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

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.