Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #596383 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2022-11-28 14:43 -0800 |
| Last post | 2022-12-12 08:09 -0800 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 208 — 21 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity
Gravitational lensing is JUST diffraction. Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2022-11-28 14:43 -0800
Crank Dick Hertz insers foot in mouth "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2022-11-28 15:53 -0800
Re: Crank Dick Hertz insers foot in mouth Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2022-11-28 16:02 -0800
Re: Crank Dick Hertz insers foot in mouth "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2022-11-28 16:34 -0800
Re: Crank Dick Hertz insers foot in mouth Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2022-11-29 22:35 -0500
Re: Gravitational lensing is JUST diffraction. Prokaryotic Capase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2022-11-28 19:48 -0800
Re: Gravitational lensing is JUST diffraction. Prokaryotic Capase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2022-11-29 03:55 -0800
Re: Gravitational lensing is JUST diffraction. Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2022-11-29 04:18 -0800
Re: Gravitational lensing is JUST diffraction. Prokaryotic Capase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2022-11-29 04:32 -0800
Re: Gravitational lensing is JUST diffraction. Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-11-29 04:48 -0800
Re: Gravitational lensing is JUST diffraction. Athel Cornish-Bowden <acornish@imm.cnrs.fr> - 2022-11-29 15:13 +0100
Re: Gravitational lensing is JUST diffraction. Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2022-11-29 05:38 -0800
Re: Gravitational lensing is JUST diffraction. "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2022-11-29 22:41 +0100
Re: Gravitational lensing is JUST diffraction. Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2022-11-29 15:11 -0800
Re: Gravitational lensing is JUST diffraction. JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2022-11-29 20:15 -0800
Re: Gravitational lensing is JUST diffraction. "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2022-11-29 20:17 -0800
Re: Gravitational lensing is JUST diffraction. "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2022-11-30 10:52 +0100
Re: Gravitational lensing is JUST diffraction. Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2022-11-30 05:36 -0800
Re: Gravitational lensing is JUST diffraction. "mitchr...@gmail.com" <mitchrae3323@gmail.com> - 2022-11-30 11:36 -0800
Re: Gravitational lensing is JUST diffraction. JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2022-11-30 12:24 -0800
Re: Gravitational lensing is JUST diffraction. Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2022-11-30 15:18 -0800
Re: Gravitational lensing is JUST diffraction. "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2022-11-30 21:53 +0100
Re: Gravitational lensing is JUST diffraction. Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2022-11-30 15:16 -0800
Re: Gravitational lensing is JUST diffraction. "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2022-12-01 14:30 +0100
Re: Gravitational lensing is JUST diffraction. Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2022-12-01 05:59 -0800
Re: Gravitational lensing is JUST diffraction. "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2022-12-01 20:32 +0100
Re: Gravitational lensing is JUST diffraction. Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2022-12-01 12:29 -0800
Re: Gravitational lensing is JUST diffraction. Prokaryotic Capase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2022-12-01 23:37 -0800
Re: Gravitational lensing is JUST diffraction. Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2022-12-02 05:24 -0800
Re: Gravitational lensing is JUST diffraction. "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2022-12-02 13:45 +0100
Re: Gravitational lensing is JUST diffraction. Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2022-12-02 05:31 -0800
Crank Dick Hertz comes to grips with reality "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2022-12-02 08:15 -0800
Re: Gravitational lensing is JUST diffraction. nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2022-12-01 09:55 +0100
Re: Gravitational lensing is JUST diffraction. Prokaryotic Capase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2022-11-29 20:19 -0800
Re: Gravitational lensing is JUST diffraction. "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2022-11-29 20:40 -0800
Re: Gravitational lensing is JUST diffraction. Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2022-11-30 16:05 -0500
Re: Gravitational lensing is JUST diffraction. Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-11-30 22:53 -0800
Re: Gravitational lensing is JUST diffraction. patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2022-12-07 11:56 -0800
Re: Gravitational lensing is JUST diffraction. "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2022-12-07 13:53 -0800
Re: Gravitational lensing is JUST diffraction. patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2022-12-07 17:18 -0800
Re: Gravitational lensing is JUST diffraction. "mitchr...@gmail.com" <mitchrae3323@gmail.com> - 2022-12-07 18:17 -0800
Re: Gravitational lensing is JUST diffraction. Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2022-12-07 18:40 -0800
Re: Gravitational lensing is JUST diffraction. patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2022-12-07 19:35 -0800
Re: Gravitational lensing is JUST diffraction. "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2022-12-07 19:54 -0800
Re: Gravitational lensing is JUST diffraction. patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2022-12-07 19:37 -0800
Cretin Pat Dolan repeats the same imbecilities. "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2022-12-07 19:52 -0800
Cretin Dick Hertz converses with fellow cretin Pat Dolan "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2022-12-07 19:47 -0800
Re: Gravitational lensing is JUST diffraction. patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2022-12-07 20:02 -0800
Re: Gravitational lensing is JUST diffraction. patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2022-12-07 20:07 -0800
Re: Gravitational lensing is JUST diffraction. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2022-12-07 21:08 -0800
Re: Gravitational lensing is JUST diffraction. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2022-12-08 11:11 -0800
Drunken imbecile Pat Dolan inserts foot in mouth. "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2022-12-07 19:45 -0800
Re: Drunken imbecile Pat Dolan inserts foot in mouth. patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2022-12-07 19:58 -0800
Re: Drunken imbecile Pat Dolan inserts foot in mouth. "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2022-12-07 20:11 -0800
Re: Gravitational lensing is JUST diffraction. JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2022-12-07 19:49 -0800
Re: Gravitational lensing is JUST diffraction. "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2022-12-08 10:03 +0100
Re: Gravitational lensing is JUST diffraction. patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2022-12-08 10:40 -0800
Re: Gravitational lensing is JUST diffraction. Prokaryotic Capase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2022-12-08 11:10 -0800
Re: Gravitational lensing is JUST diffraction. Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> - 2022-12-08 12:03 -0800
Re: Gravitational lensing is JUST diffraction. "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2022-12-08 22:02 +0100
Re: Gravitational lensing is JUST diffraction. JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2022-12-09 10:39 -0800
Re: Gravitational lensing is JUST diffraction. "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2022-12-09 21:11 +0100
Re: Gravitational lensing is JUST diffraction. patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2022-12-09 13:09 -0800
Re: Gravitational lensing is JUST diffraction. Prokaryotic Capase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2022-12-09 13:57 -0800
Re: Gravitational lensing is JUST diffraction. Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-12-09 17:07 -0800
Re: Gravitational lensing is JUST diffraction. Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2022-12-08 14:03 -0800
Crank Dick Hertz sucks up to fellow crank Pat Dolan "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2022-12-08 14:53 -0800
Re: Crank Dick Hertz sucks up to fellow crank Pat Dolan Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2022-12-08 16:59 -0800
Re: Crank Dick Hertz sucks up to fellow crank Pat Dolan "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2022-12-08 17:26 -0800
Re: Crank Dick Hertz sucks up to fellow crank Pat Dolan Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2022-12-08 17:42 -0800
Re: Crank Dick Hertz sucks up to fellow crank Pat Dolan "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2022-12-08 18:11 -0800
Re: Crank Dick Hertz sucks up to fellow crank Pat Dolan Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2022-12-08 18:26 -0800
Re: Crank Dick Hertz sucks up to fellow crank Pat Dolan "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2022-12-08 19:34 -0800
Re: Crank Dick Hertz sucks up to fellow crank Pat Dolan Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2022-12-09 05:51 -0800
Re: Crank Dick Hertz sucks up to fellow crank Pat Dolan "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2022-12-09 07:39 -0800
Re: Crank Dick Hertz sucks up to fellow crank Pat Dolan Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2022-12-09 08:03 -0800
Re: Crank Dick Hertz sucks up to fellow crank Pat Dolan "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2022-12-09 08:26 -0800
Re: Crank Dick Hertz sucks up to fellow crank Pat Dolan patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2022-12-09 08:15 -0800
