"it turns out there's no
0:34
time dimension in the space-time
0:36
manifold whatsoever but rather only
0:39
another dimension of
0:41
space that's right in relativity your
0:45
SpaceTime manifold isn't a
0:46
four-dimensional space-time manifold at
0:49
all it's actually a four-dimensional
0:51
space space"
= "The 4th Dimension in Relativity isn't Time -- it's Space."
- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JFEMgaAusic

So, the same space is doubled redundantly.

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

Why do relativists refuse to defend the derivation of the "4" required
to double the deflection? Why did Einstein refuse to? It can't be
defended.

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

On Sun, 19 Jan 2025 12:50:03 +0000, Mikko wrote:

The answer to the subject line is "no". The math says that the
gravitational
deflection is what the math used to say. But one mtehmatical method can
say
that the defilection is twice what another mathematical method says. For example, Newtons optics, which assumes that light is a stream of small particles, predicts only half of the deflection than general Relativity.
A naive application of Maxwell's theory predicts that there is no defilection.

On 2025-01-18 21:40:26 +0000, LaurenceClarkCrossen said:

No, because whatever the math, space is not a surface, so it cannot
bend.

Nothing proves that space is not a hypersurface in a muli-dimensional hyperpshere. But the math permits that it may be curved even without
any hyperspace.

A boat sailing up and downstream takes longer than one sailing the same
distance in a pond.

Also longer than sailing the same distance cross-stream and back.

Contrary to what one may think, the math proves that.

With reasonable assumptions (in particular that the water surface is Euclidean).

Math cannot prove space curves.

Math cannot prove that space does not curve, either. But math can define
what "space is curved" means and how the curvature can be described and quantifed.

Einstein said he obtained the doubling by the "curving space."

In certain sense that is true.

Math pages sums up by saying the doubling is from "curved space."

In the same sense.

Accepting that space curves requires accepting that parallel lines meet.
Is that rational? Can the eclipse experiments prove that parallel lines
meet? Then how can they prove the doubling deflection? They can't.

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

On Sun, 19 Jan 2025 12:50:03 +0000, Mikko wrote:

The answer to the subject line is "no". The math says that the
gravitational
deflection is what the math used to say. But one mtehmatical method can
say
that the defilection is twice what another mathematical method says. For example, Newtons optics, which assumes that light is a stream of small particles, predicts only half of the deflection than general Relativity.
A naive application of Maxwell's theory predicts that there is no defilection.

On 2025-01-18 21:40:26 +0000, LaurenceClarkCrossen said:

No, because whatever the math, space is not a surface, so it cannot
bend.

Nothing proves that space is not a hypersurface in a muli-dimensional hyperpshere. But the math permits that it may be curved even without
any hyperspace.

A boat sailing up and downstream takes longer than one sailing the same
distance in a pond.

Also longer than sailing the same distance cross-stream and back.

Contrary to what one may think, the math proves that.

With reasonable assumptions (in particular that the water surface is Euclidean).

Math cannot prove space curves.

Math cannot prove that space does not curve, either. But math can define
what "space is curved" means and how the curvature can be described and quantifed.

Einstein said he obtained the doubling by the "curving space."

In certain sense that is true.

Math pages sums up by saying the doubling is from "curved space."

In the same sense.

Even Paul accepts that space is not a surface, so the reasonable thing
is to accept that it doesn't curve. Even a child watching a clown
pretend to bump into a wall laughs, recognizing it as ridiculous. But
you take the reification fallacy seriously and accept curved space or "space-space." Non-Euclidean space is a fiction claiming that parallel
lines meet.

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

On Mon, 20 Jan 2025 8:17:24 +0000, Mikko wrote:

On 2025-01-19 16:01:52 +0000, LaurenceClarkCrossen said:

On Sun, 19 Jan 2025 12:50:03 +0000, Mikko wrote:

The answer to the subject line is "no". The math says that the
gravitational
deflection is what the math used to say. But one mtehmatical method can
say
that the defilection is twice what another mathematical method says. For >>> example, Newtons optics, which assumes that light is a stream of small
particles, predicts only half of the deflection than general Relativity. >>> A naive application of Maxwell's theory predicts that there is no
defilection.

On 2025-01-18 21:40:26 +0000, LaurenceClarkCrossen said:

No, because whatever the math, space is not a surface, so it cannot
bend.

