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: Newton: Photon falling from h meters increase its energy.
Date: Wed, 15 Jan 2025 17:36:46 +0000
Organization: novaBBS
Message-ID: <5705554ddaf14095a8c1720c33efc599@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>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="3749533"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="HcQFdl4zp4UQRQ9N18ivMn6Fl9V8n4SPkK4oZHLgYdQ";
User-Agent: Rocksolid Light
X-Rslight-Posting-User: a2f761a7401f13abeefca3440f16b2f27b708180
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
X-Rslight-Site: $2y$10$wwtgXaJ01Oy6N1mZZwtJ1OBJXIwCMGGKEunmLrPIPfBy89YfYfEZi
Bytes: 5091
Lines: 85

On Wed, 15 Jan 2025 13:00:31 +0000, Paul.B.Andersen wrote:

> Den 15.01.2025 05:49, skrev LaurenceClarkCrossen:
>> On Tue, 14 Jan 2025 21:39:43 +0000, Paul.B.Andersen wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Why don't you understand that it is hopeless to claim that
>>> the GR equation  Θ = 4GM/Δ⋅c² is wrong?
>>>
>>> During the 100+ years since Einstein wrote the GR paper,
>>> the calculation is repeated _many_ times by different physicists.
>>>
>>> It is a _fact_ that GR predicts that the gravitational deflection
>>> of light is  Θ = 4GM/Δ⋅c².
>>>
>>> See:
>>>
>>>
>>> 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
>>>
>>> GR's prediction for the gravitational deflection of EM-radiation
>>> is so thoroughly experimentally confirmed that you have to be
>>> extremely ignorant not to accept it.
>
>> You are such a waste of time as you never directly answer any of the
>> points made. Relativity does not predict how much light is deflected, so
>> experiments cannot prove relativity.
>
> Why do you still not understand that it is a _fact_ that GR
> predicts that the gravitational deflection of light is  Θ = 4GM/Δ⋅c² ?
>
> Even Poor knew that GR predicts Θ = 4GM/Δ⋅c².
> He insisted that that the equation (and GR) was wrong.
>
> All the precise measurements of gravitational deflection
> are made after 2000, so he didn't know what we now know:
>
> GR's prediction for the gravitational deflection of EM-radiation
> is so thoroughly experimentally confirmed that you have to be
> extremely ignorant not to accept it.
>
>> It provides no good reason for the
>> doubling because it resorts to the reification fallacy of non-Euclidean
>> geometry. Space is not curved because it is an abstraction.
>
> GR predicts Θ = 4GM/Δ⋅c². It is not doubling of anything.
>
> That the Newtonian prediction is Θ = 2GM/Δ⋅c² only
> means that the Newtonian prediction is wrong.
>
>> "Many
>> physicists" is yet another appeal to authority, which is another logical
>> fallacy you are so stupid as to defend. It is extraordinary that so many
>> eminent scientists accept so many foolish and ignorant ideas, including
>> the velocity-distance relationship and the doubling.
>
> You are babbling nonsense.
>
> I ask you again:
> Why do you not understand that Einstein and many other physicists
> have shown that it is a fact that GR predicts Θ = 4GM/Δ⋅c² ?
>
> Your opinion of GR is irrelevant.
>
> GR's prediction for the gravitational deflection
> is confirmed by a number of experiments:
>
> 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 know, experimental evidence _is_ the reality.
> Your opinion is fantasy.
If the derivation is wrong, it doesn't predict. You didn't understand
what Poor said. Poor has directly addressed the "4" in your equation.
After refusing to divulge his derivation for his doubling, Einstein
finally asserted he got it by employing Huygens' principle. That formula
is for calculating refraction. Then Einstein admits to adding
gravitational effect and refraction to get his doubling. You keep
appealing to the majority and authority instead of reason.