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

Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #616874 > unrolled thread

It should now be easy to disprove 1.75 arc seconds....

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

Contents

  It should now be easy to disprove 1.75 arc seconds.... patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2023-08-05 12:19 -0700
    Re: It should now be easy to disprove 1.75 arc seconds.... Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2023-08-05 13:28 -0700
      Re: It should now be easy to disprove 1.75 arc seconds.... patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2023-08-05 13:34 -0700
      Re: It should now be easy to disprove 1.75 arc seconds.... Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2023-08-09 07:42 -0700
        Re: It should now be easy to disprove 1.75 arc seconds.... Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-08-09 12:42 -0400
          Re: It should now be easy to disprove 1.75 arc seconds.... Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2023-08-09 09:52 -0700
            Re: It should now be easy to disprove 1.75 arc seconds.... Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-08-09 13:09 -0400
              Re: It should now be easy to disprove 1.75 arc seconds.... Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2023-08-09 13:48 -0700
                Re: It should now be easy to disprove 1.75 arc seconds.... Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-08-10 08:51 -0400
                  Re: It should now be easy to disprove 1.75 arc seconds.... Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-08-10 07:36 -0700
                  Re: It should now be easy to disprove 1.75 arc seconds.... Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2023-08-10 07:52 -0700
                    Re: It should now be easy to disprove 1.75 arc seconds.... Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-08-10 11:24 -0400
                      Re: It should now be easy to disprove 1.75 arc seconds.... Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2023-08-10 09:45 -0700
                        Re: It should now be easy to disprove 1.75 arc seconds.... Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-08-10 18:51 -0400
                          Re: It should now be easy to disprove 1.75 arc seconds.... Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2023-08-10 16:02 -0700
                            Re: It should now be easy to disprove 1.75 arc seconds.... Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-08-10 20:32 -0400
                          Re: It should now be easy to disprove 1.75 arc seconds.... Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-08-10 21:52 -0700
                    Cretin Crank Richard Hertz foms at the mouth "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2023-08-10 08:28 -0700
                Re: It should now be easy to disprove 1.75 arc seconds.... Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2023-08-11 19:40 -0700
                  Re: It should now be easy to disprove 1.75 arc seconds.... patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2023-08-11 21:45 -0700
                  Crank Richard Hertz takes it up the ass "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2023-08-12 08:56 -0700
                    Re: Crank Richard Hertz takes it up the ass Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2023-08-12 09:34 -0700
                      Re: Crank Richard Hertz takes it up the ass "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2023-08-12 10:05 -0700
              Re: It should now be easy to disprove 1.75 arc seconds.... nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2023-08-09 23:31 +0200
                Re: It should now be easy to disprove 1.75 arc seconds.... Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2023-08-09 15:26 -0700
                  Re: It should now be easy to disprove 1.75 arc seconds.... "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2023-08-09 15:56 -0700
                    Re: It should now be easy to disprove 1.75 arc seconds.... Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2023-08-09 16:06 -0700
                      Re: It should now be easy to disprove 1.75 arc seconds.... "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2023-08-09 16:19 -0700
                    Re: It should now be easy to disprove 1.75 arc seconds.... nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2023-08-10 11:37 +0200
                      Re: It should now be easy to disprove 1.75 arc seconds.... Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-08-10 03:42 -0700
                      Re: It should now be easy to disprove 1.75 arc seconds.... "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2023-08-10 07:31 -0700
                        Re: It should now be easy to disprove 1.75 arc seconds.... nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2023-08-11 13:25 +0200
                          Re: It should now be easy to disprove 1.75 arc seconds.... "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2023-08-11 07:07 -0700