Nothing proves that space is not a hypersurface in a muli-dimensional
hyperpshere. But the math permits that it may be curved even without
any hyperspace.

A boat sailing up and downstream takes longer than one sailing the same >>>> distance in a pond.

Also longer than sailing the same distance cross-stream and back.

Contrary to what one may think, the math proves that.

With reasonable assumptions (in particular that the water surface is
Euclidean).

Math cannot prove space curves.

Math cannot prove that space does not curve, either. But math can define >>> what "space is curved" means and how the curvature can be described and
quantifed.

Einstein said he obtained the doubling by the "curving space."

In certain sense that is true.

Math pages sums up by saying the doubling is from "curved space."

In the same sense.

Accepting that space curves requires accepting that parallel lines meet.
Is that rational? Can the eclipse experiments prove that parallel lines
meet? Then how can they prove the doubling deflection? They can't.

Is it rational to accept that we can see the same object in two (or
more)
different directions? Doesn't matter. The fact is that some distant
galaxies
are observed in two or more different directions.

It is stupid to think they exist in more than one direction. You are
falling back on a subjectivist interpretation of relativity. Good luck!

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

On Mon, 20 Jan 2025 8:17:24 +0000, Mikko wrote:

On 2025-01-19 16:01:52 +0000, LaurenceClarkCrossen said:

On Sun, 19 Jan 2025 12:50:03 +0000, Mikko wrote:

The answer to the subject line is "no". The math says that the
gravitational
deflection is what the math used to say. But one mtehmatical method can
say
that the defilection is twice what another mathematical method says. For >>> example, Newtons optics, which assumes that light is a stream of small
particles, predicts only half of the deflection than general Relativity. >>> A naive application of Maxwell's theory predicts that there is no
defilection.

On 2025-01-18 21:40:26 +0000, LaurenceClarkCrossen said:

No, because whatever the math, space is not a surface, so it cannot
bend.

Nothing proves that space is not a hypersurface in a muli-dimensional
hyperpshere. But the math permits that it may be curved even without
any hyperspace.

A boat sailing up and downstream takes longer than one sailing the same >>>> distance in a pond.

Also longer than sailing the same distance cross-stream and back.

Contrary to what one may think, the math proves that.

With reasonable assumptions (in particular that the water surface is
Euclidean).

Math cannot prove space curves.

Math cannot prove that space does not curve, either. But math can define >>> what "space is curved" means and how the curvature can be described and
quantifed.

Einstein said he obtained the doubling by the "curving space."

In certain sense that is true.

Math pages sums up by saying the doubling is from "curved space."

In the same sense.

Accepting that space curves requires accepting that parallel lines meet.
Is that rational? Can the eclipse experiments prove that parallel lines
meet? Then how can they prove the doubling deflection? They can't.

Is it rational to accept that we can see the same object in two (or
more)
different directions? Doesn't matter. The fact is that some distant
galaxies
are observed in two or more different directions.

Curved space is not refraction.

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

On Wed, 22 Jan 2025 13:40:52 +0000, Paul.B.Andersen wrote:

Den 20.01.2025 20:46, skrev LaurenceClarkCrossen:

On Mon, 20 Jan 2025 8:17:24 +0000, Mikko wrote:

Is it rational to accept that we can see the same object in two (or
more)
different directions? Doesn't matter. The fact is that some distant
galaxies
are observed in two or more different directions.

It is stupid to think they exist in more than one direction. You are
falling back on a subjectivist interpretation of relativity. Good luck!

It is indeed incredible stupid to believe that there
is a "subjectivist interpretation of relativity" which say
that an object can "exist in more than one direction".
What an idiotic idea! :-D

It is however _many_ examples that multiple distorted images
of the same object can be seen.

A star or quasar is radiating light in all direction.
So if, relative to us, the star or quasar is behind a large
galaxy, light that is passing close by the galaxy may be
gravitational deflected so that the light is bent towards us.
If the star or quasar is exactly on a straight line behind
the gravitating galaxy, light passing on different sides
may be bent towards us, so we see multiple images or even
a ring.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einstein_Cross

https://www.livescience.com/physics-mathematics/gravity/rare-einstein-cross-warps-light-from-one-of-the-universes-brightest-objects-in-this-stunning-image

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einstein_ring

Make my day. Keep denying facts.

