Path: csiph.com!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: The Starmaker Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity Subject: Re: Relativity Derives Zero Deflection of Light By Gravity. Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2025 23:18:46 -0800 Organization: The Starmaker Organization Lines: 96 Message-ID: <67B97A56.364@ix.netcom.com> References: <9f779645de1a83b1f2f35ab0a1885329@www.novabbs.com> <1826007a482dd75b$2449$1498207$c2065a8b@news.newsdemon.com> Reply-To: starmaker@ix.netcom.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Date: Sat, 22 Feb 2025 08:18:37 +0100 (CET) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="894766f2d96fa0fd3ece3ba1c84d7e19"; logging-data="4051410"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19v8NM33FLvXtAGj1+eEwgPgC85KBMDyzs=" Cancel-Lock: sha1:P6xCXDHc0cFZUhel/wsNOXHx+Wc= X-Antivirus-Status: Clean X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.04Gold (WinNT; U) X-Antivirus: Avast (VPS 250222-0, 02/21/2025), Outbound message Xref: csiph.com sci.physics.relativity:661382 LaurenceClarkCrossen wrote: > > On Fri, 21 Feb 2025 8:26:26 +0000, Thomas Heger wrote: > > > Am Donnerstag000020, 20.02.2025 um 22:44 schrieb Richard Hachel: > >> Le 20/02/2025 à 22:31, "Paul B. Andersen" a écrit : > >>> So you prefer to believe that your derivation that > >>> photons are not affected by gravity is correct, > >>> and that GR's predictions thus are proven wrong. > >>> > >>> So you must be ignorant of the fact that photons are observed > >>> to be deflected by gravity exactly as predicted by GR. > >>> > >>> Because you would not claim that "photons cannot be affected > >>> by gravity" if you knew that they are. > >>> > >>> Or would you? :-D > >>> > >>> Paul > >> > >> What is the evidence that photons are deflected by the presence of > >> matter in space? > > > > The photons are not affected, but space itself is. > > > > The idea of GR was, that gravity is actually an effect of 'curvature', > > which is itself caused by gravity. > > > > What gets curved is actually the 'axis of time' local to a certain part > > of space. > > > > What we call 'space' has a certain (geometric) relation to the axis of > > time, if we regard the axis of time as imaginary and the axes of space > > as real. > > > > Then we have i as a factor, by which time gets multiplied and what gives > > us three real axes of space. > > > > This space is therefore depending on the direction of time. > > > > Curvature of the axis of time is actually an acceleration in a > > space-time diagram, which usually has one axis of time and only one of > > type space. > > > > Now this can 'curve' and we get gravity, which is a force, that results > > from such curvature. > > > > Now light ('photons') pass through such a distorted space upon force > > free straight lines, which are actually curved in spacetime in presence > > of a gravitational field. > > > > This pass is NOT curved by gravitation, but by curvature of space. > > > > > > .... > > > > > > TH > it is good to hear someone here who can plainly explain relativity so > everyone can understand. The only problem is that space is not a > surface, so it can't curve. Non-Euclidean geometry cannot curve space, > so it can't cause gravity. The idea that the concept of curved space is > somehow an improvement over the idea of fields of force is mistaken > because it involves the elementary error of reification fallacy. Gravity does not bend light. Gravity doesn't bend anything... it's only...mindbending. Relativity is Einstin on acid. purplehaze spacetime lucy in the sky with diamonds -- The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable, to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable, and challenge the unchallengeable.