Re: Crank Dick Hertz sucks up to fellow crank Pat Dolan Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2022-12-09 08:59 -0800
Re: Crank Dick Hertz sucks up to fellow crank Pat Dolan "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2022-12-09 09:04 -0800
Re: Crank Dick Hertz sucks up to fellow crank Pat Dolan Hanoi Cuocco <ouco@ocaoch.ho> - 2022-12-09 17:12 +0000
Re: Crank Dick Hertz sucks up to fellow crank Pat Dolan Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2022-12-09 09:14 -0800
Re: Crank Dick Hertz sucks up to fellow crank Pat Dolan Hanoi Cuocco <ouco@ocaoch.ho> - 2022-12-09 17:18 +0000
Re: Crank Dick Hertz sucks up to fellow crank Pat Dolan whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2022-12-09 11:22 -0600
Re: Crank Dick Hertz sucks up to fellow crank Pat Dolan Hanoi Cuocco <ouco@ocaoch.ho> - 2022-12-09 17:30 +0000
Re: Crank Dick Hertz sucks up to fellow crank Pat Dolan whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2022-12-09 12:01 -0600
Re: Crank Dick Hertz sucks up to fellow crank Pat Dolan Hanoi Cuocco <ouco@ocaoch.ho> - 2022-12-09 18:17 +0000
Re: Crank Dick Hertz sucks up to fellow crank Pat Dolan whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2022-12-09 13:08 -0600
Re: Crank Dick Hertz sucks up to fellow crank Pat Dolan Prokaryotic Capase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2022-12-08 20:17 -0800
Re: Crank Dick Hertz sucks up to fellow crank Pat Dolan Athel Cornish-Bowden <acornish@imm.cnrs.fr> - 2022-12-09 08:11 +0100
Re: Crank Dick Hertz sucks up to fellow crank Pat Dolan patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2022-12-09 10:06 -0800
Re: Crank Dick Hertz sucks up to fellow crank Pat Dolan Athel Cornish-Bowden <acornish@imm.cnrs.fr> - 2022-12-10 08:10 +0100
Re: Crank Dick Hertz sucks up to fellow crank Pat Dolan Prokaryotic Capase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2022-12-09 20:01 -0800
Re: Crank Dick Hertz sucks up to fellow crank Pat Dolan Athel Cornish-Bowden <acornish@imm.cnrs.fr> - 2022-12-10 08:39 +0100
Re: Crank Dick Hertz sucks up to fellow crank Pat Dolan Prokaryotic Capase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2022-12-11 15:37 -0800
Re: Gravitational lensing is JUST diffraction. "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2022-12-09 21:04 +0100
Re: Gravitational lensing is JUST diffraction. Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2022-12-09 13:41 -0800
Re: Gravitational lensing is JUST diffraction. "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2022-12-10 11:15 +0100
Re: Gravitational lensing is JUST diffraction. Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2022-12-09 15:31 -0800
Crank Dick Hertz digs himself deeper "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2022-12-09 16:47 -0800
Re: Gravitational lensing is JUST diffraction. Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> - 2022-12-09 19:18 -0800
Re: Gravitational lensing is JUST diffraction. "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2022-12-10 21:36 +0100
Re: Gravitational lensing is JUST diffraction. Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2022-12-10 13:13 -0800
Crank Richard Hertz admits he's an imbecile "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2022-12-10 13:34 -0800
Re: Gravitational lensing is JUST diffraction. "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2022-12-11 15:02 +0100
Re: Gravitational lensing is JUST diffraction. Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2022-12-11 06:26 -0800
Crank Richard Hertz posts the same imbecilities once again "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2022-12-11 06:40 -0800
Re: Dono has no answers except lies and deceptive comments Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2022-12-11 07:11 -0800
Crank Richard Hertz goes off his rocker (even further) "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2022-12-11 07:31 -0800
Re: Gravitational lensing is JUST diffraction. "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2022-12-11 20:49 +0100
Re: Gravitational lensing is JUST diffraction. Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2022-11-29 12:19 +0200
Re: Gravitational lensing is JUST diffraction. Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2022-11-29 03:26 -0800
Re: Gravitational lensing is JUST diffraction. nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2022-11-29 14:35 +0100
Re: Gravitational lensing is JUST diffraction. Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2022-11-29 05:43 -0800
Crank Richard Hertz perseveres "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2022-11-29 07:03 -0800
Re: Gravitational lensing is JUST diffraction. Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2022-12-01 18:42 +0200
Re: Gravitational lensing is JUST diffraction. JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2022-11-29 03:24 -0800
Re: Gravitational lensing is JUST diffraction. Tom Roberts <tjoberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2022-11-29 11:47 -0600
Re: Gravitational lensing is JUST diffraction. Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2022-11-29 12:14 -0800
Cretin Dick Hertz digs himself deeper "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2022-11-29 12:22 -0800
Re: Gravitational lensing is JUST diffraction. JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2022-11-29 12:29 -0800
Re: Gravitational lensing is JUST diffraction. Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2022-11-29 13:10 -0800
Re: Gravitational lensing is JUST diffraction. JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2022-11-29 15:33 -0800
Re: Gravitational lensing is JUST diffraction. Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2022-11-30 14:33 -0500
Re: Gravitational lensing is JUST diffraction. whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2022-11-30 14:26 -0600
Re: Gravitational lensing is JUST diffraction. Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2022-11-30 14:51 -0800
Re: Gravitational lensing is JUST diffraction. Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> - 2022-11-30 19:02 -0800
Re: Gravitational lensing is JUST diffraction. Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2022-11-30 13:11 -0800
Re: Gravitational lensing is JUST diffraction. Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2022-11-30 22:58 -0500
Re: Gravitational lensing is JUST diffraction. "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2022-11-30 20:01 -0800
Re: Gravitational lensing is JUST diffraction. Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2022-12-01 04:26 -0800
Re: Gravitational lensing is JUST diffraction. Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2022-12-04 03:12 -0500
Re: Gravitational lensing is JUST diffraction. Soo Yong Jie <sooyongjie@gmail.com> - 2022-12-05 05:15 -0800
Odious Kapo Richard Hertz gets to face reality "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2022-11-29 12:36 -0800
Re: Gravitational lensing is JUST diffraction. JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2022-11-29 12:59 -0800
Re: Gravitational lensing is JUST diffraction. Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2022-11-29 13:18 -0800
Crank Richard Hertz comes to terms with reality "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2022-11-29 13:34 -0800
Re: Gravitational lensing is JUST diffraction. Tom Roberts <tjoberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2022-11-29 17:42 -0600
Re: Gravitational lensing is JUST diffraction. Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2022-11-29 16:47 -0800
Re: Gravitational lensing is JUST diffraction. JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2022-11-29 16:49 -0800
Crank Richard Hertz makes up porkies "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2022-11-29 18:37 -0800
Re: Gravitational lensing is JUST diffraction. JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2022-11-29 18:46 -0800
Re: Gravitational lensing is JUST diffraction. Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2022-11-30 04:16 -0800
Re: Gravitational lensing is JUST diffraction. JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2022-11-30 12:23 -0800
Re: Gravitational lensing is JUST diffraction. JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2022-11-29 16:53 -0800
Re: Gravitational lensing is JUST diffraction. Tom Roberts <tjoberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2022-11-30 23:55 -0600
Re: Gravitational lensing is JUST diffraction. Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> - 2022-11-29 20:17 -0800
Re: Gravitational lensing is JUST diffraction. "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2022-11-29 21:50 +0100
Re: Gravitational lensing is JUST diffraction. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2022-11-29 21:40 -0800
Re: Gravitational lensing is JUST diffraction. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2022-11-30 14:29 -0800
Re: Gravitational lensing is JUST diffraction. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2022-11-30 14:32 -0800
Re: Gravitational lensing is JUST diffraction. Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2022-11-30 15:13 -0800
Re: Gravitational lensing is JUST diffraction. Prokaryotic Capase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2022-11-30 16:50 -0800
Re: Gravitational lensing is JUST diffraction. Tom Roberts <tjoberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2022-11-30 23:35 -0600
Re: Gravitational lensing is JUST diffraction. Prokaryotic Capase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2022-12-02 15:29 -0800
Re: Gravitational lensing is JUST diffraction. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2022-11-30 22:09 -0800
Re: Gravitational lensing is JUST diffraction. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2022-12-06 23:33 -0800
Re: Gravitational lensing is JUST diffraction. Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2022-12-07 07:36 -0800
