Re: Weakness in the results of the three tests of GR shown in rhe lasr century,.

Den 30.10.2024 22:45, skrev Paul.B.Andersen:

Den 30.10.2024 01:30, skrev rhertz:

On Tue, 29 Oct 2024 21:35:06 +0000, LaurenceClarkCrossen wrote:
>

Mr. Hertz: Perhaps this source would be interesting: "Hipparcos did not
measure directly the light bending" = Serret.

>
Of course IT DID NOT!
>
The MAIN objective of HIPPARCOS was to measure the RELATIVE POSITION AND
LATERAL MOTION of more than 100,000 stars with respect TO EACH OTHER,
besides its  brightness and colors.

 Right.
The point with measuring the positions of the stars relative to each
other is that neighbouring stars have the same stellar aberration,
so it is not necessary to compensate for. (The correction is small.)
The angular distances between the neighbouring stars are measured
with a precision of ~1 mas. The sky is scanned over and over at
different times of the year so that the distances between
the same stars are measured many times.
Change in the distances between the stars can be caused by:
1. Proper motion. (A constant angular velocity)
2. Parallax. A yearly change in the position.
3. Gravitational deflection of the Sun. A daily change in position.

3. Gravitational deflection of the Sun. An annual change in position.
.

 Post-procession of the data is obviously a formidable task.
But even you should be able to understand that it is possible
to find:
The position of each star.
The proper motion of each star.
The parallax of each star. (Distance.)
The gravitational deflection of some of the stars.
 About the last:
Imagine a star in the ecliptic plane.
When the angle star-Sun is 180⁰ the deflection is zero.
When the angle star-Sun is 90⁰ the deflection is 4 mas.
When the angle star-Sun is 45⁰ the deflection is 12 mas.
When the angle star-Sun is 30⁰ the deflection is 15 mas.
When the angle star-Sun is 15⁰ the deflection is 31 mas
 This means that the change of stellar position due to
gravitational deflection is observable, even at angles
star-sun ≥ 90⁰
 

>
>
PURE COMMON SENSE: IF NO UNIVERSAL FRAME OF REFERENCE EXISTED BY THE
TIME OF HIPPARCOS, ON WHAT BASIS AFFIRMATIONS LIKE THAT "HIPPARCOS WAS
ABLE TO PROVIDE DATA TO MEASURE STARLIGHT DEFLECTION WITH PRECISION IN
THE ORDER OF MILLI-ARCSECONDS"?

 Of course there was celestial frames of reference before HIPPARCOS.
The most used in star catalogues was (is) a solar centred equatorial
system. The position is given in declination (the angle from the
equatorial plane) and Right ascension (the angle from the Vernal
equinox).
 

>
The OBVIOUS ANSWER is that IT COULDN'T BE DONE IN THE 90s, because prior
to HIPPARCOS, the "absolute position" of each of the 100,000 stars WAS
UNKNOWN with accuracy with such absurd accuracy (1/200 of 1 arcsecond).
So, this is worse than the problem of the chicken and the egg.

 So HIPPARCOS couldn't determine the positions of the stars to within
few mas because the positions of the stars were not known to that
precision? :-D
 Impressive logic! :-D

>
Worse yet: Years after the download and post-processing of about 100 GB
collected by HIPPARCOS, a catalogue was published WITH MANUAL
RELATIVISTIC CORRECTIONS of star's positions and proper lateral motion.
>
AND THIS IS CHEATING, COOKING, FUDGING! THIS IS FRAUD, A MASSIVE ONE!
>
READ THIS:
>
>
AFTER YEARS OF POST-PROCESSING DOWNLOADED DATA, THEORETICAL CORRECTIONS
due to special relativity (stellar aberration) made use of the
corresponding satellite velocity.

 Of course the positions had to be corrected for stellar aberration,
and the relevant speed is HIPPARCOS' speed relative to the Sun.
The difference between "Newtonian" and "relativistic" stellar aberration
is negligible. The former is arctan(v/c) while the latter is arcsin(v/c)
where v is the observer's speed relative to the Sun. The speed of the Earth is ~1e-4⋅c, and the speed of the satellite is of the same order.
arctan(1e-4) = 20.62648055595", arcsin(1e-4) = 20.6264806590871",
the difference is ~1e-7 arcsec or 0.0001 mas.
 

MODIFICATIONS due to general
relativistic light bending were significant (4 milliarc-sec at 90° to
the ecliptic) and corrected for deterministically assuming γ=1 in the
PPN formalism.

 Nothing was assumed.
When the position of a star was known at different times of a day,
the difference could only be caused by gravitational deflection.

When the position of a star was known at different times of the year,
the difference could be caused by gravitational deflection or parallax.
I combination with the position of the Sun, the two can be separated.

 It was _measured_, not assumed.
 

