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

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

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.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

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.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

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

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

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.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

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.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

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?

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

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.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

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!

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

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.

My criticism of relativity at the top of this thread proves I understand
it exactly and have disproven the derivation of the deflection of light
as twice Newtonian.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

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.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

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.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

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.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

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!

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Mon, 20 Jan 2025 23:27:27 +0000, 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.

My criticism of relativity at the top of this thread proves I understand
it exactly and have disproven the derivation of the deflection of light
as twice Newtonian.

None of you have shown you even comprehended the criticism. Many people
read this forum who don't participate, and you will persuade none. You
are unable to engage in reasoned debate about this criticism.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Le 21/01/2025 à 19:18, clzb93ynxj@att.net (LaurenceClarkCrossen) a écrit
:

On Mon, 20 Jan 2025 23:27:27 +0000, 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.

My criticism of relativity at the top of this thread proves I understand
it exactly and have disproven the derivation of the deflection of light
as twice Newtonian.

None of you have shown you even comprehended the criticism. Many people
read this forum who don't participate, and you will persuade none. You
are unable to engage in reasoned debate about this criticism.

Did you notice you are talking to yourself, "Laurence". You forgot to
change your account settings :-P

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

W dniu 21.01.2025 o 19:50, Python pisze:

Le 21/01/2025 à 19:18, clzb93ynxj@att.net (LaurenceClarkCrossen) a écrit :

On Mon, 20 Jan 2025 23:27:27 +0000, 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.

My criticism of relativity at the top of this thread proves I understand >>> it exactly and have disproven the derivation of the deflection of light
as twice Newtonian.

None of you have shown you even comprehended the criticism. Many people
read this forum who don't participate, and you will persuade none. You
are unable to engage in reasoned debate about this criticism.

Did you notice you are talking to yourself, "Laurence". You forgot to
change your account settings :-P

Yes, he did notice. No, he didn't forget.
Just like always - your spitting is baseless.

Good doggie. That's what your shitty religion
has trained you for.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

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.

This definitive refutation of the derivation of the doubling remains uncontested.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

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.

Ten! Relativity is down for the count! I didn't think it could be
defended.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Tue, 21 Jan 2025 18:50:46 +0000, Python wrote:

Le 21/01/2025 à 19:18, clzb93ynxj@att.net (LaurenceClarkCrossen) a écrit
:

On Mon, 20 Jan 2025 23:27:27 +0000, 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.

My criticism of relativity at the top of this thread proves I understand >>> it exactly and have disproven the derivation of the deflection of light
as twice Newtonian.

None of you have shown you even comprehended the criticism. Many people
read this forum who don't participate, and you will persuade none. You
are unable to engage in reasoned debate about this criticism.

Did you notice you are talking to yourself, "Laurence". You forgot to
change your account settings :-P

You are losing by defaulting from the contest.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Tue, 21 Jan 2025 18:50:46 +0000, Python wrote:

Le 21/01/2025 à 19:18, clzb93ynxj@att.net (LaurenceClarkCrossen) a écrit
:

On Mon, 20 Jan 2025 23:27:27 +0000, 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.

My criticism of relativity at the top of this thread proves I understand >>> it exactly and have disproven the derivation of the deflection of light
as twice Newtonian.

None of you have shown you even comprehended the criticism. Many people
read this forum who don't participate, and you will persuade none. You
are unable to engage in reasoned debate about this criticism.

Did you notice you are talking to yourself, "Laurence". You forgot to
change your account settings :-P

Did you notice that many people read this forum, including many skeptics
I am talking to? You don't seem to be self-aware.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

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.

Relativity has not proven that parallel lines meet, and it would have to
for its derivation of the doubling to be correct. When are the
relativists here going to get serious? Without a sound derivation,
relativity does not predict any more than astrology does.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

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.

Critics of relativity reading this will know I do and that I am right.
You have not won the debate.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Python <jp@python.invalid> wrote:

Le 21/01/2025 � 19:18, clzb93ynxj@att.net (LaurenceClarkCrossen) a �crit
:

On Mon, 20 Jan 2025 23:27:27 +0000, 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.

My criticism of relativity at the top of this thread proves I understand >> it exactly and have disproven the derivation of the deflection of light
as twice Newtonian.

None of you have shown you even comprehended the criticism. Many people read this forum who don't participate, and you will persuade none. You
are unable to engage in reasoned debate about this criticism.

Did you notice you are talking to yourself, "Laurence". You forgot to
change your account settings :-P

Nothing special, many nutters do that.
It's part of the symptoms,

Jan

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Tue, 21 Jan 2025 21:18:06 +0000, J. J. Lodder wrote:

Python <jp@python.invalid> wrote:

Le 21/01/2025 à 19:18, clzb93ynxj@att.net (LaurenceClarkCrossen) a écrit >> :

On Mon, 20 Jan 2025 23:27:27 +0000, 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.

