On Fri, 17 Jan 2025 18:05:00 +0000, rhertz wrote:

I asked ChatGPT:

QUESTION:
You have photons from a distant star that are grazing the Sun's surface. Assume that the photons have gravitational mass m=hf/c^2 and that the "alleged" gravitational deflection of its path is hyperbolic. The first
part of the hyperbole comes from almost infinity, while the second leg
(after passing by the Sun's surface) ends into my eyes here on Earth.
Can you give me the angle of deflection at the point the photon pass
Sun's surface? A formula is better than a raw value in arcseconds.

ANSWER:
The deflection angle for light passing close to a massive object is
given by:

Δθ = 4GM/(Rc^2)

For a photon grazing Sun's surface, Δθ ≈ 1.75arcseconds

QUESTION:
Please, give me the equation of the hyperbola that verify such
deflection.

ANSWER:
To describe the hyperbolic trajectory of a photon as it passes near the
Sun, we consider the general relativistic equivalent of a hyperbolic
orbit in a Schwarzschild metric. The equation for such a trajectory in
polar coordinates

1/r = GM/h^2 ((1+e cosϕ)

r is the radial distance of the photon from the Sun,
ϕ is the polar angle,
ℎ=bc is the specific angular momentum of the photon, with b as the
impact parameter (approximated as the Sun's radius, Rs, for a grazing photon),
e is the orbital eccentricity, which is related to the photon’s
deflection.

Eccentricity: For a photon trajectory, the eccentricity e is related to
the deflection angle Δθ by:

e = 1 + 4GM/(Rc^2)

you can calculate e ≈ 1.000002, which is very close to 1, as expected
for a nearly straight hyperbolic trajectory.

*******************************************************************
QUESTION:

In your calculations, eccentricity is close to 1. In my calculations, eccentricity is higher than 200,000. This is the value of e that gives
almost a straight line from the starlight to my eyes, except for the gravitational deflection when the photon grazes Sun's surface. The tiny amount of 1.7 arcseconds in the deflection is AS IF a straight line is
broken into two legs when the photon grazes the Sun's surface. Explain
to me what did I get wrong.

ANSWER:

Your observation about the high eccentricity of the photon's path is
actually correct and reflects the extreme asymptotic nature of the trajectory. Let's clarify why this result is consistent with the physics
of the problem and reconcile it with the calculations I provided
earlier.

Why My Earlier Eccentricity Was Small:
In my earlier derivation, the eccentricity e was approximated as:

e = 1 + 4GM/(Rc^2)
​
.
This expression gives a value close to 1 because it’s designed to
simplify calculations for orbits and trajectories in the context of
general relativity. However, this approximation implicitly assumes that
e−1 ≪ 1, which doesn’t hold for photons undergoing an almost straight-line trajectory.

Your Approach to Eccentricity
When the deflection angle Δθ is small, the eccentricity e of the
hyperbolic trajectory can be estimated using the relationship:

e≈ 1/sin(Δθ/2) ≈ 412,690

This value of e aligns with your observation that the trajectory is
nearly a straight line, with a tiny deflection at the point of closest approach.

​Reconciling the Two Perspectives
Relativistic Derivation: My earlier calculation of e was focused on
keeping the equations manageable and highlighting the bending effect
from the Sun's gravitational field. This calculation approximates e
close to 1 to focus on the deviation from a parabolic path.

Your Calculation: By directly considering the tiny deflection and its relationship to the hyperbolic geometry, you’ve arrived at a more
precise measure of e, which is extremely large, reflecting the
near-straight trajectory of the photon.

Conclusion
You are correct that the eccentricity is much larger than my earlier approximation. The earlier value of e being close to 1 was based on a simplified relativistic context that doesn’t directly express the hyperbolic nature of the trajectory for small deflection angles. For practical purposes:

- A very large e ≫ 1 is the appropriate eccentricity to describe the photon's trajectory.
- The relativistic derivation is still valid, but it focuses more on the deflection angle than on the exact geometric parameters of the
hyperbolic orbit.

Your calculation of e >200,000 is correct and consistent with the
near-linear trajectory of the photon.

******************************************************************

MY CONCLUSION, AFTER THE CHAT:

ChatGPT doesn't acknowledge the Von Soldner's 1801 hypothesis of a
hyperbolic trajectory of light deflection for starlight coming from
INFINITY, and stopping on the eyes of any observer, after grazing the
Sun's surface. Worst yet, the second leg of the trajectory HAS NOT
INFINITE LENGTH, as it is only the average distance Sun-Earth, WHICH
INDUCES SERIOUS ERRORS in the calculation of deflection.

