Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #660564 > unrolled thread

Relativity claims to have proven that parallel lines meet.

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity

Contents

  Relativity claims to have proven that parallel lines meet. clzb93ynxj@att.net (LaurenceClarkCrossen) - 2025-01-19 17:26 +0000
    Re: Relativity claims to have proven that parallel lines meet. clzb93ynxj@att.net (LaurenceClarkCrossen) - 2025-01-19 23:12 +0000
      Re: Relativity claims to have proven that parallel lines meet. clzb93ynxj@att.net (LaurenceClarkCrossen) - 2025-01-20 19:41 +0000
        Re: Relativity claims to have proven that parallel lines meet. clzb93ynxj@att.net (LaurenceClarkCrossen) - 2025-01-20 19:43 +0000
    Re: Relativity claims to have proven that parallel lines meet. tomyee3@gmail.com (ProkaryoticCaspaseHomolog) - 2025-01-20 21:30 +0000
      Re: Relativity claims to have proven that parallel lines meet. Python <jp@python.invalid> - 2025-01-20 21:37 +0000
        Re: Relativity claims to have proven that parallel lines meet. clzb93ynxj@att.net (LaurenceClarkCrossen) - 2025-01-20 22:36 +0000
        Re: Relativity claims to have proven that parallel lines meet. clzb93ynxj@att.net (LaurenceClarkCrossen) - 2025-01-20 22:54 +0000
          Re: Relativity claims to have proven that parallel lines meet. Python <jp@python.invalid> - 2025-01-20 22:59 +0000
            Re: Relativity claims to have proven that parallel lines meet. clzb93ynxj@att.net (LaurenceClarkCrossen) - 2025-01-20 23:32 +0000
            Re: Relativity claims to have proven that parallel lines meet. clzb93ynxj@att.net (LaurenceClarkCrossen) - 2025-01-20 23:39 +0000
            Re: Relativity claims to have proven that parallel lines meet. Maciej Wozniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-01-21 05:59 +0100
        Re: Relativity claims to have proven that parallel lines meet. Maciej Wozniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-01-21 05:58 +0100
      Re: Relativity claims to have proven that parallel lines meet. clzb93ynxj@att.net (LaurenceClarkCrossen) - 2025-01-20 22:39 +0000
        Re: Relativity claims to have proven that parallel lines meet. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2025-01-21 21:42 -0800
          Re: Relativity claims to have proven that parallel lines meet. clzb93ynxj@att.net (LaurenceClarkCrossen) - 2025-01-22 06:09 +0000
            Re: Relativity claims to have proven that parallel lines meet. "Paul.B.Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2025-01-22 15:07 +0100
              Re: Relativity claims to have proven that parallel lines meet. clzb93ynxj@att.net (LaurenceClarkCrossen) - 2025-01-22 15:23 +0000
              Re: Relativity claims to have proven that parallel lines meet. clzb93ynxj@att.net (LaurenceClarkCrossen) - 2025-01-22 16:34 +0000
                Re: Relativity claims to have proven that parallel lines meet. "Paul.B.Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2025-01-24 12:36 +0100
              Re: Relativity claims to have proven that parallel lines meet. clzb93ynxj@att.net (LaurenceClarkCrossen) - 2025-01-22 17:30 +0000
              Re: Relativity claims to have proven that parallel lines meet. clzb93ynxj@att.net (LaurenceClarkCrossen) - 2025-01-22 18:04 +0000
            Re: Relativity claims to have proven that parallel lines meet. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2025-01-22 11:06 -0800
              Re: Relativity claims to have proven that parallel lines meet. clzb93ynxj@att.net (LaurenceClarkCrossen) - 2025-01-22 19:29 +0000
                Re: Relativity claims to have proven that parallel lines meet. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2025-01-22 13:34 -0800
