Re: Does the Math Show A Doubling of the Gravitational Deflection of Starlight?

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.