No, because whatever the math, space is not a surface, so it cannot
bend.
A boat sailing up and downstream takes longer than one sailing the same distance in a pond.
Contrary to what one may think, the math proves that.
Math cannot prove space curves.
Einstein said he obtained the doubling by the "curving space."
Math pages sums up by saying the doubling is from "curved space."
Nothing proves that space is not a hypersurface in a muli-dimensional hyperpshere. But the math permits that it may be curved even without
any hyperspace.
Accepting that space curves requires accepting that parallel lines meet.
Is that rational? Can the eclipse experiments prove that parallel lines
meet? Then how can they prove the doubling deflection? They can't.
Is it rational to accept that we can see the same object in two (or more) different directions?
galaxies
are observed in two or more different directions.
On Sun, 19 Jan 2025 12:50:03 +0000, Mikko wrote:
The answer to the subject line is "no". The math says that theAccepting that space curves requires accepting that parallel lines meet.
gravitational
deflection is what the math used to say. But one mtehmatical method can
say
that the defilection is twice what another mathematical method says. For
example, Newtons optics, which assumes that light is a stream of small
particles, predicts only half of the deflection than general Relativity.
A naive application of Maxwell's theory predicts that there is no
defilection.
On 2025-01-18 21:40:26 +0000, LaurenceClarkCrossen said:
No, because whatever the math, space is not a surface, so it cannot
bend.
Nothing proves that space is not a hypersurface in a muli-dimensional
hyperpshere. But the math permits that it may be curved even without
any hyperspace.
A boat sailing up and downstream takes longer than one sailing the same
distance in a pond.
Also longer than sailing the same distance cross-stream and back.
Contrary to what one may think, the math proves that.
With reasonable assumptions (in particular that the water surface is
Euclidean).
Math cannot prove space curves.
Math cannot prove that space does not curve, either. But math can define
what "space is curved" means and how the curvature can be described and
quantifed.
Einstein said he obtained the doubling by the "curving space."
In certain sense that is true.
Math pages sums up by saying the doubling is from "curved space."
In the same sense.
Is that rational? Can the eclipse experiments prove that parallel lines
meet? Then how can they prove the doubling deflection? They can't.
On Mon, 20 Jan 2025 8:17:24 +0000, Mikko wrote:
On 2025-01-19 16:01:52 +0000, LaurenceClarkCrossen said:It is stupid to think they exist in more than one direction. You are
On Sun, 19 Jan 2025 12:50:03 +0000, Mikko wrote:
The answer to the subject line is "no". The math says that theAccepting that space curves requires accepting that parallel lines meet. >>> Is that rational? Can the eclipse experiments prove that parallel lines
gravitational
deflection is what the math used to say. But one mtehmatical method can >>>> say
that the defilection is twice what another mathematical method says. For >>>> example, Newtons optics, which assumes that light is a stream of small >>>> particles, predicts only half of the deflection than general Relativity. >>>> A naive application of Maxwell's theory predicts that there is no
defilection.
On 2025-01-18 21:40:26 +0000, LaurenceClarkCrossen said:
No, because whatever the math, space is not a surface, so it cannot
bend.
Nothing proves that space is not a hypersurface in a muli-dimensional
hyperpshere. But the math permits that it may be curved even without
any hyperspace.
A boat sailing up and downstream takes longer than one sailing the same >>>>> distance in a pond.
Also longer than sailing the same distance cross-stream and back.
Contrary to what one may think, the math proves that.
With reasonable assumptions (in particular that the water surface is
Euclidean).
Math cannot prove space curves.
Math cannot prove that space does not curve, either. But math can define >>>> what "space is curved" means and how the curvature can be described and >>>> quantifed.
Einstein said he obtained the doubling by the "curving space."
In certain sense that is true.
Math pages sums up by saying the doubling is from "curved space."
In the same sense.
meet? Then how can they prove the doubling deflection? They can't.