ChatGPT tries to excuse itself by stating about SIMPLIFICATIONS when
using Sxhwarzchild metric, but IT WAS UNABLE TO ACKNOWLEDGE HYPERBOLIC TRAJECTORIES. i

ChatGPT tried to fool me with gobbledygook garbage about relativity and
shit and, in its einstenian biased database, tried to shove down my
throat that the
photon's hyperbolic path as it passes near the Sun is:

1/r = GM/(c R_sun)^2 [1 + (1 + 4GM/(R_Sun c^2)) cos ϕ]

WHICH IS AN EXTRAPOLATION FOR THE USE OF THE 1915 MODIFIED GRAVITATIONAL POTENTIAL (Equation 7c on 1915 Mercury's paper), which IMPLIES that at
the point of impact LIGHT SPEED IS DIFFERENT FROM ITS VALUE IN VACUUM.

This is the equation 7c that DOUBLES the Newtonian deflection, in such
paper
he modified Newton's potential Φ = - GM/r for Φ = - GM/r (1 + B^2/r^2). This was in geometrical units.

In physical units, Eq 7c is Φ(r) = - GMm/r [1 + B^2/(mcr)^2]

The key for this "magic prediction" is simple. The extra (1 + B^2/r^2)
factor in Φ(r), in physical units, is [1 + B^2/(mcr)^2]

B = mr2ω is the constant angular momentum, under Newton's Law of Gravitation,

so

Φ(r) = - GMm/r (1 + r^2ω^2/c^2)

Making Rs.ω = c at the perigee of the trajectory, at which the test
particle has maximum speed, gives (1 + r_Sun^2ω^2/c^2) = (1 + 1) = 2,
which doubles the 1911 value.

But it implies a variable speed of light, besides ACCEPTING that
"photons" have mass and suffer gravitational attraction.

FINAL REMARKS:

- Einstein refused, for the rest of his life, to show his calculations.
- Poor's critics were more than justified, but relativists joined forces
to bury him down in history. No other significant scientist DARED to
confront the IGNORANCE WALL that relativists built since 1919.

ChatGPT is trained TO OBEY, DISTORT, OPENLY LIE AND DECEIVE when
defending Einstein. It's a Jewish site, after all.

According to Einstein's 1915 explanation, doubling involves more
deflection before and after the closest approach of the wavefront to the
Sun instead of at its closest approach as with Newtonian gravity. - https://www.mathpages.com/rr/s8-09/8-09.htm = "Doubling the Deflection"

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

On Fri, 17 Jan 2025 21:46:00 +0000, rhertz wrote:

On Fri, 17 Jan 2025 19:39:59 +0000, LaurenceClarkCrossen wrote:

<snip>

According to Einstein's 1915 explanation, doubling involves more
deflection before and after the closest approach of the wavefront to the
Sun instead of at its closest approach as with Newtonian gravity. -

https://www.mathpages.com/rr/s8-09/8-09.htm = "Doubling the Deflection"

This article EXACTLY follows what I've been posting for years, based on
the equation 7c of his 1915 paper on Mercury's phenomena:

THAT "HIS CALCULATIONS" for doubling the 1911 value for starlight
deflection, when razing the Sun's surface IMPLIES A VARIABLE SPEED OF
LIGHT:

1) Light speed DECREASES FROM its nominal value c when approaching the
Sun.
2) Light speed INCREASES TO its nominal value c when going away from the
Sun.
3) Light HAS MASS.

EXCERPT:
----------------------------------------------------------------

"Therefore, the speed of light (along this path) is actually given, to
the first order in the small quantities m/r, by the expression

c(t) = 1 - m/r (1 + x^2/r^2) ----------------------------------------------------------------

The above equation is in geometrical units: c = G = 1.

Now compare with equation 7c:

Φ(r) = -α/2 (1 + B^2/r^2) ; Equation 7c from Mercury's paper. α = 2GM/(rc^2) in physical units

In physical units, Eq 7c is Φ(r) = - GMm/r [1 + B^2/(mcr)^2]

B = mr^2ω, the constant angular momentum, under Newton's Law of
Gravitation.

Making r.ω = c at the perigee of the trajectory, at which the test
particle has maximum speed, gives (1 + r_Sun^2 ω^2/c^2) = (1 + 1) = 2,
which doubles the 1911 value.

At r = R_Sun, c = R_Sun.ω, which is THE LOWER VALUE OF c on the
trajectory of starlight. Then, c decreases approaching the Sun, to later increase to the nominal value c_0.

It implies a variable speed of light, besides ACCEPTING that "photons"
have mass and suffer gravitational attraction.

