Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #617111
| From | Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | sci.physics.relativity |
| Subject | Re: It should now be easy to disprove 1.75 arc seconds.... |
| Date | 2023-08-08 11:03 -0400 |
| Organization | A noiseless patient Spider |
| Message-ID | <uatlg2$3eccp$2@dont-email.me> (permalink) |
| References | <161c49af-6f11-4ee9-982f-2b53c07123f3n@googlegroups.com> <Wrudnb_A9cigtEz5nZ2dnZfqlJxj4p2d@giganews.com> <3bf3e413-8a8c-48f1-9dac-22665e2224dbn@googlegroups.com> <89793695-4d78-4038-b700-77667a81c34bn@googlegroups.com> <1qf57og.11makpl1cytk6mN%nospam@de-ster.demon.nl> |
On 8/8/2023 7:47 AM, J. J. Lodder wrote: > Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> 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%." > > Yes, and in the meantime GAIA has added another order of magnitude > to astrometric precision. > Arguing against 1.75 arcsecond when in the meantime > it is possible to measure stellar positions to milliarcseconds > is completely ridiculous. > Gravitational deflection depending on angular distance from the sun > is nowadays just a routinly applied correction, > just like aberation, It's pretty amazing, they're arguing against 100+ year old physics without any evidence. It's not even physics these days, it's engineering, something that has to be designed into any device requiring such precision measurements. Next they'll debate whether the inverse square law applied to electromagnetism is correct or not. Or maybe argue that Newton never claimed the apple couldn't fall up.
Back to sci.physics.relativity | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
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
csiph-web