Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.net!pasdenom.info!from-devjntp
Message-ID: <Q-jQJr5no7aKvnsVrKj5yfB7yV0@jntp>
JNTP-Route: nemoweb.net
JNTP-DataType: Article
Subject: Re: The Shapiro's experiment HOAX. A 1968 TIME article.
References: <db18709b6ba689b9c07245000ff1b094@www.novabbs.com> <EgMPO.1766243$4J12.285784@fx12.ams4>
 <670ffed7$1$32085$426a74cc@news.free.fr> <2fcf10d29b40e102861392bbb5f1cb0c@www.novabbs.com>
 <fa839e787a3c885ed2bb98c380919bbb@www.novabbs.com> <41430c0c0b42eba6ebdbfe7bc21f5784@www.novabbs.com>
 <veql6l$2msc0$1@dont-email.me> <99b5f48788d8be645d8449bed3e0df05@www.novabbs.com> <verss4$2t3lp$1@dont-email.me>
 <089e7bba46c44dc12951685ee37bbb24@www.novabbs.com>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity
JNTP-HashClient: tFwTRJnpE_vsT_lkRReBsKhQRAA
JNTP-ThreadID: db18709b6ba689b9c07245000ff1b094@www.novabbs.com
JNTP-Uri: https://www.nemoweb.net/?DataID=Q-jQJr5no7aKvnsVrKj5yfB7yV0@jntp
User-Agent: Nemo/1.0
JNTP-OriginServer: nemoweb.net
Date: Thu, 17 Oct 24 22:28:19 +0000
Organization: Nemoweb
JNTP-Browser: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:109.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/115.0
Injection-Info: nemoweb.net; posting-host="71962ec0b262db26e9002693f4d52627a6dd14a2"; logging-data="2024-10-17T22:28:19Z/9064709"; posting-account="190@nemoweb.net"; mail-complaints-to="julien.arlandis@gmail.com"
JNTP-ProtocolVersion: 0.21.1
JNTP-Server: PhpNemoServer/0.94.5
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-JNTP-JsonNewsGateway: 0.96
From: Python <python@not-formail.invalid>
Bytes: 6893
Lines: 140

Le 17/10/2024 à 23:29, hertz778@gmail.com (rhertz) a écrit :
> On Thu, 17 Oct 2024 20:45:23 +0000, Paul.B.Andersen wrote:
> 
>> Den 17.10.2024 17:43, skrev rhertz:
>>> On Thu, 17 Oct 2024 9:28:19 +0000, Paul.B.Andersen wrote:
>>>
>>>> Den 17.10.2024 03:05, skrev rhertz:
>>>>> I FORGOT TO INCLUDE THE LINK:
>>>>>
>>>>> Shapiro Time Delay Using Newtonian Gravitation
>>>>>
>>>>> https://www.qeios.com/read/IVCVBM
>>>
>>> YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND SARCASM, OBVIOUSLY!
>>
>>
>> Don't pretend this was a sarcasm.
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> MY POST WITH THE ALTERNATE NEWTONIAN VERSION WAS TO PROVE THAT
>>> RELATIVITY IS AN ABSOLUTE PILE OF CRAP!
>>>
>>
>> Quite.
>> You thought this was a Newtonian derivation of the prediction
>> for the Shapiro delay:
>> https://www.qeios.com/read/IVCVBM
>>
>> You wrote:
>> "No space curved is necessary. Newton cover all the basis and
>>   RELATIVITY AND SPACETIME CURVATURES have no place here."
>>
>> You believed that Newton could predict what you called
>> "1971 Shapiro's formula".  See attachment.
>>
>> You wrote:
>> "Observe the details of the measurements with Venus in 1970."
>> See fig.2 in the attachment.
>>
>> You believed that the Newtonian prediction was an exact
>> fit to Shapiro's measurements. So GR is crap and isn't needed.
>>
>> Which means that you now have accepted that Shapiro's
>> measurements of the delay were correct, and no HOAX.
>>
>> What you were not aware of is that the equation in
>> the attachment is the GR prediction, and _not_ the Newtonian
>> prediction. So the figure in the attachment shows a perfect
>> fit between the GR prediction and Shapiro's measurements.
>>
>> The point is that Stephan Gift's paper
>> https://www.qeios.com/read/IVCVBM
>> is nonsense.