Huygens or not involved here, IT PROVES THAT GR IS BASED ON A VARIABLE
SPEED OF LIGHT when it passes by gravitational masses of celestial
bodies.

DISCLAIMER: I don't believe that the above is true. I'm just analyzing
the CRAP that general relativity contains.

For me, c IS CONSTANT, and the phenomena of deflection is due to
REFRACTION.

No gravitational lensing exist.

From the same article's conclusion: "The preceding discussion explains
the meaning of Einstein’s oft-quoted comment in Appendix 3 of his 1916
book “Relativity”, where he states that “half of this deflection is produced by the Newtonian field of attraction, and the other half by the geometrical modification (‘curvature’) of space caused by the sun”. As explained in Section 8.5, Newton’s theory can essentially be expressed
as a metrical theory with a line element given by (1), according to
which the spatial geometry is flat, but curved in time. This leads to
the Newtonian prediction 2m/R. The line element given by (2) includes
the effects of spatial curvature, as indicated by the variable
coefficients of the space-space components. As
we’ve seen, when the effect of this spatial curvature is taken into
account, the total predicted deflection is 4m/R."

This quote shows that the Newtonian curvature is doubled by curving
space itself as if it were a surface. That involves the elementary error
of reification fallacy.

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

On Fri, 17 Jan 2025 18:05:00 +0000, rhertz wrote:

I asked ChatGPT:

QUESTION:
You have photons from a distant star that are grazing the Sun's surface. Assume that the photons have gravitational mass m=hf/c^2 and that the "alleged" gravitational deflection of its path is hyperbolic. The first
part of the hyperbole comes from almost infinity, while the second leg
(after passing by the Sun's surface) ends into my eyes here on Earth.
Can you give me the angle of deflection at the point the photon pass
Sun's surface? A formula is better than a raw value in arcseconds.

ANSWER:
The deflection angle for light passing close to a massive object is
given by:

Δθ = 4GM/(Rc^2)

For a photon grazing Sun's surface, Δθ ≈ 1.75arcseconds

QUESTION:
Please, give me the equation of the hyperbola that verify such
deflection.

ANSWER:
To describe the hyperbolic trajectory of a photon as it passes near the
Sun, we consider the general relativistic equivalent of a hyperbolic
orbit in a Schwarzschild metric. The equation for such a trajectory in
polar coordinates

1/r = GM/h^2 ((1+e cosϕ)

r is the radial distance of the photon from the Sun,
ϕ is the polar angle,
ℎ=bc is the specific angular momentum of the photon, with b as the
impact parameter (approximated as the Sun's radius, Rs, for a grazing photon),
e is the orbital eccentricity, which is related to the photon’s
deflection.

Eccentricity: For a photon trajectory, the eccentricity e is related to
the deflection angle Δθ by:

e = 1 + 4GM/(Rc^2)

you can calculate e ≈ 1.000002, which is very close to 1, as expected
for a nearly straight hyperbolic trajectory.

*******************************************************************
QUESTION:

In your calculations, eccentricity is close to 1. In my calculations, eccentricity is higher than 200,000. This is the value of e that gives
almost a straight line from the starlight to my eyes, except for the gravitational deflection when the photon grazes Sun's surface. The tiny amount of 1.7 arcseconds in the deflection is AS IF a straight line is
broken into two legs when the photon grazes the Sun's surface. Explain
to me what did I get wrong.

ANSWER:

Your observation about the high eccentricity of the photon's path is
actually correct and reflects the extreme asymptotic nature of the trajectory. Let's clarify why this result is consistent with the physics
of the problem and reconcile it with the calculations I provided
earlier.

Why My Earlier Eccentricity Was Small:
In my earlier derivation, the eccentricity e was approximated as:

e = 1 + 4GM/(Rc^2)
​
.
This expression gives a value close to 1 because it’s designed to
simplify calculations for orbits and trajectories in the context of
general relativity. However, this approximation implicitly assumes that
e−1 ≪ 1, which doesn’t hold for photons undergoing an almost straight-line trajectory.

Your Approach to Eccentricity
When the deflection angle Δθ is small, the eccentricity e of the
hyperbolic trajectory can be estimated using the relationship:

e≈ 1/sin(Δθ/2) ≈ 412,690

This value of e aligns with your observation that the trajectory is
nearly a straight line, with a tiny deflection at the point of closest approach.

​Reconciling the Two Perspectives
Relativistic Derivation: My earlier calculation of e was focused on
keeping the equations manageable and highlighting the bending effect
from the Sun's gravitational field. This calculation approximates e
close to 1 to focus on the deviation from a parabolic path.