                  Re: Relativity claims to have proven that parallel lines meet. clzb93ynxj@att.net (LaurenceClarkCrossen) - 2025-01-22 22:20 +0000
                  Re: Relativity claims to have proven that parallel lines meet. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2025-06-14 13:25 -0700
            Re: Relativity claims to have proven that parallel lines meet. nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2025-01-24 18:39 +0100
          Re: Relativity claims to have proven that parallel lines meet. nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2025-01-23 21:59 +0100
      Re: Relativity claims to have proven that parallel lines meet. clzb93ynxj@att.net (LaurenceClarkCrossen) - 2025-01-20 23:27 +0000
        Re: Relativity claims to have proven that parallel lines meet. clzb93ynxj@att.net (LaurenceClarkCrossen) - 2025-01-21 18:18 +0000
          Re: Relativity claims to have proven that parallel lines meet. Python <jp@python.invalid> - 2025-01-21 18:50 +0000
            Re: Relativity claims to have proven that parallel lines meet. Maciej Wozniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-01-21 19:58 +0100
            Re: Relativity claims to have proven that parallel lines meet. clzb93ynxj@att.net (LaurenceClarkCrossen) - 2025-01-21 19:42 +0000
            Re: Relativity claims to have proven that parallel lines meet. clzb93ynxj@att.net (LaurenceClarkCrossen) - 2025-01-21 19:55 +0000
            Re: Relativity claims to have proven that parallel lines meet. nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2025-01-21 22:18 +0100
              Re: Relativity claims to have proven that parallel lines meet. clzb93ynxj@att.net (LaurenceClarkCrossen) - 2025-01-21 21:30 +0000
              Re: Relativity claims to have proven that parallel lines meet. clzb93ynxj@att.net (LaurenceClarkCrossen) - 2025-01-21 21:37 +0000
              Re: Relativity claims to have proven that parallel lines meet. clzb93ynxj@att.net (LaurenceClarkCrossen) - 2025-01-21 21:39 +0000
              Re: Relativity claims to have proven that parallel lines meet. clzb93ynxj@att.net (LaurenceClarkCrossen) - 2025-01-21 21:46 +0000
              Re: Relativity claims to have proven that parallel lines meet. clzb93ynxj@att.net (LaurenceClarkCrossen) - 2025-01-21 21:50 +0000
              Re: Relativity claims to have proven that parallel lines meet. clzb93ynxj@att.net (LaurenceClarkCrossen) - 2025-01-21 22:03 +0000
              Re: Relativity claims to have proven that parallel lines meet. clzb93ynxj@att.net (LaurenceClarkCrossen) - 2025-01-21 22:05 +0000
              Re: Relativity claims to have proven that parallel lines meet. clzb93ynxj@att.net (LaurenceClarkCrossen) - 2025-01-21 22:09 +0000
              Re: Relativity claims to have proven that parallel lines meet. clzb93ynxj@att.net (LaurenceClarkCrossen) - 2025-01-21 22:11 +0000
                Re: Relativity claims to have proven that parallel lines meet. Python <jp@python.invalid> - 2025-01-21 23:37 +0000
                  Re: Relativity claims to have proven that parallel lines meet. clzb93ynxj@att.net (LaurenceClarkCrossen) - 2025-01-22 00:07 +0000
                  Re: Relativity claims to have proven that parallel lines meet. nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2025-01-22 09:40 +0100
      Re: Relativity claims to have proven that parallel lines meet. clzb93ynxj@att.net (LaurenceClarkCrossen) - 2025-01-21 18:38 +0000
      Re: Relativity claims to have proven that parallel lines meet. clzb93ynxj@att.net (LaurenceClarkCrossen) - 2025-01-21 18:43 +0000
      Re: Relativity claims to have proven that parallel lines meet. clzb93ynxj@att.net (LaurenceClarkCrossen) - 2025-01-21 19:44 +0000
      Re: Relativity claims to have proven that parallel lines meet. clzb93ynxj@att.net (LaurenceClarkCrossen) - 2025-01-21 19:46 +0000