                Re: It should now be easy to disprove 1.75 arc seconds.... Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-08-09 21:02 -0700
            Re: It should now be easy to disprove 1.75 arc seconds.... Athel Cornish-Bowden <athel.cb@gmail.com> - 2023-08-09 19:12 +0200
    Re: It should now be easy to disprove 1.75 arc seconds.... Tom Roberts <tjoberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2023-08-07 12:26 -0500
      Re: It should now be easy to disprove 1.75 arc seconds.... patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2023-08-07 10:29 -0700
        Re: It should now be easy to disprove 1.75 arc seconds.... Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> - 2023-08-07 14:19 -0700
          Re: It should now be easy to disprove 1.75 arc seconds.... patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2023-08-07 14:40 -0700
            Re: It should now be easy to disprove 1.75 arc seconds.... Tom Roberts <tjoberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2023-08-07 18:48 -0500
              Re: It should now be easy to disprove 1.75 arc seconds.... patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2023-08-07 17:08 -0700
              Re: It should now be easy to disprove 1.75 arc seconds.... Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2023-08-07 19:36 -0700
          Re: It should now be easy to disprove 1.75 arc seconds.... patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2023-08-07 14:41 -0700
          Re: It should now be easy to disprove 1.75 arc seconds.... patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2023-08-07 14:48 -0700
          Re: It should now be easy to disprove 1.75 arc seconds.... nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2023-08-08 13:47 +0200
            Re: It should now be easy to disprove 1.75 arc seconds.... Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-08-08 05:12 -0700
            Re: It should now be easy to disprove 1.75 arc seconds.... patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2023-08-08 07:25 -0700
            Re: It should now be easy to disprove 1.75 arc seconds.... Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-08-08 11:03 -0400
              Re: It should now be easy to disprove 1.75 arc seconds.... Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-08-08 08:58 -0700
              Re: It should now be easy to disprove 1.75 arc seconds.... nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2023-08-09 10:06 +0200
                Re: It should now be easy to disprove 1.75 arc seconds.... Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-08-09 03:20 -0700
                  Re: It should now be easy to disprove 1.75 arc seconds.... nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2023-08-09 13:24 +0200
                    Re: It should now be easy to disprove 1.75 arc seconds.... Athel Cornish-Bowden <athel.cb@gmail.com> - 2023-08-09 13:30 +0200
                      Re: It should now be easy to disprove 1.75 arc seconds.... Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-08-09 04:38 -0700
                    Re: It should now be easy to disprove 1.75 arc seconds.... Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-08-09 04:35 -0700
                      Re: It should now be easy to disprove 1.75 arc seconds.... nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2023-08-09 14:34 +0200
                        Re: It should now be easy to disprove 1.75 arc seconds.... Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-08-09 06:14 -0700
                        Re: It should now be easy to disprove 1.75 arc seconds.... Athel Cornish-Bowden <athel.cb@gmail.com> - 2023-08-09 19:08 +0200
                Re: It should now be easy to disprove 1.75 arc seconds.... Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-08-10 11:37 -0400
                  Re: It should now be easy to disprove 1.75 arc seconds.... Ho Eidelman <eili@alaeialo.oe> - 2023-08-10 17:48 +0000
                  Re: It should now be easy to disprove 1.75 arc seconds.... nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2023-08-11 13:25 +0200
                    Re: It should now be easy to disprove 1.75 arc seconds.... Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-08-11 04:38 -0700
        Re: It should now be easy to disprove 1.75 arc seconds.... "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2023-08-08 14:49 +0200
          Re: It should now be easy to disprove 1.75 arc seconds.... Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-08-08 06:23 -0700
          Re: It should now be easy to disprove 1.75 arc seconds.... patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2023-08-08 08:16 -0700
            Re: It should now be easy to disprove 1.75 arc seconds.... Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-08-08 14:39 -0400
              Re: It should now be easy to disprove 1.75 arc seconds.... Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-08-08 21:35 -0700
      Re: It should now be easy to disprove 1.75 arc seconds.... Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-08-07 10:55 -0700

