Re: Einstein's derivation of a doubling of Newtonian deflection.

On 02/17/2025 01:49 PM, LaurenceClarkCrossen wrote:

On Mon, 17 Feb 2025 20:24:39 +0000, Ross Finlayson wrote:
>

On 02/17/2025 12:03 PM, LaurenceClarkCrossen wrote:

On Mon, 17 Feb 2025 19:14:20 +0000, The Starmaker wrote:
>

LaurenceClarkCrossen wrote:

>
How relativity derives the amount of the deflection:
>
1. It accepts the mass-velocity relationship, which prohibits anything
with any mass from reaching light speed, meaning the photon can
have no
mass.
2. Therefore, according to relativity, gravity cannot affect photons.
>
Relativity either has to abandon the mass-velocity relationship or
abandon the claim that photons are affected by gravity. Until then, it
remains self-contradictory nonsense, as always.

>
>
and then they continue the con by making up werds like...gravity
energy.
>
>
wats next? spacetime??
>
>

If you would avoid putting words in my mouth like "con," I would
appreciate it. Then, you might begin to engage in intelligent discourse.
If you are defending relativity, you should be able to explain the
contradiction. You have not defended it from this criticism. What do you
believe? Do photons have mass, or do they not? Can you make up your
mind?

>
Maybe it's simply part of halving- and doubling- spaces
and halving- and doubling- measures in continuum mechanics,
with regards to the continuous and discrete.
>
Sometimes you hear physicists say something like
"there's no infinity in physics" and it seems
among the most ludicrous and ignorant of opinions.

I would agree that there is infinity in physics, especially considering
there is no evidence of any limits to the universe.
>
I don't connect much with Antonio Leon's stuff about the continuous and
discrete.

Oh, what's that about?
Anybody who thinks the continuous manifold of space-time
and the entelechy of its energy is fundamentally discrete,
is incomplete, and saying that the objects of the theory
are fundamentally granular, is inconsistent.
To be fair, the quantum description is very apt,
yet also has an explanation in resonance theory
and sonons and phonons and instantons and solitons.
Then, superstring theory being just twice as small
as that is just another conceit, then it's really real
continuum mechanics what's the thing.