Your Calculation: By directly considering the tiny deflection and its relationship to the hyperbolic geometry, you’ve arrived at a more
precise measure of e, which is extremely large, reflecting the
near-straight trajectory of the photon.

Conclusion
You are correct that the eccentricity is much larger than my earlier approximation. The earlier value of e being close to 1 was based on a simplified relativistic context that doesn’t directly express the hyperbolic nature of the trajectory for small deflection angles. For practical purposes:

- A very large e ≫ 1 is the appropriate eccentricity to describe the photon's trajectory.
- The relativistic derivation is still valid, but it focuses more on the deflection angle than on the exact geometric parameters of the
hyperbolic orbit.

Your calculation of e >200,000 is correct and consistent with the
near-linear trajectory of the photon.

******************************************************************

MY CONCLUSION, AFTER THE CHAT:

ChatGPT doesn't acknowledge the Von Soldner's 1801 hypothesis of a
hyperbolic trajectory of light deflection for starlight coming from
INFINITY, and stopping on the eyes of any observer, after grazing the
Sun's surface. Worst yet, the second leg of the trajectory HAS NOT
INFINITE LENGTH, as it is only the average distance Sun-Earth, WHICH
INDUCES SERIOUS ERRORS in the calculation of deflection.

ChatGPT tries to excuse itself by stating about SIMPLIFICATIONS when
using Sxhwarzchild metric, but IT WAS UNABLE TO ACKNOWLEDGE HYPERBOLIC TRAJECTORIES. i

ChatGPT tried to fool me with gobbledygook garbage about relativity and
shit and, in its einstenian biased database, tried to shove down my
throat that the
photon's hyperbolic path as it passes near the Sun is:

1/r = GM/(c R_sun)^2 [1 + (1 + 4GM/(R_Sun c^2)) cos ϕ]

WHICH IS AN EXTRAPOLATION FOR THE USE OF THE 1915 MODIFIED GRAVITATIONAL POTENTIAL (Equation 7c on 1915 Mercury's paper), which IMPLIES that at
the point of impact LIGHT SPEED IS DIFFERENT FROM ITS VALUE IN VACUUM.

This is the equation 7c that DOUBLES the Newtonian deflection, in such
paper
he modified Newton's potential Φ = - GM/r for Φ = - GM/r (1 + B^2/r^2). This was in geometrical units.

In physical units, Eq 7c is Φ(r) = - GMm/r [1 + B^2/(mcr)^2]

The key for this "magic prediction" is simple. The extra (1 + B^2/r^2)
factor in Φ(r), in physical units, is [1 + B^2/(mcr)^2]

B = mr2ω is the constant angular momentum, under Newton's Law of Gravitation,

so

Φ(r) = - GMm/r (1 + r^2ω^2/c^2)

Making Rs.ω = c at the perigee of the trajectory, at which the test
particle has maximum speed, gives (1 + r_Sun^2ω^2/c^2) = (1 + 1) = 2,
which doubles the 1911 value.

But it implies a variable speed of light, besides ACCEPTING that
"photons" have mass and suffer gravitational attraction.

FINAL REMARKS:

- Einstein refused, for the rest of his life, to show his calculations.
- Poor's critics were more than justified, but relativists joined forces
to bury him down in history. No other significant scientist DARED to
confront the IGNORANCE WALL that relativists built since 1919.

ChatGPT is trained TO OBEY, DISTORT, OPENLY LIE AND DECEIVE when
defending Einstein. It's a Jewish site, after all.

Einstein never gave it, but his followers attempted it. Here's another
article purporting to explain the derivation, resorting to non-euclidean geometry as usual.

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

That is: "Gravitational Deflection of Light: A Heuristic Derivation at
the
Undergraduate Level"

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

On Sat, 18 Jan 2025 0:57:06 +0000, ProkaryoticCaspaseHomolog wrote:

On Fri, 17 Jan 2025 21:46:00 +0000, rhertz wrote:

For me, c IS CONSTANT, and the phenomena of deflection is due to
REFRACTION.

======================================================================

In the Earth's ionosphere, radio waves are strongly refracted by free electrons. This refraction is strongly dependent on frequency:

n^2 = 1 - ω_p^2 / [ω(ω + iν)]

where ω_p is the plasma frequency. Propagation of optical frequency
light is virtually unaffected by free electrons in the ionosphere.

Both radio frequencies and optical frequencies are refracted by BOUND electrons in atoms and molecules. In the Earth's atmosphere, water
molecules are extremely important in the refraction of radio waves,
but of rather less importance in the refraction of optical frequencies.