Page 2 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4  Next page →

#617455 — Crank Richard Hertz takes it up the ass

On Friday, August 11, 2023 at 7:40:20 PM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:

> During half his orbit (6 months), Hipparcos could take pictures with the Sun at its back, 


Dumbestfuck,

It shows that if you take enough boots applied to your behind , you finally learn the basics




>but during the other 6 months, the Sun was 
> "contaminating" the exposure of the photos with its high luminosity, as it was between Hipparcos and the Milky Way. 
> 

Dumbestdumbfuck,

This is why neither Hipparcos, nor Gaia, nor any other device attempt to measure the light bending when oriented straight at the Sun (unless the Sun is eclipsed by some other celestial body).  You keep outdoing yourself (in terms of imbecility).

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

#617457 — Re: Crank Richard Hertz takes it up the ass

On Saturday, August 12, 2023 at 12:56:39 PM UTC-3, Dono. wrote:
> On Friday, August 11, 2023 at 7:40:20 PM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:
> > During half his orbit (6 months), Hipparcos could take pictures with the Sun at its back,
> Dumbestfuck, 
> 
> It shows that if you take enough boots applied to your behind , you finally learn the basics
> >but during the other 6 months, the Sun was 
> > "contaminating" the exposure of the photos with its high luminosity, as it was between Hipparcos and the Milky Way. 
> >
> Dumbestdumbfuck, 
> 
> This is why neither Hipparcos, nor Gaia, nor any other device attempt to measure the light bending when oriented straight at the Sun (unless the Sun is eclipsed by some other celestial body). You keep outdoing yourself (in terms of imbecility).

IMBECILE!

How could anybody, then, claim any "gravitational starlight deflection" IF the source of the problem (Sun) is 150 million Km on the
back of Hipparcos?

See why you are A FUCKING RETARDED? Go back to school.

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

#617460 — Re: Crank Richard Hertz takes it up the ass

On Saturday, August 12, 2023 at 9:34:07 AM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:
> On Saturday, August 12, 2023 at 12:56:39 PM UTC-3, Dono. wrote: 
> > On Friday, August 11, 2023 at 7:40:20 PM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote: 
> > > During half his orbit (6 months), Hipparcos could take pictures with the Sun at its back, 
> > Dumbestfuck, 
> > 
> > It shows that if you take enough boots applied to your behind , you finally learn the basics 
> > >but during the other 6 months, the Sun was 
> > > "contaminating" the exposure of the photos with its high luminosity, as it was between Hipparcos and the Milky Way. 
> > > 
> > Dumbestdumbfuck, 
> > 
> > This is why neither Hipparcos, nor Gaia, nor any other device attempt to measure the light bending when oriented straight at the Sun (unless the Sun is eclipsed by some other celestial body). You keep outdoing yourself (in terms of imbecility).
> IMBECILE! 
> 

You sure are, Dick


> How could anybody, then, claim any "gravitational starlight deflection" IF the source of the problem (Sun) is 150 million Km on the 
> back of Hipparcos? 
> 

As explained several times already, there is no deflection in this case. But there is measurable deflection when the angle is 90 degrees or less. You love eating shit, crank.


> See why am I  A FUCKING RETARDED? 

Because you were born this way. 

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

#617221

Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> wrote:

> On 8/9/2023 12:52 PM, Richard Hertz wrote:
> > On Wednesday, August 9, 2023 at 1:42:26?PM UTC-3, Volney wrote:
> >> On 8/9/2023 10:42 AM, Richard Hertz wrote:
> >>
> >>> IT WAS AN HOAX!
> >>
> >> The only problem with that is that there have been many eclipses since
> >> then, and light deflection has been measured for them as well, and they
> >> confirm GR predictions.
> >>
> >> Cranks often believe that a breakthrough experiment is the end of the
> >> discussion as well. Therefore cranks believe if they can shoot down just
> >> the one single experiment, they "win". But the experiments are repeated
> >> frequently, often because a technology breakthrough allowed the
> >> breakthrough experiment in the first place, but in the future they're no
> >> big deal.
> >>
> >> These days, we don't even need an eclipse. Satellites with a
> >> sun-blocking shade (creating their personal eclipse) can detect
> >> deflection at any time. Also ultra-sensitive measurements that aren't
> >> even looking right at the sun (Hipparcos, GAIA etc.) work without any
> >> eclipse.
> > 
> > HIPPARCOS PROVIDING DATA ABOUT STARLIGHT DEFLECTION? BULLSHIT, AS
> > ALWAYS, PROPAGATED BY RELATIVISTS, WHO ALWAYS TRY TO RE-WRITE HISTORY
> > FAVORING EINSTEIN (A JEW THING). READ THIS:
> > 
> > 
> > https://groups.google.com/g/sci.physics.relativity/c/3h7sfJNDOeQ/m/SUkjAPt3A
AAJ
> > 
> Your post states that Hipparcos, despite being sub-optimal, measured to
> an accuracy of 0.001 arc second, which is far better than the 1.75 arc
> seconds GR predicts. 20 times better than terrestrial estimates, also.
> 
> Second, what about GAIA and "etc."? Your mention of Hipparcos and 
> nothing else is actually a variation of trying to shoot down a 
> breakthrough experiment and ignoring all followups (almost always at 
> much better accuracy, like GAIA). Shoot down a troubled mission like 
> Hipparcos and you think you "win"?

