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

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.