Crank Richard Hertz frothes at the mouth "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2022-12-07 07:51 -0800
Re: Gravitational lensing is JUST diffraction. Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> - 2022-12-07 07:07 -0800
Re: Gravitational lensing is JUST diffraction. "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2022-12-07 08:05 -0800
Re: Gravitational lensing is JUST diffraction. Athel Cornish-Bowden <acornish@imm.cnrs.fr> - 2022-12-07 17:45 +0100
Re: Gravitational lensing is JUST diffraction. patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2022-12-07 10:11 -0800
Re: Gravitational lensing is JUST diffraction. Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2022-12-07 11:38 -0800
Imbecile Richard Hertz keeps frothing at the mouth "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2022-12-07 13:28 -0800
Re: Gravitational lensing is JUST diffraction. JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2022-12-07 13:50 -0800
Re: Gravitational lensing is JUST diffraction. Urbano Napoleoni <uiiu@ilaonpno.ai> - 2022-12-07 23:17 +0000
Re: Gravitational lensing is JUST diffraction. Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2022-12-07 13:52 -0800
Re: Gravitational lensing is JUST diffraction. Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> - 2022-12-07 14:14 -0800
Re: Gravitational lensing is JUST diffraction. patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2022-12-11 03:00 -0800
Re: Gravitational lensing is JUST diffraction. Prokaryotic Capase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2022-12-11 07:52 -0800
Re: Gravitational lensing is JUST diffraction. "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2022-12-11 20:54 +0100
Re: Gravitational lensing is JUST diffraction. patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2022-12-11 16:47 -0800
Re: Gravitational lensing is JUST diffraction. "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2022-12-12 12:11 +0100
Re: Gravitational lensing is JUST diffraction. Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-12-12 04:19 -0800
Re: Gravitational lensing is JUST diffraction. Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2022-12-12 05:44 -0800
Re: Gravitational lensing is JUST diffraction. "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2022-12-12 20:41 +0100
Re: Gravitational lensing is JUST diffraction. patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2022-12-12 12:23 -0800
Cretin Pat Dolan learns new imbecilities "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2022-12-12 12:52 -0800
Re: Gravitational lensing is JUST diffraction. patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2022-12-12 13:26 -0800
Re: Gravitational lensing is JUST diffraction. whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2022-12-12 16:01 -0600
Re: Gravitational lensing is JUST diffraction. patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2022-12-12 15:33 -0800
Re: Gravitational lensing is JUST diffraction. patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2022-12-13 03:31 -0800
Re: Gravitational lensing is JUST diffraction. Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2022-12-13 09:05 -0800
Re: Gravitational lensing is JUST diffraction. patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2022-12-13 11:21 -0800
Re: Gravitational lensing is JUST diffraction. Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2022-12-12 16:09 -0800
Crank Richard Hertz reduced to mouth frothing "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2022-12-12 17:13 -0800
Re: Gravitational lensing is JUST diffraction. patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2022-12-12 17:38 -0800
Re: Gravitational lensing is JUST diffraction. "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2022-12-15 19:58 +0100
Re: Gravitational lensing is JUST diffraction. Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2022-12-15 18:24 -0800
Crank Richard Hertz doesn't get it. "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2022-12-15 18:47 -0800
Re: Crank Richard Hertz doesn't get it. Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2022-12-15 20:29 -0800
Re: Crank Richard Hertz doesn't get it. "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2022-12-15 20:31 -0800
Re: Gravitational lensing is JUST diffraction. "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2022-12-16 11:32 +0100
Re: Gravitational lensing is JUST diffraction. Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-12-16 04:25 -0800
Re: Gravitational lensing is JUST diffraction. Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2022-12-16 05:55 -0800
Crank Richard Hertz frothes at the mouth "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2022-12-16 08:01 -0800
Re: Gravitational lensing is JUST diffraction. "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2022-12-17 11:21 +0100
Re: Gravitational lensing is JUST diffraction. "kellehe...@gmail.com" <kelleher.gerald@gmail.com> - 2022-12-17 02:48 -0800
Re: Gravitational lensing is JUST diffraction. Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2022-12-11 16:50 -0800
Re: Gravitational lensing is JUST diffraction. Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> - 2022-12-11 17:15 -0800
Re: Gravitational lensing is JUST diffraction. Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-12-11 18:26 -0800
Re: Gravitational lensing is JUST diffraction. patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2022-12-11 21:48 -0800
Crank Dick Hertz gets arsed "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2022-12-11 18:05 -0800
Re: Gravitational lensing is JUST diffraction. patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2022-12-11 21:40 -0800
Re: Gravitational lensing is JUST diffraction. "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2022-12-12 10:06 +0100
Re: Gravitational lensing is JUST diffraction. Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-12-12 04:18 -0800
Re: Gravitational lensing is JUST diffraction. patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2022-12-12 08:09 -0800
Page 8 of 11 — ← Prev page 1 … 6 7 [8] 9 10 11 Next page →
| From | "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-11-29 18:37 -0800 |
| Subject | Crank Richard Hertz makes up porkies |
| Message-ID | <7813bf5d-27fb-4632-8252-6b8d30c43b2en@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #596470 |
On Tuesday, November 29, 2022 at 4:47:02 PM UTC-8, Richard Hertz wrote: > after he was sacked from a teaching position at Berkeley Dumbestfuck, I never worked in Berkeley. So, I was never sacked. You are making up shit, the same way you eat it.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-11-29 18:46 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <ee1ca582-8872-4a29-b2d6-e53c244d84a5n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #596470 |
On Tuesday, November 29, 2022 at 4:47:02 PM UTC-8, Richard Hertz wrote: > > But have this clear: I declared publicly since my first days here that I HATE RELATIVITY. It's not physics and it's not a science. > SR is based on the metaphysical PERCEPTION of the senses and Lorentz (actually Voigt) transforms. GR is based on the idea > THAT SPACE CAN BENT, TWIST in the vicinity of massive stellar bodies. And such STUPID, DEMENTIAL CONCEPT found in > the structure of Riemannian differential geometry, as further developed by Ricci and Levi-Civita, what Grossman was searching > for spacetime. But the use of it VIOLATED ITS FOUNDATIONS, because TIME is used as a four dimension (not a real length). > > That's why the name of PSEUDO-RIEMANNIAN GEOMETRY is correct. Gauss and Riemann would never have accepted this use. What a complete diot you are! Everything you write above, every sentence, is not even wrong, just a demented tantrum, a child's scream fest. -- Jan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-11-30 04:16 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <6ea9170d-394e-4098-801d-eb19c316806dn@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #596478 |
On Tuesday, November 29, 2022 at 11:46:50 PM UTC-3, JanPB wrote:
> On Tuesday, November 29, 2022 at 4:47:02 PM UTC-8, Richard Hertz wrote:
<snip>
> > SR is based on the metaphysical PERCEPTION of the senses and Lorentz (actually Voigt) transforms. GR is based on the idea
> > THAT SPACE CAN BENT, TWIST in the vicinity of massive stellar bodies. And such STUPID, DEMENTIAL CONCEPT found in
> > the structure of Riemannian differential geometry, as further developed by Ricci and Levi-Civita, what Grossman was searching
> > for spacetime. But the use of it VIOLATED ITS FOUNDATIONS, because TIME is used as a four dimension (not a real length).
> >
> > That's why the name of PSEUDO-RIEMANNIAN GEOMETRY is correct. Gauss and Riemann would never have accepted this use.
> What a complete diot you are! Everything you write above, every sentence, is
> not even wrong, just a demented tantrum, a child's scream fest.
Some proofs that show you being a fully retarded relativist:
1) Pseudo-Riemannian geometry: It's because it VIOLATES Riemannian geometry of multidimensional space by using "ict" as
an SPATIAL dimension. I dare you to contradict this.
2) Metaphysical perception of the senses: Lorentz Transforms FORCES YOU to accept that LENGTHS and TIME in a reference xyz frame
moving away from you at v speed ARE DIFFERENT FROM YOUR LOCAL PERCEPTION in your relatively stationary frame JUST BECAUSE
a fucking pair of childish equations SAY SO. Yet, length compression HAVE NEVER BEEN DETECTED in 117 years. I dare you to
contradict this.
3) Based on no other means than MATHEMATICS, you ARE FORCED to accept that 3D space bend and twist near massive stellar objects.
Also, MATHEMATICS FORCES YOU to accept that time (as the fourth dimension of spacetime) is affected by gravity. Such MATH also
has the Schwarzschild solution for vacuum and a single point-like mass, which has been used to postulate Black Holes. EVERYTHING
being a fantasy based on MATHEMATICAL DEVELOPMENTS, with no base on physical reality, I dare you to contradict this.