You're so lame brain that you didn't address the issue which is whether
it is refraction or gravity. Duh!

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

On Sun, 19 Jan 2025 12:50:03 +0000, Mikko wrote:

The answer to the subject line is "no". The math says that the
gravitational
deflection is what the math used to say. But one mtehmatical method can
say
that the defilection is twice what another mathematical method says. For example, Newtons optics, which assumes that light is a stream of small particles, predicts only half of the deflection than general Relativity.
A naive application of Maxwell's theory predicts that there is no defilection.

On 2025-01-18 21:40:26 +0000, LaurenceClarkCrossen said:

No, because whatever the math, space is not a surface, so it cannot
bend.

Nothing proves that space is not a hypersurface in a muli-dimensional hyperpshere. But the math permits that it may be curved even without
any hyperspace.

A boat sailing up and downstream takes longer than one sailing the same
distance in a pond.

Also longer than sailing the same distance cross-stream and back.

Contrary to what one may think, the math proves that.

With reasonable assumptions (in particular that the water surface is Euclidean).

Math cannot prove space curves.

Math cannot prove that space does not curve, either. But math can define
what "space is curved" means and how the curvature can be described and quantifed.

Einstein said he obtained the doubling by the "curving space."

In certain sense that is true.

Math pages sums up by saying the doubling is from "curved space."

In the same sense.

For relativity to be correct it would have to be space (not hyperspace)
that is curved and that is necessarily reification fallacy and just
nonsense. These concepts of hyperspace are cases of elementary logical
fallacy of reification fallacy. It is remarkable that so much
prestigious blather is based on elementary logical errors.

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

On Thu, 23 Jan 2025 19:06:05 +0000, Paul.B.Andersen wrote:

Den 23.01.2025 01:39, skrev LaurenceClarkCrossen:

On Wed, 22 Jan 2025 13:40:52 +0000, Paul.B.Andersen wrote:

On Mon, 20 Jan 2025 8:17:24 +0000, Mikko wrote:

The fact is that some distant
galaxies
are observed in two or more different directions.

The issue is if multiple images of distant galaxies can be seen.

My answer is:

It is however _many_ examples that multiple distorted images
of the same object can be seen.

A star or quasar is radiating light in all direction.
So if, relative to us, the star or quasar is behind a large
galaxy, light that is passing close by the galaxy may be
gravitational deflected so that the light is bent towards us.
If the star or quasar is exactly on a straight line behind
the gravitating galaxy, light passing on different sides
may be bent towards us, so we see multiple images or even
a ring.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einstein_Cross

https://www.livescience.com/physics-mathematics/gravity/rare-einstein-cross-warps-light-from-one-of-the-universes-brightest-objects-in-this-stunning-image


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einstein_ring

Make my day. Keep denying facts.

You're so lame brain that you didn't address the issue which is whether
it is refraction or gravity. Duh!

Laurence Clark Crossen believe that the issue is if
Einstein crosses and Einstein rings are created by
refraction or gravitational lensing.

What do you think it is, Laurence?
Refraction in the intergalactic medium? :-D

Paul, I think people who are always saying "duh" at the end of their
sentences are the dumb ones. It's refraction in the coronas because
otherwise, as Edward Dowdye has pointed out, they wold be everywhere.

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

On Sun, 19 Jan 2025 12:50:03 +0000, Mikko wrote:

The answer to the subject line is "no". The math says that the
gravitational
deflection is what the math used to say. But one mtehmatical method can
say
that the defilection is twice what another mathematical method says. For example, Newtons optics, which assumes that light is a stream of small particles, predicts only half of the deflection than general Relativity.
A naive application of Maxwell's theory predicts that there is no defilection.

On 2025-01-18 21:40:26 +0000, LaurenceClarkCrossen said:

No, because whatever the math, space is not a surface, so it cannot
bend.

Nothing proves that space is not a hypersurface in a muli-dimensional hyperpshere. But the math permits that it may be curved even without
any hyperspace.

A boat sailing up and downstream takes longer than one sailing the same
distance in a pond.

Also longer than sailing the same distance cross-stream and back.

Contrary to what one may think, the math proves that.

With reasonable assumptions (in particular that the water surface is Euclidean).

Math cannot prove space curves.

