Date: Sun, 19 Jan 2025 13:45:29 +0100
Mime-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Subject: Re: Newton: Photon falling from h meters increase its energy.
Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity
References: <4af374770bb67b6951ef19c75b35fbad@www.novabbs.com> <1819b35cb5854fb7$83258$1308629$c2565adb@news.newsdemon.com> <17a125a3e75f42ff91ef08afdab4e0a9@www.novabbs.com> <1819b79e1aa58c97$89507$1329657$c2065a8b@news.newsdemon.com> <9e55d347a16ad439d5b2e75440ae1a6d@www.novabbs.com> <6782d853$0$28064$426a74cc@news.free.fr> <c2fdc44dd6b77812b78bd871c9bde8f3@www.novabbs.com> <4404fd8d88a2eacd658d92efeef4d6c2@www.novabbs.com> <vm3ncs$20493$1@dont-email.me> <7db98cab57f6050f8daf2f88b9bfdcdb@www.novabbs.com> <vm6lel$2jd9o$1@dont-email.me> <4568ec448c26221aea0c57a6bfc7b29b@www.novabbs.com> <vm8bd2$2v29k$1@dont-email.me> <735acd1678938a0da82e207ed024d0fc@www.novabbs.com> <vmbmj0$3kl6v$2@dont-email.me> <e90bec1392317cfbacad0c2cd137b90e@www.novabbs.com> <vmg9db$rvu7$1@dont-email.me> <50ba7d8c9396e6902a27550b0813885e@www.novabbs.com> <vmijak$23bj0$1@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: pl
From: Maciej Wozniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl>
In-Reply-To: <vmijak$23bj0$1@dont-email.me>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Lines: 81
Path: ...!3.eu.feeder.erje.net!feeder.erje.net!feeder1.feed.ams11.usenet.farm!feed.usenet.farm!feed.abavia.com!abe005.abavia.com!abe008.abavia.com!feeder.usenetexpress.com!tr2.eu1.usenetexpress.com!news.newsdemon.com!not-for-mail
Nntp-Posting-Date: Sun, 19 Jan 2025 12:45:29 +0000
X-Received-Bytes: 4523
X-Complaints-To: abuse@newsdemon.com
Organization: NewsDemon - www.newsdemon.com
Message-Id: <181c18b6bba577a1$14$1417112$c2265aab@news.newsdemon.com>
Bytes: 4936

W dniu 19.01.2025 o 11:17, Paul.B.Andersen pisze:
> Den 18.01.2025 21:00, skrev LaurenceClarkCrossen:
>> On Sat, 18 Jan 2025 13:15:41 +0000, Paul.B.Andersen wrote:
>>
>>> Den 17.01.2025 22:17, skrev LaurenceClarkCrossen:
>>>
>>> The equation for the total deflection is:
>>>    Θₜ = 4GM/Δ⋅c²
>>> where:
>>>   Δ = the impact parameter, closest approach to Sun
>>>   c = speed of light in vacuum
>>>   G = gravitational constant
>>>   M = solar mass
>>>      
>>> The equation for the deflection observed from the Earth is:
>>>   Θ = (2GM/Δ⋅c²)⋅(1 + cosφ)
>>> where:
>>>  φ  = angle Star-Sun as observed from the Earth
>>>
>>> This equation is derived from the equation for total deflection
>>> with a bit of geometry.
>>>
>>> These equations are thoroughly confirmed to be correct because
>>> experiments have shown that their predictions are correct within
>>> the precision of the measurements, which are in the order of ±0.005%.
>>>
>>> https://paulba.no/paper/PPN_gamma_Hipparcos.pdf
>>> https://paulba.no/paper/PPN_gamma_Cassini.pdf
>>> https://paulba.no/paper/Shapiro_2004.pdf
>>> https://paulba.no/paper/Fomalont.pdf
>>> https://paulba.no/paper/PPN_gamma_Cassini_2.pdf
>>>
> 
>>>> You must be extremely ignorant to think an experiment can prove a false
>>>> derivation.
> 
>>>
>>> The experiments say nothing about the correctness
>>> of any derivations, they only show that the equations
>>> Θₜ = 4GM/Δ⋅c² and Θ = (2GM/Δ⋅c²)⋅(1 + cosφ)  are correct.
>>>
>>> Since Poor claims that the equation Θₜ = 4GM/Δ⋅c² is wrong,
>>> Poor is proven wrong.
>>>
>>> Do you really believe that the derivation was wrong but
>>> the result of the derivation was right?
>>> Possible, but not probable.
> 
>> The "4" in the equation comes from non-Euclidean geometry, "curved
>> space." This derivation is incorrect because space is not a surface, so
>> it does not curve. You keep deflecting from the derivation to the
>> experiments. All I've been talking about is the derivation. Didn't you
>> listen? If the experiments obtained correct results, that does not make
>> the derivation correct. Don't be stupid. It doesn't make space curved.
>> That is an elementary logical fallacy.
> 
> I deduce from your statement:
>    "If the experiments obtained correct results,
>     that does not make the derivation correct."
> that you accept the fact that it is experimentally confirmed
> that the equation Θₜ = 4GM/Δ⋅c² is correct.
> 
> Do you really believe that the derivation from GR is wrong,
> but the result of the wrong derivation is correct? :-D
> 
> Nobody, not even you, can be that stupid.

It's rather oobvious it's quite probable, but
a relativistic idiot, for sure, can be that
stupid to insist it is not.


> 
> The fact that Einstein and a number of other physicists have
> calculated that GR predicts the experimentally verified equation
> Θₜ = 4GM/Δ⋅c² for the gravitational bending of light,

According to GR shot there is no bending of
light, however. Oh, your idiot guru was quite
an idiot.