See, JanPB? Even when you are polite that don't use profanities and write softly, it doesn't mean that you are right.
You are just a POLITE RELIGIOUSLY INDOCTRINATED IMBECILE that have to resort to LIES and deformation of my posts to sustain
your UNDEFENDABLE position. Your voice can only survive within the relativity community, but you can't survive one hour out there,
in the REAL and RATIONAL world, facing a knowledgeable but not relativist person. Who's right and who's wrong?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-11-30 12:23 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <b1292beb-6fe8-494b-bf55-44535e210d1en@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #596500 |
On Wednesday, November 30, 2022 at 4:16:05 AM UTC-8, Richard Hertz wrote: > On Tuesday, November 29, 2022 at 11:46:50 PM UTC-3, JanPB wrote: > > On Tuesday, November 29, 2022 at 4:47:02 PM UTC-8, Richard Hertz wrote: > <snip> > > > SR is based on the metaphysical PERCEPTION of the senses and Lorentz (actually Voigt) transforms. GR is based on the idea > > > THAT SPACE CAN BENT, TWIST in the vicinity of massive stellar bodies. And such STUPID, DEMENTIAL CONCEPT found in > > > the structure of Riemannian differential geometry, as further developed by Ricci and Levi-Civita, what Grossman was searching > > > for spacetime. But the use of it VIOLATED ITS FOUNDATIONS, because TIME is used as a four dimension (not a real length). > > > > > > That's why the name of PSEUDO-RIEMANNIAN GEOMETRY is correct. Gauss and Riemann would never have accepted this use. > > > What a complete diot you are! Everything you write above, every sentence, is > > not even wrong, just a demented tantrum, a child's scream fest. > Some proofs that show you being a fully retarded relativist: > > 1) Pseudo-Riemannian geometry: It's because it VIOLATES Riemannian geometry of multidimensional space by using "ict" as > an SPATIAL dimension. I dare you to contradict this. Of course I contradict this. It's actually devoid of content, it's just a word salad. > 2) Metaphysical perception of the senses: Lorentz Transforms FORCES YOU to accept that LENGTHS and TIME in a reference xyz frame > moving away from you at v speed ARE DIFFERENT FROM YOUR LOCAL PERCEPTION in your relatively stationary frame JUST BECAUSE > a fucking pair of childish equations SAY SO. Again, word salad. You have no idea what science is. Yet, length compression HAVE NEVER BEEN DETECTED in 117 years. I dare you to > contradict this. Obviously I contradict this, what you wrote is simply gobbledygook with a few technical words thrown in to make it look like it has a content. > 3) Based on no other means than MATHEMATICS, you ARE FORCED to accept that 3D space bend and twist near massive stellar objects. Again, technical word salad. > Also, MATHEMATICS FORCES YOU to accept that time (as the fourth dimension of spacetime) is affected by gravity. Such MATH also > has the Schwarzschild solution for vacuum and a single point-like mass, which has been used to postulate Black Holes. EVERYTHING > being a fantasy based on MATHEMATICAL DEVELOPMENTS, with no base on physical reality, I dare you to contradict this. Those are all statement with no content, they are not arguments. They are just vague frustrated fantasies. Pick a different hobby, this physics business is just not a right match for you. You'll just keep failing. -- Jan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-11-29 16:53 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <3045f081-bfe4-4575-8f29-77daf20e62cfn@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #596465 |
On Tuesday, November 29, 2022 at 3:42:31 PM UTC-8, Tom Roberts wrote: > > I am not "brainwashed" or "a parrot", I simply discuss how generally > accepted theories of physics apply to topics in this newsgroup. This is the funniest part of many cranks: they claim that the mere fact that experts agree on X (simply because X happens to be true) means that they "parrot" one another. It's like reality itself comes unstitched in their heads. -- Jan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tom Roberts <tjoberts137@sbcglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-11-30 23:55 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <oVGdneK68oJY3BX-nZ2dnZfqlJ_8fwAA@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #596472 |
On 11/29/22 6:53 PM, JanPB wrote: > On Tuesday, November 29, 2022 at 3:42:31 PM UTC-8, Tom Roberts wrote: >> I am not "brainwashed" or "a parrot", I simply discuss how generally >> accepted theories of physics apply to topics in this newsgroup. > > This is the funniest part of many cranks: they claim that the mere fact that > experts agree on X (simply because X happens to be true) means that they > "parrot" one another. > > It's like reality itself comes unstitched in their heads. Yes. Tom Roberts
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-11-29 20:17 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <2d65beae-d0b5-4c7c-9824-affae4466b2bn@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #596440 |
On Tuesday, November 29, 2022 at 12:14:33 PM UTC-8, Richard Hertz wrote: > On Tuesday, November 29, 2022 at 2:47:30 PM UTC-3, Tom Roberts wrote: > > <snip> > > You keep assuming that you are smarter than all of the physicists and > > astronomers who ever lived -- that is HOPELESS. It's clear from your > > posts around here that you are outrageously ignorant of basic physics, > > so your attempts around here show you are also quite stupid. > > > > Tom Roberts > Obviously, I hit a nerve on you, Tom Roberts (Lucent´s former SW programmer, physicist wannabe). > > Something about you, proud programmer: > > ****************************************************************************** > https://www.linkedin.com/in/tom-roberts-3a3b0572?original_referer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com%2F > > About > > I am the primary author of G4beamline, a beamline simulation program based on Geant4. I have also written several related tools, such as HistoRoot, a plotting and histogramming package based on Root. > > I am the author of MuSim, a graphical user interface program for multiple simulation codes. it is in essence an integrated development environment for designing and simulating systems involving elementary particles. > > At IIT I am working on a challenging experiment to measure the behavior of anti-matter in earth's gravitational field, specifically using Muonium. I am also working on G-POEM, a test of the gravitational principle of equivalence using normal matter and advanced instrumentation (with picometer resolution). > > Recently I was the MAP level 2 manager for Cooling. MAP is the Muon Accelerator Program at Fermilab, which is performing R&D to establish the feasibility of a muon collider as a future facility for high energy physics. > ****************************************************************************** > > Don't dare to criticize me, arrogant asshole. In your professional life YOU DID NOTHING MORE than repeat as a parrot what was FORCED > into your head when studying. Remember? FORCED TO. > > All your THEORETICAL gobbledygook contributes nothing to knowledge, yet you are showing off around like a fucking peacock. > > > Some people here, like Dono, worship you as the top dog on physics. But, I insist, what I only see is a self entitled arrogant and vain > anal retentive person, craving for comments with compliments about your opinion or your "career". > > I don't know who's the worst cretin here: You, that behave as an attention whore, self promote ad nauseam and look down to people, > or Dono, who tried to be noticed with his 100+ papers with in different sites for relativity and come here just to insult most people. > > For me, both are ONLY indoctrinated imbeciles with whom nobody can argue a single thing, because you both are unable to think > differently, even as a thought experiment. > > And, finally, I've seen in my professional life (and even in college) quite a few assholes like you. Co-workers and student really hated > their guts. I just felt PITY on them, because they are only hollow, narcissist people that generally produces NOTHING. > > And I'm not calling you stupid or idiot just to let to you to use a couple of insults with exclusivity. > > But I wonder why a hot shot like you has been around for decades at this forum. Maybe the shit that you do for a living affect your > soul and come here to reaffirm your beliefs. > > At any case, you are JUST an SW programmer to me. OK, ex-Lucent? "Someone's had their cage rattled. You're displaying the typical response of a crank whose favored theory is under serious attack - aggression and insults." -Sylvia Else
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-11-29 21:50 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <tm5rau$2b7a7$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #596383 |