There is nothing to 'shoot down'.
The fact that Hipparcos started out with an inaccurate database
of preliminary positions is no limitation. 
Starting with inaccuracate data, observing, refining the data,
and iterating the process is standard experimental procedure.
(even without appeal to Bayesian reasoning)

As for GAIA, it measures the absolute positions ab initio,
and achieves about 10 microarcsecond precision. (yes, that is micro)
The correction for general relativistic deflection is necessary
because GAIA measures each star several times,
at different times of the year, so at different distances from the sun,

Jan

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

#617224

On Wednesday, August 9, 2023 at 6:31:48 PM UTC-3, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> Volney <vol...@invalid.invalid> wrote: 
> 
> > On 8/9/2023 12:52 PM, Richard Hertz wrote:
> > > On Wednesday, August 9, 2023 at 1:42:26?PM UTC-3, Volney wrote: 
> > >> On 8/9/2023 10:42 AM, Richard Hertz wrote: 
> > >> 
> > >>> IT WAS AN HOAX! 
> > >> 
> > >> The only problem with that is that there have been many eclipses since 
> > >> then, and light deflection has been measured for them as well, and they 
> > >> confirm GR predictions. 
> > >> 
> > >> Cranks often believe that a breakthrough experiment is the end of the 
> > >> discussion as well. Therefore cranks believe if they can shoot down just 
> > >> the one single experiment, they "win". But the experiments are repeated 
> > >> frequently, often because a technology breakthrough allowed the 
> > >> breakthrough experiment in the first place, but in the future they're no 
> > >> big deal. 
> > >> 
> > >> These days, we don't even need an eclipse. Satellites with a 
> > >> sun-blocking shade (creating their personal eclipse) can detect 
> > >> deflection at any time. Also ultra-sensitive measurements that aren't 
> > >> even looking right at the sun (Hipparcos, GAIA etc.) work without any 
> > >> eclipse. 
> > > 
> > > HIPPARCOS PROVIDING DATA ABOUT STARLIGHT DEFLECTION? BULLSHIT, AS 
> > > ALWAYS, PROPAGATED BY RELATIVISTS, WHO ALWAYS TRY TO RE-WRITE HISTORY 
> > > FAVORING EINSTEIN (A JEW THING). READ THIS: 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > https://groups.google.com/g/sci.physics.relativity/c/3h7sfJNDOeQ/m/SUkjAPt3A 
> AAJ 
> > > 
> > Your post states that Hipparcos, despite being sub-optimal, measured to 
> > an accuracy of 0.001 arc second, which is far better than the 1.75 arc 
> > seconds GR predicts. 20 times better than terrestrial estimates, also. 
> > 
> > Second, what about GAIA and "etc."? Your mention of Hipparcos and 
> > nothing else is actually a variation of trying to shoot down a 
> > breakthrough experiment and ignoring all followups (almost always at 
> > much better accuracy, like GAIA). Shoot down a troubled mission like 
> > Hipparcos and you think you "win"?
> There is nothing to 'shoot down'. 
> The fact that Hipparcos started out with an inaccurate database 
> of preliminary positions is no limitation. 
> Starting with inaccuracate data, observing, refining the data, 
> and iterating the process is standard experimental procedure. 
> (even without appeal to Bayesian reasoning) 
> 
> As for GAIA, it measures the absolute positions ab initio, 
> and achieves about 10 microarcsecond precision. (yes, that is micro) 
> The correction for general relativistic deflection is necessary 
> because GAIA measures each star several times, 
> at different times of the year, so at different distances from the sun, 
> 
> Jan

Imbecile, you're using the excuse that x + y = 3, so y = 3 - x. Now choose the value of x that fulfill your relativistic wet dreams.