Page 1 of 3  [1] 2 3  Next page →

#660564 — Relativity claims to have proven that parallel lines meet.

This is necessary because it claims to have proven the doubling of the
Newtonian deflection, which involves curved space and parallel lines
meeting.

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#660575

On Sun, 19 Jan 2025 17:26:08 +0000, LaurenceClarkCrossen wrote:

> This is necessary because it claims to have proven the doubling of the
> Newtonian deflection, which involves curved space and parallel lines
> meeting.

The derivation is fallacious, so it does not predict as follows:

After Newton's particle theory of light was discarded in the 19th
century due to experiments such as the double-slit experiment proving
light to be a wave. Relativity claims to have proven that gravity
affects light even though it would have no mass as a wave. It claims
gravity affects light twice as much as it does everything else. This
after Galileo proved that Aristotle was wrong and everything, no matter
how heavy, is affected the same, and after Eotvos proved that all
materials were affected exactly the same, unlike with magnetism. Carl
Sagan would call this an extraordinary claim requiring extraordinary
proof. Various experiments, including the observations of starlight
during eclipses, have allegedly proved at least two claims.

There is one more, and even more radical, claim involved by relativity
due to the derivation of its prediction. It claims to have calculated a
curving of space itself by gravity equal to the curving of light's path,
according to Newton, making the two add up to twice Newtonian. One
problem with this sufficient to refute it is that it is illogical. An
illogical claim cannot make a scientific prediction. It is illogical
because it involves the reification fallacy. However, suppose we remain
open to this idea. In that case, we find that the claim that the
deflection of light by twice Newtonian has been proven by experiment
necessarily involves claiming to have proven that parallel lines meet
because curved space involves that. In this way, relativity has made
three extraordinary claims allegedly proven at a stroke by these
experiments. In my opinion, the experiments have not and cannot prove
that parallel lines meet. Therefore, they cannot prove that space is
curved. Therefore, they cannot prove light is deflected twice Newtonian.
 That parallel lines could meet is a claim involving the reification
fallacy, so it cannot be true. Space is not a surface, so it cannot
curve. To derive a doubling of the deflection from parallel lines
meeting requires a reification fallacy, making the derivation false
because it is illogical. An illogical prediction cannot predict.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#660613

The derivation is proven wrong because it presumes parallel lines meet
to make space curve to double the deflection.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#660614

This disproof of its derivation proves general relativity wrong.
Relativity predicts that light has mass, that it is affected twice as
much by that mass as everything else, and that parallel lines meet. All
three of these predictions are claimed to be proven by experiments.
However, that involves the reification fallacy regardless of the
calculations involved in arriving at the amount of curvature of space.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#660617

On Sun, 19 Jan 2025 17:26:08 +0000, LaurenceClarkCrossen wrote:

> This is necessary because it claims to have proven the doubling of the
> Newtonian deflection, which involves curved space and parallel lines
> meeting.

You really don't understand any of this.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#660618

Le 20/01/2025 à 22:30, tomyee3@gmail.com (ProkaryoticCaspaseHomolog) a 
écrit :
> On Sun, 19 Jan 2025 17:26:08 +0000, LaurenceClarkCrossen wrote:
> 
>> This is necessary because it claims to have proven the doubling of the
>> Newtonian deflection, which involves curved space and parallel lines
>> meeting.
> 
> You really don't understand any of this.

"LaurenceClarkCrossen" is not sincere, she/he is a troll who has decided 
to have fun by posting nonsense to annoy people. She/he even admitted it 
when she/he started to post here mentioning "Androcles" not that long ago.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#660621

On Mon, 20 Jan 2025 21:37:36 +0000, Python wrote:

> Le 20/01/2025 à 22:30, tomyee3@gmail.com (ProkaryoticCaspaseHomolog) a
> écrit :
>> On Sun, 19 Jan 2025 17:26:08 +0000, LaurenceClarkCrossen wrote:
>>
>>> This is necessary because it claims to have proven the doubling of the
>>> Newtonian deflection, which involves curved space and parallel lines
>>> meeting.
>>
>> You really don't understand any of this.
>
> "LaurenceClarkCrossen" is not sincere, she/he is a troll who has decided
> to have fun by posting nonsense to annoy people. She/he even admitted it
> when she/he started to post here mentioning "Androcles" not that long
> ago.
It is well known that ideologues defend their ideology by projecting
their own faults, as in politics. You couldn't give your source since I
didn't mention that name and don't know what it refers to. However,
relativity does fall under the classification of a folk tale. Why can't
you answer the criticism?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#660622

