Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!news.nk.ca!rocksolid2!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: clzb93ynxj@att.net (LaurenceClarkCrossen)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity
Subject: Re: The Schwarzschild Metric has been refuted.
Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2025 18:39:01 +0000
Organization: novaBBS
Message-ID: <357fe0caa950620eea78e6c04c9bf548@www.novabbs.com>
References: <c5b55811f1d9185c218d02d03bc8e44b@www.novabbs.com> <8ea3ce221fabb79b4549bca9ff6d787e@www.novabbs.com> <vuj8n9$2v3o2$1@dont-email.me> <0dacad67d4070ef5e1bbb117a61fc469@www.novabbs.com> <vul77n$opm2$1@dont-email.me> <c70bd89809c8fefdf5e8db1265630a89@www.novabbs.com> <vuntpk$390tu$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="2289087"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="HcQFdl4zp4UQRQ9N18ivMn6Fl9V8n4SPkK4oZHLgYdQ";
User-Agent: Rocksolid Light
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
X-Rslight-Posting-User: a2f761a7401f13abeefca3440f16b2f27b708180
X-Rslight-Site: $2y$10$fY2yKQDadrocuaOT487Lce28hsYtYUHyto7jIzZJZ9NaDp5CXZ6TG
Bytes: 4202
Lines: 77

On Mon, 28 Apr 2025 12:59:40 +0000, Paul.B.Andersen wrote:

> Den 27.04.2025 21:40, skrev Laurence Clark Crossen:
>>
>> Mei has shown that the Schwarzschild metric implicitly has the starlight
>> going through the Sun. You have not demonstrated otherwise,
>
> Let's analyse what Mei has shown:
>
> https://article.scirea.org/pdf/14417.pdf
>
> I quote from the introduction:
> "The calculations of general relativity assumed that the light
>   passes across the solar surface, which was equivalent to assume
>   that the solar radius was a root of the cubic equation. It is
>   proved in this paper that the solar radius can not be the orbital
>   poles of light. The orbital poles of light were located in the solar
>   interior not far from the solar center.
>
> This is almost correct!
>
> For a star to be blocked by the Sun the star must
> be in the ecliptic plane. The Earth is orbiting
> the Earth at 1 AU, so when the Earth is at
> a straight line from the star through the centre of
> the Sun, the star will be behind the Sun.
> (The angle star-Sun observed from the Earth = 0⁰)
>
> It is then easy to calculate that if the light should
> be bent around the Sun and be visible from the Earth,
> the deflection angle would have to be:
>   R/AU radians = 0.266696⁰.
> But the deflection is only 1.75" = 0.000486⁰
> So the star is blocked by the Sun.
>
> This is what Mei correctly discovered.
> --------------------------------------
>
>  φ  = angle star-Sun as observed from the Earth
>
> Mei's blunder is that he claims that GR predicts
> that the deflection is 1.75" when  φ = 0⁰.
> That is obviously not the case.
> It is easy to calculate that the star will be visible
> when     φ < -R/AU rad + 1.75" = -0.2662⁰
> and when φ >  R/AU rad - 1.75" =  0.2662⁰
> It will blocked by the Sun when  -0.2662⁰ < φ < 0.2662⁰
> When φ = ±0.2662⁰ then the light from the star that reaches
>           the Earth will graze the Sun.
>
> In the post you responded to, I wrote:
>
> φ = 0.266⁰  (light grazing the sun)
> -----------------------------------
> Newton:  θ = 0.876078"
> GR:      θ = 1.752156"
>
>
> Mei's gigantic blunder is that when a star in the ecliptic
> plane is blocked by the Sun, then:
> "the light from stars in outer space would be lost in the solar
>   interior and could not be observed by the observers on the earth.
>   The night sky on the earth  would be starless."
>
> Mei's confusion is so gigantic that the whole paper
> is meaningless drivel even if it may contain some correct math.
Paul, your comprehension is feeble.

No, that is not what he discovered. He pointed out that the
Schwarzschild metric implicitly assumes this.

"Mei's blunder is that he claims that GR predicts
that the deflection is 1.75" when  φ = 0⁰."

Mei points out that Schwarzschild makes this blunder.

You cannot defeat his criticism without addressing the Schwarzschild
metric.