My criticism of relativity at the top of this thread proves I understand >>>> it exactly and have disproven the derivation of the deflection of light >>>> as twice Newtonian.

None of you have shown you even comprehended the criticism. Many people
read this forum who don't participate, and you will persuade none. You
are unable to engage in reasoned debate about this criticism.

Did you notice you are talking to yourself, "Laurence". You forgot to
change your account settings :-P

Nothing special, many nutters do that.
It's part of the symptoms,

Jan

If relativity doesn't have to prove that parallel lines meet and can
just assume it then it is unfalsifiable. Resort to ad hominem is a
failure to reason. I have disproved the derivation and you have been
unable to criticize that refutation.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Extra dimensions are one of the untestable hypotheses mentioned in this article, which says, "These unprovable hypotheses are quite different
from those that relate directly to the real world and that are testable
through observations."
“Defend the integrity of physics” http://www.nature.com/news/scientiYc-method-defend-the-integrity-of-physics-1.16535

Relativity would have to prove other dimensions to prove that space is
curved and that parallel lines meet.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Tue, 21 Jan 2025 21:18:06 +0000, J. J. Lodder wrote:

Python <jp@python.invalid> wrote:

Le 21/01/2025 à 19:18, clzb93ynxj@att.net (LaurenceClarkCrossen) a écrit >> :

On Mon, 20 Jan 2025 23:27:27 +0000, 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.

My criticism of relativity at the top of this thread proves I understand >>>> it exactly and have disproven the derivation of the deflection of light >>>> as twice Newtonian.

None of you have shown you even comprehended the criticism. Many people
read this forum who don't participate, and you will persuade none. You
are unable to engage in reasoned debate about this criticism.

Did you notice you are talking to yourself, "Laurence". You forgot to
change your account settings :-P

Nothing special, many nutters do that.
It's part of the symptoms,

Jan

Of course we can weaken the testability requirement for relativity if
that would help.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Tue, 21 Jan 2025 21:18:06 +0000, J. J. Lodder wrote:

Python <jp@python.invalid> wrote:

Le 21/01/2025 à 19:18, clzb93ynxj@att.net (LaurenceClarkCrossen) a écrit >> :

On Mon, 20 Jan 2025 23:27:27 +0000, 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.

My criticism of relativity at the top of this thread proves I understand >>>> it exactly and have disproven the derivation of the deflection of light >>>> as twice Newtonian.

None of you have shown you even comprehended the criticism. Many people
read this forum who don't participate, and you will persuade none. You
are unable to engage in reasoned debate about this criticism.

Did you notice you are talking to yourself, "Laurence". You forgot to
change your account settings :-P

Nothing special, many nutters do that.
It's part of the symptoms,

Jan

Has relativity proven that space is curved? "The imprimatur of science
should be
awarded only to a theory that is testable. Only then can we defend
science from
attack."[-Ibid] Is the claim that space is curved testable?

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Tue, 21 Jan 2025 21:18:06 +0000, J. J. Lodder wrote:

Python <jp@python.invalid> wrote:

Le 21/01/2025 à 19:18, clzb93ynxj@att.net (LaurenceClarkCrossen) a écrit >> :

On Mon, 20 Jan 2025 23:27:27 +0000, 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.

My criticism of relativity at the top of this thread proves I understand >>>> it exactly and have disproven the derivation of the deflection of light >>>> as twice Newtonian.

None of you have shown you even comprehended the criticism. Many people
read this forum who don't participate, and you will persuade none. You
are unable to engage in reasoned debate about this criticism.

Did you notice you are talking to yourself, "Laurence". You forgot to
change your account settings :-P

Nothing special, many nutters do that.
It's part of the symptoms,

Jan

The above quoted article says, "But conclusions arising logically from mathematics need not apply to the real world." That space curves is not
a conclusion that arises logically from math.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Tue, 21 Jan 2025 21:18:06 +0000, J. J. Lodder wrote:

Python <jp@python.invalid> wrote:

Le 21/01/2025 à 19:18, clzb93ynxj@att.net (LaurenceClarkCrossen) a écrit >> :

On Mon, 20 Jan 2025 23:27:27 +0000, 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.

My criticism of relativity at the top of this thread proves I understand >>>> it exactly and have disproven the derivation of the deflection of light >>>> as twice Newtonian.

None of you have shown you even comprehended the criticism. Many people
read this forum who don't participate, and you will persuade none. You
are unable to engage in reasoned debate about this criticism.

