[Ken]

Jerry,

The General Relativity equation for Gravitational Mirage Displacement ΔꜪz (in arcseconds) from the “True” direction Ꜫz (in degrees) when unaffected by the Sun’s gravity is:

ΔꜪz = (4 * G * M)/(Ra * c^2). If the direction to a star were determined to be Ꜫz = 0.251 degrees above the Sun’s center and Ra is the radius of the Sun with no mass (M) then the direction would be Ꜫz + ΔꜪz after adding the Sun’s Mass (M). For this Sun Glazing starlight scenario with the Sun’s mass added back then the observed angle to the star would be 0.251 degrees + (4 * G * M)/(Ra * c^2) = 0.251 degrees + 1.867 arcseconds. This predicted “Gravitational Mirage Displacement” is significant because 1.867 arcseconds is very easily within the angular resolution of any commercial observatories telescope. It is also significant that ΔꜪz = 0.933 arcseconds when Ra is twice the Sun’s radius and ΔꜪz = 0.187 arcseconds when Ra = 10 times the Sun’s radius and is well outside any aberrations caused by the Sun’s corona. It would be very hard to explain why such large predictions of ΔꜪz could not be easily disproven by any commercial observatories largest telescopes. If the GR predictions are in error by as much as 0.1 arcsecond it would certainly be reported by professional astronomers who can measure these displacements during an eclipse.

[Jerry]

Thanks Ken.

That does sound convincing to hear that today’s telescope technology is easily “up to the task” of providing the way to accurately observe exceedingly distant celestial objects. Why though, is practically every picture of a solar eclipse I’ve seen, the moon doesn’t completely cover the sun? So when within the eclipse were the most relevant pictures observed and studied? Was it slightly before, and slightly after, the “total” solar eclipse? Since the “total eclipse” is when the moon appears within the center of the sun, where the sun’s light surrounds the moon’s sort of slightly “irregular shadow” all the way around. I would guess that all of the nearby stars that were present within a total eclipse, couldn’t have been seen, since the sun’s light would interfere. Just a thought.

[Jerry]

Hi Ken. I plan to respond more thoroughly. Could I ask though, how much would you say you agree (or disagree) with Relativity? Of which specific ideas?

[Jerry]

Actually, I often find myself questioning and considering thoughts that I haven’t fully accepted. Some of them that might even seem quite outlandish. I could present a few of them, maybe just to somewhat entertain. If I’m mistaken, I could at least maybe find out why, and to search for more truthful ways to observe the universe. 🙂

• This reply was modified 1 year, 4 months ago by  Jerry.

[Ken]

Jerry,

Regarding tour questions: “Why though, is practically every picture of a solar eclipse I’ve seen, the moon doesn’t completely cover the sun? So when within the eclipse were the most relevant pictures observed and studied? Was it slightly before, and slightly after, the “total” solar eclipse? Since the “total eclipse” is when the moon appears within the center of the sun, where the sun’s light surrounds the moon’s sort of slightly “irregular shadow” all the way around. I would guess that all of the nearby stars that were present within a total eclipse, couldn’t have been seen, since the sun’s light would interfere.

I will give you two short specific example answers:

(1) Radio telescopes can determine the precise location of high frequency transmissions from any star any time of day without interference from “the sun’s light”.

(2) The “true” location of any local “fixed” star in the Earth’s orbital plane is known when that specific star is outside the zone of a relativistic displacement caused by escape velocity (ve) at any point (a) within a sidereal arc less than 115 degrees from the sun’s center of gravity. When this star is within this 115 degree zone it’s location is displaced by the sun’s escape velocity at point a by the amount ΔꜪz = (4 * G * M)/(Ra * c^2). Thus, there is ample opportunity for radio telescopes to determine the precise displacements caused by the sun’s gravity regardless of the time of day.

[Ken]

Jerry,

You inquired: “how much would you say you agree (or disagree) with Relativity? Of which specific ideas?”.

I am flattered that someone of your apparent cognitive abilities would be interested in my “Critical Analysis” of 20th century Relativity Theory. However, I am sorry to say that my answers on any specific detail of Special Relativity (as in 1905 SRT) or General Relativity is very detailed and extremely long. You could start to get my detailed answers from my Beyond Mainstream article at: https://beyondmainstream.org/theory/unified-relativity-model/

I will give you some answers on my analysis of Special Relativity and General Relativity:

(1) On a Gravitational Mirage: “Einstein’s equation for angular displacement “ΔꜪz = (4 * G * M)/(Ra * c^2)” is 100% correct and my final publication on this subject will tell you why in very long, lucid and specific detail.