Den 28.11.2022 23:43, skrev Richard Hertz: > > Gravitational lensing doesn't exist. It's just a mere diffraction phenomenon. Here you can see a distant galaxy refracted into a ring in the atmosphere of a the galaxy in the middle. https://tinyurl.com/2k698amr The atmosphere around a galaxy must be millions of light years across. > > Deflection of Light by Refraction, Not Gravity (Curve Geometry of Spacetime) > > https://medium.com/@GatotSoedarto/the-deflection-of-light-by-refraction-not-gravity-49b9bd919aba An example of Professor Gupta's wisdom: " Atomic Clocks at higher altitude tick faster than clocks on Earth’s surface. It is not caused by gravity, but by air density of atmosphere. Closer to the earth surface, the air is denser compared to the density of the air layer above it. The density is getting looser or weaker when it is getting higher. " The actual paper: https://arxiv.org/ftp/physics/papers/0409/0409124.pdf See fig 3 page 9. Richard, do you agree with Professor Gupta that black holes really are light trapped by total internal reflection within the atmosphere of a neutron star? Another example of Professor Gupta's wisdom: " When, say, for example, light enters from vacuum to atmosphere, both present and previous theories predict same result blue-shift but causes (physics) are different. ... Previous (Newtonian/Einstein’s) theories consider velocity of light c constant, ν[frequency] increases (due to gravitational- energy/time-dilation) thus blue-shift, λ[wavelength] decreases to keep c constant. " What Professor Gupta is explaining here is what GR (and Newton??) predicts for the gravitational Doppler shift of a distant source observed on the Earth. This gravitational blue shift is: Δf/f = −Δλ/λ ≈ GM/c²R ≈ 7.0e−10 But according to Professor Gupta there is no gravitational Doppler shift, the Δλ/λ ≈ - 7.0e−10 blue shift is caused by refraction in the Earth's atmosphere: " Whereas, present refraction-based theory considers that energy hence ν[frequency] remains constant, c decreases (from co to cm), λ[wavelength] decreases (from λo to λm) thus blue-shift. " Quite. Frequency remains constant, speed decreases from co to cm = co/n, wavelength decreases from λo to λm = λo/n and (co/n) = f⋅(λo/n) With n ≈ 1.0003 Δλ/λ ≈ -3e-4. Half a million times off! Of course this also happens according to GR, so the wavelength change observed on the Earth will be Δλ/λ ≈ -3e-4 - 7.0e−10 The gravitational Doppler shift can't be measured this way! (In the Pound & Rebka experiments both the sender and the receiver are in air, so there is no change in the wavelength due to n > 1.) -- Paul https://paulba.no/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-11-29 21:40 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <6386ECC2.65C6@ix.netcom.com> |
| In reply to | #596383 |
Richard Hertz wrote: > > Distant sources of light (starlight, galaxy light) comes radially toward us, here on Earth. It's a flat frontwave because it's far enough, so components of any > frequency travel at the same velocity. > > If a massive celestial object happens to be in the path of the source of light, > a classical phenomenon of DUAL DIFFRACTION COULD HAPPEN. > > For this to happen (and it's NOT gravitational lensing), the diffraction index of > the BOUNDARY of such celestial object HAS TO BE different of that of vacuum. > > Light pass TWICE through such BOUNDARY which, in the case of the Sun, > can be interpreted as a spherical SHELL that surrounds the object that > causes DIFFRACTION. > > As distant light ENTERS into such boundary, its components are affected > differently due to a lower speed of light (n > 1, c' = c/n), so wavelengths > are affected differently. BUT, when the light GETS OUT of the spherical shell, > every component of the distant source of light IS RESTORED to its original > wavelength. > > Meanwhile, in this DUAL DIFFRACTION EFFECT, frequency of light IS > PRESERVED all the time, because THE ENERGY OF LIGHT can't change. > > But light path is deflected a little bit, enough to EMERGE from the boundary > and keep moving TOWARD US, without any modification. > > As the DIFFRACTION EFFECT is completely dependent of the diffraction index > AND IF the path of light was coming toward us, different PHOTOS show > effects like: ring of light (the boundary n is constant for all the perimeter; > light comes through ONE or TWO spots in the boundary of the interfering > celestial body; many other effects, like the famous cross). > > CONCLUSION: Light diffraction by massive celestial bodies like the Sun (something that WORRIED Eddington enough to write an entire page on > his 1919 report, claiming that it was impossible "for him") and the famous > gravitational lensing ARE A GIANT LIE, an HOAX maintained for a century > just to justify Einstein's calculation of 1.75 arcsec deflection. > > Gravitational lensing doesn't exist. It's just a mere diffraction phenomenon. > > And some people, of course NOT A RELATIVIST, know enough to write a > paper about this. Of course, it's labeled as the work of a crank. But he's > right. Here is the link (enjoy it and choke on it, Dono the cretin). > > Deflection of Light by Refraction, Not Gravity (Curve Geometry of Spacetime) > > https://medium.com/@GatotSoedarto/the-deflection-of-light-by-refraction-not-gravity-49b9bd919aba fake stars is wat it is... -- The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable, to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable, and challenge the unchallengeable.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-11-30 14:29 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <6387D950.2B55@ix.netcom.com> |
| In reply to | #596488 |
The Starmaker wrote: > > Richard Hertz wrote: > > > > Distant sources of light (starlight, galaxy light) comes radially toward us, here on Earth. It's a flat frontwave because it's far enough, so components of any > > frequency travel at the same velocity. > > > > If a massive celestial object happens to be in the path of the source of light, > > a classical phenomenon of DUAL DIFFRACTION COULD HAPPEN. > > > > For this to happen (and it's NOT gravitational lensing), the diffraction index of > > the BOUNDARY of such celestial object HAS TO BE different of that of vacuum. > > > > Light pass TWICE through such BOUNDARY which, in the case of the Sun, > > can be interpreted as a spherical SHELL that surrounds the object that > > causes DIFFRACTION. > > > > As distant light ENTERS into such boundary, its components are affected > > differently due to a lower speed of light (n > 1, c' = c/n), so wavelengths > > are affected differently. BUT, when the light GETS OUT of the spherical shell, > > every component of the distant source of light IS RESTORED to its original > > wavelength. > > > > Meanwhile, in this DUAL DIFFRACTION EFFECT, frequency of light IS > > PRESERVED all the time, because THE ENERGY OF LIGHT can't change. > > > > But light path is deflected a little bit, enough to EMERGE from the boundary > > and keep moving TOWARD US, without any modification. > > > > As the DIFFRACTION EFFECT is completely dependent of the diffraction index > > AND IF the path of light was coming toward us, different PHOTOS show > > effects like: ring of light (the boundary n is constant for all the perimeter; > > light comes through ONE or TWO spots in the boundary of the interfering > > celestial body; many other effects, like the famous cross). > > > > CONCLUSION: Light diffraction by massive celestial bodies like the Sun (something that WORRIED Eddington enough to write an entire page on > > his 1919 report, claiming that it was impossible "for him") and the famous > > gravitational lensing ARE A GIANT LIE, an HOAX maintained for a century > > just to justify Einstein's calculation of 1.75 arcsec deflection. > > > > Gravitational lensing doesn't exist. It's just a mere diffraction phenomenon. > > > > And some people, of course NOT A RELATIVIST, know enough to write a > > paper about this. Of course, it's labeled as the work of a crank. But he's > > right. Here is the link (enjoy it and choke on it, Dono the cretin). > > > > Deflection of Light by Refraction, Not Gravity (Curve Geometry of Spacetime) > > > > https://medium.com/@GatotSoedarto/the-deflection-of-light-by-refraction-not-gravity-49b9bd919aba > > fake stars is wat it is... i thought i explained dis before... If you take one photo from dat Webb's space photographs... and remove/delete ALL the stars (dat you call Gravitational lensing) then you won't have anything left in the photo to look at....just a couple of...puffs. -- The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable, to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable, and challenge the unchallengeable.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-11-30 14:32 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <6387DA06.7341@ix.netcom.com> |
| In reply to | #596553 |