>
THIS MEANS THAT RESULTS WERE FORGED BY RELATIVISTS, USING THEORETICAL
MODELS OF RELATIVITY (PPN).
>
It was mathematically IMPOSSIBLE that HIPPARCOS COULD MEASURE ANY EFFECT
DUE TO RELATIVITY. Raw data, once downloaded, was post-processed HEAVILY
by using the BEST SUITABLE statistical algorithms, which took years to
compute. And the MAJOR ASPECT is that the REFERENCE FRAME that was used,
by 1990, is A THEORETICAL
>
>
>
>
>
HOW WAS CREATED A GALACTIC FRAME OF REFERENCE, TO DEFINE POSITIONS OF
STARS?
>
NO VALID FRAME OF REFERENCE WAS AVAILABLE IN THE 90s, THEN ESA INVENTED
ONE: The Hipparcos celestial reference frame (HCRF), taking care about
it to be closely related to the International Celestial Reference Frame
(ICRF), based on more than 200 extragalactic sources.

 Of course there were frames of reference available before 1990,
as explained above.
But a solar centred frame of reference is not inertial, because
the sun is accelerated by the pull from the planets.
That's why "The International Celestial Reference System" (ICRS)
has the barycentre of the solar system as centre.
And the reference direction is given by the direction to several
very distant radio sources (quasars, etc.) This directions are
measured with the VLBA array of radio telescopes, to a precision ~1 mas.
 So ICRS is an inertial, non rotating frame of reference.
 

>
With the HIPPARCOS successor, GAIA, a new reference frame was created by
ESA: Gaia-CRF. So, now there are TWO reference frames, competing one
with each other.

 There are several.
The International Celestial Reference System (ICRS)
Hipparcos Celestial Reference Frame (HCRF)
Second Gaia celestial reference frame (Gaia–CRF2)
Third Gaia celestial reference frame (Gaia–CRF3)
 But they are not competing. The difference is
mostly how the directions to the distant reference objects
are measured.
 

>
In August 1997, the International Astronomical Union resolved in
Resolution B2 of its XXIIIrd General Assembly "that the Hipparcos
Catalogue shall be the primary realization of the ICRS at optical
wavelengths.
>
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ International_Celestial_Reference_System_and_its_realizations
>
>
The Hipparcos and Tycho Catalogues were constructed such that the
resulting Hipparcos celestial reference frame (HCRF) coincides, to
within observational uncertainties, with the International Celestial
Reference Frame (ICRF), and representing the best estimates at the time
of the catalogue completion (in 1996).
>
>
>
>
>
QUOTE FROM ESA:
--------------------------------------------------------
HIPPARCOS is an acronym for "HIgh Precision PArallax COllecting
Satellite".
>
It was the very first space mission for measuring the RELATIVE
positions, distances, motions, brightness and colors of stars for
astrometry.
>
The intended goal was to measure the FIVE ASTROMETRIC PARAMETERS of some
120,000 primary program stars to a precision of some 2 to 4 milliarcsec,
over a planned mission lifetime of 2.5 years, and the astrometric and
two-color photometric properties of some 400,000 additional stars (the
Tycho experiment) to a somewhat lower astrometric precision.
......................
The directions and motions of stars in the Hipparcos Catalogue are
precise to about one milli-arcsecond, or a quarter of a millionth of a
degree.
-------------------------------------------------------
>
THE COMMENT ABOUT THAT HIPPARCOS HELPED TO PROVE GR AS A PART OF ITS
MISSION IS FALSE, AND IT'S INCLUDED IN THE SUMMARY OF THE MISSION AT ESA
AND NASA SITE, DECADES AFTER HIPPARCOS PROJECT FINISHED.

 Of course "proving GR" was not part of Hipparcos mission!
In 1989 all the astronomers (and physicists) took GR for granted,
no costly project will ever be done to test GR. It's settled!
 But since the HIPPARCOS had produced a lot of data, a byproduct
is that GR's prediction for gravitational deflection can be tested.
 https://paulba.no/paper/PPN_gamma_Hipparcos.pdf
 

>
THE DEEP AND DARK HAND OF RELATIVISTS IS PRESENT EVERYWHERE, REWRITING
HISTORY TO DRIVE EINSTEIN'S FIGURE AND RELATIVITY UP TO THE SKY.
>
BUT IT'S ALL A LIE, AN HOAX!
>
NOW, IF YOU HAVE A JOB ON THESE SUBJECTS, TRY TO CONTRADICT THE ABOVE
ASSERTIONS AND TELL ME HOW DID IT WORK FOR YOU.
>
>
YOU WOULD BE CANCELLED ASAP!
>
>
FUCK RELATIVISTS AND THEIR SINISTER AGENDA.

 Well shouted, Richard. :-D
 I am sure the astronomers will be very embarrassed when
you have disclosed their fraud.
  

--
Paul
https://paulba.no/