>>
>> Gift has "stolen" the equation and figure from Pössel
>> and has done some mathemagic to make it seem that
>> the equation is the Newtonian prediction, which it is not.
>>
>> This is the paper with the correct Newtonian prediction:
>> https://arxiv.org/pdf/2001.00229
>> M Pössel: "The Shapiro time delay and the equivalence principle"
>>
>> Note that the equation you call "1971 Shapiro's formula"
>> is equation (27) in this paper.
>> Quote:
>>   "Formulas (17) and (19) for one-way travel, corrected by
>>   the multiplication of the delay term with an overall factor
>>   2 to go from the Newtonian to the general-relativistic result,
>>    Δt = (2GM/c³)⋅ln((r_E+x_E)/(rₚ-xₚ))            (27).
>>
>> So equation (27) is the GR prediction.
>>
>> Your figure (2) is FIG.6 in this paper.
>> It is Pössel who has drawn this figure with the GR prediction
>> equation (27) and measurements from: Irwin I. Shapiro et al.,
>> "Fourth Test of General Relativity: New Radar Result,"
>>
>> To go from the Newtonian prediction to the GR prediction
>> by multiplication by two is Pössel's idea:
>>
>> Quote:
>> "Begin by presenting the simplified derivation developed in this
>>   section. This will yield a result that has the correct functional
>>   dependence on the geometry, but is off by an overall factor 2.
>>   Give the students the additional information that a more thorough
>>   derivation, which includes the curvature of space, will yield a
>>   result that has an additional factor 2. After that statement, you
>>   can use the corrected formula, with the extra factor of 2, to
>>   consider applications  such as the ones presented in section V,
>>   where the Shapiro time delay formula is used to compare predictions
>>   with data."
>>
>> So sorry, Richard, you have yet again made a fool of yourself.
>>
>> But at least you have finally accepted that Shapiro's
>> measurements of the delay were correct, and no HOAX.
>>
>> 😂
>>
>> Attachment:
>> https://paulba.no/temp/1971_Shapiro_Newronian_formula.pdf
> 
> **************************************************************
> 
> 
> PAUL, I FEEL SORRY FOR YOU, STUPID RELATIVIST VIKING!!
> 
> 
> I ALREADY KNEW THAT THE PAPER WAS FAKE AS HELL. I DID SOME RESEARCH ON
> IT AND THE WRITER.
> 
> PLUS, I REMARKED THAT THE GUY USED BLACK HOLE'S HYPOTHESIS, WHICH IS
> DERIVED FROM MISINTERPRETATION OF SCHWARZSCHILD'S EQUATION IN GR.
> 
> 
> AS SOON AS I READ THE PAPER, I NOTICED IT WAS ANOTHER PILE OF CRAP
> WRITTEN BY AN UNKNOWN LOOKING FOR SOME FAME.
> 
> BUT YOU ARE TOO IDIOT TO UNDERSTAND WHAT IS A "CLICK BAIT". IF YOU HAD A
> LITTLE BIT OF MEMORY, YOU SHOULD HAVE REMEMBERED THAT I LIKE TROLLING.
> 
> BUT YOU ARE TOO MUCH AN IMBECILE AND TOO MUCH A SWEDISH TO HAVE ANY
> SENSE OF HUMOR.
> 
> YOU FAIL TO RECOGNIZE THAT, AS THE LAST POST ON A THREAD CALLING CASSINI
> A FRAUDSTER, IT WAS NOT POSSIBLE FOR SOMEONE LIKE ME TO POST SOMETHING
> VALIDATING HIM. AND THIS IS BECAUSE YOU ARE AN IDIOT!!
> 
> ONE MORE THING: WHAT MAKES ME LAUGH IS THAT, WHEN I POST SOMETHING WITH
> MATH WITHIN IT, I KNOW THAT YOU'LL RESPOND WITH AN ELABORATED ANALYSIS.
> 
> SO, I PUT YOU TO WORK, WHILE I EXPECT YOUR RESPONSE SMILING. BECAUSE IN
> THE SAME WAY THAT YOU ARE A PATHOLOGICAL RELATIVIST, YOU ALSO HAVE SOME
> SORT OF O.C.D. THAT FORCES YOU TO RESPOND. YOU CAN'T RESIST IT, ASSHOLE.
> 
> 
> GOOD NIGHT.

call 911