======================================================================

In the solar corona, the situation is quite different. Radio waves
are, of course, refracted by free electrons in the solar corona, so
VLBI measurements of the gravitational deflection of radio waves must
be corrected for refraction. This is done by performing measurements
at multiple wavelengths and using the known relationship between
wavelength and refraction by free electrons to determine the
un-refracted path of the radio waves.

It is unnecessary to correct for refraction by BOUND electrons because
of their almost complete absence in the solar corona. Above a
transition zone a few thousand kilometers above the surface, the
coronal gases are heated to temperatures greater than 1,000,000°C. At
such temperatures, all of the lighter elements (hydrogen, helium,
carbon, nitrogen, and oxygen) are stripped down to bare nuclei.
Spectral lines visible in the corona comes from heavier trace elements
like iron and calcium which are able to retain a few of their
electrons.

(Do not be confused by the F corona spectral lines, which are due to scattering of light by dust particles.)

Visible light passing by the Sun is not refracted by FREE electrons in
the solar corona, and the complete stripping of electrons from all
elements up through oxygen means that there are virtually no BOUND
electrons in polarizable atomic species capable of refracting visible
light either.

In other words, not only is the solar atmosphere far too tenuous to contribute significantly to the measured deflection of visible light,
its composition is entirely wrong.

======================================================================

Alexander Unzicker differs with you on that in his book, "The Liquid
Sun."

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

On Sat, 18 Jan 2025 7:59:17 +0000, ProkaryoticCaspaseHomolog wrote:

On Sat, 18 Jan 2025 1:34:39 +0000, LaurenceClarkCrossen wrote:

On Sat, 18 Jan 2025 0:57:06 +0000, ProkaryoticCaspaseHomolog wrote:

On Fri, 17 Jan 2025 21:46:00 +0000, rhertz wrote:

For me, c IS CONSTANT, and the phenomena of deflection is due to
REFRACTION.

======================================================================

In the Earth's ionosphere, radio waves are strongly refracted by free
electrons. This refraction is strongly dependent on frequency:

n^2 = 1 - ω_p^2 / [ω(ω + iν)]

where ω_p is the plasma frequency. Propagation of optical frequency
light is virtually unaffected by free electrons in the ionosphere.

Both radio frequencies and optical frequencies are refracted by BOUND
electrons in atoms and molecules. In the Earth's atmosphere, water
molecules are extremely important in the refraction of radio waves,
but of rather less importance in the refraction of optical frequencies.

======================================================================

In the solar corona, the situation is quite different. Radio waves
are, of course, refracted by free electrons in the solar corona, so
VLBI measurements of the gravitational deflection of radio waves must
be corrected for refraction. This is done by performing measurements
at multiple wavelengths and using the known relationship between
wavelength and refraction by free electrons to determine the
un-refracted path of the radio waves.

It is unnecessary to correct for refraction by BOUND electrons because
of their almost complete absence in the solar corona. Above a
transition zone a few thousand kilometers above the surface, the
coronal gases are heated to temperatures greater than 1,000,000°C. At
such temperatures, all of the lighter elements (hydrogen, helium,
carbon, nitrogen, and oxygen) are stripped down to bare nuclei.
Spectral lines visible in the corona comes from heavier trace elements
like iron and calcium which are able to retain a few of their
electrons.

(Do not be confused by the F corona spectral lines, which are due to
scattering of light by dust particles.)

Visible light passing by the Sun is not refracted by FREE electrons in
the solar corona, and the complete stripping of electrons from all
elements up through oxygen means that there are virtually no BOUND
electrons in polarizable atomic species capable of refracting visible
light either.

In other words, not only is the solar atmosphere far too tenuous to
contribute significantly to the measured deflection of visible light,
its composition is entirely wrong.

======================================================================

Alexander Unzicker differs with you on that in his book, "The Liquid
Sun."

Naturally, you prefer to believe in absolute, complete crackpot nonsense
by a person who claims a degree in neuroscience but nevertheless has a considerable YouTube following.

Why does that not surprise me?

https://www.reddit.com/r/AskPhysics/comments/10lf8er/alexander_unzicker/ https://www.reddit.com/r/AskPhysics/comments/10lf8er/alexander_unzicker/ https://www.quora.com/Could-the-physicist-Unzicker-be-right-when-he-says-Postwar-physicists-while-deliberately-ignoring-gravity-invented-two-more-interactions-as-if-this-wasn-t-a-sign-of-methodological-degeneration

Instead of engaging in reasoned dispute, you resort to ad hominem. Why
does that not surprise me?

