Path: news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.quux.org!news.nk.ca!rocksolid2!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: clzb93ynxj@att.net (LaurenceClarkCrossen)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity
Subject: Re: Newton: Photon falling from h meters increase its energy.
Date: Sat, 18 Jan 2025 21:30:29 +0000
Organization: novaBBS
Message-ID: <264d3517a178c823b9ec2c973f08cd99@www.novabbs.com>
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>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="36820"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="HcQFdl4zp4UQRQ9N18ivMn6Fl9V8n4SPkK4oZHLgYdQ";
User-Agent: Rocksolid Light
X-Rslight-Site: $2y$10$uPBWYo9P04EsQxglo7IEzex4R1kwFffutuOM8U9DYgRIeGLVpx0yC
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
X-Rslight-Posting-User: a2f761a7401f13abeefca3440f16b2f27b708180

On Sat, 18 Jan 2025 13:15:41 +0000, Paul.B.Andersen wrote:

> Den 17.01.2025 22:17, skrev LaurenceClarkCrossen:
>> On Thu, 16 Jan 2025 19:29:51 +0000, Paul.B.Andersen wrote:
>>
>>> Den 15.01.2025 18:46, skrev LaurenceClarkCrossen:
>>>>
>>>> You fail to address Poor's refutation of the derivation. If
>>>> you want to do that, you would need to bring up Trumpler, as I have done
>>>> by mentioning his paper.
>>>
>>> How is it possible to fail to understand that experimental
>>> evidence has proven Poor wrong?
>
> 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.
Paul you're doing astrology. I suppose you can tell my Sun sign!