Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!news.nk.ca!rocksolid2!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: hertz778@gmail.com (rhertz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity
Subject: Re: The Shapiro's experiment HOAX. A 1968 TIME article.
Date: Thu, 17 Oct 2024 21:29:13 +0000
Organization: novaBBS
Message-ID: <089e7bba46c44dc12951685ee37bbb24@www.novabbs.com>
References: <db18709b6ba689b9c07245000ff1b094@www.novabbs.com> <EgMPO.1766243$4J12.285784@fx12.ams4> <670ffed7$1$32085$426a74cc@news.free.fr> <2fcf10d29b40e102861392bbb5f1cb0c@www.novabbs.com> <fa839e787a3c885ed2bb98c380919bbb@www.novabbs.com> <41430c0c0b42eba6ebdbfe7bc21f5784@www.novabbs.com> <veql6l$2msc0$1@dont-email.me> <99b5f48788d8be645d8449bed3e0df05@www.novabbs.com> <verss4$2t3lp$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="2496722"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="OjDMvaaXMeeN/7kNOPQl+dWI+zbnIp3mGAHMVhZ2e/A";
User-Agent: Rocksolid Light
X-Rslight-Site: $2y$10$G.jfinyTEhkEOEZbuUw2aeekpW6NH3taREyp5jrVCwu9OhTkuYhS2
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
X-Rslight-Posting-User: 26080b4f8b9f153eb24ebbc1b47c4c36ee247939
Bytes: 6307
Lines: 136

On Thu, 17 Oct 2024 20:45:23 +0000, Paul.B.Andersen wrote:

> Den 17.10.2024 17:43, skrev rhertz:
>> On Thu, 17 Oct 2024 9:28:19 +0000, Paul.B.Andersen wrote:
>>
>>> Den 17.10.2024 03:05, skrev rhertz:
>>>> I FORGOT TO INCLUDE THE LINK:
>>>>
>>>> Shapiro Time Delay Using Newtonian Gravitation
>>>>
>>>> https://www.qeios.com/read/IVCVBM
>>
>> YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND SARCASM, OBVIOUSLY!
>
>
> Don't pretend this was a sarcasm.
>
>>
>>
>> MY POST WITH THE ALTERNATE NEWTONIAN VERSION WAS TO PROVE THAT
>> RELATIVITY IS AN ABSOLUTE PILE OF CRAP!
>>
>
> Quite.
> You thought this was a Newtonian derivation of the prediction
> for the Shapiro delay:
> https://www.qeios.com/read/IVCVBM
>
> You wrote:
> "No space curved is necessary. Newton cover all the basis and
>   RELATIVITY AND SPACETIME CURVATURES have no place here."
>
> You believed that Newton could predict what you called
> "1971 Shapiro's formula".  See attachment.
>
> You wrote:
> "Observe the details of the measurements with Venus in 1970."
> See fig.2 in the attachment.
>
> You believed that the Newtonian prediction was an exact
> fit to Shapiro's measurements. So GR is crap and isn't needed.
>
> Which means that you now have accepted that Shapiro's
> measurements of the delay were correct, and no HOAX.
>
> What you were not aware of is that the equation in
> the attachment is the GR prediction, and _not_ the Newtonian
> prediction. So the figure in the attachment shows a perfect
> fit between the GR prediction and Shapiro's measurements.
>
> The point is that Stephan Gift's paper
> https://www.qeios.com/read/IVCVBM
> is nonsense.
>
> Gift has "stolen" the equation and figure from Pössel
> and has done some mathemagic to make it seem that
> the equation is the Newtonian prediction, which it is not.
>
> This is the paper with the correct Newtonian prediction:
> https://arxiv.org/pdf/2001.00229
> M Pössel: "The Shapiro time delay and the equivalence principle"
>
> Note that the equation you call "1971 Shapiro's formula"
> is equation (27) in this paper.
> Quote:
>   "Formulas (17) and (19) for one-way travel, corrected by
>   the multiplication of the delay term with an overall factor
>   2 to go from the Newtonian to the general-relativistic result,
>    Δt = (2GM/c³)⋅ln((r_E+x_E)/(rₚ-xₚ))            (27).
>
> So equation (27) is the GR prediction.
>
> Your figure (2) is FIG.6 in this paper.
> It is Pössel who has drawn this figure with the GR prediction
> equation (27) and measurements from: Irwin I. Shapiro et al.,
> "Fourth Test of General Relativity: New Radar Result,"
>
> To go from the Newtonian prediction to the GR prediction
> by multiplication by two is Pössel's idea:
>
> Quote:
> "Begin by presenting the simplified derivation developed in this
>   section. This will yield a result that has the correct functional
>   dependence on the geometry, but is off by an overall factor 2.
>   Give the students the additional information that a more thorough
>   derivation, which includes the curvature of space, will yield a
>   result that has an additional factor 2. After that statement, you
>   can use the corrected formula, with the extra factor of 2, to
>   consider applications  such as the ones presented in section V,
>   where the Shapiro time delay formula is used to compare predictions
>   with data."
>
> So sorry, Richard, you have yet again made a fool of yourself.
>
> But at least you have finally accepted that Shapiro's
> measurements of the delay were correct, and no HOAX.
>
> 😂
>
> Attachment:
> https://paulba.no/temp/1971_Shapiro_Newronian_formula.pdf

**************************************************************


PAUL, I FEEL SORRY FOR YOU, STUPID RELATIVIST VIKING!!


I ALREADY KNEW THAT THE PAPER WAS FAKE AS HELL. I DID SOME RESEARCH ON
IT AND THE WRITER.

PLUS, I REMARKED THAT THE GUY USED BLACK HOLE'S HYPOTHESIS, WHICH IS
DERIVED FROM MISINTERPRETATION OF SCHWARZSCHILD'S EQUATION IN GR.


AS SOON AS I READ THE PAPER, I NOTICED IT WAS ANOTHER PILE OF CRAP
WRITTEN BY AN UNKNOWN LOOKING FOR SOME FAME.

BUT YOU ARE TOO IDIOT TO UNDERSTAND WHAT IS A "CLICK BAIT". IF YOU HAD A
LITTLE BIT OF MEMORY, YOU SHOULD HAVE REMEMBERED THAT I LIKE TROLLING.

BUT YOU ARE TOO MUCH AN IMBECILE AND TOO MUCH A SWEDISH TO HAVE ANY
SENSE OF HUMOR.

YOU FAIL TO RECOGNIZE THAT, AS THE LAST POST ON A THREAD CALLING CASSINI
A FRAUDSTER, IT WAS NOT POSSIBLE FOR SOMEONE LIKE ME TO POST SOMETHING
VALIDATING HIM. AND THIS IS BECAUSE YOU ARE AN IDIOT!!

ONE MORE THING: WHAT MAKES ME LAUGH IS THAT, WHEN I POST SOMETHING WITH
MATH WITHIN IT, I KNOW THAT YOU'LL RESPOND WITH AN ELABORATED ANALYSIS.

SO, I PUT YOU TO WORK, WHILE I EXPECT YOUR RESPONSE SMILING. BECAUSE IN
THE SAME WAY THAT YOU ARE A PATHOLOGICAL RELATIVIST, YOU ALSO HAVE SOME
SORT OF O.C.D. THAT FORCES YOU TO RESPOND. YOU CAN'T RESIST IT, ASSHOLE.


GOOD NIGHT.