Path: ...!local-4.nntp.ord.giganews.com!Xl.tags.giganews.com!local-2.nntp.ord.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2025 17:18:32 +0000
Subject: Re: The Schwarzschild Metric has been refuted.
Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity
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>
From: Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2025 10:18:32 -0700
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/38.6.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <vuntpk$390tu$1@dont-email.me>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Message-ID: <5F6dnR4J6__1JZL1nZ2dnZfqn_gAAAAA@giganews.com>
Lines: 79
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-N8QKjdj+vXSpKTzmSHT+Kn1nD/TNa7BHxdxehajhFJFyVElzUHDV0vBHhwtHh2qGQRoUsfquL1IrlkV!NEeN4aX9HAUnnqiZShnsEsOHm4mTysjbIBalc6qXkvqTCwoAYFuh+v7+q/PlVukS3TIdXK9C1FA=
X-Complaints-To: abuse@giganews.com
X-DMCA-Notifications: http://www.giganews.com/info/dmca.html
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly
X-Postfilter: 1.3.40
Bytes: 4449

On 04/28/2025 05:59 AM, 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.
>


Arago arrived at the Arago spot from carrying some equations
of Fresnel about and around the surface to show that an
occluding body's shadow has a spot of light in it.

So, light as simply following the geodesy doesn't say anything
about that, yet, it's definitely a thing.

Then, "Fresnel large-lensing", as it were, is a thing.
(And, obviously corpuscular theories of light are falsified.)