The Starmaker wrote: > > The Starmaker wrote: > > > > Richard Hertz wrote: > > > > > > Distant sources of light (starlight, galaxy light) comes radially toward us, here on Earth. It's a flat frontwave because it's far enough, so components of any > > > frequency travel at the same velocity. > > > > > > If a massive celestial object happens to be in the path of the source of light, > > > a classical phenomenon of DUAL DIFFRACTION COULD HAPPEN. > > > > > > For this to happen (and it's NOT gravitational lensing), the diffraction index of > > > the BOUNDARY of such celestial object HAS TO BE different of that of vacuum. > > > > > > Light pass TWICE through such BOUNDARY which, in the case of the Sun, > > > can be interpreted as a spherical SHELL that surrounds the object that > > > causes DIFFRACTION. > > > > > > As distant light ENTERS into such boundary, its components are affected > > > differently due to a lower speed of light (n > 1, c' = c/n), so wavelengths > > > are affected differently. BUT, when the light GETS OUT of the spherical shell, > > > every component of the distant source of light IS RESTORED to its original > > > wavelength. > > > > > > Meanwhile, in this DUAL DIFFRACTION EFFECT, frequency of light IS > > > PRESERVED all the time, because THE ENERGY OF LIGHT can't change. > > > > > > But light path is deflected a little bit, enough to EMERGE from the boundary > > > and keep moving TOWARD US, without any modification. > > > > > > As the DIFFRACTION EFFECT is completely dependent of the diffraction index > > > AND IF the path of light was coming toward us, different PHOTOS show > > > effects like: ring of light (the boundary n is constant for all the perimeter; > > > light comes through ONE or TWO spots in the boundary of the interfering > > > celestial body; many other effects, like the famous cross). > > > > > > CONCLUSION: Light diffraction by massive celestial bodies like the Sun (something that WORRIED Eddington enough to write an entire page on > > > his 1919 report, claiming that it was impossible "for him") and the famous > > > gravitational lensing ARE A GIANT LIE, an HOAX maintained for a century > > > just to justify Einstein's calculation of 1.75 arcsec deflection. > > > > > > Gravitational lensing doesn't exist. It's just a mere diffraction phenomenon. > > > > > > And some people, of course NOT A RELATIVIST, know enough to write a > > > paper about this. Of course, it's labeled as the work of a crank. But he's > > > right. Here is the link (enjoy it and choke on it, Dono the cretin). > > > > > > Deflection of Light by Refraction, Not Gravity (Curve Geometry of Spacetime) > > > > > > https://medium.com/@GatotSoedarto/the-deflection-of-light-by-refraction-not-gravity-49b9bd919aba > > > > fake stars is wat it is... > > i thought i explained dis before... > > If you take > one photo > from > dat > Webb's space photographs... > and remove/delete > ALL the stars (dat you call Gravitational lensing) > > then you won't have anything left in the photo > to look at....just a couple of...puffs. go ahead...remove all stars (dat you call Gravitational lensing) https://media-cldnry.s-nbcnews.com/image/upload/rockcms/2022-07/220711-james-webb-telescope-first-image-high-res-ew-628p-44ff0c.jpg they are all...fake stars. -- The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable, to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable, and challenge the unchallengeable.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-11-30 15:13 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <47693f3c-a1f8-4d55-8a35-a03a32a51a2dn@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #596554 |
On Wednesday, November 30, 2022 at 7:32:28 PM UTC-3, The Starmaker wrote: <snip> > go ahead...remove all stars (dat you call Gravitational lensing) > https://media-cldnry.s-nbcnews.com/image/upload/rockcms/2022-07/220711-james-webb-telescope-first-image-high-res-ew-628p-44ff0c.jpg > > they are all...fake stars. FANTASTIC CGI COMPOSITION, But wait, there are some problems: 1) Isn't Webb ST based EXCLUSIVELY on infrared radiation?. What are all those colors doing at that image? Even white light. 2) According to Volroney, NONE of those celestial bodies ARE WHERE THEY SEEM TO BE (by the image). I demand a correction of EVERY gravitational deflection of EM radiation present there. 3) How do I know if there are some ghost images of celestial bodies, due to gravitational lensing?. I demand a footnote on every Webb's composition that reads: "This image has been cleared of any gravitational lensing manifestation. Every single body has a direct path to WST". 4) No Black Holes.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Prokaryotic Capase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-11-30 16:50 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <5fc45c32-1152-439f-8668-60cbfca6020an@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #596557 |
On Wednesday, November 30, 2022 at 5:13:32 PM UTC-6, Richard Hertz wrote: > On Wednesday, November 30, 2022 at 7:32:28 PM UTC-3, The Starmaker wrote: > > <snip> > > go ahead...remove all stars (dat you call Gravitational lensing) > > https://media-cldnry.s-nbcnews.com/image/upload/rockcms/2022-07/220711-james-webb-telescope-first-image-high-res-ew-628p-44ff0c.jpg > > > > they are all...fake stars. > FANTASTIC CGI COMPOSITION, But wait, there are some problems: > > 1) Isn't Webb ST based EXCLUSIVELY on infrared radiation?. What are all those colors doing at that image? Even white light. The invisible infrared colors are MAPPED to the visible range. https://drive.google.com/file/d/1hgmXSH9pZKDZHkiSUtCXNbIULX9YRteb/view?usp=share_link Otherwise you'd have a blank page. https://thumbs.dreamstime.com/z/empty-blank-canvas-white-background-home-interior-decor-painting-poster-mock-up-72909464.jpg > 2) According to Volroney, NONE of those celestial bodies ARE WHERE THEY SEEM TO BE (by the image). I demand a correction > of EVERY gravitational deflection of EM radiation present there. Over any small patch of sky, the displacements are closely uniform from object to object so as to be insignificant. Heck, stellar aberration causes the images to shift by 20 seconds of arc in a yearly cycle. The pointing of the telescope is automatically corrected for stellar aberration and nobody cares in the case of JWST. In the case of HST, since it orbits around the Earth every 96 minutes, blurring due to differential stellar aberration between center and edge of a long exposure wide field image is just *barely* detectable at the edges and overshadowed by aberrations in the optical system (spherical aberration, coma etc). But so far as the GR correction is concerned, you are just carping for the sake of carping. > 3) How do I know if there are some ghost images of celestial bodies, due to gravitational lensing?. I demand a footnote on every > Webb's composition that reads: "This image has been cleared of any gravitational lensing manifestation. Every single body has > a direct path to WST". Don't be ridiculous. Can't be done. Do you demand photos to be corrected for atmospheric refraction? https://journeysinthedesert.files.wordpress.com/2017/11/desert-mirage.jpg?w=700 https://www.scu.edu/media/portals/illuminate/images/Illuminate-PhilKesten-header-6-1-1160x386.jpg http://www.atmo.arizona.edu/students/courselinks/spring13/atmo170a1s1/1S1P_stuff/atmos_optical_phenomena/water-mirage-in-the-street.jpg > 4) No Black Holes. You can't see black holes except indirectly, by their effects on the surroundings. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B0QRpid5_QU https://earthsky.org/upl/2015/07/Hercules-A-NRAO-e1436353888907.jpg
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tom Roberts <tjoberts137@sbcglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-11-30 23:35 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <fp6dnSgHUt-BoBX-nZ2dnZfqlJxg4p2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #596563 |
On 11/30/22 6:50 PM, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog wrote: > [...] Note that the toolkit used by astronomers automatically corrects for stellar aberration, and a host of other instrumentation and trivial observation effects. So ALL astronomy papers for many decades have already had these corrections applied. Tom Roberts
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Prokaryotic Capase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-12-02 15:29 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <1af48132-162c-4a84-8a0f-e18ad5103d05n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #596584 |
On Wednesday, November 30, 2022 at 11:35:32 PM UTC-6, Tom Roberts wrote: > On 11/30/22 6:50 PM, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog wrote: > > [...] > > Note that the toolkit used by astronomers automatically corrects for > stellar aberration, and a host of other instrumentation and trivial > observation effects. So ALL astronomy papers for many decades have > already had these corrections applied. Very true. But I was in particular referring to *differential* aberration between the center and the edge of wide-field HST images. Let me quote from a post of mine from 2017: On Friday, March 17, 2017 at 5:24:55 AM UTC-5, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog wrote: > Let us focus on, say, how velocity aberration affects the Hubble Space Telescope. > The guidance systems of HST are very well documented. Stellar aberration > (velocity aberration) has two components on the Hubble platform: an annual > contribution of about 20" due to Earth's velocity around the Sun, and a 96 > minute contribution of about 7" from Hubble's orbit around the Earth. The coarse > guidance system makes continuous, automated adjustments to Hubble's orientation > in space so as to leave the fine guidance system (FGS) as little as possible to > do. > > Originally the task of making these coarse adjustments was performed in 24 bit > integer arithmetic. Residual errors in velocity aberration compensation over > the course of half an orbit were discovered to amount to as much as 0.469 mas. > (This is not a misprint. They really were concerned about fractional MILLI- > arcsecond errors in the guidance software.) This problem was resolved after > the First Servicing Mission by installation of a 32 bit