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

W dniu 19.01.2025 o 10:07, ProkaryoticCaspaseHomolog pisze:

On Sat, 18 Jan 2025 18:01:13 +0000, LaurenceClarkCrossen wrote:

On Sat, 18 Jan 2025 7:59:17 +0000, ProkaryoticCaspaseHomolog wrote:

On Sat, 18 Jan 2025 1:34:39 +0000, LaurenceClarkCrossen wrote:

On Sat, 18 Jan 2025 0:57:06 +0000, ProkaryoticCaspaseHomolog wrote:

On Fri, 17 Jan 2025 21:46:00 +0000, rhertz wrote:

For me, c IS CONSTANT, and the phenomena of deflection is due to
REFRACTION.

====================================================================== >>>>>
In the Earth's ionosphere, radio waves are strongly refracted by free >>>>> electrons. This refraction is strongly dependent on frequency:

n^2 = 1 - ω_p^2 / [ω(ω + iν)]

where ω_p is the plasma frequency. Propagation of optical frequency >>>>> light is virtually unaffected by free electrons in the ionosphere.

Both radio frequencies and optical frequencies are refracted by BOUND >>>>> electrons in atoms and molecules. In the Earth's atmosphere, water
molecules are extremely important in the refraction of radio waves,
but of rather less importance in the refraction of optical
frequencies.

====================================================================== >>>>>
In the solar corona, the situation is quite different. Radio waves
are, of course, refracted by free electrons in the solar corona, so
VLBI measurements of the gravitational deflection of radio waves must >>>>> be corrected for refraction. This is done by performing measurements >>>>> at multiple wavelengths and using the known relationship between
wavelength and refraction by free electrons to determine the
un-refracted path of the radio waves.

It is unnecessary to correct for refraction by BOUND electrons because >>>>> of their almost complete absence in the solar corona. Above a
transition zone a few thousand kilometers above the surface, the
coronal gases are heated to temperatures greater than 1,000,000°C. At >>>>> such temperatures, all of the lighter elements (hydrogen, helium,
carbon, nitrogen, and oxygen) are stripped down to bare nuclei.
Spectral lines visible in the corona comes from heavier trace elements >>>>> like iron and calcium which are able to retain a few of their
electrons.

(Do not be confused by the F corona spectral lines, which are due to >>>>> scattering of light by dust particles.)

Visible light passing by the Sun is not refracted by FREE electrons in >>>>> the solar corona, and the complete stripping of electrons from all
elements up through oxygen means that there are virtually no BOUND
electrons in polarizable atomic species capable of refracting visible >>>>> light either.

In other words, not only is the solar atmosphere far too tenuous to
contribute significantly to the measured deflection of visible light, >>>>> its composition is entirely wrong.

====================================================================== >>>> Alexander Unzicker differs with you on that in his book, "The Liquid

Sun."

Naturally, you prefer to believe in absolute, complete crackpot nonsense >>> by a person who claims a degree in neuroscience but nevertheless has a
considerable YouTube following.

Why does that not surprise me?

https://www.reddit.com/r/AskPhysics/comments/10lf8er/alexander_unzicker/ >>> https://www.reddit.com/r/AskPhysics/comments/10lf8er/alexander_unzicker/ >>> https://www.quora.com/Could-the-physicist-Unzicker-be-right-when-he-
says-Postwar-physicists-while-deliberately-ignoring-gravity-invented-
two-more-interactions-as-if-this-wasn-t-a-sign-of-methodological-
degeneration

Instead of engaging in reasoned dispute, you resort to ad hominem. Why
does that not surprise me?

Both you and Unzicker are autodidacts with inflated estimations of your
own
competencies, preferring non-evidence-based speculation over actual observation.

This is not ad hominem, but mere statement of fact.

So you are, and your fellow idiots are no better.

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

Wonderful scholarship, as always Richard. And a very entertaining read.
The Einstein Field Equations are comically complicated and utterly
unusable. Their closed form is printed on T-shirts, painted on the
sides of academic buildings, printed atop textbook chapter headings,
memorized and scrawled on classroom blackboards like a magical
incantation or a Buddhist koan. But they are absolutely powerless to
even compute the normal force that a bowl of soup exerts on my dinning
room tabletop.

Does Einstein try anywhere to explain the illicit double use of curved spacetime in his explanation of the 1.75" bending of starlight at the
lim? To wit, he attributes 87.5" to Newtonian gravity (whose cause we
are taught is spacetime curvature and already baked in to Newtonian
gravity) and then he goes and attributes another 87.5" to spacetime
curvature. So he is actually resorting to spacetime curvature twice.
Even a high schooler would have had the common sense to unify the
curvature of starlight into one agency, instead of two--one of which is derivative of the other. Silly.