Do you understand this fallacy? 

You can't use a single equation that contain both radial distance (from parallax measurements, 6 months apart) and the
ALLEGED starlight deflection. You need a second ABSOLUTE MEASUREMENT to be included in another equation, to the least.

But you're too fanatic and indoctrinated to see reality. You live in your einstenian world, akin to your religion.

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

#617226

On Wednesday, August 9, 2023 at 3:26:25 PM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:
>
> You can't use a single equation that contain both radial distance (from parallax measurements, 6 months apart) and the 
> ALLEGED starlight deflection.

Dumbestfuck


There is no starlight bending for the measurements made far away from the Sun.

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

#617227

On Wednesday, August 9, 2023 at 7:57:01 PM UTC-3, Dono. wrote:
> On Wednesday, August 9, 2023 at 3:26:25 PM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote: 
> > 
> > You can't use a single equation that contain both radial distance (from parallax measurements, 6 months apart) and the 
> > ALLEGED starlight deflection.
> Dumbestfuck 
> 
> 
> There is no starlight bending for the measurements made far away from the Sun.

Tell that to Volney and Roberts (and Paul).

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

#617229

On Wednesday, August 9, 2023 at 4:06:14 PM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:
> On Wednesday, August 9, 2023 at 7:57:01 PM UTC-3, Dono. wrote: 
> > On Wednesday, August 9, 2023 at 3:26:25 PM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote: 
> > > 
> > > You can't use a single equation that contain both radial distance (from parallax measurements, 6 months apart) and the 
> > > ALLEGED starlight deflection. 
> > Dumbestfuck 
> > 
> > 
> > There is no starlight bending for the measurements made far away from the Sun.
> Tell that to Volney and Roberts (and Paul).

That you are the dumbestfuck? They know. 

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

#617255

Dono. <eggy20011951@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Wednesday, August 9, 2023 at 3:26:25?PM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:
> >
> > You can't use a single equation that contain both radial distance (from
> > parallax measurements, 6 months apart) and the ALLEGED starlight
> > deflection.
> 
> Dumbestfuck
> 
> 
> There is no starlight bending for the measurements made far away from the Sun.

You really should bone up on your general relativity.
There is a gravitational deflection for all stars, all over the sky.
(except those precisely opposite of the Sun)

The gravitational deflection for stars seen at right angles to the sun
is about a milliarcsecond, iirc. Should I look it up for you?

This is well within the measurement accuracy of Hipparcos
and even more so, of GAIA, so it needs to be corrected for
to get the right star coordinates.
If not corrected for things like the measured parallax
will be completely wrong

Jan

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

#617256

On Thursday, 10 August 2023 at 11:37:07 UTC+2, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> Dono. <eggy20...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Wednesday, August 9, 2023 at 3:26:25?PM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote: 
> > > 
> > > You can't use a single equation that contain both radial distance (from 
> > > parallax measurements, 6 months apart) and the ALLEGED starlight 
> > > deflection. 
> > 
> > Dumbestfuck 
> > 
> > 
> > There is no starlight bending for the measurements made far away from the Sun.
> You really should bone up on your general relativity. 
> There is a gravitational deflection for all stars, all over the sky. 
> (except those precisely opposite of the Sun) 
> 
> The gravitational deflection for stars seen at right angles to the sun 
> is about a milliarcsecond, iirc. Should I look it up for you? 


Sorry, trash, according to your precious Shit
light [in vacuum] always takes straight/geodesic
path.
And your "1.75 arcseconds" means only that
you're not really stupid enough to reject basic
[euclidean] math, as your idiot guru has taught
you.

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

#617266

On Thursday, August 10, 2023 at 2:37:07 AM UTC-7, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> Dono. <eggy20...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Wednesday, August 9, 2023 at 3:26:25?PM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote: 
> > > 
> > > You can't use a single equation that contain both radial distance (from 
> > > parallax measurements, 6 months apart) and the ALLEGED starlight 
> > > deflection. 
> > 
> > Dumbestfuck 
> > 
> > 
> > There is no starlight bending for the measurements made far away from the Sun.
> You really should bone up on your general relativity. 