Math cannot prove that space does not curve, either. But math can define
what "space is curved" means and how the curvature can be described and quantifed.

Einstein said he obtained the doubling by the "curving space."

In certain sense that is true.

Math pages sums up by saying the doubling is from "curved space."

In the same sense.

Relativity claims that space itself s curved and caused the appearance
of deflection. Math cannot curve space.
"When we look deeper into the phenomenon,
however, grounds for misgiving appear. The
remarkable fact that books of science have
become best sellers admits of two possible explanations : either the
most widespread desire of the public has changed, so that it is now for scientific
thought instead of thoughtless diversion, or else
books of science have changed so as to provide
thoughtless diversion instead of scientific thought.
Unfortunately the latter alternative appears to be
nearer the truth." - Herbert Dingle "Physics and the Public Mind" Nature
June 2, 1934
HYperspace is drivel.

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

On Sun, 19 Jan 2025 12:50:03 +0000, Mikko wrote:

The answer to the subject line is "no". The math says that the
gravitational
deflection is what the math used to say. But one mtehmatical method can
say
that the defilection is twice what another mathematical method says. For example, Newtons optics, which assumes that light is a stream of small particles, predicts only half of the deflection than general Relativity.
A naive application of Maxwell's theory predicts that there is no defilection.

On 2025-01-18 21:40:26 +0000, LaurenceClarkCrossen said:

No, because whatever the math, space is not a surface, so it cannot
bend.

Nothing proves that space is not a hypersurface in a muli-dimensional hyperpshere. But the math permits that it may be curved even without
any hyperspace.

A boat sailing up and downstream takes longer than one sailing the same
distance in a pond.

Also longer than sailing the same distance cross-stream and back.

Contrary to what one may think, the math proves that.

With reasonable assumptions (in particular that the water surface is Euclidean).

Math cannot prove space curves.

Math cannot prove that space does not curve, either. But math can define
what "space is curved" means and how the curvature can be described and quantifed.

Einstein said he obtained the doubling by the "curving space."

In certain sense that is true.

Math pages sums up by saying the doubling is from "curved space."

In the same sense.

"Conclusions are presented as mathematically demonstrated which
mathematics has
not only not demonstrated but is also inherently
incapable of demonstrating. Mathematics is thus
portrayed as the magic wand of the few instead
of the concentrated reason of all. Once the
supreme expression and inspired Word of Reason,
it has become an indulgence, granting absolution
for the wildest excesses of irrationality. Instead
of being a mental tonic, its very name has become
a mental opiate, and elementary fallacies which a
generation ago would have been detected by the
most ordinary of thinkers, now deceive the acutest
minds, which lie bemused under its spell." - ibid.

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

On Thu, 23 Jan 2025 19:06:05 +0000, Paul.B.Andersen wrote:

Den 23.01.2025 01:39, skrev LaurenceClarkCrossen:

On Wed, 22 Jan 2025 13:40:52 +0000, Paul.B.Andersen wrote:

On Mon, 20 Jan 2025 8:17:24 +0000, Mikko wrote:

The fact is that some distant
galaxies
are observed in two or more different directions.

The issue is if multiple images of distant galaxies can be seen.

My answer is:

It is however _many_ examples that multiple distorted images
of the same object can be seen.

A star or quasar is radiating light in all direction.
So if, relative to us, the star or quasar is behind a large
galaxy, light that is passing close by the galaxy may be
gravitational deflected so that the light is bent towards us.
If the star or quasar is exactly on a straight line behind
the gravitating galaxy, light passing on different sides
may be bent towards us, so we see multiple images or even
a ring.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einstein_Cross

https://www.livescience.com/physics-mathematics/gravity/rare-einstein-cross-warps-light-from-one-of-the-universes-brightest-objects-in-this-stunning-image


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einstein_ring

Make my day. Keep denying facts.

You're so lame brain that you didn't address the issue which is whether
it is refraction or gravity. Duh!

Laurence Clark Crossen believe that the issue is if
Einstein crosses and Einstein rings are created by
refraction or gravitational lensing.

What do you think it is, Laurence?
Refraction in the intergalactic medium? :-D

Paul, according to Einstein the doubling of deflection is caused by
Huygens principle. Is that involved in the non-Euclidean calculation of
the doubling of curving space or has that been jettisoned?

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