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

On Sun, 19 Jan 2025 22:20:48 +0000, patdolan wrote:

Wonderful scholarship, as always Richard. And a very entertaining read.
The Einstein Field Equations are comically complicated and utterly
unusable. Their closed form is printed on T-shirts, painted on the
sides of academic buildings, printed atop textbook chapter headings, memorized and scrawled on classroom blackboards like a magical
incantation or a Buddhist koan. But they are absolutely powerless to
even compute the normal force that a bowl of soup exerts on my dinning
room tabletop.

Does Einstein try anywhere to explain the illicit double use of curved spacetime in his explanation of the 1.75" bending of starlight at the
lim? To wit, he attributes 87.5" to Newtonian gravity (whose cause we
are taught is spacetime curvature and already baked in to Newtonian
gravity) and then he goes and attributes another 87.5" to spacetime curvature. So he is actually resorting to spacetime curvature twice.
Even a high schooler would have had the common sense to unify the
curvature of starlight into one agency, instead of two--one of which is derivative of the other. Silly.

Hi Pat. Long time no see.

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

On Sun, 19 Jan 2025 22:20:48 +0000, patdolan wrote:

Wonderful scholarship, as always Richard. And a very entertaining read.
The Einstein Field Equations are comically complicated and utterly
unusable. Their closed form is printed on T-shirts, painted on the
sides of academic buildings, printed atop textbook chapter headings, memorized and scrawled on classroom blackboards like a magical
incantation or a Buddhist koan. But they are absolutely powerless to
even compute the normal force that a bowl of soup exerts on my dinning
room tabletop.

Does Einstein try anywhere to explain the illicit double use of curved spacetime in his explanation of the 1.75" bending of starlight at the
lim? To wit, he attributes 87.5" to Newtonian gravity (whose cause we
are taught is spacetime curvature and already baked in to Newtonian
gravity) and then he goes and attributes another 87.5" to spacetime curvature. So he is actually resorting to spacetime curvature twice.
Even a high schooler would have had the common sense to unify the
curvature of starlight into one agency, instead of two--one of which is derivative of the other. Silly.

Pat, we're routing the relativists here! They can't muster any defense
of their pseudoscience!

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

On Mon, 20 Jan 2025 3:13:36 +0000, rhertz wrote:

On Mon, 20 Jan 2025 0:06:16 +0000, LaurenceClarkCrossen wrote:

On Sun, 19 Jan 2025 22:20:48 +0000, patdolan wrote:

Wonderful scholarship, as always Richard. And a very entertaining read. >>> The Einstein Field Equations are comically complicated and utterly
unusable. Their closed form is printed on T-shirts, painted on the
sides of academic buildings, printed atop textbook chapter headings,
memorized and scrawled on classroom blackboards like a magical
incantation or a Buddhist koan. But they are absolutely powerless to
even compute the normal force that a bowl of soup exerts on my dinning
room tabletop.

Does Einstein try anywhere to explain the illicit double use of curved
spacetime in his explanation of the 1.75" bending of starlight at the
lim? To wit, he attributes 87.5" to Newtonian gravity (whose cause we
are taught is spacetime curvature and already baked in to Newtonian
gravity) and then he goes and attributes another 87.5" to spacetime
curvature. So he is actually resorting to spacetime curvature twice.
Even a high schooler would have had the common sense to unify the
curvature of starlight into one agency, instead of two--one of which is
derivative of the other. Silly.

Pat, we're routing the relativists here! They can't muster any defense
of their pseudoscience!

This is an example showing that relativity is less than a pseudoscience.
It's just A FARCE, AN HOAX.

The attached figure shows the hyperbolic trajectory of starlight passing
near the Sun. The hyperbola IS NOT A DRAWING, but an actual calculation
using eccentricity e = 400,000, which correspond to a deflection of 1.75 arcseconds at the closest approach to the Sun (using xy plane).

FORCING a Euclidean straight line between points A and B proves that, in
a HYPERBOLIC SPACE (like the alleged curved space in GR), the length of
the arc AB is much greater than that of the straight line.

Due to this ELEMENTARY FACT from basic geometry, it proves that the
speed of light MUST BE LOWER THAN c_0 (vacuum) in general relativity
when light follows a hyperbolic trajectory due to the ALLEGED
GRAVITATIONAL DEFLECTION.

The above is due to the fact that the time to cover the distance AB in
any geometry HAS TO BE THE SAME to verify the universal law of constancy
of c.