> The gravitational deflection for stars seen at right angles to the Sun"  


Err, you missed the "far away from the Sun". 

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

#617350

Dono. <eggy20011951@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Thursday, August 10, 2023 at 2:37:07?AM UTC-7, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> > Dono. <eggy20...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Wednesday, August 9, 2023 at 3:26:25?PM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > You can't use a single equation that contain both radial distance (from
> > > > parallax measurements, 6 months apart) and the ALLEGED starlight
> > > > deflection. 
> > > 
> > > Dumbestfuck 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > There is no starlight bending for the measurements made far away from
> > > the Sun.
> > You really should bone up on your general relativity. 
> 
> > The gravitational deflection for stars seen at right angles to the Sun"
> 
> 
> Err, you missed the "far away from the Sun". 

And that is supposed to mean what?
That GAIA should be made to orbit Pluto?
As it is, it orbits L2, and it sees gravitational deflection
over most of the sky.

Or could you mean that gravitational deflection is zero
when you look straight away from the sun?
If so, you should say so.

But that way you also demonstrate that you have no idea at all
about what GAIA is, and how it works.
FYI, GAIA works be scanning great circles,
because it rotates on its axis.
The axis precesses, in such a way that it always makes
a constant angle of 45 degrees with respect to the sun.
So Gaia can only see stars that are between 45 degrees and 135 degrees
away from the sun. (that is all of them over the course of a year)
So there is no way that GAIA can measure that 1.75 arcseconds directly.
What it does measure accurately is the smaller deflection farther away.

And yes, GAIA needs to apply the general relativistic correction
for light bending by the Sun to all stars it can see,
to get the accuracy that it has,

Jan

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

#617357

On Friday, August 11, 2023 at 4:25:04 AM UTC-7, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> Dono. <eggy20...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Thursday, August 10, 2023 at 2:37:07?AM UTC-7, J. J. Lodder wrote: 
> > > Dono. <eggy20...@gmail.com> wrote: 
> > > > On Wednesday, August 9, 2023 at 3:26:25?PM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote: 
> > > > > 
> > > > > You can't use a single equation that contain both radial distance (from 
> > > > > parallax measurements, 6 months apart) and the ALLEGED starlight 
> > > > > deflection. 
> > > > 
> > > > Dumbestfuck 
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > There is no starlight bending for the measurements made far away from 
> > > > the Sun. 
> > > You really should bone up on your general relativity. 
> > 
> > > The gravitational deflection for stars seen at right angles to the Sun" 
> > 
> > 
> > Err, you missed the "far away from the Sun".

> Or could you mean that gravitational deflection is zero 
> when you look straight away from the sun? 
> If so, you should say so. 
> 

I did. In this thread.

