Re: Interesting. ChatGPT fails defending starlight deflection when photons graze Sun's surface

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.