Re: The Apollo moon landings

In sci.physics Bertitaylor <bertietaylor@myyahoo.com> wrote:

On Sat, 28 Jun 2025 16:18:00 +0000, Thomas Heger wrote:
 

Am Freitag000027, 27.06.2025 um 07:55 schrieb Bertitaylor:

On Fri, 27 Jun 2025 5:32:44 +0000, Thomas Heger wrote:
>

Am Dienstag000024, 24.06.2025 um 01:40 schrieb Bertitaylor:
....
>

>

>
Biggest science hoax ever that, using the refraction of the
starlight
from the Sun's atmosphere to "prove" the extraordinary bullshit of
General Relativity.

>
Has anybody calculated how much refraction by the Sun's atmosphere
would bend a ray of star light, and was the result of that
calculation
close to the observed bending?

>
They totally neglected the impact of lensing from the Sun's outer
atmosphere which obviously had a refractive index greater than unity.
When you neglect that fact you can come to absurdly wrong conclusions
like GR getting validated.

>
Einstein didn't just predict that the light ray would be bent, he
predicted *how* *much* it would be bent.  If you can't calculate
how much refraction by the solar atmosphere would bend the light
ray, and you can't find anybody who has done this calculation,
then you have nothing.  You have no grounds on which to conclude
that this refraction is large enough to invalidate GR.

>
GR is based on SR which is ridiculous nonsense.

>
Possibly SR is nonsense, but GR is definitely not based on SRT.
>
Actually GR uses concepts, which are totally incompatible with those of
SRT.
>
SRT is for instance based on 'inertial' frames of reference, which
means, they are not accelerated and drift through a starless 'flat'
space.
>
GR, on the other hand, is based on 'curved spacetime' and includes
acceleration.

>
But there is no such animal as curved spacetime.

>
Actually I think, that 'curved spacetime' can be easily seen:
>
you could interpret the so called 'Pioneer anomaly' as effect of the
'curvature of spacetime'.
>
Worldlines in spacetime curve through acceleration. And because Pioneer
flew into space by a rocket, the probe was heavily accelerated several
times. (also by 'fly-bys')
>
This made the local axis of time of the craft tilted away from our by a
very small degree.
>
Since the material object 'Pioneer probe' has a local axis of time,
which determines, how the probe moves, and that local time had a small
angle towards our Earth based time, the probe would look, from our
perspective, as if it would be too slow.
>
That could be (mis-) interpreted as unmodelled acceleration.
....
>
>
TH

 
You can see so many things now many think never happened, like the video
of Apollo 11 moon landings and photos.

Delusional crackpot babble, Arindam.

Computer Art has now replaced serious experiments of the kind Arindam
learnt in school.

Arindam, if you ever learned how to do an experiment, you forgot
everything about the process decades ago.

<snip remaining delusional crackpot babble>

--
penninojim@yahoo.com