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

#617243

On Wednesday, 9 August 2023 at 23:31:48 UTC+2, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> Volney <vol...@invalid.invalid> wrote: 
> 
> > On 8/9/2023 12:52 PM, Richard Hertz wrote:
> > > On Wednesday, August 9, 2023 at 1:42:26?PM UTC-3, Volney wrote: 
> > >> On 8/9/2023 10:42 AM, Richard Hertz wrote: 
> > >> 
> > >>> IT WAS AN HOAX! 
> > >> 
> > >> The only problem with that is that there have been many eclipses since 
> > >> then, and light deflection has been measured for them as well, and they 
> > >> confirm GR predictions. 
> > >> 
> > >> Cranks often believe that a breakthrough experiment is the end of the 
> > >> discussion as well. Therefore cranks believe if they can shoot down just 
> > >> the one single experiment, they "win". But the experiments are repeated 
> > >> frequently, often because a technology breakthrough allowed the 
> > >> breakthrough experiment in the first place, but in the future they're no 
> > >> big deal. 
> > >> 
> > >> These days, we don't even need an eclipse. Satellites with a 
> > >> sun-blocking shade (creating their personal eclipse) can detect 
> > >> deflection at any time. Also ultra-sensitive measurements that aren't 
> > >> even looking right at the sun (Hipparcos, GAIA etc.) work without any 
> > >> eclipse. 
> > > 
> > > HIPPARCOS PROVIDING DATA ABOUT STARLIGHT DEFLECTION? BULLSHIT, AS 
> > > ALWAYS, PROPAGATED BY RELATIVISTS, WHO ALWAYS TRY TO RE-WRITE HISTORY 
> > > FAVORING EINSTEIN (A JEW THING). READ THIS: 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > https://groups.google.com/g/sci.physics.relativity/c/3h7sfJNDOeQ/m/SUkjAPt3A 
> AAJ 
> > > 
> > Your post states that Hipparcos, despite being sub-optimal, measured to 
> > an accuracy of 0.001 arc second, which is far better than the 1.75 arc 
> > seconds GR predicts. 20 times better than terrestrial estimates, also. 
> > 
> > Second, what about GAIA and "etc."? Your mention of Hipparcos and 
> > nothing else is actually a variation of trying to shoot down a 
> > breakthrough experiment and ignoring all followups (almost always at 
> > much better accuracy, like GAIA). Shoot down a troubled mission like 
> > Hipparcos and you think you "win"?
> There is nothing to 'shoot down'. 
> The fact that Hipparcos started out with an inaccurate database 
> of preliminary positions is no limitation. 
> Starting with inaccuracate data, observing, refining the data, 
> and iterating the process is standard experimental procedure. 
> (even without appeal to Bayesian reasoning) 
> 
> As for GAIA, it measures the absolute positions ab initio, 
> and achieves about 10 microarcsecond precision. (yes, that is micro) 
> The correction for general relativistic deflection is necessary 

For innocent kiddies:t there is no "relativistic deflection".
According to their idiot guru light [in vacuum] is always
taking straight/deodesic paths.

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

#617197

On 2023-08-09 16:52:06 +0000, Richard Hertz said:

> On Wednesday, August 9, 2023 at 1:42:26 PM UTC-3, Volney wrote:
>> On 8/9/2023 10:42 AM, Richard Hertz wrote:>> > IT WAS AN HOAX!>> The 
>> only problem with that is that there have been many eclipses since> 
>> then, and light deflection has been measured for them as well, and 
>> they> confirm GR predictions.>> Cranks often believe that a 
>> breakthrough experiment is the end of the> discussion as well. 
>> Therefore cranks believe if they can shoot down just> the one single 
>> experiment, they "win". But the experiments are repeated> frequently, 
>> often because a technology breakthrough allowed the> breakthrough 
>> experiment in the first place, but in the future they're no> big 
>> deal.>> These days, we don't even need an eclipse. Satellites with a> 
>> sun-blocking shade (creating their personal eclipse) can detect> 
>> deflection at any time. Also ultra-sensitive measurements that aren't> 
>> even looking right at the sun (Hipparcos, GAIA etc.) work without any> 
>> eclipse.
> 
> HIPPARCOS PROVIDING DATA ABOUT STARLIGHT DEFLECTION? BULLSHIT, AS 
> ALWAYS, PROPAGATED BY
> RELATIVISTS, WHO ALWAYS TRY TO RE-WRITE HISTORY FAVORING EINSTEIN (A 
> JEW THING). READ THIS:

Putting garbage in all caps doesn't stop it from being garbage.  That 
something Dolan can teach his orange friend.
> 
> 
> https://groups.google.com/g/sci.physics.relativity/c/3h7sfJNDOeQ/m/SUkjAPt3AAAJ


-- 
athel -- biochemist, not a physicist, but detector of crackpots

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

#617013

On 8/5/23 2:19 PM, patdolan wrote:
> [...]

Hopeless. You are fantasizing that new measurements will disagree with 
zillions of existing measurements.

The deflection of starlight by the sun has been measured out past 90 
degrees from the sun. The measurements are consistent with the 
predictions of GR.

Tom Roberts

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

#617016

On Monday, August 7, 2023 at 10:26:34 AM UTC-7, Tom Roberts wrote:
> On 8/5/23 2:19 PM, patdolan wrote: 
> > [...] 
> 
> Hopeless. You are fantasizing that new measurements will disagree with 
> zillions of existing measurements. 
> 
> The deflection of starlight by the sun has been measured out past 90 
> degrees from the sun. The measurements are consistent with the 
> predictions of GR. 
> 
> Tom Roberts
How many times, Tom Roberts?  What technology?  Links please.  And no Bruns!