coprocessor. > http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1997ESASP.403..233B > > Fine pointing in three axes requires two FGS's. Each FGS locks onto a separate > guide star and measures its positional error. Suitable guide stars are not > always near where the HST needs to point, but may be separated by several > degrees from the center of the intended HST image. This separation means that, > because of differential velocity aberration, a very significant difference > generally exists between the direction to each guide star and the center of > the intended HST image. Sophisticated software is used to correct for this > differential aberration between the guide star directions and the required > pointing angle, and these corrections must be applied every few seconds along > with corrections for other sources of positional error. > > Because of differential velocity aberration between the center of an image > and its corners, it is not possible for the center of an image and its corners > to be pointing in precisely the same direction during the course of a single > exposure. The change in pixel scale can reach up to about 0.3 pixels corner > to corner in WFPC2 images. This might not sound like much, but in fact the > centers of stellar images are routinely localized to 0.01 pixel (i.e. 1 mas). > This cannot be done unless velocity aberration scale factor information is > provided for each separate exposure (typically only a few seconds, depending > on the brightness of the imaged object). Each of the raw CCD exposures has a > header keyword called VAFACTOR that is used by the Drizzle software package to > scale each separate exposure when combining the exposures into a single image. > > Other software takes care of geometric distortion in the HST optics. In the case > of the WFPC2, most of the distortion comes from use of a field-flattener lens > in front of each of the four CCDs. This lens introduces about 6 pixels of image > distortion between the centers and corners of each camera. The image scale and > the image distortion is wavelength dependent. > > The HST scientists have spent MANY thousands of hours analyzing the factors > necessary to assure precise registration of their images to fractional > milliarcsecond precision.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-11-30 22:09 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <63884504.4302@ix.netcom.com> |
| In reply to | #596554 |
The Starmaker wrote: > > The Starmaker wrote: > > > > The Starmaker wrote: > > > > > > Richard Hertz wrote: > > > > > > > > Distant sources of light (starlight, galaxy light) comes radially toward us, here on Earth. It's a flat frontwave because it's far enough, so components of any > > > > frequency travel at the same velocity. > > > > > > > > If a massive celestial object happens to be in the path of the source of light, > > > > a classical phenomenon of DUAL DIFFRACTION COULD HAPPEN. > > > > > > > > For this to happen (and it's NOT gravitational lensing), the diffraction index of > > > > the BOUNDARY of such celestial object HAS TO BE different of that of vacuum. > > > > > > > > Light pass TWICE through such BOUNDARY which, in the case of the Sun, > > > > can be interpreted as a spherical SHELL that surrounds the object that > > > > causes DIFFRACTION. > > > > > > > > As distant light ENTERS into such boundary, its components are affected > > > > differently due to a lower speed of light (n > 1, c' = c/n), so wavelengths > > > > are affected differently. BUT, when the light GETS OUT of the spherical shell, > > > > every component of the distant source of light IS RESTORED to its original > > > > wavelength. > > > > > > > > Meanwhile, in this DUAL DIFFRACTION EFFECT, frequency of light IS > > > > PRESERVED all the time, because THE ENERGY OF LIGHT can't change. > > > > > > > > But light path is deflected a little bit, enough to EMERGE from the boundary > > > > and keep moving TOWARD US, without any modification. > > > > > > > > As the DIFFRACTION EFFECT is completely dependent of the diffraction index > > > > AND IF the path of light was coming toward us, different PHOTOS show > > > > effects like: ring of light (the boundary n is constant for all the perimeter; > > > > light comes through ONE or TWO spots in the boundary of the interfering > > > > celestial body; many other effects, like the famous cross). > > > > > > > > CONCLUSION: Light diffraction by massive celestial bodies like the Sun (something that WORRIED Eddington enough to write an entire page on > > > > his 1919 report, claiming that it was impossible "for him") and the famous > > > > gravitational lensing ARE A GIANT LIE, an HOAX maintained for a century > > > > just to justify Einstein's calculation of 1.75 arcsec deflection. > > > > > > > > Gravitational lensing doesn't exist. It's just a mere diffraction phenomenon. > > > > > > > > And some people, of course NOT A RELATIVIST, know enough to write a > > > > paper about this. Of course, it's labeled as the work of a crank. But he's > > > > right. Here is the link (enjoy it and choke on it, Dono the cretin). > > > > > > > > Deflection of Light by Refraction, Not Gravity (Curve Geometry of Spacetime) > > > > > > > > https://medium.com/@GatotSoedarto/the-deflection-of-light-by-refraction-not-gravity-49b9bd919aba > > > > > > fake stars is wat it is... > > > > i thought i explained dis before... > > > > If you take > > one photo > > from > > dat > > Webb's space photographs... > > and remove/delete > > ALL the stars (dat you call Gravitational lensing) > > > > then you won't have anything left in the photo > > to look at....just a couple of...puffs. > > go ahead...remove all stars (dat you call Gravitational lensing) > https://media-cldnry.s-nbcnews.com/image/upload/rockcms/2022-07/220711-james-webb-telescope-first-image-high-res-ew-628p-44ff0c.jpg > > they are all...fake stars. Now, anyone can open the image in Photoshop and let's say 'Enlarge'/close-up the bottom left half of the photo and you will see that the stars have been CLONED next to each other...exactly. Someone took Photoshop clone tool and copy and paste the same star over and over again. It's all fake stars....down to the itty bitty ones. It's fake. FRAUD. -- The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable, to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable, and challenge the unchallengeable.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-12-06 23:33 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <639041AD.1E9F@ix.netcom.com> |
| In reply to | #596554 |
The Starmaker wrote: > > The Starmaker wrote: > > > > The Starmaker wrote: > > > > > > Richard Hertz wrote: > > > > > > > > Distant sources of light (starlight, galaxy light) comes radially toward us, here on Earth. It's a flat frontwave because it's far enough, so components of any > > > > frequency travel at the same velocity. > > > > > > > > If a massive celestial object happens to be in the path of the source of light, > > > > a classical phenomenon of DUAL DIFFRACTION COULD HAPPEN. > > > > > > > > For this to happen (and it's NOT gravitational lensing), the diffraction index of > > > > the BOUNDARY of such celestial object HAS TO BE different of that of vacuum. > > > > > > > > Light pass TWICE through such BOUNDARY which, in the case of the Sun, > > > > can be interpreted as a spherical SHELL that surrounds the object that > > > > causes DIFFRACTION. > > > > > > > > As distant light ENTERS into such boundary, its components are affected > > > > differently due to a lower speed of light (n > 1, c' = c/n), so wavelengths > > > > are affected differently. BUT, when the light GETS OUT of the spherical shell, > > > > every component of the distant source of light IS RESTORED to its original > > > > wavelength. > > > > > > > > Meanwhile, in this DUAL DIFFRACTION EFFECT, frequency of light IS > > > > PRESERVED all the time, because THE ENERGY OF LIGHT can't change. > > > > > > > > But light path is deflected a little bit, enough to EMERGE from the boundary > > > > and keep moving TOWARD US, without any modification. > > > > > > > > As the DIFFRACTION EFFECT is completely dependent of the diffraction index > > > > AND IF the path of light was coming toward us, different PHOTOS show > > > > effects like: ring of light (the boundary n is constant for all the perimeter; > > > > light comes through ONE or TWO spots in the boundary of the interfering > > > > celestial body; many other effects, like the famous cross). > > > > > > > > CONCLUSION: Light diffraction by massive celestial bodies like the Sun (something that WORRIED Eddington enough to write an entire page on > > > > his 1919 report, claiming that it was impossible "for him") and the famous > > > > gravitational lensing ARE A GIANT LIE, an HOAX maintained for a century > > > > just to justify Einstein's calculation of 1.75 arcsec deflection. > > > > > > > > Gravitational lensing doesn't exist. It's just a mere diffraction phenomenon. > > > > > > > > And some people, of course NOT A RELATIVIST, know enough to write a > > > > paper about this. Of course, it's labeled as the work of a crank. But he's > > > > right. Here is the link (enjoy it and choke on it, Dono the cretin). > > > > > > > > Deflection of Light by Refraction, Not Gravity (Curve Geometry of Spacetime) > > > > > > > > https://medium.com/@GatotSoedarto/the-deflection-of-light-by-refraction-not-gravity-49b9bd919aba > > > > > > fake stars is wat it is... > > > > i thought i explained dis before... > > > > If you take > > one photo > > from > > dat > > Webb's space photographs... > > and remove/delete > > ALL the stars (dat you call Gravitational lensing) > > > > then you won't have anything left in the photo > > to look at....just a couple of...puffs. > > go ahead...remove all stars (dat you call Gravitational lensing) > https://media-cldnry.s-nbcnews.com/image/upload/rockcms/2022-07/220711-james-webb-telescope-first-image-high-res-ew-628p-44ff0c.jpg > > they are all...fake stars. https://www.prodigitalsoftware.com/StarSpikesPro4.html -- The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable, to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable, and challenge the unchallengeable.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-12-07 07:36 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <48145a4b-9a3f-4a1f-9ec7-a110ac180532n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #596930 |