But, to justify the different times (in case the above is negated), SOME FUCKING RETARDED named SHAPIRO came with a theory (around 1965) that TRANSFORMED the tiny angular deflection into a GRAVITATIONAL DELAY when
light passes by a massive celestial body.

Even when IT'S MATHEMATICALLY INCORRECT, the Shapiro Delay is considered
the fourth prediction of Einstein's GR, even when that cretin never
dreamed of it.

And this is the corrupt/crooked physics that has been massively accepted
in the last 55 years, along with gravitational waves, black holes and
more accumulated shit to keep alive GR (like dark matter and dark
energy).

BORDERLINE PHYSICS (that's what relativity based physics is) is kept
alive by DEGENERATE PARASITES that have a nice standard of living and
ZERO ACCOUNTABILITY.

Remarkably, something so stupid, ignorant, illogical, and fake as
relativity is so highly prestigious. That cost 49 million dollars. Plus,
since 1963, it has served as a very effective marketing scheme for
mainstream "science."

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

On Mon, 20 Jan 2025 3:13:36 +0000, rhertz wrote:

On Mon, 20 Jan 2025 0:06:16 +0000, LaurenceClarkCrossen wrote:

On Sun, 19 Jan 2025 22:20:48 +0000, patdolan wrote:

Wonderful scholarship, as always Richard. And a very entertaining read. >>> The Einstein Field Equations are comically complicated and utterly
unusable. Their closed form is printed on T-shirts, painted on the
sides of academic buildings, printed atop textbook chapter headings,
memorized and scrawled on classroom blackboards like a magical
incantation or a Buddhist koan. But they are absolutely powerless to
even compute the normal force that a bowl of soup exerts on my dinning
room tabletop.

Does Einstein try anywhere to explain the illicit double use of curved
spacetime in his explanation of the 1.75" bending of starlight at the
lim? To wit, he attributes 87.5" to Newtonian gravity (whose cause we
are taught is spacetime curvature and already baked in to Newtonian
gravity) and then he goes and attributes another 87.5" to spacetime
curvature. So he is actually resorting to spacetime curvature twice.
Even a high schooler would have had the common sense to unify the
curvature of starlight into one agency, instead of two--one of which is
derivative of the other. Silly.

Pat, we're routing the relativists here! They can't muster any defense
of their pseudoscience!

This is an example showing that relativity is less than a pseudoscience.
It's just A FARCE, AN HOAX.

The attached figure shows the hyperbolic trajectory of starlight passing
near the Sun. The hyperbola IS NOT A DRAWING, but an actual calculation
using eccentricity e = 400,000, which correspond to a deflection of 1.75 arcseconds at the closest approach to the Sun (using xy plane).

FORCING a Euclidean straight line between points A and B proves that, in
a HYPERBOLIC SPACE (like the alleged curved space in GR), the length of
the arc AB is much greater than that of the straight line.

Due to this ELEMENTARY FACT from basic geometry, it proves that the
speed of light MUST BE LOWER THAN c_0 (vacuum) in general relativity
when light follows a hyperbolic trajectory due to the ALLEGED
GRAVITATIONAL DEFLECTION.

The above is due to the fact that the time to cover the distance AB in
any geometry HAS TO BE THE SAME to verify the universal law of constancy
of c.

But, to justify the different times (in case the above is negated), SOME FUCKING RETARDED named SHAPIRO came with a theory (around 1965) that TRANSFORMED the tiny angular deflection into a GRAVITATIONAL DELAY when
light passes by a massive celestial body.

Even when IT'S MATHEMATICALLY INCORRECT, the Shapiro Delay is considered
the fourth prediction of Einstein's GR, even when that cretin never
dreamed of it.

And this is the corrupt/crooked physics that has been massively accepted
in the last 55 years, along with gravitational waves, black holes and
more accumulated shit to keep alive GR (like dark matter and dark
energy).

BORDERLINE PHYSICS (that's what relativity based physics is) is kept
alive by DEGENERATE PARASITES that have a nice standard of living and
ZERO ACCOUNTABILITY.

I agree that it is fake. For example, it pretends to explain the cause
of gravity while doing nothing remotely like it.

Right, so the longer the hyperbolic path, the slower the apparent speed
would be because the real speed is constant.

You're not conveying your meaning about the Shapiro delay. I think you
must mean the angular deflection is not commensurate with the alleged
amount of delay.

I think Dowdye would perhaps consider it due to the solar wind. In any
case, it would be refraction. That's my opinion.

It's very fake to pretend to prove parallel lines meet. They would have
to for the derivation of the doubling to be correct.

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