Re: Relativity Derives Zero Deflection of Light By Gravity.

Am Samstag000022, 22.02.2025 um 19:27 schrieb The Starmaker:

Thomas Heger wrote:

>
Am Freitag000021, 21.02.2025 um 20:37 schrieb LaurenceClarkCrossen:

On Fri, 21 Feb 2025 8:26:26 +0000, Thomas Heger wrote:
>

Am Donnerstag000020, 20.02.2025 um 22:44 schrieb Richard Hachel:

Le 20/02/2025 à 22:31, "Paul B. Andersen" a écrit :

So you prefer to believe that your derivation that
photons are not affected by gravity is correct,
and that GR's predictions thus are proven wrong.
>
So you must be ignorant of the fact that photons are observed
to be deflected by gravity exactly as predicted by GR.
>
Because you would not claim that "photons cannot be affected
by gravity" if you knew that they are.
>
Or would you? :-D
>
Paul

>
What is the evidence that photons are deflected by the presence of
matter in space?

>
The photons are not affected, but space itself is.
>
The idea of GR was, that gravity is actually an effect of 'curvature',
which is itself caused by gravity.
>
What gets curved is actually the 'axis of time' local to a certain part
of space.
>
What we call 'space' has a certain (geometric) relation to the axis of
time, if we regard the axis of time as imaginary and the axes of space
as real.
>
Then we have i as a factor, by which time gets multiplied and what gives
us three real axes of space.
>
This space is therefore depending on the direction of time.
>
Curvature of the axis of time is actually an acceleration in a
space-time diagram, which usually has one axis of time and only one of
type space.
>
Now this can 'curve' and we get gravity, which is a force, that results
from such curvature.
>
Now light ('photons') pass through such a distorted space upon force
free straight lines, which are actually curved in spacetime in presence
of a gravitational field.
>
This pass is NOT curved by gravitation, but by curvature of space.
>
>
....
>
>
TH

it is good to hear someone here who can plainly explain relativity so
everyone can understand. The only problem is that space is not a
surface, so it can't curve. Non-Euclidean geometry cannot curve space,
so it can't cause gravity. The idea that the concept of curved space is
somehow an improvement over the idea of fields of force is mistaken
because it involves the elementary error of reification fallacy.

>
Well, let's assume, that relativity is actually correct and 'length
contraction' and 'time dilation' are real phenomena, which can make a
certain space disappear, while another one unfolds.
>
But his is NOT caused by velocity, as Einstein assumed in SRT, but by
acceleration (as Einstein assumed in GR).
>
Now we could extend this idea by allowing different directions of the
axis of time, which would also include timelines, which point into the
opposite direction (towords our own time).
>
The time flowing backwards would have an associated space, too, but one,
that we cannot see.
>
That space could pass like a ghost throuh our world and we wouldn't
recognize its existence.
>
But that space is actually real and also populated, while we live in
that 'negative world in a mirror' like ghosts, which passes through
their world like being not there.
>
Betwenn forward and backwards time we can have a continuum of degrees
and also 'sideways' time, which is a bit difficult to imagine.
>
Since matter is timelike stable, we are (as all matter) bound to our own
time and could not exist in such a 'mirrored world'. Matter would simply
disapear like in a black hole, if it enters such a realm of negative time.
>
But it would 'pop out of nowhere' in the space behind the mirror and
that is, what we call 'big bang'.
>
TH

 "negative time"???? u got dis thing backwersd...
 Space is negative, and Time is positive.
 Time is not Left, Time is Right.
 Time goes right.
 Do you as "Do you have the Left time, sir?" or do you say, "Do you have
the right time, Miss?"

I think about time as a local parameter.
Therefore any point has its own local positve time.
'perpendicular' is space, if yyou regard the axis of time as imaginary and 'perpendicular' as multiplied by the imaginary unit i.
That's why I think that space is 'relative' (to the local axis of time).
Now we could extend this idea and start a universe from nothing, where we have one axis of time pointing in some direction, which is balanced by another axis of time, pointing into the opposite direction.
That 'opposite direction' is also positive time, but only locally.
Now we can have two spaces, which both have a positive time, which are negative to the other timeline.
Because this construct is 'anti-symmetric', the anti-world is also filled with anti-matter. That is like 'matter in a mirror'.
That matter is also just usual matter in that 'anti-world' with 'anti-time', because the beings living there know only their own world and their own time.
Now both worlds could coexist, because they cannot interact easily and pass through each other like a ghost.

...

TH