On Wednesday, December 7, 2022 at 4:32:33 AM UTC-3, The Starmaker wrote: > The Starmaker wrote: > > > > The Starmaker wrote: > > > > > > The Starmaker wrote: > > > > > > > > Richard Hertz wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Distant sources of light (starlight, galaxy light) comes radially toward us, here on Earth. It's a flat frontwave because it's far enough, so components of any > > > > > frequency travel at the same velocity. > > > > > > > > > > If a massive celestial object happens to be in the path of the source of light, > > > > > a classical phenomenon of DUAL DIFFRACTION COULD HAPPEN. > > > > > > > > > > For this to happen (and it's NOT gravitational lensing), the diffraction index of > > > > > the BOUNDARY of such celestial object HAS TO BE different of that of vacuum. > > > > > > > > > > Light pass TWICE through such BOUNDARY which, in the case of the Sun, > > > > > can be interpreted as a spherical SHELL that surrounds the object that > > > > > causes DIFFRACTION. > > > > > > > > > > As distant light ENTERS into such boundary, its components are affected > > > > > differently due to a lower speed of light (n > 1, c' = c/n), so wavelengths > > > > > are affected differently. BUT, when the light GETS OUT of the spherical shell, > > > > > every component of the distant source of light IS RESTORED to its original > > > > > wavelength. > > > > > > > > > > Meanwhile, in this DUAL DIFFRACTION EFFECT, frequency of light IS > > > > > PRESERVED all the time, because THE ENERGY OF LIGHT can't change. > > > > > > > > > > But light path is deflected a little bit, enough to EMERGE from the boundary > > > > > and keep moving TOWARD US, without any modification. > > > > > > > > > > As the DIFFRACTION EFFECT is completely dependent of the diffraction index > > > > > AND IF the path of light was coming toward us, different PHOTOS show > > > > > effects like: ring of light (the boundary n is constant for all the perimeter; > > > > > light comes through ONE or TWO spots in the boundary of the interfering > > > > > celestial body; many other effects, like the famous cross). > > > > > > > > > > CONCLUSION: Light diffraction by massive celestial bodies like the Sun (something that WORRIED Eddington enough to write an entire page on > > > > > his 1919 report, claiming that it was impossible "for him") and the famous > > > > > gravitational lensing ARE A GIANT LIE, an HOAX maintained for a century > > > > > just to justify Einstein's calculation of 1.75 arcsec deflection. > > > > > > > > > > Gravitational lensing doesn't exist. It's just a mere diffraction phenomenon. > > > > > > > > > > And some people, of course NOT A RELATIVIST, know enough to write a > > > > > paper about this. Of course, it's labeled as the work of a crank. But he's > > > > > right. Here is the link (enjoy it and choke on it, Dono the cretin). > > > > > > > > > > Deflection of Light by Refraction, Not Gravity (Curve Geometry of Spacetime) > > > > > > > > > > https://medium.com/@GatotSoedarto/the-deflection-of-light-by-refraction-not-gravity-49b9bd919aba > > > > > > > > fake stars is wat it is... > > > > > > i thought i explained dis before... > > > > > > If you take > > > one photo > > > from > > > dat > > > Webb's space photographs... > > > and remove/delete > > > ALL the stars (dat you call Gravitational lensing) > > > > > > then you won't have anything left in the photo > > > to look at....just a couple of...puffs. > > > > go ahead...remove all stars (dat you call Gravitational lensing) > > https://media-cldnry.s-nbcnews.com/image/upload/rockcms/2022-07/220711-james-webb-telescope-first-image-high-res-ew-628p-44ff0c.jpg > > > > they are all...fake stars. > https://www.prodigitalsoftware.com/StarSpikesPro4.html > -- > The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable, > to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable, > and challenge > the unchallengeable. Create and control every aspect of beautiful, realistic effects, based on mathematical simulation of light diffraction, resulting in attractive 3D-looking images. Try it now! 15 Day Fully Functional Free Trial. Spikes, Soft Flare, Ring Flare individually settable. Content-Aware - Smart Recognition of Stars. Effect Editor - Adjust Individual Effects or Add New. Store and Retrieve Favorite Settings. Works With 32 and 64 Bit Editors. 8, 16, 32 Bit Color and Grayscale Images. Math is 32 Bit for Highest Image Quality. Fully Color-Managed for professional color. Scrollable, Zoomable GPU-Accelerated Preview. Familiar Photoshop-Style Usability. Editor Integration - Selections, Layers, Masks. Supports Actions and Use as a Smart Filter. Customizable UI - Dark and Light Choices. Do you know if there is a commercial SW for gravitational lensing? Dono, JanPB, Paul, Tom and many others would like to give a try to it. They might feel like working at NASA.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-12-07 07:51 -0800 |
| Subject | Crank Richard Hertz frothes at the mouth |
| Message-ID | <ef8719aa-1f0f-49a6-b7b4-d370d66adbccn@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #596941 |
On Wednesday, December 7, 2022 at 7:36:36 AM UTC-8, Richard Hertz wrote: > snip cretinisms< Dick, Keep digging yourself deeper. Do you need a pick axe?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-12-07 07:07 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <0f3545f1-491d-43c3-9c3a-83bd91fd24f3n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #596383 |
On Monday, November 28, 2022 at 5:43:28 PM UTC-5, Richard Hertz wrote: > Distant sources of light (starlight, galaxy light) comes radially toward us, here on Earth. It's a flat frontwave because it's far enough, so components of any > frequency travel at the same velocity. > > If a massive celestial object happens to be in the path of the source of light, > a classical phenomenon of DUAL DIFFRACTION COULD HAPPEN. > > For this to happen (and it's NOT gravitational lensing), the diffraction index of > the BOUNDARY of such celestial object HAS TO BE different of that of vacuum. > > Light pass TWICE through such BOUNDARY which, in the case of the Sun, > can be interpreted as a spherical SHELL that surrounds the object that > causes DIFFRACTION. > > As distant light ENTERS into such boundary, its components are affected > differently due to a lower speed of light (n > 1, c' = c/n), so wavelengths > are affected differently. BUT, when the light GETS OUT of the spherical shell, > every component of the distant source of light IS RESTORED to its original > wavelength. > > Meanwhile, in this DUAL DIFFRACTION EFFECT, frequency of light IS > PRESERVED all the time, because THE ENERGY OF LIGHT can't change. > > But light path is deflected a little bit, enough to EMERGE from the boundary > and keep moving TOWARD US, without any modification. > > As the DIFFRACTION EFFECT is completely dependent of the diffraction index > AND IF the path of light was coming toward us, different PHOTOS show > effects like: ring of light (the boundary n is constant for all the perimeter; > light comes through ONE or TWO spots in the boundary of the interfering > celestial body; many other effects, like the famous cross). > > CONCLUSION: Light diffraction by massive celestial bodies like the Sun (something that WORRIED Eddington enough to write an entire page on > his 1919 report, claiming that it was impossible "for him") and the famous > gravitational lensing ARE A GIANT LIE, an HOAX maintained for a century > just to justify Einstein's calculation of 1.75 arcsec deflection. > > Gravitational lensing doesn't exist. It's just a mere diffraction phenomenon. > > And some people, of course NOT A RELATIVIST, know enough to write a > paper about this. Of course, it's labeled as the work of a crank. But he's > right. Here is the link (enjoy it and choke on it, Dono the cretin). > > Deflection of Light by Refraction, Not Gravity (Curve Geometry of Spacetime) > > https://medium.com/@GatotSoedarto/the-deflection-of-light-by-refraction-not-gravity-49b9bd919aba Light from the distance star is being transmitted by the E-Strings. When these E-Strings pass near the sun they curved around the sun then on their way to the earth. That's why the observed deflection.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 8 of 11 — ← Prev page 1 … 6 7 [8] 9 10 11 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web