(2) On Gravitational Frequency Shift: “Einstein’s equation (a) for Gravitational Blue Shift and (b) for the subsequent Gravitational Redshift” that combine to resolve the resultant Redshift viewed from a distant observer is WRONG!; and my final publication on this subject will tell you why in very long, lucid and specific detail.

(3) On Special Relativity’s (1905 SRT version’s) Time Dilation equation t’ = t / (1 – (v/c)^2)^0.5 is reliable but should be replaced by a function that is dependent on polar coordinate variables (in radians) instead of in plane geometry coordinates that requires the Tau (τ) equation τ = t’ = t / β = t / (1 / (1 – (v/c)^2)^0.5) for angular velocities that are not transverse.

(4) On Special Relativity’s (1905 SRT version’s) Length Contraction equation l’ = l / (1 – (v/c)^2)^0.5 is WRONG!, WRONG! and WRONG! in many ways and should be replaced by an intrinsic version of Length Contraction.

(5) On Special Relativity’s (1905 SRT version’s) concept of Reciprocity that has a “Twin’s Paradox” is WRONG of Course!!! and should be replaced by an intrinsic version of Reciprocity that does not imply a “Twin’s Paradox”.

(6) On Special Relativity’s (1905 SRT version’s) equation for Frequency Shift’s from ƒa to ƒb: ƒb =ƒa * ((1- (Cos(φ)) * (v/c))) * γ) plotted as a function of ∠φ (where ∠φ is Observed location of a distant light or radio signal’s source and γ = 1 / (1 – (v^2/c^2))^ 0.5) is WRONG!

[Ken]

Jerry,

I ran out of space on my previous reply. I am updating my point (3) as follows:

(3) On Special Relativity’s (1905 SRT version’s) Time Dilation equation t’ = t / (1 – (v/c)^2)^0.5 is reliable but should be replaced by a function that is dependent on polar coordinate variables (in radians) instead of in 1905 SRT’s plane geometry coordinates that require the Tau (τ) equation τ = t’ = t / β = t / (1 / (1 – (v/c)^2)^0.5) for angular velocities that are transvers to be changed to non-transverse Send and Receive transmissions Time Dilation predictions: “τ = β * (t – v * xs/c^2)” for a Send transmission where xs is the x coordinate of point b (the moving point) at the end of the Send transmission as well as to “τ = γ * (t – v * xr/c^2)” for a Receive transmission where xr is the x coordinate of point b at the End-of-Receive transmission.

[Jerry]

Ken,

There were two “short specific example answers” you provided above, the first of which says that “Radio telescopes can determine the precise location of high frequency transmission from any star any time of day without interference from “the sun’s light”.” This seems to suggest it is unnecessary to use the eclipse to track the positions of the stars. If this is so, why couldn’t they find the same results of the experiment in the daytime, without the use of the eclipse?

[Ken]

Jerry,

Please see the wikipedia article on “Angular Resolution” of telescopes and radio telescope arrays at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angular_resolution

and the dicussion in that article on “Telescope Arrays” called “astronomical interferometers”. as follows: “The highest angular resolutions can be achieved by arrays of telescopes called astronomical interferometers: These instruments can achieve angular resolutions of 0.001 arcsecond at optical wavelengths, and much higher resolutions at x-ray wavelengths.

of telescopes and the discussion in that article. “As for your question: “Why couldn’t they find the same results of the experiment in the daytime, without the use of the eclipse?” First and foremost, who is “they”?. Some of “them” who were using the eclipse to study the gravitational mirage were 20th century wannabe Einstein saviours in hopes of getting “good press reviews” or to “promote their publications” on a relatively small budget. In my opinion, third milleneum mainstream astronomical physicists who are well funded enough to get time on a radio telescope array would not be allowed to publish any findings that disproves the GR Gravitational Mirage function. Therefore, to get published they must say that their findings varify the reliability of this GR function. This does not mean that those who can afford the time on an astronomical interferometer cannot determine the reliability of the GR predictions of Gravitational Mirage displacements if they wanted. Finally, I have reasons to believe that these predictions are reliable within 0.001 arcseconds and with enough money and time to remove all inteferrence the GR function would be found to be reliable within 0.001 arcseconds.