Is it rational to accept that we can see the same object in two (or
more)
different directions? Doesn't matter. The fact is that some distant
galaxies
are observed in two or more different directions.
falling back on a subjectivist interpretation of relativity. Good luck!
On Mon, 20 Jan 2025 8:17:24 +0000, Mikko wrote:
On 2025-01-19 16:01:52 +0000, LaurenceClarkCrossen said:Curved space is not refraction.
On Sun, 19 Jan 2025 12:50:03 +0000, Mikko wrote:
The answer to the subject line is "no". The math says that theAccepting that space curves requires accepting that parallel lines meet. >>> Is that rational? Can the eclipse experiments prove that parallel lines
gravitational
deflection is what the math used to say. But one mtehmatical method can >>>> say
that the defilection is twice what another mathematical method says. For >>>> example, Newtons optics, which assumes that light is a stream of small >>>> particles, predicts only half of the deflection than general Relativity. >>>> A naive application of Maxwell's theory predicts that there is no
defilection.
On 2025-01-18 21:40:26 +0000, LaurenceClarkCrossen said:
No, because whatever the math, space is not a surface, so it cannot
bend.
Nothing proves that space is not a hypersurface in a muli-dimensional
hyperpshere. But the math permits that it may be curved even without
any hyperspace.
A boat sailing up and downstream takes longer than one sailing the same >>>>> distance in a pond.
Also longer than sailing the same distance cross-stream and back.
Contrary to what one may think, the math proves that.
With reasonable assumptions (in particular that the water surface is
Euclidean).
Math cannot prove space curves.
Math cannot prove that space does not curve, either. But math can define >>>> what "space is curved" means and how the curvature can be described and >>>> quantifed.
Einstein said he obtained the doubling by the "curving space."
In certain sense that is true.
Math pages sums up by saying the doubling is from "curved space."
In the same sense.
meet? Then how can they prove the doubling deflection? They can't.
Is it rational to accept that we can see the same object in two (or
more)
different directions? Doesn't matter. The fact is that some distant
galaxies
are observed in two or more different directions.
What does "they exist in more than one direction" mean? A galaxy exists in one and only one place. If can be seen in two or more direction if there is two or more light rays from the galaxy to us.
On Mon, 20 Jan 2025 8:17:24 +0000, Mikko wrote:
Is it rational to accept that we can see the same object in two (or
more)
different directions? Doesn't matter. The fact is that some distant
galaxies
are observed in two or more different directions.
It is stupid to think they exist in more than one direction. You are
falling back on a subjectivist interpretation of relativity. Good luck!
It is however _many_ examples that multiple distorted images
of the same object can be seen.
A star or quasar is radiating light in all direction.
So if, relative to us, the star or quasar is behind a large
galaxy, light that is passing close by the galaxy may be
gravitational deflected so that the light is bent towards us.
On Wed, 22 Jan 2025 13:40:52 +0000, Paul.B.Andersen wrote:
On Mon, 20 Jan 2025 8:17:24 +0000, Mikko wrote:
The fact is that some distant
galaxies
are observed in two or more different directions.
It is however _many_ examples that multiple distorted images
of the same object can be seen.
A star or quasar is radiating light in all direction.
So if, relative to us, the star or quasar is behind a large
galaxy, light that is passing close by the galaxy may be
gravitational deflected so that the light is bent towards us.
If the star or quasar is exactly on a straight line behind
the gravitating galaxy, light passing on different sides
may be bent towards us, so we see multiple images or even
a ring.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einstein_Cross
https://www.livescience.com/physics-mathematics/gravity/rare-einstein-cross-warps-light-from-one-of-the-universes-brightest-objects-in-this-stunning-image
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einstein_ring
Make my day. Keep denying facts.
You're so lame brain that you didn't address the issue which is whether
it is refraction or gravity. Duh!
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 546 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 12:24:06 |
| Calls: | 10,387 |
| Calls today: | 2 |
| Files: | 14,061 |
| Messages: | 6,416,717 |