On Mon, 20 Jan 2025 21:37:36 +0000, Python wrote:

> Le 20/01/2025 à 22:30, tomyee3@gmail.com (ProkaryoticCaspaseHomolog) a
> écrit :
>> On Sun, 19 Jan 2025 17:26:08 +0000, LaurenceClarkCrossen wrote:
>>
>>> This is necessary because it claims to have proven the doubling of the
>>> Newtonian deflection, which involves curved space and parallel lines
>>> meeting.
>>
>> You really don't understand any of this.
>
> "LaurenceClarkCrossen" is not sincere, she/he is a troll who has decided
> to have fun by posting nonsense to annoy people. She/he even admitted it
> when she/he started to post here mentioning "Androcles" not that long
> ago.
You're the one who thinks math can bend space when, as Paul
acknowledges, space is not a surface.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#660623

Le 20/01/2025 à 23:54, clzb93ynxj@att.net (LaurenceClarkCrossen) a écrit 
:
> On Mon, 20 Jan 2025 21:37:36 +0000, Python wrote:
> 
>> Le 20/01/2025 à 22:30, tomyee3@gmail.com (ProkaryoticCaspaseHomolog) a
>> écrit :
>>> On Sun, 19 Jan 2025 17:26:08 +0000, LaurenceClarkCrossen wrote:
>>>
>>>> This is necessary because it claims to have proven the doubling of the
>>>> Newtonian deflection, which involves curved space and parallel lines
>>>> meeting.
>>>
>>> You really don't understand any of this.
>>
>> "LaurenceClarkCrossen" is not sincere, she/he is a troll who has decided
>> to have fun by posting nonsense to annoy people. She/he even admitted it
>> when she/he started to post here mentioning "Androcles" not that long
>> ago.
> You're the one who thinks math can bend space when, as Paul
> acknowledges, space is not a surface.

Don't use too silly arguments, try to be a realist crank at least!

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#660625

On Mon, 20 Jan 2025 22:59:24 +0000, Python wrote:

> Le 20/01/2025 à 23:54, clzb93ynxj@att.net (LaurenceClarkCrossen) a écrit
> :
>> On Mon, 20 Jan 2025 21:37:36 +0000, Python wrote:
>>
>>> Le 20/01/2025 à 22:30, tomyee3@gmail.com (ProkaryoticCaspaseHomolog) a
>>> écrit :
>>>> On Sun, 19 Jan 2025 17:26:08 +0000, LaurenceClarkCrossen wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> This is necessary because it claims to have proven the doubling of the
>>>>> Newtonian deflection, which involves curved space and parallel lines
>>>>> meeting.
>>>>
>>>> You really don't understand any of this.
>>>
>>> "LaurenceClarkCrossen" is not sincere, she/he is a troll who has decided
>>> to have fun by posting nonsense to annoy people. She/he even admitted it
>>> when she/he started to post here mentioning "Androcles" not that long
>>> ago.
>> You're the one who thinks math can bend space when, as Paul
>> acknowledges, space is not a surface.
>
> Don't use too silly arguments, try to be a realist crank at least!
So far, none of you have refuted my criticism in the slightest because
you can't.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#660626

On Mon, 20 Jan 2025 22:59:24 +0000, Python wrote:

> Le 20/01/2025 à 23:54, clzb93ynxj@att.net (LaurenceClarkCrossen) a écrit
> :
>> On Mon, 20 Jan 2025 21:37:36 +0000, Python wrote:
>>
>>> Le 20/01/2025 à 22:30, tomyee3@gmail.com (ProkaryoticCaspaseHomolog) a
>>> écrit :
>>>> On Sun, 19 Jan 2025 17:26:08 +0000, LaurenceClarkCrossen wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> This is necessary because it claims to have proven the doubling of the
>>>>> Newtonian deflection, which involves curved space and parallel lines
>>>>> meeting.
>>>>
>>>> You really don't understand any of this.
>>>
>>> "LaurenceClarkCrossen" is not sincere, she/he is a troll who has decided
>>> to have fun by posting nonsense to annoy people. She/he even admitted it
>>> when she/he started to post here mentioning "Androcles" not that long
>>> ago.
>> You're the one who thinks math can bend space when, as Paul
>> acknowledges, space is not a surface.
>
> Don't use too silly arguments, try to be a realist crank at least!
So far, none of you have indicated you even understood the criticism.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#660633

