

But, if we regard celestial objects as huge lumps of such structures,
those objects could easily bent space.

see here:

https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1Ur3_giuk2l439fxUa8QHX4wTDxBEaM6lOlgVUa0cFU4/edit?usp=sharing

...


TH

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Den 13.09.2024 08:00, skrev rhertz:

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.

What's the point with this whining about who said what first,
and who plagiarised who?

Today, 2024, we know:

GR predicts that the the perihelion advance for a planet is:
see equation (8) in:
https://paulba.no/pdf/GRPerihelionAdvance.pdf

This is calculated many times by many different people since 1915.
You may see the formula in different forms, but they all predicts
the same. And they are experimentally confirmed for several planets.

What Einstein wrote in 1915 is mostly of historical interest now.

But it _is_ interesting that he got it right, isn't it?

--
Paul

https://paulba.no/

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Mr. Heger: This merely reifies space and is illogical—so much for all
your nonsense.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Paul: That is dumb because he didn't get it right. Getting it right for
Mercury threw it off for the other planets.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 9/13/2024 2:00 AM, rhertz wrote:

α = 8π² a³/[c² T²]  = 2 GM/c² (curiously, it's the Schwarzschild radius
for the Sun).

Not "curiously", the GR formula for deflection depends on the
Schwarzschild radius. Look what happens when you calculate deflection of
light grazing a Schwarzschild radius object.

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.

Nobody cares about your obvious paranoia created delusions.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Den 13.09.2024 19:32, skrev rhertz:

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).

I am simply telling you that it is a FACT that
GR predicts that the perihelion advance for a planet is:
see equation (8) in:
https://paulba.no/pdf/GRPerihelionAdvance.pdf

So we know that Einstein in 1915 correctly stated what GR
predicts for the perihelion advance of Mercury.

What is unethical about reminding you of this FACT?

And about your list of historical proofs of relativity, I can make a
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

I note with interest that Richard Hertz is claiming that all
physicists born after 1900 are members of a MAFFIA, and
profit from it. This is because he believes the different results
are COOKED with the help of statistical manipulations, fraud,
cooking and peer complicity.

'nuff said!

--
Paul

https://paulba.no/

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)