Did you notice you are talking to yourself, "Laurence". You forgot to
change your account settings :-P

Nothing special, many nutters do that.
It's part of the symptoms,

Jan

You relativists have to presume what you want to conclude: that space is curved.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Tue, 21 Jan 2025 21:18:06 +0000, J. J. Lodder wrote:

Python <jp@python.invalid> wrote:

Le 21/01/2025 à 19:18, clzb93ynxj@att.net (LaurenceClarkCrossen) a écrit >> :

On Mon, 20 Jan 2025 23:27:27 +0000, 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.

My criticism of relativity at the top of this thread proves I understand >>>> it exactly and have disproven the derivation of the deflection of light >>>> as twice Newtonian.

None of you have shown you even comprehended the criticism. Many people
read this forum who don't participate, and you will persuade none. You
are unable to engage in reasoned debate about this criticism.

Did you notice you are talking to yourself, "Laurence". You forgot to
change your account settings :-P

Nothing special, many nutters do that.
It's part of the symptoms,

Jan

You could rely on multiverse theory. There may be a universe where
relativity is true and space curves!

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Tue, 21 Jan 2025 21:18:06 +0000, J. J. Lodder wrote:

Python <jp@python.invalid> wrote:

Le 21/01/2025 à 19:18, clzb93ynxj@att.net (LaurenceClarkCrossen) a écrit >> :

On Mon, 20 Jan 2025 23:27:27 +0000, 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.

My criticism of relativity at the top of this thread proves I understand >>>> it exactly and have disproven the derivation of the deflection of light >>>> as twice Newtonian.

None of you have shown you even comprehended the criticism. Many people
read this forum who don't participate, and you will persuade none. You
are unable to engage in reasoned debate about this criticism.

Did you notice you are talking to yourself, "Laurence". You forgot to
change your account settings :-P

Nothing special, many nutters do that.
It's part of the symptoms,

Jan

Of course, relativists could always back off the claim that curved space
is somehow an improvement over the concept of fields as curved space
clearly involves reification fallacy.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Tue, 21 Jan 2025 21:18:06 +0000, J. J. Lodder wrote:

Python <jp@python.invalid> wrote:

Le 21/01/2025 à 19:18, clzb93ynxj@att.net (LaurenceClarkCrossen) a écrit >> :

On Mon, 20 Jan 2025 23:27:27 +0000, 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.

My criticism of relativity at the top of this thread proves I understand >>>> it exactly and have disproven the derivation of the deflection of light >>>> as twice Newtonian.

None of you have shown you even comprehended the criticism. Many people
read this forum who don't participate, and you will persuade none. You
are unable to engage in reasoned debate about this criticism.

Did you notice you are talking to yourself, "Laurence". You forgot to
change your account settings :-P

Nothing special, many nutters do that.
It's part of the symptoms,

Jan

Then all you need to do is double the gravitational force for double the curving of the path. Where does relativity get twice the force?

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Tue, 21 Jan 2025 23:37:26 +0000, Python wrote:

Le 21/01/2025 à 23:11, clzb93ynxj@att.net (LaurenceClarkCrossen) a écrit
:

On Tue, 21 Jan 2025 21:18:06 +0000, J. J. Lodder wrote:

Python <jp@python.invalid> wrote:

Le 21/01/2025 à 19:18, clzb93ynxj@att.net (LaurenceClarkCrossen) a écrit >>>> :

On Mon, 20 Jan 2025 23:27:27 +0000, 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.

My criticism of relativity at the top of this thread proves I understand >>>>>> it exactly and have disproven the derivation of the deflection of light >>>>>> as twice Newtonian.

None of you have shown you even comprehended the criticism. Many people >>>>> read this forum who don't participate, and you will persuade none. You >>>>> are unable to engage in reasoned debate about this criticism.

Did you notice you are talking to yourself, "Laurence". You forgot to
change your account settings :-P

Nothing special, many nutters do that.
It's part of the symptoms,

Jan

Then all you need to do is double the gravitational force for double the
curving of the path. Where does relativity get twice the force?

You are loosing your marbles, right "Laurence" ?

You have proven your inability to refute my criticism.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Le 21/01/2025 à 23:11, clzb93ynxj@att.net (LaurenceClarkCrossen) a écrit
:

On Tue, 21 Jan 2025 21:18:06 +0000, J. J. Lodder wrote:

Python <jp@python.invalid> wrote:

Le 21/01/2025 à 19:18, clzb93ynxj@att.net (LaurenceClarkCrossen) a écrit >>> :

On Mon, 20 Jan 2025 23:27:27 +0000, 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.

My criticism of relativity at the top of this thread proves I understand >>>>> it exactly and have disproven the derivation of the deflection of light >>>>> as twice Newtonian.

None of you have shown you even comprehended the criticism. Many people >>>> read this forum who don't participate, and you will persuade none. You >>>> are unable to engage in reasoned debate about this criticism.