W dniu 20.01.2025 o 23:59, Python pisze:
> Le 20/01/2025 à 23:54, clzb93ynxj@att.net (LaurenceClarkCrossen) a écrit :
>> On Mon, 20 Jan 2025 21:37:36 +0000, Python wrote:
>>
>>> Le 20/01/2025 à 22:30, tomyee3@gmail.com (ProkaryoticCaspaseHomolog) a
>>> écrit :
>>>> On Sun, 19 Jan 2025 17:26:08 +0000, LaurenceClarkCrossen wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> This is necessary because it claims to have proven the doubling of the
>>>>> Newtonian deflection, which involves curved space and parallel lines
>>>>> meeting.
>>>>
>>>> You really don't understand any of this.
>>>
>>> "LaurenceClarkCrossen" is not sincere, she/he is a troll who has decided
>>> to have fun by posting nonsense to annoy people. She/he even admitted it
>>> when she/he started to post here mentioning "Androcles" not that long
>>> ago.
>> You're the one who thinks math can bend space when, as Paul
>> acknowledges, space is not a surface.
> 
> Don't use too silly arguments, try to be a realist crank at least!

Don't be like poor stinker Python!

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#660632

W dniu 20.01.2025 o 22:37, Python pisze:
> Le 20/01/2025 à 22:30, tomyee3@gmail.com (ProkaryoticCaspaseHomolog) a 
> écrit :
>> On Sun, 19 Jan 2025 17:26:08 +0000, LaurenceClarkCrossen wrote:
>>
>>> This is necessary because it claims to have proven the doubling of the
>>> Newtonian deflection, which involves curved space and parallel lines
>>> meeting.
>>
>> You really don't understand any of this.
> 
> "LaurenceClarkCrossen" is not sincere, she/he is a troll who has decided 
> to have fun by posting nonsense to annoy people. She/he even admitted it 
> when she/he started to post here mentioning "Androcles" not that long ago.

Python is not sincere, he is a troll who has
decided to devote his shitty life for spitting
and slandering the enemies of his absurd religion.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#660620

On Mon, 20 Jan 2025 21:30:17 +0000, ProkaryoticCaspaseHomolog wrote:

> On Sun, 19 Jan 2025 17:26:08 +0000, LaurenceClarkCrossen wrote:
>
>> This is necessary because it claims to have proven the doubling of the
>> Newtonian deflection, which involves curved space and parallel lines
>> meeting.
>
> You really don't understand any of this.
You really don't understand logic, as proven by your failure to answer
the criticism directly by resorting to ad hominem. You lose.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#660686

LaurenceClarkCrossen wrote:
> 
> On Mon, 20 Jan 2025 21:30:17 +0000, ProkaryoticCaspaseHomolog wrote:
> 
> > On Sun, 19 Jan 2025 17:26:08 +0000, LaurenceClarkCrossen wrote:
> >
> >> This is necessary because it claims to have proven the doubling of the
> >> Newtonian deflection, which involves curved space and parallel lines
> >> meeting.
> >
> > You really don't understand any of this.
> You really don't understand logic, as proven by your failure to answer
> the criticism directly by resorting to ad hominem. You lose.


Every artist knows parallel lines meet. 

If you draw a drawing of a city...the parallel lines meet to a point.

It is the point of perspective.

But it is an illusion.

Parallel lines don't meet before the big bang...