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

#617044

On Monday, August 7, 2023 at 10:29:42 AM UTC-7, patdolan wrote:
> On Monday, August 7, 2023 at 10:26:34 AM UTC-7, Tom Roberts wrote: 
> > On 8/5/23 2:19 PM, patdolan wrote: 
> > > [...] 
> > 
> > Hopeless. You are fantasizing that new measurements will disagree with 
> > zillions of existing measurements. 
> > 
> > The deflection of starlight by the sun has been measured out past 90 
> > degrees from the sun. The measurements are consistent with the 
> > predictions of GR. 
> > 
> > Tom Roberts

> How many times, Tom Roberts? What technology? Links please. And no Bruns!

 Should I assume that you are too stupid to look this up for yourself?

https://briankoberlein.com/blog/wandering-stars/

"At Earth’s distance, the light of a star seen at a direction 90 degrees away from the Sun is deflected by 4 milliarcseconds. That’s an extraordinarily tiny shift, and usually one you can ignore. But when we launched the Hipparcos satellite in 1989, it was capable of measuring the positions of stars to about 3 milliarcseconds. Over its lifetime it measured about 3.5 million relative positions of stars. Since they were taken at different angular separations from the Sun, these measurements have varying gravitational deflections. The effect can be seen in the data, and can even be used to confirm Einstein’s prediction to within about 0.3%."

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

#617047

On Monday, August 7, 2023 at 2:19:14 PM UTC-7, Paul Alsing wrote:
> On Monday, August 7, 2023 at 10:29:42 AM UTC-7, patdolan wrote: 
> > On Monday, August 7, 2023 at 10:26:34 AM UTC-7, Tom Roberts wrote: 
> > > On 8/5/23 2:19 PM, patdolan wrote: 
> > > > [...] 
> > > 
> > > Hopeless. You are fantasizing that new measurements will disagree with 
> > > zillions of existing measurements. 
> > > 
> > > The deflection of starlight by the sun has been measured out past 90 
> > > degrees from the sun. The measurements are consistent with the 
> > > predictions of GR. 
> > > 
> > > Tom Roberts 
> 
> > How many times, Tom Roberts? What technology? Links please. And no Bruns!
> Should I assume that you are too stupid to look this up for yourself? 
> 
> https://briankoberlein.com/blog/wandering-stars/ 
> 
> "At Earth’s distance, the light of a star seen at a direction 90 degrees away from the Sun is deflected by 4 milliarcseconds. That’s an extraordinarily tiny shift, and usually one you can ignore. But when we launched the Hipparcos satellite in 1989, it was capable of measuring the positions of stars to about 3 milliarcseconds. Over its lifetime it measured about 3.5 million relative positions of stars. Since they were taken at different angular separations from the Sun, these measurements have varying gravitational deflections. The effect can be seen in the data, and can even be used to confirm Einstein’s prediction to within about 0.3%."
Richard Hertz has already presented his analysis of the Hipparcos data set, wherein he showed this forum the extensive filter-fudging and cherry picking of the data.  To claim that Hipparcos demonstrated 1.75 limb arc seconds is tantamount to claiming that the covid vaccines prevented the spread of covid.

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

#617059

On 8/7/23 4:40 PM, patdolan wrote:
> Richard Hertz has already presented his analysis of the Hipparcos 
> data set, wherein he showed this forum the extensive filter-fudging 
> and cherry picking of the data.

Referencing Richard Hertz is useless. He is as big an idiot as you.

> To claim that Hipparcos demonstrated 1.75 limb arc seconds is 
> tantamount to claiming that the covid vaccines prevented the spread 
> of covid.

More nonsense.

Google finds many references to measurements. But beware, some crackpot
papers leaked in. I recommend a textbook or paper by an expert:
	https://arxiv.org/abs/1403.7377

Tom Roberts

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

Page 2 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4  Next page →

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

csiph-web