Did you notice you are talking to yourself, "Laurence". You forgot to
change your account settings :-P

Nothing special, many nutters do that.
It's part of the symptoms,

Jan

Then all you need to do is double the gravitational force for double the curving of the path. Where does relativity get twice the force?

You are loosing your marbles, right "Laurence" ?

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

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.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

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.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Python <jp@python.invalid> wrote:

Le 21/01/2025 � 23:11, clzb93ynxj@att.net (LaurenceClarkCrossen) a �crit
:

On Tue, 21 Jan 2025 21:18:06 +0000, J. J. Lodder wrote:

Python <jp@python.invalid> wrote:

Le 21/01/2025 � 19:18, clzb93ynxj@att.net (LaurenceClarkCrossen) a �crit >>> :

On Mon, 20 Jan 2025 23:27:27 +0000, 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.

My criticism of relativity at the top of this thread proves I understand
it exactly and have disproven the derivation of the deflection of light >>>>> as twice Newtonian.

None of you have shown you even comprehended the criticism. Many people >>>> read this forum who don't participate, and you will persuade none. You >>>> are unable to engage in reasoned debate about this criticism.

Did you notice you are talking to yourself, "Laurence". You forgot to
change your account settings :-P

Nothing special, many nutters do that.
It's part of the symptoms,

Jan

Then all you need to do is double the gravitational force for double the curving of the path. Where does relativity get twice the force?

You are loosing your marbles, right "Laurence" ?

Yes. Posting five replies to a single posting
is part of the symptoms too,

Jan

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

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/

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

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.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

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.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

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

I was referring to when Poor referred to Huygens's formula, which is a refraction formula.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

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

Einstein claimed to have gotten the doubling by using Huygens's
principle, which is about refraction.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

LaurenceClarkCrossen wrote:

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.

Parallel lines don't meet by simple definition otherwise if they
met...then they are not parallel lines.

parallel lines never meet.


Are you saying Einstein said parallel lines meet???? Or some schnook or schmuck?


--
The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable,
and challenge the unchallengeable.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Wed, 22 Jan 2025 19:06:32 +0000, The Starmaker wrote:

LaurenceClarkCrossen wrote:

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.

Parallel lines don't meet by simple definition otherwise if they
met...then they are not parallel lines.

parallel lines never meet.

Are you saying Einstein said parallel lines meet???? Or some schnook or schmuck?

Maybe Einstein didn't realize that for space to curve parallel lines
would have to meet.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

LaurenceClarkCrossen wrote:

On Wed, 22 Jan 2025 19:06:32 +0000, The Starmaker wrote:

LaurenceClarkCrossen wrote:

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.

Parallel lines don't meet by simple definition otherwise if they
met...then they are not parallel lines.

parallel lines never meet.

Are you saying Einstein said parallel lines meet???? Or some schnook or schmuck?

Maybe Einstein didn't realize that for space to curve parallel lines
would have to meet.

There are no lines in ...space.


There are stars in space that used to follow a straight line, but that
was before the big bang.

The big bang broke all those straight lines...



* *



* *



*


*


*



You must be talking about...imaginary lines.


even ants don't walk a straight line.


Straight lines are not of Nature.


Parallel liness are an invention of man only...


God does not walk a straight line...







--
The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable,
and challenge the unchallengeable.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Wed, 22 Jan 2025 21:34:47 +0000, The Starmaker wrote:

LaurenceClarkCrossen wrote:

On Wed, 22 Jan 2025 19:06:32 +0000, The Starmaker wrote:

LaurenceClarkCrossen wrote:

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.

Parallel lines don't meet by simple definition otherwise if they
met...then they are not parallel lines.

parallel lines never meet.


Are you saying Einstein said parallel lines meet???? Or some schnook or >>> schmuck?

Maybe Einstein didn't realize that for space to curve parallel lines
would have to meet.

There are no lines in ...space.

There are stars in space that used to follow a straight line, but that
was before the big bang.

The big bang broke all those straight lines...

* *

* *

*

*

*

You must be talking about...imaginary lines.

even ants don't walk a straight line.

Straight lines are not of Nature.

Parallel liness are an invention of man only...

God does not walk a straight line...

--
The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable,
and challenge the unchallengeable.

It is amusing that in the "institutions of higher learning," the
prestigious Big Bang theory involves the reification fallacy.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> 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.

Of course not. This is called 'projective geometry'.
It is a well defined geometry, it is not Euclidean geometry,
and there is of course nothing wrong with it,

Jan

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

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/

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

LaurenceClarkCrossen <clzb93ynxj@att.net> wrote:

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.

Correct, and undisputed, but these two effects
have different and well understood causes,
and quite different orders of magnitude.
(30 minutes of arc versus 1.75 seconds of arc)

Another difference is that refraction in the atmosphere has dispersion,
(hence the famous 'green ray')
while the bending of light by the sun has not,

Jan

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)