-- 
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]

#660687

On Wed, 22 Jan 2025 5:42:10 +0000, The Starmaker wrote:

> LaurenceClarkCrossen wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, 20 Jan 2025 21:30:17 +0000, ProkaryoticCaspaseHomolog wrote:
>>
>>> On Sun, 19 Jan 2025 17:26:08 +0000, LaurenceClarkCrossen wrote:
>>>
>>>> This is necessary because it claims to have proven the doubling of the
>>>> Newtonian deflection, which involves curved space and parallel lines
>>>> meeting.
>>>
>>> You really don't understand any of this.
>> You really don't understand logic, as proven by your failure to answer
>> the criticism directly by resorting to ad hominem. You lose.
>
>
> Every artist knows parallel lines meet.
>
> If you draw a drawing of a city...the parallel lines meet to a point.
>
> It is the point of perspective.
>
> But it is an illusion.
>
> Parallel lines don't meet before the big bang...
>
Thank you, but the refraction of sunlight that keeps the Sun visible
after astronomical sunset and the bending of starlight during an eclipse
are not perspectival or illusions.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#660697

Den 22.01.2025 07:09, skrev LaurenceClarkCrossen:
> Thank you, but the refraction of sunlight that keeps the Sun visible
> after astronomical sunset and the bending of starlight during an eclipse
> are not perspectival or illusions.

Have you still not learned the difference between
refraction and gravitational deflection, Laurence?

Do you remember that you made fool of yourself when
you claimed that Poor said that Einstein's equation
was "a refraction formula"?
What Poor said was:
"The mathematical formula, by which Einstein calculated his
  deflection of 1.75 seconds for light rays passing the edge
  of the sun, is a well known and simple formula of physical optics"

The equation Θ = 4GM/Δ⋅c² is a gravitational deflection formula,
but since you think it is "a refraction formula" you can
try to use it to explain why the Sun is seen above the horizon
when it really is below it. Good luck! :-D

-- 
Paul

https://paulba.no/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#660699

On Wed, 22 Jan 2025 14:07:23 +0000, Paul.B.Andersen wrote:

> Den 22.01.2025 07:09, skrev LaurenceClarkCrossen:
>> Thank you, but the refraction of sunlight that keeps the Sun visible
>> after astronomical sunset and the bending of starlight during an eclipse
>> are not perspectival or illusions.
>
> Have you still not learned the difference between
> refraction and gravitational deflection, Laurence?
>
> Do you remember that you made fool of yourself when
> you claimed that Poor said that Einstein's equation
> was "a refraction formula"?
> What Poor said was:
> "The mathematical formula, by which Einstein calculated his
>   deflection of 1.75 seconds for light rays passing the edge
>   of the sun, is a well known and simple formula of physical optics"
>
> The equation Θ = 4GM/Δ⋅c² is a gravitational deflection formula,
> but since you think it is "a refraction formula" you can
> try to use it to explain why the Sun is seen above the horizon
> when it really is below it. Good luck! :-D
For the experiments to prove the doubling, they would have to prove that
space curves and parallel lines meet. They do not and cannot. They have
proven nothing.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#660700

On Wed, 22 Jan 2025 14:07:23 +0000, Paul.B.Andersen wrote:

> Den 22.01.2025 07:09, skrev LaurenceClarkCrossen:
>> Thank you, but the refraction of sunlight that keeps the Sun visible
>> after astronomical sunset and the bending of starlight during an eclipse
>> are not perspectival or illusions.
>
> Have you still not learned the difference between
> refraction and gravitational deflection, Laurence?
>
> Do you remember that you made fool of yourself when
> you claimed that Poor said that Einstein's equation
> was "a refraction formula"?
> What Poor said was:
> "The mathematical formula, by which Einstein calculated his
>   deflection of 1.75 seconds for light rays passing the edge
>   of the sun, is a well known and simple formula of physical optics"
>
> The equation Θ = 4GM/Δ⋅c² is a gravitational deflection formula,
> but since you think it is "a refraction formula" you can
> try to use it to explain why the Sun is seen above the horizon
> when it really is below it. Good luck! :-D
It doesn't matter what formula is used to bend space because math cannot
curve space.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#660767

Den 22.01.2025 17:34, skrev LaurenceClarkCrossen:
> On Wed, 22 Jan 2025 14:07:23 +0000, Paul.B.Andersen wrote:
> 
> It doesn't matter what formula is used to bend space because math cannot
> curve space.

You are really sharp today, Laurence! :-D

But I will tell you a secret:

According to GR it is mass and energy that curve spacetime.

-- 
Paul

https://paulba.no/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 1 of 3  [1] 2 3  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity

csiph-web